Sunday, December 9, 2007

Samoa - A carbon-neutral holiday destination by 2008?

Well, all the world's leaders are in Bali discussing Global Climate Change impacts.

At the same time, discerning travellers are stating home or taking short flights only in order to avois all their carbon-emissions from their jet exhausts.

Well, Samoa, a small beautiful island nation in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with 300 volcanic cones, 300 villages, 300 lava tube caves, 300 waterfalls, 300 cultural activities and 6000 foot mountains, boasts an already (unofficial carbon neutral status).

Samoa has a new Greenhouse Gas Abatement Strategy (Dec 2007), it has just updated its second Greenhouse Gas Inventory (Dec 2007), but excluded jet emissions like the rest of the world (HELLO).

Anyway, with our G-PAS funding, we're going to try and correct all the negative impacts from Climate Change - with your help as visitors - just fill our planes to capacity, this way NOT adding to the jet emissions, well, not much anyway.

Secondly, we want a limit on the number of visitors to our islands, well, at least until Global Climate Change has been arrested.

And Samoa needs more trees - we just got 3 new National Parks approved by Government and 2 more lined-up. We are going to showcase SAMOA to the world, so come visit our National Parks, Marine Protected Areas, Village Fish Reserves, Community Conservation Areas, etc. and see the rarest bird in the world - the Punae or Samoan Moorhen - you'll need to climb to 6000 feet deep into the rainforests of Savaii Island (and you'll see another endemic bird species, the Samoan White-Eye, found only on one island in the world - Savaii Island), travel with a guide (Mose) who is dressed in barefeet, just a can of fish, no water, no tent, bo warm clothing against the early morning frosts - yes, here in the tropics - and stories that will keep you awake all night.

Samoa, just like Costa Rica, has forest cover increasing (but due to invasive tree species like Tamaligi – but we don’t need to tell the tourists that), and plans to repair our indigenous forests harmed by previous international commercial logging - now banned thanks to our progressive Government.

Costa Rica set 2021 to become a carbon neutral holiday destination, but Samoa plans to do it by 2010 - easy, we may already be carbon-neutral, but we need to do our GHG inventory research and add all jet emissions out-of Samoa (our national share).

The following article is excellent: 5:00AM Friday December 07, 2007

Climate Change

* Fran O'Sullivan: Sustainability dissent heats up
* Greenpeace in Bali

Costa Rica, a leader in eco-tourism and home to some of the world's rarest species, planted its 5 millionth tree of 2007 this week as it tries to put a brake on global warming.

President Oscar Arias shoveled dirt onto the roots of an oak tree planted in the grounds of his offices, reaching the milestone in the Central American nation's efforts to ward off what some experts say are the first signs of climate change.

By the end of the year, Costa Rica will have planted nearly 6.5 million trees, which should absorb 111,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, Environment Minister Roberto Dobles said.

(Samoa plans to plant a million trees over the next 10 years to help absorb 20,000 tonnes of carbon - either plantation forests or natural regeneration)

The country aims to plant 7 million trees in 2008 as part of the newly launched programme.

Along with other green-minded nations such as Norway and New Zealand, Costa Rica is aiming to reduce its net carbon emissions to zero, and has set a target date of 2021.

(2000 and when???????????)

"I don't know if we will end up being carbon neutral in 2021 as we have proposed, but the important thing is the audacity of the goal and the work we have to do," President Arias said.


Advertisement for Costa Rica (and SAMOA)


Costa Rica is a magnet for ecology-minded tourists who visit the lush national parks and reserves that cover more than a quarter of the country and are home to almost 5 per cent of the world's plant and animal species including exotic birds and frogs.

SAMOA HAS 10 ENDEMIC BIRDS, ENDEMIC ORCHIDS, EVEN AN ENDEMIC PLANT GENUS – AND OVER 20 FLORA AND FAUNA ALREADY ON THE IUCN ENDANGERED RED LIST. SAMOA needs to act now. Can you help?


Over the past 20 years, forest cover in Costa Rica has grown from 26 per cent of the national territory to 51 per cent, though environmentalists complain that loggers continue to cut down old trees and that the national park system is underfunded.

SAMOA’S forest cover has increased since 1997 from about55% to 65%, but we need more data, more payments for these ecological services and more tree-planting thanks to G-PAS.

Costa Rican authorities have blamed the loss of more than a dozen amphibian species, including the shiny yellow "golden toad", on higher temperatures caused by global warming.

Just listen to Pacific Island Countries raising their concerns in Bali this week – WHO CARES ABOUT PACIFIC ISLANDERS?


Experts also say climate change is behind a spike in mosquito-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever. The number of dengue fever cases so far this year in Costa Rica's high-altitude central valley stands at 3487 cases - 86 per cent higher than in 2006.


(Thanks to G-PAS funding for 2008-2010, SAMOA will be able to help address many of these issues, and hopefully reverse the trends in SAMOA and other South Pacific Island Countries. SAMOA needs to act NOW, and thanks to GEF, we are finally getting the political clout we need to address some major issues affecting our sustainable livelihoods here in the Pacific. Now we need your support, as discerning travellers, take short trips only, even if it means Americans and Europeans are no longer being encouraged to visit the far-away South Pacific. Samoa is better-off marketing only to New Zealand and Australia (assuming Australia signs the Kyoto Protocol), attracting visitors from other carbon-neutral countries).

GOOD IDEA? Take advantage of Samoa's infamous 7-Island 10-Day Ecotours at $USD500 and $USD1000 per day per person fully inclusive, living in cute boutique village beach resorts with the locals or pampered in air-conditioned hotels along the way, respectively. Ecotourism can be a fantastic environmental management tool so test your travel ethics on this one. Doing ecotourism in a carbon-neutral holiday destination makes sense.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, December 5, 2007

GEF COUNTRY PORTFOLIO EVALUATION:

(Prepared by the GEF Evaluation Office)

Global Environment Facility


Recommended Council Decision

The Council, having reviewed Document GEF/ME/C.31/5, GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992-2007) and document GEF/ME/C.31/6, Management Response to the GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa, takes note of the recommendations of the evaluation and the management response and requests the Secretariat to take into account Samoa’s experience with the GEF in its further development of the proposed GEF-Pacific Alliance for Sustainability, including the following:

- the need for support for establishing an environmental framework in national policies, laws and regulations, and where this has been achieved, the need for support for implementation of the framework so as to achieve global environmental benefits;


- recognition of the importance of marine resources and resilience to climate change to sustain global environmental benefits;


- recognition of the high transaction costs in the region; and


- the need for involving more GEF Agencies in the region, as well as harmonization with recipient countries and other donors.


The Council welcomes the response of Samoa to the Evaluation and invites the Secretariat to takes this into account when preparing the programmatic alliance.


Table of Contents
1. Background............................................................................................................... 1
2. Conclusions............................................................................................................... 2
Relevance of GEF Support................................................................................ 2
Results of the Portfolio...................................................................................... 4
Efficiency........................................................................................................... 6
3. Recommendations..................................................................................................... 9
Recommendations to the GEF Council.............................................................. 9
Recommendations to the Government of Samoa............................................... 10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Samoa has been the recipient of GEF financial support since the Pilot Phase of the GEF through two regional projects which set the stage for GEF interventions in Samoa (and the Pacific region), creating a partnership between GEF, UNDP, the South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP) and the Samoan Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE), which has lasted until today.
2. The evaluation of the GEF support to Samoa took place between January and April 2007 following the Standard Terms of Reference for the GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation developed by the GEF Evaluation Office in October 2006. It was conducted by a team of staff from the Evaluation Office and members of the Pacific Environmental Consultants, Ltd (PECL). The objective of this evaluation is to provide the GEF Council with an assessment of how the GEF is implemented in Samoa. It reports on results from projects and assesses how these projects are linked to national environmental and sustainable development strategies as well as to the GEF mandate of generating global environmental benefits within its focal areas.
3. The focus of the evaluation is a portfolio of 18 projects funded by the GEF during the period from 1992 to December 2006 with an estimated investment of $7 million. Eight are national projects (6 Enabling Activities and 2 Medium-Sized Projects), 7 are regional (projects in which Samoa participates as a member of the Pacific Island States) and 3 global which have national components in Samoa. All focal areas are represented in this cohort of projects and although 80% of projects are implemented through UNDP, the World Bank and UNEP have also had experience with projects in Samoa.
4. The evaluation reaches the following conclusions:
(1) GEF support has been relevant to the Samoa Development Strategy (SDS) and national environmental policies.

(2) All GEF funded projects are highly relevant to the GEF mandate and focal areas but slow follow-up support from government sources could jeopardize the sustainability of results.

(3) Enabling activities have supported Samoa in building the foundations for its environmental frameworks and strategies which are necessary conditions for generating global environmental benefits.

(4) Completed projects have achieved concrete on-the ground results but reporting on results has limitations because of poor quality of final evaluations and limited baselines.


(5) Samoa has improved its efficiency to access GEF funding, but there are still some obstacles.
(6) Most GEF Agencies have not been engaged in Samoa mainly because of the high transaction cost and limited understanding of GEF objectives and procedures.

