GEF-PAS Program Framework - 4-2-008

GEF Pacific Alliance for Sustainability
Program Framework
- Feb 4th, 2008



























Acronyms

ADB Asian Development Bank
AusAID Australian Agency for International Development
CROP Council of Regional Organizations of the Pacific
ENSO El Niño-Southern Oscillation
ERNM Environment and Natural Resource Management
EU European Union Commission for the Pacific
FAO Food and Agricultural Organization
FFA Forum Fisheries Agency
FSM Federated States of Micronesia
GEF Global Environmental Facility
GEFPAS GEF Pacific Alliance for Sustainability
GHG Greenhouse Gas
IFAD International Fund for Agriculture Development
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
LDCs Least Developed Countries
MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
NCSA National Capacity for Self Assessment
NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations
NZAID New Zealand Agency for International Development
ODA Overseas Development Assistance
PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls
PNG Papua New Guinea
PICs Pacific Island Countries
POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants
ROBP Regional Operations Business Plan
SIDS Small Island Developing States
SGP Small Grant Program
SLM Sustainable Land Management
SMEs Small and Medium Enterprises
SOPAC South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission
SPBCP South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Program
SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community
SPREP Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Program
STAP Science and Technology Advisory Panel
UNDAF United Nations Development Assistance Framework
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USP University of the South Pacific




Table of Contents

1. Introduction. 1
2. Program Goal and Objective. 2
3. Expected Program Level Results (including Results Framework) 2
4. Program Rationale. 4
4.1 Historical Perspective and Baseline. 4
4.2 Global Environmental Significance. 5
4.3 National Sustainable Development 7
4.4 Lessons Learned from Previous GEF Interventions. 10
4.5 Past, Current and Planned Development Assistance. 15

5. Program Framework. 19
5.1 Key Principles. 21
5.2 Governance Structure. 22
5.3 Organizational Structure. 24
5.4 Management Structure and Procedures. 25
5.5 Linkages with other Regional and International Programs and Strategies. 26
5.6 Implementation Arrangements and Timetable. 29

6. The Proposed Investment Program.. 33
6.1 The Project Cycle followed for the preparation of GEF PAS and expected Approval process 33
6.2 Implementation. 35
6.3 Monitoring and Evaluation. 35
6.4 Overview of Proposed National and Multi-country Projects. 35
6.5 Project Concepts and PIFs. 39
6.6 Indicative Content of PIFs not Included, and Timetable for their Submission. 39

7. Program Co-financing. 42

Annex 1: Past and Current Projects1 43
Annex 2: Past, Current and Planned Development Assistance. 47
Annex 3: Comparative Advantages of the GEF Agencies. 54
Annex 4: GEF PAS Project Screening Tool 55
Annex 5: Project Identification Forms - Provided in a separate file. 56
Annex 6: Program Level Results Framework and Arrangements for Results-based Monitoring. 57
Annex 7: Selected PAS M&E Tools. 64


GEF Pacific Alliance for Sustainability
Program Proposal

1. Introduction
GEF interventions have achieved limited impact in Pacific Island Countries (PICs) even as both global and linked national environment problems in these countries remain unresolved. Since its inception in 1991, the GEF has provided $86 million in grants for projects in 15 PICs. This sum is significantly less than required to address the global environmental issues faced by these countries and is also low compared with GEF allocations to other regions of the world with similar characteristics. Moreover, 90% of these resources have been provided for Enabling Activities – countries reporting requirements to international conventions – as well as resource assessments and limited capacity building. Progress in completing many of these activities has been slow, with a few countries still to conclude their projects.

To use GEF resources more effectively, PICs need to overcome a common set of barriers. These include: (i) balancing community-focused actions, country drivenness, regional coordination and delivery of global benefits; (ii) ensuring GEF modalities are more reflective of national and regional circumstances; (iii) adopting an integrated, programmatic rather than focal area and project-based approach; (iv) balancing national and regional projects; (v) emphasizing on the ground action rather than planning and assessments; (vi) ensuring that countries and the region have the absorptive capacity required to undertake activities in an efficient and effective manner; and (vii) recognizing the limited co-financing opportunities for environment-related projects in PICs as well as the importance of sharing expertise and information.

The GEF Pacific Alliance for Sustainability (GEF-PAS) has been designed to address these barriers and help the countries achieve their sustainable development goals while contributing to global environment benefits. This is a program of regionally coordinated but mainly nationally executed projects which would be supported by GEF resources $99.8 million and initial co-financing of $84.1 million.[1] A summary by focal area or theme of the projects submitted is presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1
GEF PAS Program Resources by Focal Area

Focal Area
GEF Financing
Biodiversity
39,215,220
Climate Change Adaptation
28,392,000
Climate Change Mitigation
18,200,000
International Waters
9,000,000
POPs
5,160,000
Total
99,807,220


2. Program Goal and Objective
The goal of the Global Environment Facility Pacific Alliance for Sustainability (GEF-PAS) is to contribute to sustainable development in the Pacific Islands Region through improvements in natural resource and environmental management. In this respect the program will facilitate international financing for sustainable development, biodiversity and environmental protection, integrated water resources management and climate change responses in the Pacific.

The principal objective is to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of Global Environmental Facility (GEF) support to Pacific Island Countries (PICs), thereby enhancing achievement of both global environmental and national sustainable development goals. This will be accomplished by preparing and executing a comprehensive, regionally coordinated and nationally executed investment program for the Pacific region. It will reflect country priorities for achieving national sustainable development goals, while also delivering significant global environmental benefits in terms of conservation of biological diversity, prevention of land degradation, protection of international waters, sound management of chemicals and preventing and adapting to climate change.
The proposed Program provides the opportunity to address the main barriers preventing effective action by the PICs to safeguard their rich natural resource base. As a strategic partnership of all the GEF Agencies[2], the Program includes a common goal and implementation framework which will enable more efficient and effective use of GEF resources. GEF involvement will help to leverage co-financing from other donors, such as the bilateral agencies and other partners. This is necessary as the GEF contribution falls short of optimum investment levels. The Program will catalyze action to more effectively implement existing regional strategies, strengthen long term cross-focal area and cross-sectoral linkages, provide a framework for more effective stakeholder participation, and maximize the impact of the dollars invested by GEF.

3. Expected Program Level Results (including Results Framework)
A review of GEF engagement in the Pacific (see Section 4.4) illustrates that a business as usual approach would continue to provide sub-optimal results and unsustainable outcomes. The proposed GEF-PAS programmatic approach has several advantages over the existing mode of operation. A Partnership Program helps to focus individual country investments while ensuring that shared objectives are met. It will also provide a stronger framework for overall donor cooperation and leveraging support from a potentially wider array of donors. The key differences between “business as usual” (the baseline) and the value added by the Partnership are set out below:

Business as usual (baseline)
Program value added


Inefficient use of GEF resources distributed among many (mostly Enabling) activities with little regard for sustainability and entailing high transaction costs for the GEF and limited benefits for the countries
Strategic:
· Adoption of a programmatic strategic approach focusing on national and regional priorities, and allocating resources based on a defined operational investment framework
· reduction in transaction costs as key GEF review criteria (e.g. program and policy conformity, incremental cost and public involvement policy) would be addressed in a more streamlined way;
Limited financial leveraging associated with a piecemeal project by project approach
Innovation: by bringing together the GEF Agencies and the countries in a partnership with a common framework, there is increased opportunity to mobilize co-financing from a multiplicity of sources, including the private sector and to gain access to improved technologies
Limited predictability in resources available to PICs
Equity: A programmatic approach requires GEF to make a long term financing commitment which means vulnerable countries such as the PICs get improved access to and concrete results from better use of limited resources
Little coordination among GEF Agencies and competition for resources
More effective support: An agreed operational framework and participation by GEF Agencies based on comparative advantage optimizes support to recipient countries and increases the efficiency of GEF support
Better coordination: A Partnership approach would entail more effective framework for cooperation by accepting common goals and strategies
Single focal area or sector approach
Cross-cutting: improved opportunities for strengthening the enabling environment and general cross-cutting support, including capacity building needs
Mainly enabling activities implemented, little opportunity for projects to build on lessons learned
Phased participation: improved scope for catalyzing action, replication and innovation

GEF-PAS will thus facilitate international financing for sustainable development, biodiversity and environmental protection, and climate change mitigation and adaptation in the Pacific. As a result, there will be accelerated achievement of national and regional targets for sustainable development, while also delivering significant global environmental benefits in terms of conservation of biological diversity, prevention of land degradation, protection of international waters, sound management of chemicals, and reducing and adapting to climate change related risks.

A strategic and integrated set of investments and related initiatives funded through a phased, multi-year commitment will address the highest national priorities for sustainable development while also delivering tangible and substantial global environmental benefits. The initiatives would cover not only the GEF Focal Area Strategic Priorities but will also include additional cross-cutting initiatives, namely capacity enhancement, enabling activities and support for relevant activities undertaken by both civil society and the private sector.

GEF-PAS will add value to existing efforts by focusing on individual country investments while at the same time ensuring that shared objectives are also met. It will also provide a stronger framework for leveraging support from a potentially wider array of donors and for overall donor cooperation and coordination.

The proposed program has the potential to be an early and substantive demonstration of the benefits of the recently announced GEF compact for both developing countries and the global environment. It could also serve as a prototype that influences the preparation of additional comprehensive, regionally-coordinated and nationally-executed strategic investment programs.

A well-considered investment portfolio built through coordinated regional action and integration with national priorities has the potential to deliver significant improvements, both nationally and globally, and in terms of conservation of biological diversity, prevention of land degradation, protection of international waters, sound management of chemicals, and mitigation of and adaptation to the consequences of climate change.



Program and project level results will be measured and compared with baseline indicators to determine whether this new approach is successful (See section 6.1 below and Annex 6 for details). The program’s success is also contingent on lessons learnt being shared and “absorbed” into the design and implementation of the programs. This will be facilitated through development and implementation of a communications plan (See section 5.6 below and Annex 8 for details).

4. Program Rationale
4.1 Historical Perspective and Baseline
Fifteen countries[3] in the Pacific are eligible for GEF funding as a result of being Parties to at least one, if not all, of the following five GEF supported Conventions and their related Protocols:

§ Convention on Biological Diversity;
§ Framework Convention on Climate Change;
§ Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants;
§ Convention to Combat Desertification; and
§ Montreal Protocol.

Pacific Island Countries eligible for GEF support have a combined population of more than five million, with a land area of over 500,000km2 and an exclusive economic zone of over 5,000,000 km2. Despite the excellent analytical and related work that has been undertaken in the Pacific Islands Region, access to GEF funds to support follow-up action recommended in the studies has been limited. Since the inception of the Fund, $365 million has been allocated by GEF to 225 projects in Small Island Developing States (SIDS), attracting another $571.6 million in co-financing. Within that $365 million, less than one quarter has been allocated to Pacific countries and the remainder mostly to the Caribbean. The key difference is the greater number of regional initiatives in the Caribbean.

Annex 1 gives details of the GEF funding provided to the 15 PICs in the last 15 years. Almost 90% of GEF projects in the Pacific SIDS are enabling activities in the focal areas of biodiversity, climate change and persistent organic pollutants (POPs). They have focused on fulfilling international reporting requirements. Several countries have also received funding to conduct more detailed resource assessments while a few were supported to initiate renewable energy and community-based biodiversity conservation projects. In International Waters, countries received GEF financing to develop a regional strategic program to conserve and sustainably manage coastal and ocean resources and are to start a fisheries management project. In Land Degradation, countries are being supported to prepare their national action plans and identify possibilities for mainstreaming them. A major POPs project was funded by Australia. This was to identify, collect and ship toxic wastes, including POPs. GEF also funded some enabling activities related to POPs. Progress in completing many of these projects and related activities has been slow relative to that in other regions, with a few countries still to conclude their projects.