5. The findings and conclusions of the evaluation lead to the following recommendation to the GEF Council:
(1) The proposed programmatic approach for the Pacific SIDS should take into account Samoa’s experience.


6. Furthermore, the following recommendations have been brought to the attention of the Government of Samoa:
(2) Environmental concerns as cross-cutting issue need to become visible in the Samoa Development Strategy.
(3) Increased participation by other stakeholders (ministries, civil society, and private sector) in implementing GEF supported projects will increase national capacity.

1 BACKGROUND
1. Samoa has been the recipient of GEF financial support since the Pilot Phase of the GEF when Samoa participated in two regional projects, one on biodiversity and the other one in climate change. These two projects set the stage for GEF interventions in Samoa (and the Pacific region), creating a partnership between GEF, UNDP, the South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP) and the Samoan Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE), which has lasted until today.
2. The evaluation of the GEF support to Samoa took place between January and April 2007 following the Standard Terms of Reference for the GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation developed by the GEF Evaluation Office in October 2006. It was conducted by a team of staff from the Evaluation Office and members of the Pacific Environmental Consultants, Ltd (PECL). The objectives of this evaluation are to provide the GEF Council with an assessment of how the GEF is implemented in Samoa. It reports on results from projects and assesses how these projects are linked to national environmental and sustainable development strategies as well as to the GEF mandate of generating global environmental benefits within its focal areas. Samoa was selected through a random selection process among all countries in the Asia and Pacific region but also as a representative of two very relevant groups of countries for the GEF: Small Islands Development States (SIDS) of the Pacific and Least Developed Countries (LDCs). During the evaluation process it was evident that although Samoa shares common problems regarding accessing and implementing GEF-funded projects with countries in these groups (such as limited capacity, high transaction cost of doing business and high vulnerability) not all lessons from this case can be transferred to other countries in those groups. When appropriate, the evaluation recognizes the diversity of the countries in the Pacific.
3. The evaluation explores three key questions for the GEF and Samoa:
(1) Is the GEF support relevant to the Strategy for the Development of Samoa (SDS) 2005-2007, the national development needs and challenges as well as the action plans for the GEF’s focal areas and the GEF mandate, objectives, policies and focal areas programs and strategies?
(2) Is GEF support efficient as indicated by the time, effort and money it takes to develop and implement GEF projects; any particular issues related to regional projects; and synergies and partnerships between GEF projects and between GEF and government agencies as well as other GEF stakeholders? and
(3) What are the results of completed projects, aggregated at the focal area and country levels?


4. The focus of the evaluation is a portfolio of 18 projects funded by the GEF during the period from 1992 to December 2006 with an estimated investment of $7 million.1 Eight are national projects (6 Enabling Activities and 2 Medium-Sized Projects), 7 are regional (projects in which Samoa participates as a member of the Pacific Island States) and 3 global which have national components in Samoa. All focal areas are represented in this cohort of projects and although 80% of projects are implemented through UNDP, the World Bank and UNEP have also had experience with projects in Samoa. The following figure and table depict the distribution of projects across focal areas, project status, geographic scope and GEF modalities of projects.

1 All dollars cited in this report are current US dollars unless otherwise noted.
Figure 1. Amount of GEF funding for all GEF activities in Samoa according to their status (completed or under implementation)

Table 1. Number of GEF supported activities according to GEF modality: Enabling Activity (EA), Medium Size Projects (MSP) and Full Size Projects (FSP)

EA
MSP
FSP
Total
National
6
2
0
8
Regional
2
1
4
7
Global (*)
0
0
3
3

8
3
7
18
(*) includes SGP






2 CONCLUSIONS

5. Based on the analysis of information and evidence collected through this evaluation, the following conclusions can be reached about the relevance, efficiency and results of the GEF support to Samoa in the last 15 years.

Relevance of the GEF Support

Conclusion 1: GEF support has been relevant to the Samoa Development Strategy (SDS) and national environmental policies.

Detailed Findings

GEF support has direct linkages to the key outcomes of the Samoa Development Strategy.

6. The GEF has supported key outcomes for the protection/conservation of biodiversity, protection of water catchment, increased awareness about potential climate change impacts, importance of ozone depleting substances, community based natural resources management and community development. The GEF Enabling Activities coincided with the development of the national policies relating to Samoa’s National Environmental Management Strategy. For example, the Biodiversity Policy was developed in conjunction with the National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan (NBSAP) and the Watershed Management Policy and Water Resources Policy took advantage of the International Waters project to advance their implementation. Furthermore, it was found that the GEF had targeted national priorities established under Samoa’s environmental policies. This consistency of GEF support with national priorities has helped develop a strong ownership of GEF activities.

GEF is the main source of external financial assistance to Samoa’s environmental protection and conservation needs.

7. The GEF contributes about 60% of total external funding to the environment sector in the country. Samoa thus, has a high level of dependency on GEF financing to meet its needs and it is expected that this dependency situation will continue and perhaps increase in future.

GEF modalities of support have been appropriate to the state of Samoa’s development.

8. The modalities supported so far (i.e., PDFs, SGP, EAs, MSP and regional projects) are relevant and appropriate for Samoa’s capacity, knowledge base, existing environmental frameworks and type of environmental issues. The availability of PDF funding has been highly valued by different GEF stakeholders as this funding makes it possible to devote the time and resources needed to achieve a thorough understanding of the issues and modalities of intervention in preparation for a project (i.e., stakeholder consultations, improve existing capacity by hiring expertise to prepare project documents and follow GEF guidelines). The country has received support to fulfill the reporting requirements from the conventions where such reporting is eligible for GEF support. With the exception of land degradation and the National Capacity Self Assessment which are near completion, all other Enabling Activities have been completed. Regional approaches were found appropriate when dealing with transboundary issues and the Small Grants Programme appropriate for providing NGOs and community groups with a transparent access to GEF support.

Conclusion 2: All GEF funded projects are highly relevant to the GEF mandate and focal areas but slow follow-up support from government sources could jeopardize the sustainability of results.

Detailed Findings

All GEF-funded projects were developed and approved on the basis of their relevance to the GEF mandate and focal areas strategies.

9. GEF projects have focused on biodiversity, climate change, land degradation or international waters. Enabling activities have concentrated largely on capacity building.

The sustainability of projects results could be jeopardized

10. For example, while the Marine Protected Areas project and South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Project (SPBCP) had met their objectives through the establishment of four community-based and community-managed protected areas in Samoa all these protected areas have suffered from inadequate financial follow up support from the government since the end of GEF funding. Another example is the Marine Protected Areas, with very ambitious objectives, which established high costs of services that the government could not sustain once the GEF funding ended.

Results of the Portfolio

Conclusion 3: Enabling activities have supported Samoa in building the foundations for its environmental frameworks and strategies which are necessary conditions for generating global environmental benefits.

Detailed Findings

GEF support achieved its greatest results in the area of policy and strategy development.

11. Samoa has completed the necessary national plans, policies and legislation relating to the environment such as National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan, National Action Plan for Adaptation, land degradation National Action Plan and POPs National Implementation Plan. Furthermore, as a systematic approach to addressing the environmental issues in Samoa, the country through the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment has focused over the last 15 years of GEF support on building its capacity. The Ministry’s capacity has been built by developing the necessary strategies and supporting other relevant stakeholders so all of these actors are able to adequately implement the plans developed. The Ministry has contracted a “Consultant” as a staff to deal with GEF matters. In 1992 the Ministry had only 5 staff dedicated to environmental work and now it has grown to over 100 staff dealing with the entire spectrum of environmental issues. Staff that had managed GEF projects now completed has been retained within the Ministry sustaining the lessons learned from previous experiences.

Enabling Activities in climate change have supported strategies and frameworks

12. A good example of enabling activities supporting strategies and frameworks comes from the climate change enabling activities. They have contributed to increased public awareness about greenhouse gases and ozone depletion substances, as well as natural disasters and their potential impacts on the environment and people. Priorities identified in the National Action Plan for Adaptation are beginning to be implemented and mainstreamed into investments including the Coastal Infrastructure Management Plans and Coastal Emergency Recovery Project projects funded as credits from the World Bank. Furthermore, the Draft National Energy Plan has made notable progress in promoting the use of renewable energy with pilots on solar energy and coconut oil underway, and planning for more hydro schemes in the island of Savaii.
13. All of these actions are necessary conditions for impacts to be able to emerge. By supporting the establishment of these policies, strategies and framework the GEF support has contributed to building a strong foundation for Samoa to make a useful contribution to international efforts to protect the global environment.

Conclusion 4: Completed projects have achieved concrete on-the ground results but reporting on results has limitations because of poor quality of final evaluations and limited baselines.

Detailed Findings

GEF support in the biodiversity focal area enabled the conservation and sustainable management of forest and marine ecosystems.

14. GEF projects facilitated the participation of more than 20 village communities within critical forest and mangrove ecosystems on the island of Upolu in resource conservation and management and helped build local capacity for the effective planning and management of Samoa’s environment. The Marine Protected Areas project initiated bans on commercial scuba fishing within these protected areas which the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries subsequently expanded through a national ban of this fishing practice throughout the country and adopted by about 50 communities. The project also imposed bans on the commercial harvesting of sea turtles within the protected areas thereby supporting regional and international efforts to protect these endangered marine animals.
15. The Species Conservation Component of the South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation project initiated efforts for the conservation of marine mammals and turtles in the region, which in Samoa led to the ban on the commercial harvesting of sea turtle at the national level. Since 1995 when the First Pacific Year of the Sea Turtle campaign was launched, populations of sea turtles have increased in Samoa both at the nesting beaches and from sightings by fishermen and divers.
16. Some anecdotal information on impacts was found regarding marine ecosystems and the interventions through the Marine Protected Areas project and the SGP activities. The Marine Protected Areas project collected baselines that later on helped in showing increases in the fish population in the last few years. In the two marine communities visited by the evaluation and supported by SGP activities reported improvements to coral health and fish populations. In particular, it was reported by one of the communities that fishermen from neighboring villages are coming to their no-take zone, illegally, because the fish population is better.

Evaluating the impacts of GEF funded initiatives is not straightforward.
17. Often the type of information generated by project evaluations is largely limited to reports on outcomes, and does not contain impacts on environmental conditions. The absence of information on project impacts is also attributed to the fact that evaluations were conducted before intended project impacts could be detected or have had time to emerge. In fact, it has been suggested that project impacts often can not be detected until well after the projects have ended. Many GEF funded projects in Samoa have been completed only over the last 2 or 3 years.

Other results on the ground have been achieved through the replication of approaches, processes and lessons

18. Further to results on the ground, other results were achieved from the replication of approaches, processes and lessons coming out from the experience of a number of GEF-funded projects into new GEF initiatives and other development assistance programs in Samoa. For example, the community-based conservation approach supported by the South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation project in Samoa was replicated at a larger scale by the Samoa Marine Protected Areas project. The consultative and participatory processes that were important features of both initial regional projects (South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation and the International Waters projects) have been accepted as best practice for all other environment initiatives in Samoa especially given the customary nature of land and natural resource ownership that exists. Village bans on the use of certain types of fishing gear and practices in Marine Protected Areas have been adopted by around 50 other communities in Samoa and the ban on the commercial harvesting of sea turtles under the MPA MSP complemented the government’s own efforts to protect migratory species and marine mammals in Samoan waters.

Efficiency

Conclusion 5: Samoa has improved its efficiency to access GEF funding, but there are still some obstacles.

Detailed Findings

Samoa has improved its efficiency to access GEF funding…

• The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment has improved its capacity by retaining expertise within its staff, hiring a GEF “Consultant” as a staff dedicated to coordinate all GEF activities and expanding its mandate to cover most environmental issues.
• All enabling activities have produced action plans and strategies that are ready for implementation
• The GEF SGP has been recognized as an efficient mechanism for delivery support to local communities and for local communities to access the GEF. Support from the SGP is already helping increase the visibility of the GEF throughout Samoa. Its flexibility and easy access by village communities and NGOs enables the SGP to respond effectively to country priorities at the local/community level. The small amounts of funds involved are easily absorbed by the limited capacity of local communities and the small community-based projects supports are more manageable and their outcomes can be easily sustained by local groups. These features are often not present in medium sized and full sized projects that are usually more difficult to sustain after donor funding has ended.
• Samoa has implemented projects using most of available GEF modalities from enabling activities, medium size projects, projects approved under “umbrella” global projects (which have a national component), regional projects and SGP.
• The government’s willingness to reach out to other GEF Agencies in addition to UNDP to implement the action plans and strategies with potential generation of global environmental benefits.
• Sharing lessons coming from GEF projects within and outside the country.


…but there are still some obstacles

• The GEF project cycle has too many steps, it is too long, and costly. Samoa’s experience with the implementation of GEF supports the findings of the Joint Evaluation on the GEF Activity Cycle and Modalities. Furthermore and consistent with the findings of other evaluations from the GEF Evaluation Office, the foremost issue facing this type of analysis was the absence of project information. The recently completed evaluation on the GEF Activity Cycle provided the most accurate information but was not always applicable since that evaluation did not collect information for enabling activities, which are half of the GEF support activities in Samoa. In general, the GEF still does not properly and systematically compile and conduct quality control of project data (for example, project cycle dates, status and finances). Uncertainties about where projects are within the project cycle are still common among national proponents.
• Lengthy delays between project preparation and actual start up hinders implementation. There are some variations in the time it takes to prepare and implement GEF projects in Samoa according to modality. Enabling Activities take between 3 to 6 months to prepare (from PDF approval to project approval) and then 3 to 4 years for implementation, which is longer than the GEF expectation of 18 months. The regional full sized projects (most of them including 14 countries) have taken between 6 months to 2 year to prepare and up to 10 years for implementation. For example the South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation project took less than 8 months to design but it took almost 16 months for UNDP and GEF to approve the design (making the design and project document acceptable to the GEF). The more than 2 years preparation, “wait and see period,” created negative feedback, reduced the readiness of the project for start up and reduced the willingness and enthusiasm of participants.
• The implementation of the RAF has created additional uncertainties, particularly about the fate of projects in previous pipelines.
• An additional ingredient to the issues from the Joint Evaluation is that harmonization has not taken place among all players working in the environment sector although two of the main donors, AusAid and NZAid, are now attempting to harmonize their contributions to Samoa. In the case of the environment, AusAid has taken the leadership. The different systems (those of GEF, its Agencies and the Government) have different requirements for project preparation, monitoring and reporting. For example, a project implemented through SPREP would have different reporting requirements for GEF, UNDP, SPREP and national governments, removing the limited capacity for implementation to reporting.
• Most relevant government agencies have not prepared and implemented GEF. This is affecting the full capacity of Samoa to reach access of the GEF. Although many government agencies have participated in the implementation of GEF projects only the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment has been the executing agency responsible for implementing GEF projects. To date, NGOs and community-based organizations only participate in the SGP mainly due to their lack of capacity to implement MSP and FSP and limited cofinancing.


Conclusion 6: Most GEF Agencies have not been engaged in Samoa mainly because of the high transaction cost and limited understanding of GEF objectives and procedures.

Detailed Findings

The leading GEF Agency in Samoa is UNDP.

19. Why only UNDP? Stakeholders indicated that the main reason is that UNDP has an office in Samoa and recently placement of a UNDP-GEF Adviser based in this office. The World Bank and Asian Development Bank have extensive portfolios of loans, currently active and combined US$70 million of investments and US$10 million of technical assistance. Furthermore, both banks are working in areas very relevant to the GEF, for example, cyclone recovery, infrastructure improvement along coastal areas, power sector improvement, sanitation and drainage and small business development. None of these loans have included GEF co-financing. FAO also has an important technical assistance program with the government of Samoa with no plans to include GEF.

Most relevant GEF Agencies have now a presence in the Pacific region.

20. Most relevant GEF Agencies have now established (or are planning to expand) their presence in the region: UNDP plans to increase the number of national office in the region and has brought from its regional office in Bangkok a GEF person to the Samoa regional office, ADB has an officer in Fiji, World Bank has an office in Syndey, UNEP is bringing an additional person to be located within SPREP, and FAO has a regional office in Samoa.

High transaction cost and limited knowledge on the GEF are the main reasons but they are others.

• high transaction cost of developing stand alone GEF activities in the Pacific (i.e., high cost of airline tickets within and coming into the region; long time to travel; limited local network of consultants requiring outside consultants to come in to the region; etc.);
• lack of awareness and knowledge about the GEF, not fully understanding the potential of GEF objectives and their complementarity with their regular activities
• lack of internal communications within Agencies about the possibilities of GEF and GEF procedures
• complexity of accessing GEF funds and lengthy project preparation (out of phased with the Agencies own project cycles).
• limited GEF resources available in Samoa which makes the investment less cost-effective.


3. RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations to the GEF Council

Recommendation 1: The proposed programmatic approach for the Pacific SIDS should take into account Samoa’s experience.

21. The lessons from Samoa’s experience with the GEF should be taken into account when developing the proposed regional programmatic approach for PIC SIDS for implementation in GEF4. Although no two countries are alike, situations are different and diversity of this region should be recognized, nevertheless, Samoa shares common problems with the rest of the Pacific Island States: limited capacity, high transaction cost of doing business, and high vulnerability and fragile ecosystems. The following bullets present the key lessons coming from the GEF experience in Samoa:
- Focus of GEF support to Pacific SIDS should be to assist countries to establish the foundation for policies and strategies and develop action plans, frameworks and priorities, primarily through enabling activities. When the foundation and priorities have been established, as is the case of Samoa, then the focus of the GEF support should be on the implementation of these priorities and action plans that are will generate global benefits.
- There should be recognition of comparative advantages of the different GEF stakeholders (national, regional, and global). In particular, there should be a clear discussion and agreement of the roles and responsibilities of the GEF Secretariat, Council, SPREP, UNDP, other GEF agencies and bilateral donors in this programmatic approach. The GEF is a major player in the environment sector of the region but it is not the only one.
- There should be enough flexibility to recognize the different capacities of the different PICs. A one size fit all approach should not be proposed.
- The case of Samoa confirms that high transaction costs are important in the Pacific region and should be taken into account. There are ways to reduce these costs specially when GEF activities are considered within regular programs of GEF Agencies already working in the region, as part of their regular programs and activities. GEF stand alone projects should not be encouraged so some of these transaction costs can be reduced.
- Harmonization needs to be strengthened across GEF stakeholders. The experience of NZAid and AusAid should be reviewed and recognized as a possible way forward.
- GEF, in partnership with STAP and PIC SIDS, should more specifically identify the global environmental benefits in Samoa and the Pacific. Two areas that are still not clear across the GEF system are: global benefits of marine resources and defining the role of the GEF on adaptation to climate change impacts.