4.2 Global Environmental Significance
Biodiversity. While the PICs comprise a very small portion of the world’s land area, they represent unique coastal and marine ecosystems with high species diversity and a significant degree of endemism – reportedly exceeding 80% for many islands. Their rich fisheries, forests, and other natural resources have long supported the livelihoods of human settlements and formed the basis of their economies. They are host to many endangered plants and animals. The small sizes of most of the islands also means the total world populations of many of these species are naturally very small, making them vulnerable to any disturbance. This is well illustrated by their bird population – the Pacific has 15% of the world’s restricted range bird species in only 0.4% of global land area.

In contrast, the vast oceanic waters of the PICs include the Western Pacific large marine ecosystem, covering 38.5 million square kilometers. The Pacific region hosts the most extensive and diverse reefs in the world, the deepest oceanic trenches and relatively intact populations of many globally threatened species, including whales, sea turtles, dugongs and saltwater crocodiles. The mountainous islands of Melanesia support large tracts of intact rainforests that are host to unique communities of plants and animals, many of which have yet to be described scientifically. This globally significant biodiversity is critically threatened, with up to 50 percent of the region’s total biodiversity at risk. Current threats are related to such factors as the over-exploitation of resources and destructive natural events. New and potential threats include those posed by living modified organisms and climate change. A recent analysis of global biodiversity hotspots indicates that the Polynesia–Micronesia hotspot is among those that can least afford additional habitat loss because of the existing fragility of ecosystems and species and also due to previous destruction. Bioprospecting is placing increasing pressure not only on the region’s genetic resources, but also on the communities who view these as part of their heritage.

The ever accelerating rate of biotic invasion in the Pacific is a major element of human-induced global change. Invasive organisms, pests and diseases threaten food and agricultural systems, as well as critical terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems and environmental services. Alien plant species, in particular, pose a well-confirmed and increasing danger to ecosystem integrity. After habitat destruction or modification, invasive species are responsible for more species extinctions than any other cause. Further, the rate of extinction of native species has been higher on islands than anywhere else in the world. Invasive species have also degraded native ecosystems. By way of ship ballast water, international maritime traffic has resulted in the introduction of economically debilitating species into otherwise natural ecosystems. This is the main vector for the transfer of aquatic (fresh and marine) invasive species to both the coastal and riverine waters of PICs.

Climate Change and Sea-level Rise. Many Pacific islands are extremely vulnerable to climate change and sea-level rise. This is forcing island populations to adapt and may lead to abandonment or relocation of populations. Not only are the low-lying atolls at risk. The higher islands also have coastal features and characteristics that also make them particularly vulnerable to variability and change in both climate and sea level. In addition to such significant coastal impacts, climate change will also affect the unique biodiversity, soils and water supplies of these islands. There is growing community and government concern about the need to reduce the vulnerability of the PICs and manage the risks posed by extreme events and long-term change. However, for a variety of reasons PICs find it extremely difficult to adapt to these changing conditions. Importantly, failure to adapt now to climate change can result in high social and economic costs in the near future.

Petroleum consumption is largely responsible for the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of PICs. These countries are currently heavily dependent on fossil fuels, with petroleum accounting for an estimated 90% of commercial energy consumption. The share of renewable energy in the power generation mix ranges from 0% in most PICs to more than 50% in a few. Petroleum import is equivalent to about 20% of the total exports of a few countries, to more than 40% in most. The transport sector utilizes almost 100% fossil fuel. Currently there are many technical, market, finance, policy, institutional and awareness barriers to renewable energy systems operating sustainably and being price competitive relative to fossil fuel-based systems. Many of the past renewable energy projects have been designed to demonstrate the adaptability of the technologies to the PIC environment and for rural development purposes. However, development of renewable energy in the PICs is now driven from two perspectives: (i) sustainable development; and (ii) sustainable environment, locally, nationally and globally. The present approach is considered more
participatory and holistic, and has an improved chance of success.

Land Degradation. For most Pacific societies land resources are the basis for the majority of subsistence and commercial production activities. However, these are being affected by such pressures as high population growth rates and/or density, displacement of traditional land and resource management systems including introduced agricultural systems, land shortage and land tenure conflicts, mining, deforestation and poor development practices. The consequences include: (i) loss of vegetation and other habitats, with associated impacts on island biodiversity; (ii) extension of agriculture into marginal lands; (iii) excessive use of chemicals; (iv) overgrazing; (v) erosion of watersheds and downstream sedimentation impacts, including damage to lagoons and coral reefs; and (vi) introduction of invasive species. Many of these land degradation issues are closely related to forest exploitation on Pacific islands. While forest cover is highly variable across the Pacific, from virtually non-existent on some low islands to over 80% in Papua New Guinea, logging has been an important part of many national and community economies, especially in Melanesia.

International Waters. Healthy marine and coastal environments are fundamental to the long-term sustainability of Pacific island societies. As well as providing a basis for subsistence livelihoods they underpin commercial fisheries and tourism development, mainstays of many island economies. The Pacific is the world's most significant tuna fishing area, valued at up to $US2 billion and supplying a third of world tuna production. The largest tuna fishery occurs in the Pacific region, with nearly 70% of the world’s annual tuna harvest. Major spatial shifts in the skipjack tuna population, for example, can be linked to large zonal displacements of the warm pool that occur during El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events. The close association between skipjack tuna catch and ENSO is evidence that climate variability profoundly affects the distribution of tuna and resulting fishing opportunities. It is unclear how future changes in climate may affect the size and location of the warm pool in the western and central Pacific, but if more El Niño-like conditions occur, as is projected, an easterly shift of the centre of tuna abundance may become more persistent.

The sustainability of the fishing industries of some countries in the Pacific depends on the increasing use, and flexibility, of bilateral and multilateral fishing agreements, coupled with international stock assessments and management plans. Other threats to coastal and marine resources result from such factors as the discharge of nutrients derived from sewage, soil erosion, and agricultural fertilizers, improper solid waste disposal, over-exploitation of fisheries, and accelerated sediment discharge, as a result of land clearance and construction, for example.

Persistent Organic Pollutants. Due to their bio-accumulative nature, persistent organic pollutants (POPs) are especially problematic for PICs, in part due to their relatively small agricultural land base and relative dependence in the primary sector. Hazardous and persistent chemicals, including those currently listed under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, have been identified as needing special attention, as they are unable to be treated in-country. They include polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) which are mainly found in transformer oils, and several pesticides that are very persistent in, and toxic to, the environment. Eradication of POPs, as well as intractable pesticides, is important for both local communities and for human health and the environment, nationally and globally. There is also a need to remove all the metal casings of the transformers and other equipment that has contained PCB-contaminated oils and other toxic substances. Several PICs are also affected by POPs that represent the residual effects of nuclear testing. There are also contaminated World War 2 shipwrecks in lagoons,
4.3 National Sustainable Development
Pacific island countries and territories are endowed with some unique natural resources and environmental attributes. The people and economies are heavily reliant on them, making sustainable use and management a high priority. The development performance of PICs over the past decade has been mixed. Modest growth and social progress have been evident for a few, but minimal progress has been made in many of the other countries and a measurable decline in key economic and social indicators has occurred in some. In most PICs development outcomes have been less than hoped for by governments, the people, and development partners, underperforming targets set in development plans. In general there is a shortfall in the capacity required to deal with an increasing diversity and complexity of emerging social, environmental and economic challenges. The smallest, most resource-poor PICs, and outer-island groups within many of these countries, have limited development options and marginal viability in the absence of significant external assistance.

Natural constraints contribute substantially to less than desired rate of development. Small, highly dispersed land areas and populations are located a long way from major world markets. Natural resource bases are fragile and primary production options are narrow in most PICs, to an extreme degree in the atoll islands. PICs are also highly vulnerable to natural disasters, such as cyclones. These factors in turn combine with societal norms that prioritize communal sharing of resources as a safety net (risk-mitigation) strategy. The apparent end result is to substantially reduce incentives for individual entrepreneurship, labor, and wealth accumulation.

Pacific islanders are heavily reliant on fragile land and in-shore marine environments and, in most cases, a limited natural resource base. Increasing environmental challenges threaten to undermine sustainable development in the Pacific. Population growth, urbanization, and an increased demand for cash income contribute to the emergence of localized environmental and natural resource management concerns. Climate change is a significant Pacific concern of global origin. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) Pacific Region Environmental Strategy identifies eight critical environmental issues that challenge the ability of PICs to achieve sustainable: (i) dwindling supply and quality of freshwater resources; (ii) degradation of the coastal and marine resources that form the ecological and economic foundation of many Pacific communities; (iii) depletion of forest resources and related habitat destruction, soil loss, reduced water quality, and the sedimentation of lagoon areas; (iv) pollution associated with rapid urbanization (e.g., ineffective waste management and contamination of scarce groundwater resources); (v) increasing pressures on biodiversity, which underpins both formal and subsistence economies; (vi) sustainable and affordable supply of energy; (vii) adverse impact of climate change; and (viii) weak environmental governance.

But the PICs also have significant development opportunities. Their natural endowments include extensive oceanic resources, including fisheries and untapped seabed minerals; fertile land and favorable climates for agricultural production; attractive sites for tourism development; and some natural resources (such as gold in Fiji and forests in the Solomon Islands). While these countries are often referred to as “small island developing states,” they could also be considered as “large ocean developing states.” In addition, widespread subsistence production along with strong social support systems has helped prevent the occurrence of absolute poverty in the PICs.

Recently Pacific Island leaders agreed that sustainable development should be one of the four goals in the Pacific Plan, with improved natural resource and environment management as a strategic objective. Identified actions include the development and implementation of enabling environments at the national level, principally national sustainable development strategies based decision-making processes; the development and implementation of national and regional policy on sectoral and cross sectoral issues, including fisheries, land, waste management, biodiversity conservation, energy, climate change, and disaster risk management; and facilitating access to appropriate financing for environmental initiatives including through the GEF.
As reflected in the Mauritius Strategy and various regional policies and frameworks for action agreed to by the Forum Leaders (see Table 2), the region has acknowledged that integrated natural resource and environment management which promotes sustainable use and management requires policies, strategies, and actions underpinned by rigorous interdisciplinary analysis together with traditional knowledge. However, member countries have recognized under the Pacific Plan that because of limited human, technical and financial resources, they cannot achieve this without the assistance of development partners.

Table 2

Examples of Key Sustainable Development Related Strategies and Actions Common to Several Regional Policies, Frameworks for Action, and/or Action Plans

Mainstreaming of thematic considerations (e.g. disaster risk management) into national planning and budgetary process
Mainstreaming of economic, environmental and social considerations in sectoral level decision-making, including the use of market based instruments to finance environment conservation
Promoting information based decision-making process, including traditional knowledge and robust statistical information
Developing appropriate national targets and indicators for the thematic area that reflecting the three pillars of sustainable development, and in line with MDG’s
Improving governance and decision-making process to facilitate sustainable development, including administrative and institutional structures to implement and operationalize regional strategies, policies and plans as well as integrated decision making and consultative mechanisms
Reviewing legislation that affects sustainable development at the national level and improve coordination between legislative frameworks, and develop guidelines for those who must carry out legislative objectives
Building institutional and human capacity at all levels to facilitate sustainable development
Coordinating and harmonizing donor support
Source: Padma Lal (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat), personal communication

Consistent with the Pacific Plan, most PICs are well advanced in the process of strengthening their national sustainable development plans so they are not simply a development plan, but also a package of linked sector plans, decision-making processes, and budget processes, as illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Context of national sustainable development strategies (Source: Padma Lal (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat), personal communication

This strengthening of the national sustainable plans therefore involves embarking on a different way of thinking and a way of making decisions that reflects explicit and balanced considerations of the three pillars of sustainable development (economic, social and environment), good governance and other agreed principles. Specifically this involves adopting an adaptive management process that is continuously being improved, moving towards integrated ‘holistic’ planning where society as a whole is seen as having the responsibility for development, involving all relevant stakeholders through participatory processes including transparent evidence based decision-making, a budget allocation process that better reflects sectoral level priorities and programmatic costing, increasing focus on outcomes (impacts) on people, and/ or the quality of participation and management, and moving from a focus on donor driven projects towards domestically and regionally driven development programmes.