Recommendations to the Government of Samoa
Recommendation 2: Environmental concerns as cross-cutting issue need to become visible in the Samoa Development Strategy.
22. Although environmental concerns have been well integrated into the many sectors and policy areas, the environment is not identified as a particular priority or sector in the Samoa Development Strategy. Instead environment is considered as a cross-cutting issue. The lack of clarity regarding environment concerns has cause confusion among external partners of Samoa when it comes to financial support. The sector is not recognized as a priority so donors do not prioritize it for support.

Recommendation 3: Increased participation by other stakeholders (ministries, civil society, and private sector) in implementing GEF supported projects will increase national capacity.

23. It has been recognized by the evaluation that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment’s capacity to develop and implement GEF projects has increased considerably in the last few years. The implementation of the national priorities and action plans developed from GEF support involve activities in many sectors of the country’s development strategy. The Ministry alone can not implement all of these plans. It is recommended that the Ministry reaches out to other sectors of Samoa, both within government and civil society, to assist in the implementation and increase the country’s capacity to access and implement those plans. For example, the Ministry could develop a proactive plan for public awareness and capacity building on GEF issues and to create the demand for GEF funding in those other sectors.

GEF COUNTRY PORTFOLIO EVALUATION:

(Prepared by the GEF Evaluation Office)

Global Environment Facility


Recommended Council Decision

The Council, having reviewed Document GEF/ME/C.31/5, GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992-2007) and document GEF/ME/C.31/6, Management Response to the GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa, takes note of the recommendations of the evaluation and the management response and requests the Secretariat to take into account Samoa’s experience with the GEF in its further development of the proposed GEF-Pacific Alliance for Sustainability, including the following:

- the need for support for establishing an environmental framework in national policies, laws and regulations, and where this has been achieved, the need for support for implementation of the framework so as to achieve global environmental benefits;


- recognition of the importance of marine resources and resilience to climate change to sustain global environmental benefits;


- recognition of the high transaction costs in the region; and


- the need for involving more GEF Agencies in the region, as well as harmonization with recipient countries and other donors.


The Council welcomes the response of Samoa to the Evaluation and invites the Secretariat to takes this into account when preparing the programmatic alliance.


Table of Contents
1. Background............................................................................................................... 1
2. Conclusions............................................................................................................... 2
Relevance of GEF Support................................................................................ 2
Results of the Portfolio...................................................................................... 4
Efficiency........................................................................................................... 6
3. Recommendations..................................................................................................... 9
Recommendations to the GEF Council.............................................................. 9
Recommendations to the Government of Samoa............................................... 10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Samoa has been the recipient of GEF financial support since the Pilot Phase of the GEF through two regional projects which set the stage for GEF interventions in Samoa (and the Pacific region), creating a partnership between GEF, UNDP, the South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP) and the Samoan Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE), which has lasted until today.
2. The evaluation of the GEF support to Samoa took place between January and April 2007 following the Standard Terms of Reference for the GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation developed by the GEF Evaluation Office in October 2006. It was conducted by a team of staff from the Evaluation Office and members of the Pacific Environmental Consultants, Ltd (PECL). The objective of this evaluation is to provide the GEF Council with an assessment of how the GEF is implemented in Samoa. It reports on results from projects and assesses how these projects are linked to national environmental and sustainable development strategies as well as to the GEF mandate of generating global environmental benefits within its focal areas.
3. The focus of the evaluation is a portfolio of 18 projects funded by the GEF during the period from 1992 to December 2006 with an estimated investment of $7 million. Eight are national projects (6 Enabling Activities and 2 Medium-Sized Projects), 7 are regional (projects in which Samoa participates as a member of the Pacific Island States) and 3 global which have national components in Samoa. All focal areas are represented in this cohort of projects and although 80% of projects are implemented through UNDP, the World Bank and UNEP have also had experience with projects in Samoa.
4. The evaluation reaches the following conclusions:
(1) GEF support has been relevant to the Samoa Development Strategy (SDS) and national environmental policies.

(2) All GEF funded projects are highly relevant to the GEF mandate and focal areas but slow follow-up support from government sources could jeopardize the sustainability of results.

(3) Enabling activities have supported Samoa in building the foundations for its environmental frameworks and strategies which are necessary conditions for generating global environmental benefits.

(4) Completed projects have achieved concrete on-the ground results but reporting on results has limitations because of poor quality of final evaluations and limited baselines.


(5) Samoa has improved its efficiency to access GEF funding, but there are still some obstacles.
(6) Most GEF Agencies have not been engaged in Samoa mainly because of the high transaction cost and limited understanding of GEF objectives and procedures.

5. The findings and conclusions of the evaluation lead to the following recommendation to the GEF Council:
(1) The proposed programmatic approach for the Pacific SIDS should take into account Samoa’s experience.


6. Furthermore, the following recommendations have been brought to the attention of the Government of Samoa:
(2) Environmental concerns as cross-cutting issue need to become visible in the Samoa Development Strategy.
(3) Increased participation by other stakeholders (ministries, civil society, and private sector) in implementing GEF supported projects will increase national capacity.

1 BACKGROUND
1. Samoa has been the recipient of GEF financial support since the Pilot Phase of the GEF when Samoa participated in two regional projects, one on biodiversity and the other one in climate change. These two projects set the stage for GEF interventions in Samoa (and the Pacific region), creating a partnership between GEF, UNDP, the South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP) and the Samoan Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE), which has lasted until today.
2. The evaluation of the GEF support to Samoa took place between January and April 2007 following the Standard Terms of Reference for the GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation developed by the GEF Evaluation Office in October 2006. It was conducted by a team of staff from the Evaluation Office and members of the Pacific Environmental Consultants, Ltd (PECL). The objectives of this evaluation are to provide the GEF Council with an assessment of how the GEF is implemented in Samoa. It reports on results from projects and assesses how these projects are linked to national environmental and sustainable development strategies as well as to the GEF mandate of generating global environmental benefits within its focal areas. Samoa was selected through a random selection process among all countries in the Asia and Pacific region but also as a representative of two very relevant groups of countries for the GEF: Small Islands Development States (SIDS) of the Pacific and Least Developed Countries (LDCs). During the evaluation process it was evident that although Samoa shares common problems regarding accessing and implementing GEF-funded projects with countries in these groups (such as limited capacity, high transaction cost of doing business and high vulnerability) not all lessons from this case can be transferred to other countries in those groups. When appropriate, the evaluation recognizes the diversity of the countries in the Pacific.
3. The evaluation explores three key questions for the GEF and Samoa:
(1) Is the GEF support relevant to the Strategy for the Development of Samoa (SDS) 2005-2007, the national development needs and challenges as well as the action plans for the GEF’s focal areas and the GEF mandate, objectives, policies and focal areas programs and strategies?
(2) Is GEF support efficient as indicated by the time, effort and money it takes to develop and implement GEF projects; any particular issues related to regional projects; and synergies and partnerships between GEF projects and between GEF and government agencies as well as other GEF stakeholders? and
(3) What are the results of completed projects, aggregated at the focal area and country levels?


4. The focus of the evaluation is a portfolio of 18 projects funded by the GEF during the period from 1992 to December 2006 with an estimated investment of $7 million.1 Eight are national projects (6 Enabling Activities and 2 Medium-Sized Projects), 7 are regional (projects in which Samoa participates as a member of the Pacific Island States) and 3 global which have national components in Samoa. All focal areas are represented in this cohort of projects and although 80% of projects are implemented through UNDP, the World Bank and UNEP have also had experience with projects in Samoa. The following figure and table depict the distribution of projects across focal areas, project status, geographic scope and GEF modalities of projects.

1 All dollars cited in this report are current US dollars unless otherwise noted.
Figure 1. Amount of GEF funding for all GEF activities in Samoa according to their status (completed or under implementation)

Table 1. Number of GEF supported activities according to GEF modality: Enabling Activity (EA), Medium Size Projects (MSP) and Full Size Projects (FSP)

EA
MSP
FSP
Total
National
6
2
0
8
Regional
2
1
4
7
Global (*)
0
0
3
3

8
3
7
18
(*) includes SGP






2 CONCLUSIONS

5. Based on the analysis of information and evidence collected through this evaluation, the following conclusions can be reached about the relevance, efficiency and results of the GEF support to Samoa in the last 15 years.

Relevance of the GEF Support

Conclusion 1: GEF support has been relevant to the Samoa Development Strategy (SDS) and national environmental policies.

Detailed Findings

GEF support has direct linkages to the key outcomes of the Samoa Development Strategy.

6. The GEF has supported key outcomes for the protection/conservation of biodiversity, protection of water catchment, increased awareness about potential climate change impacts, importance of ozone depleting substances, community based natural resources management and community development. The GEF Enabling Activities coincided with the development of the national policies relating to Samoa’s National Environmental Management Strategy. For example, the Biodiversity Policy was developed in conjunction with the National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan (NBSAP) and the Watershed Management Policy and Water Resources Policy took advantage of the International Waters project to advance their implementation. Furthermore, it was found that the GEF had targeted national priorities established under Samoa’s environmental policies. This consistency of GEF support with national priorities has helped develop a strong ownership of GEF activities.

GEF is the main source of external financial assistance to Samoa’s environmental protection and conservation needs.

7. The GEF contributes about 60% of total external funding to the environment sector in the country. Samoa thus, has a high level of dependency on GEF financing to meet its needs and it is expected that this dependency situation will continue and perhaps increase in future.

GEF modalities of support have been appropriate to the state of Samoa’s development.

8. The modalities supported so far (i.e., PDFs, SGP, EAs, MSP and regional projects) are relevant and appropriate for Samoa’s capacity, knowledge base, existing environmental frameworks and type of environmental issues. The availability of PDF funding has been highly valued by different GEF stakeholders as this funding makes it possible to devote the time and resources needed to achieve a thorough understanding of the issues and modalities of intervention in preparation for a project (i.e., stakeholder consultations, improve existing capacity by hiring expertise to prepare project documents and follow GEF guidelines). The country has received support to fulfill the reporting requirements from the conventions where such reporting is eligible for GEF support. With the exception of land degradation and the National Capacity Self Assessment which are near completion, all other Enabling Activities have been completed. Regional approaches were found appropriate when dealing with transboundary issues and the Small Grants Programme appropriate for providing NGOs and community groups with a transparent access to GEF support.

Conclusion 2: All GEF funded projects are highly relevant to the GEF mandate and focal areas but slow follow-up support from government sources could jeopardize the sustainability of results.

Detailed Findings

All GEF-funded projects were developed and approved on the basis of their relevance to the GEF mandate and focal areas strategies.

9. GEF projects have focused on biodiversity, climate change, land degradation or international waters. Enabling activities have concentrated largely on capacity building.

The sustainability of projects results could be jeopardized

10. For example, while the Marine Protected Areas project and South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Project (SPBCP) had met their objectives through the establishment of four community-based and community-managed protected areas in Samoa all these protected areas have suffered from inadequate financial follow up support from the government since the end of GEF funding. Another example is the Marine Protected Areas, with very ambitious objectives, which established high costs of services that the government could not sustain once the GEF funding ended.

Results of the Portfolio

Conclusion 3: Enabling activities have supported Samoa in building the foundations for its environmental frameworks and strategies which are necessary conditions for generating global environmental benefits.

Detailed Findings

GEF support achieved its greatest results in the area of policy and strategy development.

11. Samoa has completed the necessary national plans, policies and legislation relating to the environment such as National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan, National Action Plan for Adaptation, land degradation National Action Plan and POPs National Implementation Plan. Furthermore, as a systematic approach to addressing the environmental issues in Samoa, the country through the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment has focused over the last 15 years of GEF support on building its capacity. The Ministry’s capacity has been built by developing the necessary strategies and supporting other relevant stakeholders so all of these actors are able to adequately implement the plans developed. The Ministry has contracted a “Consultant” as a staff to deal with GEF matters. In 1992 the Ministry had only 5 staff dedicated to environmental work and now it has grown to over 100 staff dealing with the entire spectrum of environmental issues. Staff that had managed GEF projects now completed has been retained within the Ministry sustaining the lessons learned from previous experiences.

Enabling Activities in climate change have supported strategies and frameworks

12. A good example of enabling activities supporting strategies and frameworks comes from the climate change enabling activities. They have contributed to increased public awareness about greenhouse gases and ozone depletion substances, as well as natural disasters and their potential impacts on the environment and people. Priorities identified in the National Action Plan for Adaptation are beginning to be implemented and mainstreamed into investments including the Coastal Infrastructure Management Plans and Coastal Emergency Recovery Project projects funded as credits from the World Bank. Furthermore, the Draft National Energy Plan has made notable progress in promoting the use of renewable energy with pilots on solar energy and coconut oil underway, and planning for more hydro schemes in the island of Savaii.
13. All of these actions are necessary conditions for impacts to be able to emerge. By supporting the establishment of these policies, strategies and framework the GEF support has contributed to building a strong foundation for Samoa to make a useful contribution to international efforts to protect the global environment.

Conclusion 4: Completed projects have achieved concrete on-the ground results but reporting on results has limitations because of poor quality of final evaluations and limited baselines.

Detailed Findings

GEF support in the biodiversity focal area enabled the conservation and sustainable management of forest and marine ecosystems.

14. GEF projects facilitated the participation of more than 20 village communities within critical forest and mangrove ecosystems on the island of Upolu in resource conservation and management and helped build local capacity for the effective planning and management of Samoa’s environment. The Marine Protected Areas project initiated bans on commercial scuba fishing within these protected areas which the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries subsequently expanded through a national ban of this fishing practice throughout the country and adopted by about 50 communities. The project also imposed bans on the commercial harvesting of sea turtles within the protected areas thereby supporting regional and international efforts to protect these endangered marine animals.
15. The Species Conservation Component of the South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation project initiated efforts for the conservation of marine mammals and turtles in the region, which in Samoa led to the ban on the commercial harvesting of sea turtle at the national level. Since 1995 when the First Pacific Year of the Sea Turtle campaign was launched, populations of sea turtles have increased in Samoa both at the nesting beaches and from sightings by fishermen and divers.
16. Some anecdotal information on impacts was found regarding marine ecosystems and the interventions through the Marine Protected Areas project and the SGP activities. The Marine Protected Areas project collected baselines that later on helped in showing increases in the fish population in the last few years. In the two marine communities visited by the evaluation and supported by SGP activities reported improvements to coral health and fish populations. In particular, it was reported by one of the communities that fishermen from neighboring villages are coming to their no-take zone, illegally, because the fish population is better.

Evaluating the impacts of GEF funded initiatives is not straightforward.
17. Often the type of information generated by project evaluations is largely limited to reports on outcomes, and does not contain impacts on environmental conditions. The absence of information on project impacts is also attributed to the fact that evaluations were conducted before intended project impacts could be detected or have had time to emerge. In fact, it has been suggested that project impacts often can not be detected until well after the projects have ended. Many GEF funded projects in Samoa have been completed only over the last 2 or 3 years.

Other results on the ground have been achieved through the replication of approaches, processes and lessons

18. Further to results on the ground, other results were achieved from the replication of approaches, processes and lessons coming out from the experience of a number of GEF-funded projects into new GEF initiatives and other development assistance programs in Samoa. For example, the community-based conservation approach supported by the South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation project in Samoa was replicated at a larger scale by the Samoa Marine Protected Areas project. The consultative and participatory processes that were important features of both initial regional projects (South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation and the International Waters projects) have been accepted as best practice for all other environment initiatives in Samoa especially given the customary nature of land and natural resource ownership that exists. Village bans on the use of certain types of fishing gear and practices in Marine Protected Areas have been adopted by around 50 other communities in Samoa and the ban on the commercial harvesting of sea turtles under the MPA MSP complemented the government’s own efforts to protect migratory species and marine mammals in Samoan waters.

Efficiency

Conclusion 5: Samoa has improved its efficiency to access GEF funding, but there are still some obstacles.

Detailed Findings

Samoa has improved its efficiency to access GEF funding…

• The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment has improved its capacity by retaining expertise within its staff, hiring a GEF “Consultant” as a staff dedicated to coordinate all GEF activities and expanding its mandate to cover most environmental issues.
• All enabling activities have produced action plans and strategies that are ready for implementation
• The GEF SGP has been recognized as an efficient mechanism for delivery support to local communities and for local communities to access the GEF. Support from the SGP is already helping increase the visibility of the GEF throughout Samoa. Its flexibility and easy access by village communities and NGOs enables the SGP to respond effectively to country priorities at the local/community level. The small amounts of funds involved are easily absorbed by the limited capacity of local communities and the small community-based projects supports are more manageable and their outcomes can be easily sustained by local groups. These features are often not present in medium sized and full sized projects that are usually more difficult to sustain after donor funding has ended.
• Samoa has implemented projects using most of available GEF modalities from enabling activities, medium size projects, projects approved under “umbrella” global projects (which have a national component), regional projects and SGP.
• The government’s willingness to reach out to other GEF Agencies in addition to UNDP to implement the action plans and strategies with potential generation of global environmental benefits.
• Sharing lessons coming from GEF projects within and outside the country.