4.4 Lessons Learned from Previous GEF Interventions
Previous investments by GEF in the Pacific (Table 1) provide numerous lessons learned that have been reflected in the proposed GEF-PAS Program. These include:

§ It is often difficult to fulfill international obligations related to the Conventions and deliver global environmental benefits, while also addressing national priorities – the limited ability to do all three means that clear priorities must be established;
§ This “tension” between meeting international obligations on the one hand, and domestic priorities and policies related to the environment on the other, also highlights the need for a focus on “no regrets” (i.e “win win”) approaches and to recognize the significant costs of in-action.
§ Countries wish to see a greater focus on beneficial on-the-ground actions, rather than preparatory studies;
§ Many national efforts designed to improve environmental performance, and to contribute to sustainable development, have been undermined because they are located in junior or weak ministries that have proven ineffective in influencing key ministries such as public works, finance and health;
§ Initial emphasis should be placed on ensuring adequate in-country capacity, in the broad sense; in the context of human resources, “country teams” can often play fundamental and critical roles; preference should be given to the use of national and regional experts who have received the advanced training which allows them to play critical roles; this reduces the need for international experts;
§ Capacity building is often the most significant benefit, but in spite of impressive achievements the sustainability of such outcomes is not assured since it may be difficult to retain the trained, skilled personnel in government and other work places;
§ More importance should be placed on establishing and using fully functional and comprehensive information bases, including their use in building understanding of the priority issues and appropriate responses, across all sectors and key groups;
§ Resources made available by Governments to develop and maintain management and research capabilities are often inadequate. Instead, there is a tendency to rely extensively on international, regional and bi-lateral assistance programs despite these having their own funding constraints. Such a reliance on external funding support is untenable in the long term, especially for those sectors which are substantial revenue earners for the Governments. Rather it makes sense to reinvest some of this revenue in the administration and management of the sector to ensure its control and sustainability;
§ There is a need for improved understanding of GEF processes, objectives, procedures, etc, among current and prospective stakeholders;
§ A weak project design will usually necessitate significant subsequent changes to the objective, outputs and activities. Objectives need to be realistic, reflecting the boundaries of the project;
§ Distinct initiatives brought together purely as a matter of convenience will usually deliver few if any synergies between components, unless there are deliberate plans and activities to achieve these during implementation;
§ Direct and indirect involvement of multiple countries should be encouraged, in order to share benefits more widely, through replication and uptake of approaches and findings. Therefore, a robust project design, based on regional coordination and cooperation, with national implementation, can often be more effective and efficient. But the multiplicity of hierarchical layers makes it essential to define roles and responsibilities very clearly, with memoranda of agreement defining the relationships and operating procedures between organizations. Effective communication and cooperation between agencies will occur only where there is a clear delineation of mandates and where a strong record of working together already exists.
§ The project design should also include a well thought out and adequately resourced strategy for monitoring and evaluation; it should include a feedback loop between those implementing the project and a project steering committee made up of knowledgeable individuals able to appreciate the issues being brought before them and capable of providing timely and well considered feedback, advice and direction necessary for the effective implementation of the project;
§ Project designs require clear identification of problem situations, along with their root causes. Projects should build on past achievements and learn from past experiences. They also need to emphasize strategic planning, preparatory work and implementation strategies. When risks are identified there should be clear risk management strategies in place;
§ Despite specific project development guidelines and requirements, some projects had weak or no logical development from the identification of problems to the determination of their root causes, the setting of an objective, selection of outputs, and the planning of activities designed to address the root causes of the identified problems. This logic should be evident in a robust Logical Framework Matrix which includes objectively verifiable indicators that can guide those implementing the project. Where performance indicators in the LogFrame Matrix cannot be verified objectively they are of little help to those implementing or evaluating the project;
§ GEF Agencies need to provide clear and comprehensive guidance to those implementing a project;
§ The circumstances of island life and livelihoods, and the complexities of customary land and sea tenure and use rights, highlight the importance of sustainable resource management approaches in a landscape context in which people's needs are addressed. Gender differences in management actions and impacts also need to be recognized and addressed;
§ Community management planning needs to follow a coherent process. Overemphasis on outputs such as project preparation documents and management plans often comes at the expense of establishing and sustaining a process of management planning that engages communities and generates local "ownership". Local capacity for community management planning and implementation must already exist, or be built – plans prepared by outsiders will usually fail. The cadre of conservation area support officers established under South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Program (SPBCP) provides a good model of how to build experience and skills that can be widely used for multi-tasked, adaptive extension work at community level; and
§ Many environment and resource management projects had little impact beyond the relevant Government “sector” of government. National economic development plans are a key tool by which such management policies and initiatives can be mainstreamed, gaining increased political participation and support and helping to ensure that the needs of rural and more distant communities are addressed, rather than just those of the capital islands.

A recent review of the effectiveness of GEF operations in the Pacific[4] has also identified a number of considerations that should also inform the design and implementation of GEF-PAS. These include recognition that:

§ Only a few medium-sized projects have been allocated in the Pacific. Issues connected with this limited experience include: (i) ’overheads’ perceived to be as large as those for full-sized projects and therefore comparatively higher, taking a larger proportion of time and budget, and squeezing the allocated funds; (ii) five years is considered too short a timeframe for a medium-sized project that requires major increases in understanding by communities and government, as well as significant changes in social behavior and management practices; and (iii) currently the medium-sized project scheme does not allow for a transition phase at the end of a project, including bridging or exit funding - removing the abrupt end to project funding might increased the change that project benefits already achieved can be sustained, rather than having them end due to the absence of a transition strategy; such issues will only be resolved if the activities countries undertake become an integral part of their own planning and financing; if, however, the financed activities are all seen as additional to national objectives and targets these issues will not be resolved; the situation is further aggravated by a lack of national and community ownership; thus “country driven” should also mean that a country places priority on these activities and views them as pertinent development issues;
§ All full-sized projects have been regional other than those implemented in Papua New Guinea. The Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP) has been the main executing agency. Despite the GEF’s recognition of the special circumstance of Small Island Developing States (SIDS), the large-scale programs in the Pacific have experienced several difficulties. Many relate to the vast scale of the Pacific and the inherent difficulty in simultaneously achieving strong ownership by communities, leadership by countries and the sharing of information regionally. Again ‘management system’ issues, such as short initial project timeframes and demanding reporting mechanisms, have worked against local community, country and regional ownership. One example from the SPBCP is the use of external consultants to develop local community plans. This was done to meet deadlines, but ignored the need for local ownership to be developed and fostered. Even when consultants operated in a participatory manner it was not the same as local communities developing their own plans, while perhaps calling on outside help to assist with writing up the resulting plans;
§ Co-financing requirements are very difficult for SIDS to meet, and especially in the Pacific where there is a relatively low level of donor input and national economies are small. Even in cases where all benefits have been identified as global, GEF still sets a co-financing ratio that can be difficult and time consuming to achieve, delaying project inception; and
§ There is no coordinated GEF program to promote and assist PICs to improve their understanding of and access to GEF; countries have indicated a preference for workshops and training run independently of activities conducted by the IAs.

In 2007, GEF completed an evaluation of a portfolio of 18 projects implemented in Samoa and funded by the GEF during the period from 1992 to December 2006[5]. The findings lead to the recommendation that lessons from Samoa’s experience with the GEF should be taken into account when developing the current proposal for a regional programmatic approach for PICs for implementation using funds from the fourth replenishment of the GEF Trust Fund (GEF-4). The report recognized that, while no two countries are alike, and situations are different and the diversity of the Pacific region should be recognized, 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 key lessons arising from the GEF experience in Samoa are:

§ 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, the focus of the GEF support should be on the implementation of these priorities and action plans that 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 and Council, SPREP, the United Nations Development Program (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 various PICs - a one size fits 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; stand-alone GEF projects should not be encouraged as this will help reduce transaction costs;
§ Harmonization needs to be strengthened across GEF stakeholders - the experience of New Zealand Agency for International Development (NZAid) and Australian Agency for International Development (AusAid) should be reviewed and recognized as a possible way forward;
§ GEF, in partnership with the GEF Science and Technology Advisory Panel (STAP) and Pacific SIDS, should more specifically identify the global environmental benefits in Samoa and the Pacific; two areas which are unclear across the GEF system are: (i) global benefits of marine resources; and (ii) defining the role of the GEF on adaptation to climate change impacts.





In summary, numerous barriers have had to be addressed in ensuring the proposed program meets both national aspirations and GEF requirements. These are:

§ Balancing community-focused actions, country drivenness, regional coordination and delivery of global benefits: not all these needs and requirements can be met simultaneously, without concessions being made; however, the need for give and take by all stakeholders and key players must not compromise the overall quality of the intended outcomes;
§ GEF modalities reflective of national and regional circumstances: countries are concerned with the limited recognition in the GEF modalities of operational conditions specific to SIDS, and to PICs in particular; these include limited in-country capacity to prepare proposals that meet complex requirements that are often seen as lacking relevance, lack of familiarity with donor requirements, inability to deliver sustained outcomes within short project cycles, and size and distance impeding delivery of outreach programs by the GEF;
§ Programmatic vs. project-based approach: GEF has recognized several benefits to a country if a programmatic approach is adopted[6], including: (i) stable, phased, and predictable resource flow from the GEF; (ii) a more strategic level of interaction with the GEF; (iii) increased opportunity to mobilize co-financing nationally and from a multiplicity of sources, including the private sector; (iv) reduction in transaction costs as key GEF review criteria (e.g. program and policy conformity, incremental cost and public involvement policy) would be addressed in a more streamlined way; (v) improved opportunities for strengthening the enabling environment and general cross-cutting support, including capacity building needs; (vi) improved opportunities for horizontal and vertical integration of environmental concerns into decision making; (vii) improved scope for catalyzing action, replication and innovation; and (viii) improved opportunity for donor co-ordination towards a more focused, priority set of interventions.
§ Integrated vs. focal area approach: in small island countries the natural and human systems are highly integrated; the current focal area approach of GEF is not consistent with this reality;
§ National vs. regional projects is an important issue for the Pacific Island Governments. These national Governments are keen to see the resources flow into the countries, to build their capacity. They are reluctant to share funds with regional organizations. In the past regional projects have provided more than half of the total resources to the countries;
§ Planning vs. Action: Pacific Islanders are acutely conscious of the increasing pressures being placed simultaneously on both their own and global environments; they recognize the need for substantive, on-the-ground actions designed to decrease if not eliminate these pressures; they call for an end to studies which merely highlight the ongoing declines in environmental quality and in the well-being of the people who rely on the environment and natural resources to meet their daily needs;
§ Increased absorptive capacity: the enabling environment of PICs is typically weak, decreasing the cost effectiveness of investments designed to deliver global environmental benefits as well as achieve national sustainable development goals; little effective progress has been made in mainstreaming global environmental issues into national development plans and agency work programs; this is despite international recognition of such issues as the need to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change, conserve biological diversity, prevent land degradation, protect international waters and manage POPs; absorptive capacity can be increased by strengthening relevant policy instruments, institutions and technology uptake and by ensuring that staff working for Government, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the private sector have the necessary knowledge and skills for participatory planning and implementation;
§ Limited co-financing opportunities exist for environment-related projects in Pacific SIDS;
§ Sharing expertise: Most PICs cannot provide satisfying career paths for the full complement of experts required to prepare and implement projects and programs that will deliver global environmental benefits while also contributing to the achievement of national development goals; as a result, expertise and experience must be shared between countries; a pool of regional experts is the preferred way to remove this barrier; and
§ Sharing information: Building understanding of the priority issues and appropriate responses across all sectors and key groups requires a willingness to share information; currently information sharing and coordination between government ministries is far from ideal in Pacific SIDS; similarly, government officials are often reluctant to share information with NGOs and the private sector; the success of GEF investments in the region depends in part on effective collaboration to share knowledge and other information.
4.5 Past, Current and Planned Development Assistance
Table 1 has listed the development assistance provided by GEF. Table 3 lists the overseas development assistance provided to the 15 PICs in 2006. Clearly there are many bilateral and multilateral development partners who provide substantial assistance to the PICs. Table 3 also describes the assistance these development partners provide for environment and related projects and programs. The following paragraphs provide some additional information for the principal development partners, with more details provided in Annex 2.
Table 3