…but there are still some obstacles

• The GEF project cycle has too many steps, it is too long, and costly. Samoa’s experience with the implementation of GEF supports the findings of the Joint Evaluation on the GEF Activity Cycle and Modalities. Furthermore and consistent with the findings of other evaluations from the GEF Evaluation Office, the foremost issue facing this type of analysis was the absence of project information. The recently completed evaluation on the GEF Activity Cycle provided the most accurate information but was not always applicable since that evaluation did not collect information for enabling activities, which are half of the GEF support activities in Samoa. In general, the GEF still does not properly and systematically compile and conduct quality control of project data (for example, project cycle dates, status and finances). Uncertainties about where projects are within the project cycle are still common among national proponents.
• Lengthy delays between project preparation and actual start up hinders implementation. There are some variations in the time it takes to prepare and implement GEF projects in Samoa according to modality. Enabling Activities take between 3 to 6 months to prepare (from PDF approval to project approval) and then 3 to 4 years for implementation, which is longer than the GEF expectation of 18 months. The regional full sized projects (most of them including 14 countries) have taken between 6 months to 2 year to prepare and up to 10 years for implementation. For example the South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation project took less than 8 months to design but it took almost 16 months for UNDP and GEF to approve the design (making the design and project document acceptable to the GEF). The more than 2 years preparation, “wait and see period,” created negative feedback, reduced the readiness of the project for start up and reduced the willingness and enthusiasm of participants.
• The implementation of the RAF has created additional uncertainties, particularly about the fate of projects in previous pipelines.
• An additional ingredient to the issues from the Joint Evaluation is that harmonization has not taken place among all players working in the environment sector although two of the main donors, AusAid and NZAid, are now attempting to harmonize their contributions to Samoa. In the case of the environment, AusAid has taken the leadership. The different systems (those of GEF, its Agencies and the Government) have different requirements for project preparation, monitoring and reporting. For example, a project implemented through SPREP would have different reporting requirements for GEF, UNDP, SPREP and national governments, removing the limited capacity for implementation to reporting.
• Most relevant government agencies have not prepared and implemented GEF. This is affecting the full capacity of Samoa to reach access of the GEF. Although many government agencies have participated in the implementation of GEF projects only the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment has been the executing agency responsible for implementing GEF projects. To date, NGOs and community-based organizations only participate in the SGP mainly due to their lack of capacity to implement MSP and FSP and limited cofinancing.


Conclusion 6: Most GEF Agencies have not been engaged in Samoa mainly because of the high transaction cost and limited understanding of GEF objectives and procedures.

Detailed Findings

The leading GEF Agency in Samoa is UNDP.

19. Why only UNDP? Stakeholders indicated that the main reason is that UNDP has an office in Samoa and recently placement of a UNDP-GEF Adviser based in this office. The World Bank and Asian Development Bank have extensive portfolios of loans, currently active and combined US$70 million of investments and US$10 million of technical assistance. Furthermore, both banks are working in areas very relevant to the GEF, for example, cyclone recovery, infrastructure improvement along coastal areas, power sector improvement, sanitation and drainage and small business development. None of these loans have included GEF co-financing. FAO also has an important technical assistance program with the government of Samoa with no plans to include GEF.

Most relevant GEF Agencies have now a presence in the Pacific region.

20. Most relevant GEF Agencies have now established (or are planning to expand) their presence in the region: UNDP plans to increase the number of national office in the region and has brought from its regional office in Bangkok a GEF person to the Samoa regional office, ADB has an officer in Fiji, World Bank has an office in Syndey, UNEP is bringing an additional person to be located within SPREP, and FAO has a regional office in Samoa.

High transaction cost and limited knowledge on the GEF are the main reasons but they are others.

• high transaction cost of developing stand alone GEF activities in the Pacific (i.e., high cost of airline tickets within and coming into the region; long time to travel; limited local network of consultants requiring outside consultants to come in to the region; etc.);
• lack of awareness and knowledge about the GEF, not fully understanding the potential of GEF objectives and their complementarity with their regular activities
• lack of internal communications within Agencies about the possibilities of GEF and GEF procedures
• complexity of accessing GEF funds and lengthy project preparation (out of phased with the Agencies own project cycles).
• limited GEF resources available in Samoa which makes the investment less cost-effective.


3. RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations to the GEF Council

Recommendation 1: The proposed programmatic approach for the Pacific SIDS should take into account Samoa’s experience.

21. The lessons from Samoa’s experience with the GEF should be taken into account when developing the proposed regional programmatic approach for PIC SIDS for implementation in GEF4. Although no two countries are alike, situations are different and diversity of this region should be recognized, nevertheless, Samoa shares common problems with the rest of the Pacific Island States: limited capacity, high transaction cost of doing business, and high vulnerability and fragile ecosystems. The following bullets present the key lessons coming from the GEF experience in Samoa:
- Focus of GEF support to Pacific SIDS should be to assist countries to establish the foundation for policies and strategies and develop action plans, frameworks and priorities, primarily through enabling activities. When the foundation and priorities have been established, as is the case of Samoa, then the focus of the GEF support should be on the implementation of these priorities and action plans that are will generate global benefits.
- There should be recognition of comparative advantages of the different GEF stakeholders (national, regional, and global). In particular, there should be a clear discussion and agreement of the roles and responsibilities of the GEF Secretariat, Council, SPREP, UNDP, other GEF agencies and bilateral donors in this programmatic approach. The GEF is a major player in the environment sector of the region but it is not the only one.
- There should be enough flexibility to recognize the different capacities of the different PICs. A one size fit all approach should not be proposed.
- The case of Samoa confirms that high transaction costs are important in the Pacific region and should be taken into account. There are ways to reduce these costs specially when GEF activities are considered within regular programs of GEF Agencies already working in the region, as part of their regular programs and activities. GEF stand alone projects should not be encouraged so some of these transaction costs can be reduced.
- Harmonization needs to be strengthened across GEF stakeholders. The experience of NZAid and AusAid should be reviewed and recognized as a possible way forward.
- GEF, in partnership with STAP and PIC SIDS, should more specifically identify the global environmental benefits in Samoa and the Pacific. Two areas that are still not clear across the GEF system are: global benefits of marine resources and defining the role of the GEF on adaptation to climate change impacts.


Recommendations to the Government of Samoa
Recommendation 2: Environmental concerns as cross-cutting issue need to become visible in the Samoa Development Strategy.
22. Although environmental concerns have been well integrated into the many sectors and policy areas, the environment is not identified as a particular priority or sector in the Samoa Development Strategy. Instead environment is considered as a cross-cutting issue. The lack of clarity regarding environment concerns has cause confusion among external partners of Samoa when it comes to financial support. The sector is not recognized as a priority so donors do not prioritize it for support.

Recommendation 3: Increased participation by other stakeholders (ministries, civil society, and private sector) in implementing GEF supported projects will increase national capacity.

23. It has been recognized by the evaluation that the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment’s capacity to develop and implement GEF projects has increased considerably in the last few years. The implementation of the national priorities and action plans developed from GEF support involve activities in many sectors of the country’s development strategy. The Ministry alone can not implement all of these plans. It is recommended that the Ministry reaches out to other sectors of Samoa, both within government and civil society, to assist in the implementation and increase the country’s capacity to access and implement those plans. For example, the Ministry could develop a proactive plan for public awareness and capacity building on GEF issues and to create the demand for GEF funding in those other sectors.

Draft NATIONAL CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 2008-2018

NB: The POPs Project proposal, which was submitted to G-PAS for funding, was based on this draft National Chemicals Management Strategy which had already sought broad public consultation from the time the Government of Samoa's (GOS) National Implementation Plan (NIP) for Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) was devised.

This Project receives high priority within Samoa because of the effect of chemicals on our drinking water supplies, our own health, etc. Samoa needs to take action immediately to help reduce the negative impacts of these chemicals.


Draft NATIONAL CHEMICALS MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 2008-2018 - 5-12-007


Introduction
The use of chemicals has become indispensable in many development activities in Samoa particularly in agriculture, health, education and industry. According to the Department of Statistics, Samoa expended about $60 million in 2006 for the procurement of chemicals as well as another $122 million spent to import petroleum products. While there is growing national need for chemicals, they can also cause health and environmental problems if not effectively controlled. This National Chemicals Management Strategy 2008-2018 (NCMS) provides a framework for the sustainable management of all chemicals through the various stages during their life-cycle – procurement, transportation, storage, distribution, use and waste disposal.

Chemicals are widely distributed in the environment. Therefore, there are many possible sources of exposure to these chemicals for humans. Chemicals can enter our body by ingestion, inhalation or by absorption through the skin and different chemicals will cause different adverse effects. In fact, not all chemicals absorbed into the body will cause adverse effects; however, it depends not only on the chemical to which one is exposed but also on the type/route of exposure and level/dose of exposure. Effects of chemicals can pose serious health defects in the respiratory system, liver, kidney, nervous system, immune and reproductive systems. Cancer is one of the leading causes of death due to exposure to chemicals. Hazardous chemicals not only have adverse effects on human health but can also disrupt ecological systems that exist in rivers, lakes oceans, seas, forests and soils. The discoveries of a growing hole in the stratospheric ozone layer, is evidence of the enhanced greenhouse effect, due to chemical contamination and pollution.