Overseas Development Assistance (ODA)
Provided to the Fifteen Pacific Island Countries in 2006[7]

Development Partner
ODA (US $ millions)
Principal Focus of Environment-related Development Assistance
Bilateral (selected)


Australia
460.75
Management of natural resources, increasing community resilience, conserving natural heritage, climate and sea-level monitoring
Canada
3.24
Sustainable development of living marine resources, climate change adaptation
France
6.44
Disaster relief, public health, maritime surveillance
Japan
97.00
Fisheries, tourism), environmental protection, climate change, waste management, health, water, sanitation, disaster management
New Zealand
79.26
Protection and enhancement of the Pacific environment with sustainable development outcomes, disaster prevention and relief
United Kingdom
4.59

United States of America
204.40
health care, climate change adaptation, food security, protection of maritime resources, tsunami-warning systems
Multilaterals (selected)


Asian Development Bank
11.72
Environmental protection, management of natural resources, mainstreaming environmental considerations, poverty, fisheries and statistics.
European Union
90.27
Fisheries, renewable energy
United Nations
26.74
Local governance systems, local and traditional knowledge and practices, community-managed conservation areas, capacity-building, and knowledge management
World Bank
25.42[8]
Environmental policy and management, human health, climate change adaptation, environmental risk management, natural hazard recovery, conservation
Total ODA (all sources)
1009.83

Source: stats.oecg.org and this study

Australia. The Pacific Regional Aid Strategy 2004-2009 provides the framework for Australia's long-term development goals in the Pacific.




The framework focuses on four themes:
§ stronger broad-based growth – by addressing issues of strengthening the enabling environment for private sector development such as legislative and administrative reform and through policies aimed at improving economic competitiveness as well as expanding the productive sectors that drive broad-based growth, with a focus on providing income generation and employment opportunities and sustainable management of the environment.
§ more effective, accountable and democratic government - through active support for good governance and economic and public sector reform including improved public expenditure management and by considering means of broadening the revenue base, strengthening democratic institutions and political governance and engaging more broadly with civil society as drivers of the demand for better governance.
§ improved law and justice and security – through support for police and legal institutions underpinning adherence to the rule of law, assisting regional security initiatives, addressing potential instability and the causes of conflict and investing in peace.
§ enhanced service delivery, including effective fiscal management - through investing in government capacity to deliver basic health, education and infrastructure, particularly in rural and peri-urban areas and to disadvantaged groups.

Canada. The Canadian government has been an active development assistance partner in the Pacific Islands for more than thirty years. Canada has focused on facilitating dialogue in the Pacific Island Forum; with modest investments. The goal of Canada’s assistance is to foster sustainable development as a vehicle for promoting economic progress and regional stability. Its contributions are in part influenced by the shared experiences of the indigenous peoples of Canada and the Pacific.
France. France has direct strategic and economic interests in the region through its Pacific entities of New Caledonia, French Polynesia and Wallis and Futuna. In addition, France is a member of the Pacific Commission and the South Pacific Regional Environment Program, and has been a dialogue partner of the Pacific Islands Forum since 1989, relief to disaster struck populations and more recently with a tripartite initiative to
Japan. Japan has five priority areas for its assistance, namely economic growth (trade and investment, infrastructure, fisheries and tourism), sustainable development (environment including, environmental protection, climate change and waste management, health, water and sanitation and education and vocational training), good governance (strengthening administrative capacity and strengthening institutions), security (including disaster mitigation and management and measures against organized crime) and people to people communication and exchange (youth exchange, cultural exchange and preservation of cultural heritage
New Zealand. The Pacific Strategy, 2007–2015 guides New Zealand’s ODA Program with Pacific partners, other donors and agencies, civil society and NGOs in assisting Pacific countries to achieve their development goals. The goal of the strategy, Reduced Poverty and Hardship in the Pacific, is achieved by targeting four outcomes: strengthened governance; broader-based growth and improved livelihoods; improved health and education and reduced vulnerability.
United States. In 2006 the United States assistance to the Pacific Islands totaled just over $US200 million. Of this amount, about $US150 million was comprised of grants from the United States to the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Palau under the Compacts of Free Association administered by the Department of the Interior. The remaining funding was devoted to the rest of the Pacific Islands through such programs as the Peace Corps, military assistance (International Military Education and Training and Foreign Military Financing), counter-terrorism, and child health. The United States also provided, via an Economic Assistance Agreement associated with the South Pacific Tuna Treaty, another $US18 million annually to the South Pacific Parties to the Treaty for economic development purposes. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), a United States Government corporation designed to assist some of the poorest countries in the world, is working with Vanuatu on an assistance compact totaling over $US65 million.
Asian Development Bank. Over the past 30 years assistance provided to the Pacific has related to a wide range of activities, including good governance, environmental protection, information and communications technology, poverty, private sector development, investment promotion, fisheries, civil aviation, and statistics. A specific example is the undertaking of Mainstreaming Environmental Considerations in Economic and Development Planning Processes in Selected PDMCs. To prepare country environmental assessments that will provide inputs to country programming for selected PDMCs and country medium-term development strategies, particularly in addressing eight key environmental challenges.
European Union. The European Union Strategy for the Pacific consists of three components:
§ stronger political relations on matters of common interest such as global political security, trade, economic and social development and the environment;
§ more focused development action, with greater emphasis on regional cooperation to build up critical mass, enhance regional governance and facilitate mutual enrichment; and
§ more efficient aid delivery, including greater use of direct budget support and closer coordination with other partners, in particular Australia and New Zealand.

United Nations. The United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) for the Pacific Sub region sets out the strategic focus for the UN’s dialogue with the Pacific Islands Countries (PICs) from 2008 to 2012. It is the product of partnerships between the UN Country Teams of Fiji and Samoa and the 15 UN agencies, programs and offices in the Pacific, and is driven by the needs and priorities of governments of 14 Pacific Island Countries (Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Niue, Palau, Vanuatu, Tokelau, Tuvalu, Tonga, Kiribati, Nauru, Samoa and the Solomon Islands).

World Bank. In recent years the World Bank has completed analytical work on regional environmental issues, trade policy, non-communicable diseases, and climate change adaptation, and has offered policy advice on environmental risk management and climate change adaptation. The Bank has also financed a limited number of lending operations in the health and infrastructure (including natural hazard recovery) sectors; as well as provided technical assistance grants in health, private sector development, environment and conservation. It has supported client countries in the region to address their environmental challenges through the financing of projects with environmental objectives, analytical work, advice, and support for capacity building. In addition, through the implementation of its environmental and social development policies, the Bank has introduced tools and procedures to ensure that all projects and programs financed by the Bank adhere to internationally accepted good practices in environmental management.

5. Program Framework
GEF-PAS has been prepared, and will be executed as a strategic investment program that comprises projects, enabling activities; capacity building and other initiatives (see Figure 2). These will be executed regionally, nationally and/or at community level, as appropriate. The program would be based on a strong partnership, not only of the PICs, but also of the GEF Agencies, regional organizations, bi- and multi-lateral aid agencies, the private sector and civil society. Collectively, and in conjunction with PICs, these agencies and organizations will help define and deliver the strategic investment program.

















Figure 2. Regionally-coordinated program of nationally- and regionally-executed activities that address country priorities for developing sustainability

The proposed programmatic approach aims to identify and support implementation of a strategic and integrated set of investments and related initiatives that are funded through a phased, multi-year commitment. The proposed overall program will address the highest national priorities for sustainable development while also delivering tangible and substantial global environmental benefits. Figure 3 shows how these national priorities interface with the relevant GEF programs and objectives by way of 13 regional strategies. These would cover not only the GEF Focal Area Strategic Priorities but also include additional cross-cutting initiatives, namely capacity enhancement, enabling activities and support for relevant initiatives undertaken by both civil society and the private sector.

It is important to note that in many instances the prototype programmatic regional strategies already exist. These include the regional strategies and frameworks for climate change, disaster risk management, biodiversity, invasive species, offshore fisheries management and renewable energy. The proposed program would leverage these programs. This will help ensure that new GEF activities are optimally aligned with the regular programs and activities of the GEF agencies already working in the region. In recognition of the benefits of the joint programming now being favored by
NZAid and AusAid, the program will also facilitate harmonization of work programs across the GEF agencies active in the region.

All GEF-PAS regional strategies would incorporate the relevant indicators and targets from the GEF focal area strategies, modified as appropriate, to reflect regional and national circumstances.

Limited absorptive capacity, especially at national level, has hindered the ability of countries to access GEF funds. Low absorptive capacity also results in investments often having less impact than might otherwise be the case. It is therefore important to design an overarching capacity building program that addresses common capacity needs across GEF focal areas and in response to national needs and priorities. Similarly, recognition must be made of the Enabling Activities already completed, including the National Capacity for Self Assessment (NCSA). Where appropriate, these should be integrated into the strategies incorporated in the proposed investment program.





















Figure 3. Relationship between national priorities, GEF priorities and programs, the proposed 13 GEF-PAS regional strategies and the GEF-PAS strategic investment program.

Capacity building is an integral part of all GEF projects. The other components of GEF’s approach to capacity building are: (i) conducting national capacity self assessments; (ii) targeted capacity building projects; (iii) enabling activities; (iv) support to civil society and the private sector through the Small Grants Program (SGP), the Development Marketplace and the Environmental Business Finance Program; and (v) country-specific programs for addressing capacity building needs in LDCs and SIDS. The replenishment agreement for GEF-4 specifies that the financial envelopes for both biodiversity and climate change include 5% for the SGP and for cross-cutting capacity building projects.