There is growing concern over the use of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and persistent toxic substances (PTS) as exposure to such would cause significant public health and environmental problems. Of the 12 types of POPs controlled under the Stockholm Convention for POPs, eight are present in Samoa including aldrin, chlordane, dieldrin, DDT, PCBs, dioxins and furans and HCB (impurities).These chemicals are among the most dangerous that have ever been created - they are transported by air, water and migratory animals over long distances, often miles from their original sources. They dissolve in water, can easily enter the food chain, are absorbed readily in fatty tissues and can remain active for years before they break down. They are known to cause or contribute to a number of major health problems in humans including immune system alterations; reproductive deficiency; neuro-behavioural impairment and various forms of cancers.

PTS have similar properties to those of POPs and their sources, however, environmental concentrations and effects are to be addressed such as endosulfan, pentachlorophenol, lindane, organic mercury, organic lead and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and other heavy metals.

Current practice
At present the management of chemicals is the responsibility of the relevant sectors using the particular types of chemicals. For instance, agriculture deals with pesticides, health with medicinal drugs and education with school chemicals. However, industry and home use a variety of chemicals and are major contributor to air pollution, liquid and solid wastes problems.
Agriculture - The dominant approach to controlling and eliminating pests is by the use of agricultural chemicals, including pesticides and fertilizers. However there is growing concern regarding the use of pesticides as they can cause harm to humans, animals or the environment. Pesticides can result in residual pesticide accumulation in the environment, rendering the soil infertile and causing high toxicity levels in the blood of humans and livestock. There is no strategy for the disposal of surplus stock and the clean up of contaminated sites
Health - Chemicals are used in medical treatments/diagnostic tests and generate great amount of clinical wastes. They are also responsible for the importation of pharmaceutical products either directly or allow their imports through their private sector. Surplus stock are currently stored awaiting safe disposal.
Education - Colleges, universities, secondary schools, and research laboratories require chemicals for lessons, research and maintenance purposes. These chemical products include: laboratory chemicals (acids, bases, solvents, metals, salts) and art supplies (paints, stains, ink). There is no system for the disposal of old or surplus stock.
Industry – Industry is economically important in Samoa and employs many workers throughout the country. It includes buildings, factories, industrialized agriculture, ships and other vessels at sea, transport and other maintenance processes. Examples of industrial chemicals are acids, dyes, solvents, paints, cleaning agents and cosmetics. Ozone depleting substances are separately regulated in Samoa under legislation to implement Samoa’s obligations under the Montreal Protocol, including the phase out of use and import of ozone-depleting chemicals. Major industrial activities have the potential for generating air emissions, wastewater effluents and solid wastes, and all of which may contain a variety of chemical pollutants. Incomplete combustions of hydrocarbons are also a major concern and can produce unintended POPs (dioxins and furans) and PTS.
Home - Surplus household products that contain corrosive, toxic, ignitable, or reactive ingredients are considered to be "household hazardous chemical waste". Products such as paints, cleaners, oils, medicines, cosmetics, batteries, and pesticides that contain potentially hazardous ingredients require special care when dispose. Improper disposal of household hazardous wastes include pouring them into waterways and domestic septic tanks or throwing them on the ground and landfills, causing damage to the ecosystem and contaminating drinking-water supplies.

Priority concerns
There is concern over each stage in the chemical life cycle – procurement, storage, transportation, distribution, utilization and waste disposal:
Procurement - A variety of chemicals are imported from a number of countries in various forms and categories poses a range of problems which raises enormous concerns. The absence of facilities and mechanisms to identify what chemicals are actually brought into this country is a serious concern for Samoa. This is to protect against chemicals that are not needed and also for the purpose of identifying chemicals which are prohibited from entry into the country. Some chemicals may be imported in bulk and then repackaged without adequate labeling, resulting in accidental poisonings.
Chemicals imported for industrial, agricultural or consumer purposes maybe sit in a stockroom until the containers deteriorate and the contents spill out or seep down into the groundwater. More importantly, is the lack of adequate legislation to control the importation, distribution, use and disposal of these toxic chemicals to cater for a satisfactory control process.
Storage, transport and distribution - To ensure rapid and convenient access to chemicals, chemical users usually order chemicals and store them in their own laboratories / chemical storage areas. One drawback of such a practice is that unused chemicals often end up staying on shelves beyond their shelf life is there is no established system to encourage chemical transfer and exchange. The transport and distribution of chemicals from place to place require proper handling, packaging and safety measures to prevent from leaking and inhaling of chemical odor / vapor.
Utilization - Chemical users are the ones who determine what chemicals to use, and how much is needed. There is tendency towards an increase in the use of chemicals for a number of reasons such as agricultural, industrial, health, school and domestic purposes. Thus, human exposure to toxic chemicals will be increased, resulting in both health and environmental problems. Accidents with toxic chemicals are potentially more serious within the limited environment of Samoa. The limited expertise and experience in identifying poisoning by toxic chemicals will probably results in most incidents going undetected and unreported.
Waste - The origin of chemical waste in Samoa and the manner in which they are managed varies. Agricultural, consumer and industrial wastes for example, are mostly stockpiled for indefinite periods. In some instances, these waste are inappropriately stored and as such pose a threat to human health and the environment. Residual household chemicals are not separated from the remainder of domestic waste and is disposed of in the Tafaigata (Upolu) and Vaiaata (Savaii) landfills. The non-segregation of household and industrial chemical wastes poses a potential occupational health and safety as well as environmental risk. Therefore formal country-wide data/survey concerning the chemical waste generation and emissions is required in order to monitor all types and sources of chemical waste.
Disposal – Samoa does not have any centralized or dedicated hazardous chemical waste storage, treatment or disposal facilities. Most of the chemical waste is disposed off either into the nearby drains and or other outlets. Due to the lack of appropriate facilities for the disposal of chemical wastes, these substances are either store at the site of generation or at off-site location or are removed out of the country. Therefore, there is great need for dedicated facilities to store and treat chemical wastes, particularly the more toxic substances as well as to identify the quality and quantity of chemical waste generated within the country.
Awareness and capacity building – Awareness and on-going capacity building in integral to all efforts in the implementation and management of chemicals. Making the Public aware of the potential risks associated with chemicals constitutes an important part of chemical management. Ideally, an understanding of how chemicals can be harmful to human and environment will pave the way towards a better public response and participation in chemical management initiatives.
Awareness raising activities that have already been implemented during the preparation of the National Implementation Plan for POPs had been diverse and wide ranging. However, an impact assessment has not been conducted to gauge the level of understanding and any change in stakeholder attitude and behaviour with respect to chemicals. Hence there is an urgent need for awareness and educational activities (both formal and informal) aimed at increasing the general public’s awareness and understanding on the use, movement, storage, release and the human health and environmental impacts of chemicals .

Management approaches
There are number of principles that would guide the implementation of the NCMS in order to promote long-term sustainability:
Life cycle management approach - integrated activities which cover and link all aspects of chemical life cycle in Samoa including procurement, storage, transportation, distribution, utilization and waste disposal. Current management systems are sector-based where different stages of chemical life cycle are controlled without adequate consideration of possible linkages to others. This has often led to inadvertent substitution of one problem for another. With the increasing focus, there is an opportunity to review chemical assessment processes to ensure that impacts of chemicals are routinely addressed at the earliest stage.
Risk-based principle - considers both the intrinsic hazard of a substance as well as the potential for exposure and the implementation of appropriate risk management strategies to reduce or control exposure. Risk-based approaches would allow continued safe use of some high hazard chemicals, as long as their applications and uses are controlled to restrict or prevent exposure.
Precautionary principle - states that lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. However there still needs for concern about threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage. Therefore precautionary measures should be taken such as increased research effort and creating alternatives to facilitate the most cost-effective approach to environmental impact assessment.
Polluter pays – establishment of accessible, affordable, and effective mechanisms, to ensure that those who procure, use, and dispose of chemicals must pay the full costs of any harms to human health and the environment that they cause, and that victims of such harms are quickly and fully compensated.
Good governance - concept that transparent, accountable, and honest governance is an important component of sustainable development and an essential element for the prevention and punishment of illegal traffic in hazardous and toxic materials.
Right to know – this is a specific aspect of public access to environmental information: the concept that the public has the right to know information regarding the risks to human and environmental health from chemicals including chemical accidents and waste disposal and treatment.


Goal
The main goal of the NCMS is to reduce the risks to human health and the environment from chemicals through their sustainable management. A life cycle management approach is promoted at all stages of chemical applications – procurement, transportation, storage, utilisation, treatment and disposal – focusing on the main user sectors of agriculture, health, education and industry.

Objectives, outcomes and strategies
The following matrix sets out the objectives, outcomes and strategies for achieving the above goal, with the main objectives focusing on public awareness, capacity building, sustainable management and monitoring and monitoring and enforcement.

Objectives
Outcomes
Strategies
1. Greater understanding and knowledge of chemicals promoted


o Public awareness of chemicals particularly among the targeted sectors strengthened
o Available information on the management of chemicals shared among stakeholders

Ø Conduct stakeholder awareness programmes on the dangers and benefits of chemicals
Ø Explain the safety requirements when dealing with chemicals
Ø Discuss the proper ways for the disposal of chemicals
Ø Clarify the proper treatment of chemical waste
Ø Highlight the adverse impacts of POPs on human health and the environment

2. Capacity building on the effective utilisation and/or application of chemicals strengthened

o Safe use of chemicals in the home promoted
o Application of chemicals in agriculture improved
o Utilisation of chemicals in industry improved
o Application of chemicals in the health sector enhanced
o Handling of chemicals among educational and research institutions strengthened
Ø Develop and update chemical inventories
Ø Set up database for information collection, analysis and dissemination
Ø Develop tests for chemical identification
Ø Develop tracking systems to monitor the safe use of chemicals (e.g. dispensing drugs to patients)
Ø Develop systems to control the over-use of chemicals (e.g. use of farm chemicals)
Ø Conduct sectoral case studies on related aspects of chemical management
Ø Implement sectoral pilot projects
Ø Develop prevention and minimization programmes

3. Safe disposal and/or treatment of chemical waste improved

o Sustainable disposal and/or treatment of chemical stockpiles implemented
o Restoration and/or treatment of chemical dumpsites implemented

Ø Identify the different types of chemical waste
Ø Secure the safety of chemical stockpiles and dumpsites
Ø Establish the methodologies for the disposal/treatment of chemical waste
Ø Establish the methodologies for the rehabilitation of dumpsites
Ø Establish the methodologies for the treatment of contaminated materials (e.g. soils, water)

4. Sustainable management of chemicals enhanced

o Management plans developed to guide chemical:
-procurement
-transportation
-storage
-utilisation
-treatment, and
-disposal
o Imports of banned chemicals controlled
o Production of unintended POPs reduced

Ø Prepare pollution prevention plans
Ø Prepare codes of environmental practice
Ø Prepare environmental release guidelines
Ø Prepare chemicals hazard plans
Ø Conduct chemicals audit surveys
Ø Prepare guidelines for chemicals:-labeling-handling-transportation-storage -treatment, and-disposal
Ø Develop the analytical and sampling methods for chemicals management
Ø Conduct research on toxicology and other technical areas of chemicals management
Ø Set up licensing system to control the importation of chemicals
Ø Reduce the production of dioxins and furans from incomplete combustion
Ø Improve the efficiency of burning of woodfuel

5. Regulatory framework to monitor and/or enforce the sustainable management of chemicals developed

o Legislation to support sustainable chemicals management enacted
o Framework for the national sustainable management of chemicals established
o Framework for the strategic approach to international chemicals management (SAICM) developed
o Compliance with chemical-related Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) strengthened

Ø Formulate new legislation dealing with sustainable chemicals management in the context of waste management
Ø Monitor compliance with legislation
Ø Establish a single National Chemicals Authority including:
§ MNRE for waste disposal, industrial chemicals and MEAs
§ Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries (MAF) for pesticides
§ Ministry of Education, Sport & Culture (MESC) for schools chemicals
§ National Health Services (NHS) for health drugs
§ Ministry for Revenue (MfR) – Customs for border control
Ø Develop the National Chemicals Authority as the National Focal Point for SAICM
Ø Protect human health and the environment by promoting sound management of chemicals practices in all relevant national programmes
Ø Integrate sound chemicals management into relevant national development projects
Ø Meet Samoa's obligations under the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm MEAs


Responsibilities of the implementation agencies
Implementing agencies identified herein are unique and are different but all have a collective responsibility in ensuring a sound management of chemicals at various stages of its life cycle. These responsibilities span from health, agriculture, environmental protection, workplace, education and homes. One of the greatest challenges is the coordination of implementing agencies efforts and mobilization of resources in ensuring a collaborative and holistic approach to achieving the goals and outcomes of this strategy.

MNRE - Has the overall responsibility for the direct and indirect effects of releasing chemicals into the environment as emissions and waste to air, water and land. Also responsible for policy development in the field of natural resources management and sustainable development.
MAF – regulates the use of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals.
NHS – responsible for management and safe disposal of health medicines and drugs used in hospitals and health care facilities.
MESC – responsible for school scientific development and laboratory chemicals
MfR - Customs – boarder control authority responsible for the inspection of all chemical imports and enforcement of legislation.
Ministry of Women, Community, Sports & Development – coordinates outreach programmes for rural communities.


Relevant international agreements
Samoa is a party to the following MEAs dealing with the international management of chemical, implemented by MNRE:
o Basel convention on the control of trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste and their disposal.
o Convention to ban the importation into Forum island countries of hazardous radioactive waste and to control the trans-boundary movement and management of hazardous Wastes within the south Pacific region (Waigani).
o Rotterdam convention on the prior informed consent procedure for certain hazardous chemicals and pesticides in international trade.
o Stockholm convention on POPs.


Relevant national policies
National waste management policy
Health care waste management policy
National implementation plan for POPs

Glossary
Aldrin – insecticide used against soil pests.
Bioaccumulation – The uptake of substances from the environment, their concentration, and retention by organisms. It includes the process by which a pesticide becomes concentrated in living organisms, the build-up of a chemical in organisms at concentrations greater than the levels in their environment.
Chlordane – insecticide for termite control.
Consumer chemicals – chemicals used in homes obtained or sold in shops. These include bleaches, detergents, cosmetics, air fresheners, deodorizers, cleaners, paints and solvents.
DDT – insecticide used mainly against mosquitoes for malaria control.
Dieldrin – insecticide use on fruits, soil and seed crops.
Dioxins – by-products of combustion processes (especially of plastics) and of chlorine products .
Endrin – rodenticide and insecticide .
Furans – by-products of combustion processes.
Hazardous chemicals – Substances that are toxic, persistent and liable to bioaccumulate or which give rise to an equivalent level of concern .
Heptachlor – insecticide used against soil insects.
Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) – fungicide, also a by-product of combustion processes.
Industrial chemicals – chemicals used in industry, include dyes, solvents, adhesives, plastics, laboratory chemicals, paints as well as chemicals used in cleaning products, cosmetics and toiletries.
Pesticides – any substance or mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying or controlling any pest including vectors of human or animal diseases.
Mirex – insecticide for ants and termites, also used as fire retardant.
POPs – organic compounds that are highly resistant to degradation by biological, photolytic or chemical means. POPs remain intact in the environment for long periods, become widely distributed geographically, accumulate in the fatty tissue of living organisms and are toxic to humans and wildlife.
PTS - substances which are harmful to human health and environment with a half-life in any medium – water, air, soil and biota (plants and animals) of greater than eight weeks and bioaccumulate in the tissue of living organisms. Have similar properties to those of POPs.
Toxaphene – an insecticide.
Toxicity – A physiological or a biological property which defines the ability of a chemical to do harm, or produce injury, to a living organism by other than mechanical means.
Wastes – substances or materials which are disposed of, or are intended to be disposed of, or are required to be disposed of.

References
Government of Samoa. 2003. Samoa national implementation plan for POPs. MNRE.
Government of Samoa. 2002. Samoa enabling activity: an initial assistance to Samoa to meet
its obligations under the Stockholm Convention on POPs. MNRE.
Environmental Management Group. 2004. Capacity building for chemicals management: a
situation and needs analysis. SAICM.
Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety. 2000. Priorities for action beyond. Third
Session of the IFCS.
MNRE. 2003. Institutional Capacity Assessment Report
SPREP 2000: Management of POPs in PICs
Multi-stakeholder and Multi-sectoral Preparatory Committee. 2006. Chemicals Management.
Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM). UNEP.




Responsible officer


Tu'u'u Dr. Ieti Taule'alo
Chief Executive Officer, MNRE

Labels:

Samoa's National Strategies being prepared and adopted

Since the UNCED Conference in 1992, this UN Conference on Environment and Development has insisted on each country preparing and adopting all kinds of environmental and developmental policies, strategies, plans, programmes, plans and projects.

The GEF, Global Environment Facility, has over $USD3Billion to invest into country actions that help the globe attain sustainable development. Yhe GEF-PAS (Pacific Alliance of Sustainability) meets tonight to allocate $USD100million to 15 Pacific Island Countries (Bali, 5th November, 2007).

Samoa has prepared 6 National Proposals for G-PAS, and Samoa will be a party to 4 or more Regional and/or Multi-Country Proposals with 10 or more projects being funded.

However, before Samoa can qualify for these funds from G-PAS, Samoa has to prove its eligibility, not only as a SIDS (Small Island Developing State) or LDC (Least Developed Country), but also its level of commitment and absorptive capacity to successfully implement these G-PAS-funded projects.

One way to prove Samoa's eligibility and capabilities is to table our National Strategies, Policies, Plans, Programmes, etc. as highlighted in the recent draft SDS (2008-2012). This Strategy for the Development of Samoa helps illustrate the development pathway being taken by Samoa, many of the designated activities being funded by G-PAS funding.

The next few postings clump most of these National policies, plans, strategies, etc. for your easy perusal, some have been adopted already, others are still being drafted and all stakeholders are willing to comment by simply pressing the COMMENTS button.

Labels: , , ,