GEF-PAS provides further opportunity to mobilize and better utilize national, GEF and donor funds to assess and respond to capacity requirements at all levels (e.g. national, community) and across all
dimensions (e.g. institutional strengthening, proposal preparation, monitoring and reporting). The goal would be to support and implement capacity building that is even more responsive to Pacific circumstances and needs. The Alliance offers an opportunity to support capacity building through a broader programmatic framework, thereby avoiding the tendency for project funding to undercut and inhibit capacity building due to constraints such as insufficient time for relationship building and for preparing and implementing work programs. A program of capacity building would allow more time for all parties and stakeholders to develop a shared understanding of issues and desired outcomes. It would also provide continuity across the transitional phases between projects, and on project completion.
5.1 Key Principles
The key principles that would underpin the creation and operation of GEF-PAS are as follows:
§ The GEF-PAS partners[9] commit to coordinate their activities and work cooperatively, collaboratively and constructively to define and deliver a strategic investment program (SIP);
§ The SIP will reflect country priorities for achieving national sustainable development goals while also delivering significant global environment benefits through regionally-coordinated and nationally-executed initiatives;
§ The Program will be linked to regional strategies such as the Pacific Plan, and the Micronesia Challenge and include coverage of each GEF Focal Area as well as additional cross-cutting initiatives such as capacity enhancement, enabling activities and support for relevant initiatives undertaken by both civil society and the private sector;
§ The programmatic approach will build on relevant GEF and other experience for umbrella projects, including the Strategic Investment Program for Sustainable Land Management (SLM) in Africa, the Black Sea Danube Partnership, Investment Funds for Large Marine Ecosystems and the China SLM Partnership;
§ The Alliance partners will strive to ensure equitable access to the GEF by all PIC countries; each GEF Agency will assist the countries in ways that reflect its comparative advantage, reflecting past experience, global knowledge, convening power, presence in the Region, country preference, potential to foster national leadership of programs, and efficiency in use of resources; the lead GEF agency will work with all other GEF agencies to ensure that the GEF-financed activities are consistent with a programmatic approach and contribute to common corporate objectives;
§ Preparation of project proposals under the framework of the Alliance reflect a commitment to: (i) consensus building through consultation; (ii) appropriate engagement with all relevant stakeholders; (iii) identify and reflect national needs, concerns, proposals and capacities; (iv) build on past efforts and reflect previous successes and lessons learned; (v) use of realistic and pragmatic approaches in order to achieve timeliness and certainty while avoiding delays and diversions; (vi) adoption of clear and achievable milestones and timelines for outputs and outcomes, at both national and regional level; and (vii) deliver win-win outcomes through efficient and effective processes that meet both national and global priorities.
§ A GEF-PAS Steering Committee will help add value to GEF operations in the Pacific without adding another administrative layer between the GEF and the countries; it will guide the strategic direction of the overall program, taking into consideration national priorities set by each country; it will also act as an advocate for the PICs, increasing the visibility of relevant national concerns and expectations and promoting the mobilization of resources; and
§ The PIC institutions and, importantly, the region’s technical agencies, will catalyze and reinforce country-level engagement and investments in order to: (i) generate greater impact on the ground across all the GEF Focal Areas; (ii) enhance the potential for project sustainability; and (iii) improve cost-effectiveness in a region where the average costs for development and environmental investments are perceived as being high.
5.2 Governance Structure [still being discussed with GEFSEC]
The following paragraphs describe the principal roles and responsibilities of the GEF-PAS partners. Subsequent sections will describe the monitoring and evaluation strategy and procedures as well as the communications plan.

A lead agency will have overall responsibility for coordination of all GEF-PAS activities, including ensuring that the programmatic approach is maintained and that the individual projects are consistent with the overall framework. The lead agency’s reports on this coordination role will be crucial for assessing the program’s achievements. The lead agency will also have responsibility for: (i) ensuring that activities are aligned with the GEF-PAS results framework; (ii) supporting agreed sub-regional and regional goals and targets for the sub-regional and regional projects implemented under GEF-PAS; (iii) continuing to bring together the partners involved in the program in order to discuss critical issues in program implementation and facilitate agreement on the roles and responsibilities to exploit the synergies of the various partners and address the issues, consistent with the program’s monitoring and evaluation strategy; (iv) quality enhancement and consensus building around strategic directions and specific investment decisions that improve stakeholder alignment and harmonization at all levels and strengthen advocacy; and (v) review progress made and overall program performance.

Specific coordination responsibilities of the lead agency would include the following:

§ coordinate work programming among GEF implementing and executing agencies;
§ establish and support the GEF-PAS Steering Committee and, as appropriate, act on its advice;
§ overall responsibility for the coordination of GEF-PAS monitoring and evaluation activities;
§ development and implementation of GEF PAS communication plan;
§ promotion of innovative policy dialogues
§ ensuring the implementation of peer review services where needed;
§ helping leverage co-financing for GEF-PAS operations; and
§ working with countries and agencies to report on the overall progress and effectiveness of GEF-PAS.

GEF-PAS Steering Committee. The program will establish and support a Steering Committee comprising GEF Operational Focal Points from the PICs, representatives of the Council of Regional Organizations of the Pacific (CROP) agencies and a representative from an umbrella NGO in the Pacific. The operational focus for the Committee will be as follows:

§ Guide the direction of GEF-PAS;
§ Help ensure coherence across GEF-PAS portfolio and with existing operations as well as relevant regional goals and targets;
§ Provide strategic guidance; and
§ Help promote replication and synergies.

The Committee will meet at least biannually, largely via existing fora such as the SPREP annual meetings. The Committee will reports to the GEF SEC annually, on progress of individual projects and also on the overall program.

Countries. The countries will continue to play an active role in taking key decisions on the program. At country level, and once the investment program for each country has been agreed upon, national coordinating committees will be established, preferably using existing structures. These national committees will be responsible for guiding the implementation of national projects as well as multi-country projects with national execution. Through participation in the GEF-PAS Steering Committee countries would also participate directly in the implementation of the overall Program, review progress and provide guidance on the future directions for the Program.

GEF Agencies. GEF Agencies will share responsibilities for coordination of the project cycle in accordance with the rules of procedure for the GEF and respective agencies, facilitating assistance to recipients for project preparation and for provision of co-financing. In addition agencies will have specific responsibilities related to each institution’s comparative advantage (see Annex 3).

CROP Agencies. The roles of the relevant regional organizations will be consistent with their mandate:

The Pacific Islands Forum (formerly known as the South Pacific Forum), is the region’s principal political institution; it brings together independent states of the Pacific in an annual leaders’ summit. The Pacific Islands Forum is serviced by the Forum Secretariat. Part of the Pacific Leaders’ vision is to “seek a Pacific region that is respected for the quality of its governance, the sustainable management of its resources, the full observance of democratic values and for its defense and promotion of human rights”.

The Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) supports and enables members to achieve sustainable fisheries and maximize social and economic benefits in harmony with the broader environment. It is a regional intergovernmental organization set up to provide expert fisheries management and development advice and service to member countries.

The Pacific Community (formerly known as the South Pacific Commission) is a non-political organization delivering development assistance to the territories and countries of the region; the Pacific Community is serviced by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC). At 60 years old, SPC is the oldest of the CROP agencies with a membership that includes all 22 Pacific Island Countries and Territories as well as Australia, New Zealand, France and the United States of America. SPC has a complement of more than 350 staff and discharges its assistance through three technical divisions: Land Resources, Marine Resources, and Social Resources.

The Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) promotes regional cooperation and assistance in environmental matters. The vision of the organization is that “People of the Pacific islands better able to plan, protect, manage and use their environment for sustainable development”. The SPREP Annual Work Programmes are guided by and implements the “Action Plan for Managing the Environment of the Pacific Islands Region 2005-2009”, and by its Strategic Programmes 2004-2013”.

The Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC) an intergovernmental regional organization dedicated to providing products and services through three technical program areas of: Community Lifelines; Community Risk; and Ocean and Islands. It assists members to assess, explore and develop their mineral and other non-living resources; and

The University of the South Pacific (USP) is the region’s premier provider of tertiary education and an international centre of excellence for teaching, research and capacity building on all aspects of Pacific life, including environment and sustainable development. Through its Institutes and Centers (mainly Institute of Marine Resources, Institute of Applied Science and the Pacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable Development) it also implements field projects in the latter two areas.

While some CROP Agencies will serve as EAs for specific projects, all relevant CROP Agencies will be members of the GEF-PAS Steering Committee and through this forum will help guide the direction of GEF-PAS and also help ensure coherence of existing GEF-PAS operations with those related to regional and national strategies, plans and operations. CROP Agencies will also play an important role in promoting replication and synergies.

Donors. Within GEF-PAS the principal roles of donors are to; (i) comment on annual work programs; (ii) provide feedback on implementation progress and effectiveness; (iii) participate in reviews, as appropriate; and (iv) review and, as appropriate, action co-financing options.
5.3 Organizational Structure
The proposed organizational structure for GEF-PAS is shown in Figure 4. As already stated, GEF-PAS brings together eligible PICS, the GEF SEC, the GEF Agencies and regional organizations (both governmental and non-governmental), as well as relevant multilateral and bilateral donors. The GEF-PAS Steering Committee will provide strategic and tactical guidance to both the GEF and, collectively, to all members of the Alliance.
























Figure 4. Organizational structure for GEF-PAS.

5.4 Management Structure and Procedures
Coordination Mechanisms. The lead agency is responsible for overall coordination of the GEF-PAS activities. However, specific national and multi-country implementation activities will be the responsibility of the assigned GEF agency and the country or countries.

A high level of cooperation and coordination will be required if GEF-PAS is to deliver coherent advice and assistance to PICs. The GEF-PAS Steering Committee will facilitate this cooperation and coordination. It will provide strategic and tactical guidance to both the GEF SEC and, collectively, to Alliance members. Importantly, the GEF-PAS Steering Committee will add value to GEF operations in the Pacific, but will not add another administrative layer between the GEF and the countries. Formally, the GEF-PAS Steering Committee will be established by, and report to, the GEF SEC.

The roles of each participating GEF Agency, at both regional and multi-country levels will differ, consistent with the comparative advantage of each. Project roles in areas of particular emphasis for the GEF Agencies are as follows:

§ UNDP plays a primary role in ensuring the development and management of capacity building programs and technical assistance projects, drawing on its experience in human resources development, integrated policy design and implementation, institutional strengthening, and non-governmental and community participation, on its network of country offices, as well as on its inter-country programming experience;
§ UNEP plays a primary role in catalyzing the development of scientific and technical analysis and in advancing environmental management in GEF-financed activities; its focus is also on normative development, the piloting of innovative approaches at all levels, and on provision of science-based guidance and knowledge services; UNEP thus provides guidance on relating the GEF-financed activities to global, regional and national environmental assessments, policy frameworks and plans, and to international environmental agreements;
§ The World Bank plays a primary role in ensuring the development and management of investment projects; in doing so the Bank draws on its investment experience in eligible countries to promote investment opportunities, leverage funding from other donors and to mobilize private sector resources that are consistent with GEF objectives and national sustainable development strategies;
§ Asian Development Bank: Investment projects at the country or multi-country level and mobilizing private sector resources within the Pacific region;
§ FAO: Persistent organic pollutants in the agriculture sector;
§ IFAD: Land degradation, with emphasis on smaller countries through community-based natural resource management and poverty alleviation and national execution arrangements; and
§ UNIDO: Persistent organic pollutants in the industrial sector.

Decision Making and Accountability. To help ensure optimal involvement of the GEF agencies, as well as equitable access of countries to GEF assistance, a set of criteria were used to determine how each agency would operate in the program, at country and regional levels. The following criteria were used on an interim basis. They can be further refined as a result of the initial experience in GEF-PAS implementation. The criteria are:

§ Comparative advantage of the agency, based on its past experience;
§ Global knowledge;
§ Convening power;
§ Presence and experience in the Region;
§ Country preference;
§ Potential to foster national leadership of, and engagement in, programs; and
§ Efficiency of resource use.
5.5 Linkages with other Regional and International Programs and Strategies
In 2005 the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders endorsed the Pacific Plan. The Plan provides a framework for effective and enhanced engagement between Pacific Island Forum countries and their non-state actors and development partners. The goal of the Plan is to enhance and stimulate economic growth, sustainable development, good governance and security for Pacific countries through regionalism. One of the Plan’s strategic objectives is to contribute to sustainable development through improvements in natural resources and environmental management. Under this objective, the Plan identifies specific regional priorities and associated initiatives to be completed in the first three years of the Plan (2006 to 2008). One initiative of special relevance to
GEF-PAS is the commitment to strengthening national sustainable development strategies (NSDS) or their equivalent. The Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, under the Pacific Plan, is the lead coordinator for implementation of this initiative. As noted above, one of the key operational principals for GEF-PAS is that the Program will be embedded in regional strategies such as the Pacific Plan. A key criterion for project eligibility under GEF-PAS is the requirement that a proposed project be consistent with national priorities as specified in a sustainable development strategy or similar policy instrument.

The Pacific Plan strengthens collaboration and cooperation between the several regional mechanisms, organizations and state and non-state actors which work at all levels of environment cooperation in the region. Principal among these are SPREP and SOPAC. Collectively they have oversight of most of the numerous regional policies and plans designed to counteract negative biodiversity and environmental trends. These regional policies and plans provide a critical interface between plans and activities at local, national and global levels. One of the main reasons for having CROP Agencies, including SPREP and SOPAC, represented on the GEF-PAS Steering Committee is to facilitate this linkage between global, regional, national and local strategies, plans and actions.

In July 2007 PICs and the PIC partners signed the Pacific Aid Effectiveness Principles, which call for strengthened aid management and coordination mechanisms at the national and regional level. CROP agencies and development partners have also agreed, under the Pacific Plan, to better coordinate their assistance to member countries and regional services that complement national efforts.

The Forum Leaders have also called for timely implementation of the respective regional frameworks, regional strategies and or regional plans of actions in relation to sectoral and cross sectoral themes, including climate change, disaster preparedness and recovery and energy. These regional policies and frameworks of action guide the efforts of regional organizations and development partners in supporting member countries to address their respective national development goals. Under the Pacific Plan, different CROP agencies are identified as having the ‘lead’ coordinating role for the implementation of initiatives, reflecting their traditional scientific, technical and policy roles in the respective areas.

At the regional level, relevant policy instruments can be classified into three broad groupings: (i) Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs); (ii) Conservation Strategies and Plans; and (iii) Regional and International Networks and Partnership Mechanisms. Major MEAs include the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity at the global level and the SPREP and Apia Conventions at the regional level. The Program of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States (SIDS) is the blueprint for SIDS and the international community to address national and regional sustainable development in SIDS. The needs identified take into account the economic, social and environmental considerations that are the pillars of a holistic and integrated approach to sustainable development. The Mauritius Strategy, which describes activities for the further implementation of the Program of Action, has several focal areas in common with GEF priorities, namely:

§ Climate change adaptation and sea-level rise;
§ Clean Energy projects to address the energy vulnerability of SIDS by promoting access to energy efficient technologies, renewable energy and advanced clean energy technologies;
§ Island Biodiversity conservation and sustainable use and facilitating fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of their utilization;
§ Freshwater supply protection, pollution reduction, and marine resources management;
§ Combating land degradation;
§ Investments and capacity to leverage resources; and
§ Capacity development by incorporating development human and institutional capacity in all the above projects.

Several single theme strategies, such as the Regional Invasive Species Strategy and the Regional Bird Conservation Strategy, address biodiversity conservation issues, but the most important regional strategy for biodiversity conservation is the Action Strategy for Nature Conservation in the Pacific Islands Region for 2003-2007. This arose out of the 7th Pacific Islands Conference on Nature Conservation and Protected Areas, held in Rarotonga, Cook Islands in July 2002. At the Conference delegates mandated a Roundtable to “increase effective conservation action in the Pacific Islands” over the next five years. The Roundtable has recently reported to the 8th Pacific Islands Conference on Nature Conservation and Protected Areas, held in Papua New Guinea in October 2007. It judged that the objectives and targets of the Action Strategy were too specific to be applied to the varied circumstances of the PICs, and some were also overly ambitious, unclear and/or required interpretation. The Roundtable recommended that the Action Strategy be strengthened by simplifying and clarifying the Objectives, making the Objectives more country-specific, and encouraging ownership of, and commitment to, the Strategies by the individual countries. The Roundtable also recommended that the renewed focus of the Action Strategy: (i) identify, safeguard and conserve priority sites, habitats and ecosystems; (ii) safeguard and restore indigenous species of ecological or cultural significance, especially for those at risk; and (iii) manage priority invasive species, prevent new invasions, and regulate genetically modified organisms.

The Climate Change Roundtable, endorsed by Forum Leaders and their environment ministers in 2000, was established primarily to ensure a coordinated, cooperative and strategic approach by regional and international organizations and agencies to assist Pacific islands to undertake the activities identified by their representatives and development partners, regional organizations and collaborating institutions under the Pacific Islands Framework for Action on Climate Change, Climate Variability and Sea-level Rise.

A framework regional cooperation is also provided by Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster Management Framework for Action 2005 – 2015. This Regional Action Plan addresses the issues of governance, hazard identification, assessment, monitoring and early warning systems, knowledge management and education. It provides a framework for the development and implementation of strategies for broadening regional cooperation, taking into account international and regional initiatives that address the unique vulnerabilities of PICs. SOPAC has been mandated to improve the coordination of efforts to address disaster management capacity building in the region and is doing so through a Community Risk Program that is resulting in a number of initiatives at the regional and national levels.

As waste management is not specifically covered by a single convention, treaty or protocol, financial assistance required to help develop work programs has to be drawn from a number of sources and under a number of related conventions and protocols. There are several regional
collaborative partnerships to assist in addressing the concerns of waste management and pollution in the region. These include: collection and removal of Persistent Organic Pollutants and some hazardous waste; awareness campaigns on waste minimization, assessment and proposed control of trans-boundary marine pollution; response measures for oil spills; a regional database on WWII ship wrecks; regulations on the trans-shipment of hazardous materials in the region (Waigani and Basal Conventions); a Regional Waste Management Strategy; and a Type II Umbrella Partnership for Waste Management in the Pacific.

Many Pacific organizations and partners, including SPREP, SOPAC and SPC, have recently moved to a programmatic approach to address regional environmental priorities agreed by Member states. This helps improve the effectiveness and longer-term viability of regional collaboration and assistance related to the management of the environment and natural resources.
5.6 Implementation Arrangements and Timetable
GEF-PAS implementation arrangements are designed to be lean and non-duplicative, and based on existing Pacific mechanisms, programs, and arrangements. The program will therefore not require, create or result in parallel implementation structures. This approach is designed to reinforce Pacific leadership of GEF-PAS implementation.

GEF-PAS is implemented via a portfolio of discrete operations. To further develop and manage the GEF-PAS, implementation is carried out at two levels: (i) the regional program level and (ii) the level of discrete operations, mostly country level. The implementation strategy addresses the inter-linkages between GEF-PAS implementation and other significant Pacific programs of direct relevance to the GEF-PAS agenda.

Regional Program Level. At the regional level, GEF-PAS implementation responsibilities are shared between the GEF Agencies and the GEF-PAS Steering Committee. The latter has national representation. GEF-PAS implementation arrangements will be embedded within the implementation modalities of the GEF and CROP Agencies, to maximize synergies and ensure country and regional priorities are reflected at all times. Specifically, GEF SEC and the GEF-PAS Steering Committee will have an important role in policy dialogue and advocacy, support to leveraging of co-financing, reporting, peer review and mentoring.

GEF and CROP Agencies will share responsibilities for coordination of the project cycle in accordance with the rules of procedure for the GEF and the respective agencies, facilitating assistance to recipients for project preparation and for provision of co-financing. In addition, Agencies will have specific responsibilities related to their comparative advantage.

The GEF-PAS Steering Committee will advise on and guide GEF-PAS implementation, by confirming strategic directions and monitoring progress. [GEF SEC to advise on how these functions would be funded] The Committee will guide implementation by facilitating joint work programming and confirming operational alignment of agencies, ensure joint engagement, and forge synergies based on comparative advantage. The Committee will be advisory in nature; not an executive body. It will provide upstream advisory services, through its members, for countries to further develop their intended operations that: (i) align with the GEF-PAS results framework and the GEF Focal Area Strategies; (ii) are in line with or contributing to a country’s sustainable development priorities; and (iii) are consistent with Pacific regional strategies such as those related to climate change and biodiversity. The Committee will meet at least twice per year, piggybacking on existing meetings wherever possible.

The GEF-PAS Steering Committee will work to ensure that implementation is in line with key principles:

§ Slim and simple process to oversee GEF-PAS implementation;
§ Joint work programming;
§ Quality enhancement and consensus building around strategic directions and specific investment decisions that improve stakeholder alignment and harmonization at all levels and strengthen advocacy; and
§ Joint reporting.

Key functions of the GEF-PAS Steering Committee include:

§ Confirm operational alignment: ensure that GEF-PAS supported operations are in agreement with the GEF-PAS results framework, are in line with or contributing to national sustainable development goals, the GEF Focal Area Strategies, and in support of agreed upon regional goals and targets; provide upstream advice and guidance on proposed operations;
§ Ensure joint engagement: pursue and confirm that joint programming is carried out among GEF partners in a timely and cooperative manner, resolving strategic issues and programming overlaps if and when they exist;
§ Forge synergies based on comparative advantages, promote consensus, and disseminate knowledge, lessons, and good practice among stakeholders and additional partners; and
§ Review progress made and program performance and effectiveness.

The roles of the GEF Agencies is determined primarily in terms of their comparative advantage to develop and manage GEF-PAS operations. Each individual agency will be responsible for the following in coordination with all GEF Agencies and other partners:

§ Using the GEF-PAS framework existing country- and regional-level mechanisms to advance project up-scaling via joint work programming and knowledge transfer;
§ Coordinating and managing project development, approval, implementation, reporting and evaluation processes, in accordance with the rules of procedures of GEF and the agency involved;
§ Aligning the GEF_PAS resource programming with the GEF Agencies Strategies for the Pacific
§ Facilitating assistance to recipients for preparation of proposals;
§ Advocating for project up-scaling using the GEF-PAS approach; and
§ Providing co-financing support.

All GEF Agencies, in conjunction with the GEF-PAS Steering Committee, will collectively report on the status of GEF-PAS in the context of the annual Project Implementation Review. The GEF CEO will also transmit a report to the GEF Council on achievement of progress every two years. Before GEF-4 comes to a close, a report on the Program, with lessons learned and recommendations will be submitted to the GEF Council.

Country Level and Multi-country Operations. The country level process is led by national governments, in cooperation with other stakeholders. Strong involvement by all sectoral ministries is necessary. Their successful engagement, with each focusing on relevant aspects of the status of, pressures on, and management barriers and opportunities related to the environment and natural resources is critical to the successful implementation of GEF-PAS. Thus responsibility for the development of country GEF-PAS-related activities, their financing, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, rests with country governments in consultation with the private sector, civil society and development partners. It has and will be undertaken with reference to sustainable development policies, plans and operational activities. The implementation modalities at country level should also take account of existing structures so as to take advantage of, and not duplicate, ongoing efforts and mechanisms when addressing the need for sound environmental and natural resource management, delivering local, national and global benefits.

Governments will be encouraged to establish a national GEF-PAS coordinating committee, preferably using existing structures. This will encourage and coordinate the participation of all stakeholders as well as coordinate GEF-PAS preparatory activities and implementation. It will also promote agendas related to sound environmental and resource management, delivering local, national and global benefits. Exact implementation arrangements will differ from country to country, but every effort will be made to ensure that there are no barriers to cooperation and coordination between countries.

Implementation of multi-country projects will be undertaken in one of two ways, dependent on the comparative advantage of the alternatives. First, for those projects that include investments on the ground, in particular those that target a transboundary resource (e.g. international waters and living marine resources) or transboundary threat (e.g. invasive species), the country actions will appear as national priorities and activities in the relevant PIF and, subsequently, the project proposal. Second, for multi-country projects that support collective regional or sub-regional activities (e.g. developing knowledge, tools and skills), countries’ roles will centre on applying the knowledge and tools and utilizing the skills generated from these projects (for example, applying a cost-benefit framework in policymaking on sustainable land management or on adaptation to climate change).

Coordination of Regional, Sub-regional and National Activities. In each country receiving support via GEF-PAS, the GEF Operational Focal Point will have a specific role of coordinating between GEF SEC, the GEF and CROP Agencies and the national GEF-PAS activities. In principle, each GEF Operational Focal Point will support country level alignment of GEF financed activities, consistent with the GEF-PAS principles (see above). Each GEF Operational Focal Point will work with GEF SEC and the relevant GEF and CROP Agencies to maximize the country’s benefit from participating in GEF-PAS, and advocate in national policy dialogues for sound environmental and natural resource management, delivering local, national and global benefits.

Each GEF Operational Focal Point will fulfill this coordination role by:

§ Supporting country efforts to institutionalize and implement programmatic approaches to sound environmental and natural resource management by: (i) acting as champion for a multi-donor, multi-sector programmatic approach to sound environmental and natural resource management, based on GEF-PAS principles; (ii) supporting government’s efforts to prepare and implement a government-led, multi-stakeholder, multi-sector investment in environmental and natural resource management, depending on country context and readiness, and in collaboration with development partners and with the support of GEF-PAS partners; and by (iii) helping countries to reduce transaction costs by relying less on parallel project implementation processes and, where appropriate, making greater use of integrated programmatic approaches.
§ Supporting donor alignment on sound environmental and natural resource management by: (i) liaising with bilateral donors and other development partners to participate in joint programming, while facilitating and coordinating GEF participation in the process; (ii) promoting the sound environmental and natural resource management agenda and representing GEF-PAS partners at donor meetings on sound environmental and natural resource management or other relevant sectors and themes; and by (iii) seeking co-financing opportunities for GEF-PAS supported operations;
§ Sharing knowledge to strengthen country dialogue and investments, by: (i) methodically promoting the shared use of analytical work to inform country dialogues, investment frameworks, and design of operations; and by (ii) advocating for a strengthened position of sound environmental and natural resource management in national development and sectoral strategies as well as in donor assistance strategies.
Communications: A detailed communications plan would be developed and implemented based on the principles advocated in the communications strategy presented in a separate Attachment. Its overarching goal would be to promote the GEF PAS as a key facilitator for sound environmental management in the region. Key features of the plan would include the following:

Promoting the goals and principles of GEF PAS in the Pacific region;
Facilitating the transfer of success stories, and lessons learned, to global stakeholders and other parties;
Motivating key stakeholders to collaborate, contribute to and participate in GEF PAS;
Providing the mechanism through which partner organizations and national governments collect and exchange knowledge about GEF PAS activities;
Disseminating information that clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of the countries; GEF agencies; Executing agencies and other partners in relationship to the implementation of the GEF PAS;
Realizing the value of workshops, meetings and other forums that will bring stakeholders together and plan for these accordingly;
Increasing information access for policy makers and other stakeholders to enable them to create an enabling environment for the implementation of the GEF PAS; and
Informing the general public about the goals, objectives, activities and progress of GEF PAS.

Timetable. As elaborated below (Section 6.1), detailed preparation of projects under GEF-PAS will commence with the GEF Council approval of the umbrella program. Operations will commence with the endorsement of individual projects by the GEF CEO and approval by the relevant GEF IA. The projects described below will be implemented under GEF-4.

As an umbrella program, GEF-PAS takes into consideration that although the Program is expected to commence preparation in all countries at the same time, it is expected that due to timing and capacity constraints, including preparation start-up speed, not all projects will be ready for execution at the same time. Hence, timing of individual country participation will relate to both the national capacity to undertake a successful project and on a country’s readiness to implement a project, bearing in mind the requirements of the RAF for commitment of funds before the end of GEF 4 (June 2010).

6. The Proposed Investment Program
6.1 The Project Cycle followed for the preparation of GEF PAS and expected Approval process
GEF-PAS will accelerate the GEF project preparation and approval processes in three major ways: (i) All projects would be identified through a country driven process for delineating national and regional priorities and once this list has been cleared by GEF SEC, Project Information Forms (PIFs) can be prepared for each proposed project for submission under the program; and (ii) the umbrella program predefines the overall goal, objectives, outcomes, selection criteria, coordination mechanisms, funding levels, partners (both GEF and non-GEF) and results indicators which can be reflected in individual PIFs and project documents.

The GEF-PAS project cycle includes preparation, approval, implementation and evaluation phases, as described below.

Preparation. All operations under GEF-PAS have been identified in the initial instance as national and/or multi-country priority projects as a result of participatory country consultations in a country-led process. Several principles informed the consultation process, including the need to:
§ Identify priority projects that contribute to the achievement of both national sustainable development goals and global environmental goals as reflected in the GEF Focal Area Strategies and Strategic Programming for GEF-4;
§ Build on, rather than duplicate consultations already undertaken at national and regional levels;
§ Use culturally and socially appropriate participatory methods, and ensure that the views of all relevant stakeholders are canvassed, and reflected in the consensus views which will be documented in a written report;
§ Synthesize and add value to the existing body of knowledge and understanding, rather than attempting to create fundamentally new information; and
§ Prepare documentation that ensures an appropriate level of understanding at higher levels, and thus informs decision making by regional and international organizations.

Subsequently countries prepared a prioritized portfolio of national and multi-country priority projects which included, for each proposed project, information on the preferred GEF IAs and EAs, project costs, sources of funding (both GEF and non-GEF), links to national development strategies, and expected global environmental and national development benefits. General information was also provided in relation to: (i) initiatives that will ensure effective and efficient involvement of the private sector and civil society in the proposed investment projects and related activities; (ii) requirements and modalities for capacity building, enabling activities, and support to both civil society and the private sector in order to ensure their full and productive involvement in investment projects and related initiatives; and (iii) the capacity to undertake the proposed investments in the near term, or in the longer term once the absorptive capacity is strengthened, and the capacity building that is required, if any.

The World Bank oversaw and facilitated this process using PPG funding, including coordinating the submission of the prioritized national portfolios to GEF SEC. GEF SEC reviewed the portfolios and, after consultation with GEF Agencies and other relevant parties, provided countries with a list of projects which should be included in GEF-PAS Program and for which PIFs could be prepared.

Eligibility Criteria and Selection Process (PIF eligibility). All proposals submitted under GEF-PAS will meet the following criteria:

§ Participating countries will be eligible to receive GEF funding;
§ The proposed activities will be consistent with GEF strategic objectives and strategic programs;
§ The proposed project is consistent with the recipient’s national priorities;
§ The GEF agency submitting the PIF and, subsequently, the project documentation will have an appropriate comparative advantage;
§ The estimated costs of the project and expected co-financing will be consistent with GEF operational requirements, including resources available in the focal area and the Resource Allocation Framework allocations;
§ Sufficient information will be available to ensure that GEF funds will be used cost-effectively;
§ High likelihood that the project, as designed and described, will deliver its outcomes and will generate appropriate global environmental benefits that are consistent with focal area strategies;
§ Compliance with GEF’s monitoring and evaluation policy; and
§ The project preparation grant has been used in a cost effective way.

A project screening tool consistent with the above criteria has been developed (see Annex 4).

Approval Process. The umbrella GEF-PAS Program proposal, including completed PIFs, will be submitted to the GEF Secretariat in time for consideration by the April 2008 meeting of the GEF Council. Project ideas that have not yet been developed into PIFs could be submitted to the Secretariat within six months of the Council’s approval of the program. These would be considered by the GEF Council at its next meeting or intercessional. Once the Program has Council approval, final project documents will be submitted on a rolling basis, for Secretariat review and eventual endorsement by the GEF CEO. Within ten business days of receiving a project document for endorsement, the Secretariat the CEO will determine whether the proposal is in compliance with the conditions for endorsement. If the CEO determines that the project proposal meets the conditions for endorsement, the Secretariat will circulate to Council Members the draft final project document. Within four weeks of receiving such a document, Council Members may transmit to the CEO any concerns related to technical, procedural or policy issues or inconsistency with the GEF Instrument that they may have regarding the proposal prior to CEO endorsement and final approval by the GEF Agency concerned. The CEO has the discretion to endorse or not endorse a proposal. The CEO will take into account any Council Member’s concerns prior to endorsement and work to address those concerns with concerned parties, following which the CEO will re-circulate the proposal as needed. The CEO will post those concerns on the GEF website and will update the status of the project proposal in the management information system to indicate that endorsement will be delayed pending resolution of the concerns expressed by the Council Member. CEO endorsed final project documents will be posted on the GEF website.



6.2 Implementation
While operations will vary between projects, they will be conducted in accordance with the rules of procedures of the GEF and of the GEF Agencies, CROP and national agencies involved. The operations will be described in detail in the project documentation. Operations related to the umbrella GEF-PAS Program are described in this document. All comply with the rules of procedures of GEF and the GEF Agencies.
6.3 Monitoring and Evaluation
The purpose of the M&E system is to provide GEF PAS project and program managers with useful and timely information on project and program level results and performance that would contribute to achievement of intended results and impacts. Additionally, the M&E system with its close links to the communications plan will provide program stakeholders with performance information and learning products that can be shared throughout the region to improve good practices in ENRM. The main users of the system include implementing agencies, Ministries of Environment, the PAS program management team, and the GEF Secretariat.

Monitoring and evaluation would occur at two levels:

§ Program level M&E. Based on data from the individual projects, an M&E Coordinator will synthesize, aggregate where possible, and report quarterly on program progress. Program level M&E will be coordinated closely with a proposed communications coordinator. M&E information will help to identify and synthesize emerging good practices in ENRM from the country projects and will be linked to the development of learning products. Ideally, program level M&E information, project level performance reports and program learning products should be available on a common, easy-to-access website or portal. Please also see Annex 6 for more details on the M&E design and Annex 7 for descriptions of M&E tools.

§ Project level M&E. Each project is required to have a results framework and results monitoring plan based on a menu of standardized core indicators (from the program level results framework). Proposals will be reviewed for strategic alignment with overarching PAS objectives and the degree to which they are likely to contribute to measurable outcomes in the PAS program-level results framework. Proposals may include some additional indicators beyond those in the core indicator menu. Final, approved proposals will require baseline values and realistic performance targets and plans and budgets for data collection and reporting. The PAS M&E Coordinator would assist project teams as needed to implement M&E arrangements.
6.4 Overview of Proposed National and Multi-country Projects
Following is a description of the GEF-PAS sub-programs.

Biodiversity. Table 4 provides details of the proposed projects.
Table 4: Details of Proposed Biodiversity Projects

Project Name
Countries
GEF Agency
GEF Financing
Co-financing
Micronesia Challenge
Marshall Islands, Palau, FSM
UNEP
6,000,000
10,884,000
Invasive Species Management
Marshall Islands, FSM, PNG, Cook Islands, Kiribati, Samoa, Tonga, Vanuatu, Niue
UNEP
3,500,000
4,575,000
Coral Triangle Initiative
Solomon Islands, PNG, Timor Leste, Vanuatu
ADB
10,000,000
8,800,000
Forestry Protected Area Management
PNG, Fiji, , Samoa,
FAO
15,000,000

TBD[10]
Integrated Island and Community-based Biodiversity Conservation
Kiribati, Nauru and Tuvalu, cook Islands, Tonga
UNEP
4,000,000
TBD
Enabling Activities
Timor Leste, Tuvalu, Tonga
UNDP
715,220
TBD
Total


39,215,220
24,259,000

Adaptation to Climate Change. Table 5 provides details of the proposed projects.

Table 5: Details of Proposed Adaptation Projects

Project Name
Countries
GEF IA
GEF Financing
Co-financing
Building Resilience to Climate Change
Cook Islands, Fiji, Micronesia, Nauru, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu (plus Palau and Marshall Islands?)
UNDP
14,822,500
TBD
NAPA Implementation
Timor Leste,
UNDP
220,000
TBD
NAPA Implementation
Tuvalu
UNDP
3,349,500
TBD
NAPA Implementation[11]
Vanuatu
IBRD
3,000,000
TBD
NAPA Implementation
Solomon Islands
IBRD
3,500,000
TBD
NAPA Implementation
Kiribati
IBRD
3,500,000
TBD
Total


28,392,000
918,000

Climate Change Mitigation. Table 6 provides details of the proposed projects.
Table 6: Details of Proposed Mitigation Projects

Project Name
Countries
GEF IA
GEF Financing
Co-financing
Promoting Energy Efficiency in the Pacific
Tonga, Samoa, Vanuatu, Cook Islands
ADB
6,000,000
58,350,000
Action for the Development of Marshall Islands Renewable Energies
Marshall Islands
UNDP
1,100,000
TBD
Sustainable Economic Development through RE Applications
Fiji
UNDP
1,100,000
TBD
Regional Renewable Energy
PNG, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji, Kiribati
World Bank
10,000,000
TBD
Total


18,200,000
58,350,000

International Waters. Table 7 provides details of the proposed project.

Table 7: Details of Proposed International Waters Project

Project Name
Countries
GEF IA
GEF Financing
Co-financing
Implementing Integrated Water Resource and Wastewater Management in Pacific Island Countries
Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, FSM, Nauru, Niue, Palau, PNG, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu
UNDP and UNEP
9,000,000
58,259,364
Reef to Ridge (Component of the Coral Triangle)
Micronesia, Palau, PNG, Solomon Islands, Timor Leste, Vanuatu and Fiji
ADB
See Coral Triangle Above


POPs. Table 8 provides details of the proposed projects.

Table 8: Details of Proposed POPs Projects

Project Name
Countries
GEF IA
GEF Financing
Co-financing
POPs Monitoring
Fiji, Kiribati, Niue, Samoa, Palau, Solomon Islands
UNEP
660,000
600,000
DDT Alternatives
PNG, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu
UNEP
1,000,000
TBD
Integrated Management of Solid and Hazardous Wastes and POPs
Cook Islands, FSM, Marshall Islands, PNG, Samoa, Tuvalu, Palau, Tonga
UNEP
3,500,000
TBD
Total


5,160,000
600,000



Table 9 provides details of the GEF financing sought under each of the Focal Areas.

Table 9: Details of GEF Financing, by Focal Area

Focal Area
GEF Financing
Biodiversity
39,215,220
Climate Change Adaptation
28,392,000
Climate Change Mitigation
18,200,000
International Waters
9,000,000
POPs
5,160,000
Total
99,807,220

Table 10 provides details of the projects allocated to each if the GEF IAs.

Table 10: Details of Projects Allocated to Each GEF IA

GEF Implementing Agency
Project Names
GEF Financing
Status
UNEP
§ Micronesia Challenge
§ Invasive Species Management (with UNDP)
§ POPs Monitoring
§ DDT Alternatives
§ Integrated Island and Community-based Biodiversity Conservation
§ Integrate Solid and Hazardous Waste and POPs management
§ Integrated Water Resources and Waste Water Management (with UNDP)
6,000,000
3,500,000
500,000
1,000,000
4,000,000

3,500,000

9,000,000

PIF
PIF
PIF
Paragraph
Paragraph

Paragraph

PIF

UNDP
§ Enabling Activities (Biodiversity)
§ PACC
§ NAPA Implementation Timor Leste
§ NAPA Implementation Tuvalu
§ Action for the Development of Marshall Islands Renewable Energies
§ Sustainable Economic Development through RE applications
715,220
14,822,500
220,000
3,349,500
1,100,000

1,100,000

Paragraph
Approved
Paragraph Paragraph
Approved

Approved

ADB
§ Coral Triangle Initiative
§ Energy Efficiency in Buildings
10,000,000
6,000,000
PIF
PIF
World Bank[12]
§ NAPA Implementation – Vanuatu
§ NAPA Implementation – Solomon Islands
§ NAPA Implementation - Kiribati
§ Regional Renewable Energy
3,000,000
3,500,000
3,500,000
10,000,000
Paragraph
Paragraph
Paragraph
Paragraph
FAO
§ Forestry Protected Area Management
15,000,000
Paragraph required
TOTAL
99,807,220


6.5 Project Concepts and PIFs
PIFs are being submitted in a separate file.

6.6 Indicative Content of PIFs not Included, and Timetable for their Submission
The following are brief descriptions of project ideas not included as PIFs. The PIFs would be submitted by July 30, 2008:

UNEP
Brief Description of Projects not yet in PIFs
Demonstrating and Scaling Up Sustainable Alternatives to DDT, and Strengthening National Vector Control Capabilities in Southeast Asia and Pacific (PNG, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu[13])
To be executed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and local Ministries of Health, this project aims at promoting sustainable alternative approaches for the use of DDT in malaria vector control. Apart from strengthening national vector control capabilities in South East Asia and the Pacific, this project will as well form a resource base of ‘lessons learned’ and ‘best available practices’ in other SE Asian and Pacific countries which face similar vector control challenges.
The project is part of a global collaboration between UNEP and WHO aiming at promoting and demonstrating alternatives to DDT use in malaria vector control. Other similar projects are in Central America, Africa, Middle East and Central Asia. The PIF for this challenging project has been submitted to GEFSEC in 2007 and UNEP received the GEFSEC Review end November 2007. Currently UNEP, Executing Agency (WHO), countries and co-funding donor (Norwegian Government) are discussing the way forward and the changes to be made in the PIF. It is anticipated that the total GEF contribution for this project will be about 3,300,000 US $, of which an estimated 1,500,000 US $ will be targeted to the Pacific Islands. According to a comment of GEFSEC in the Project Review, the PIF, when cleared, would be included in the April WP as part of the Pacific Alliance for Sustainability.

Integrated Island Biodiversity and Community Conservation (Kiribati, Nauru and Tavalu)
Project concept will be developed after UNEP has completed discussion with other GEF IAs.

Integrated solid and hazardous waste and POPs management - Cook Islands, FSM, Marshall Islands, PNG, Samoa, Tuvalu, Palau, Tonga (the latter two countries only if they ratify the Stockholm Convention). This regional project with specific country-level interventions would address the requests of the countries wishing to work on NIP implementation and/or waste management, and would support the recently adopted Pacific Strategy for Waste Management. UNEP will lead this project bringing in the Basel Regional Center for the Pacific, and in collaboration with Asian Development Bank and SPREP.

Biotechnology and Biosafety for Agricultural and Environmental Sustainability in the Pacific Islands (PICs Parties to the Cartagena Protocol and with completed NBFs: Niue, Samoa, Tonga, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Palau, Marshall Islands, Kiribati)
The objective of this project is to build the capacity of PICs in biotechnology and biosafety to ensure safe and effective use of biotechnology for agricultural and environmental sustainability, and to fulfil obligations under the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. The project will comprise national and regional activities. At the national level, the activities will be designed to ensure PICs have national biosafety decision-making systems in place, and are well placed to take advantage of new innovations in biotechnology in a safe manner, realizing opportunities that contribute to food security, improving livelihoods, and to economic growth. The national-level activities will be supported by sub-regional activities to promote greater cooperation and enhance sustainability through capacity building in common strategic priorities, common visions, and pooling of resources to promote cost effectiveness and achieve economies of scale. The components will be: (1) Strengthening national policy and regulatory frameworks, (2) Building human and institutional capacity for implementation of National Biosafety Frameworks and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, (3) Mechanisms for regional cooperation, and (4) Capacity building for safe use of biotechnology in the Pacific. This project will be included in the portfolio of UNEP as part of the Program Document for GEF Support to Biosafety in GEF-4. With the comparative advantage of UNEP in managing biosafety projects globally in over 140 countries, these projects will therefore benefit from experiences and lessons learned globally.
UNEP is taking a lead on this project. A draft PIF was developed based on a regional workshop in November 2005, and will be discussed with countries and partners in the Pacific Island Biotechnology Working Group in a meeting planned for April 2008.
WORLD BANK
Brief Description of Projects not yet in PIFs

Climate Change Adaptation (LDCF)

Vanuatu. The project would support priority activities identified in the NAPA for Vanuatu. It would address a range of issues including increased resilience to climate change in agriculture, food security and coastal wetlands management; climate related diseases; and strengthening weather and climate services. The project would also be linked to the World Bank's work on disaster risk management and cofinanced from the Global Fund for Disaster Risk Reduction. GEF Grant $3 million

Kiribati. The project would support implementation of the main recommendations of the NAPA for Kiiribati. This would include mainstreaming adaptation concerns in key national development strategies and increasing resilience of investments in critical sectors such as water, agriculture and infrastructure. In addition, the vulnerability of urban areas would be addressed as well as the development of sustainable livelihoods options for Kiribati communities. The project would also be linked to the World Bank's work on disaster risk management and cofinanced from the Global Fund for Disaster Risk Reduction. GEF Grant $4 million

Solomon Islands. The project would support implementation of the Solomon Islands NAPA (advanced in preparation). Emerging priorities include climate forecasting and environmental monitoring; increasing the resilience and enhancing adaptive capacity of coastal communities, socio-economic activities and infrastructure; and adaptation to climate variability in the health sector. The project would also be linked to the World Bank's work on disaster risk management and co-financed from the Global Fund for Disaster Risk Reduction. GEF Grant $4 million

Climate Change Mitigation

Regional Renewable Energy (PNG, Solomon Islands, Fiji, Vanuatu, Niue, Tuvalu, and Nauru): The aim would be to expand the current SEFP project to include, at the request of GEFSEC, Niue, Tuvalu and Nauru, and to develop small renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in all the above mentioned countries, based on wind and/or biomass resources as well as micro hydro. This is an expansion and extension of the current regional Sustainable Energy Finance Project. The current project focuses on making renewable energy accessible at less than the current cost of using fossil fuels (kerosene) for households and small enterprises, limited to the use of SolarPV, Pico Hydro and transition from diesel to coconut oil. This project would focus on larger, more economically renewable solutions ranging from 25 to 750 kW capacity for small business, and village institutions. GEF funds would be used for TA, training and with approximately 50% of the funds used for providing risk sharing mechanisms with local commercial banks for lending, now including wind energy, bio-gasification, thermal biomass units and waste to energy solutions, as well as micro hydro projects (maximum size 750kW). Like the current SEFP project the World Bank will explore to develop and implement the project in close collaboration with IFC. The project would leverage considerable private sector financing. It would also include public funding facilities for small grids which would be powered by small bio mass or bio gasification projects to be financed with funds from other donors including IDA, JBIC, AusAID, and EIB.
.


UNDP projects for Inclusion in GPAS

The following describes the projects to be submitted under the GPAS. Other projects from the Climate Change Mitigation focal have been submitted to, and approved by, the GEF Secretariat and are not described here. The International Water and Climate Change Adaptation project have both been submitted (20 Dec 2008), but their summaries have been attached for ease of reference.


TIMOR LESTE BD EA- Title: National Biodiversity Strategy, Action Plan, the First and Third National Report to CBD and Establishment of a Clearing House Mechanism
The objective of this project is to prepare the foundation for effective response measures to achieve the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Timor Leste. Timor Leste is the latest country to become party to the CBD, ratifying it by accession on 08 January 2007. This project will allow the country to formulate strategies and actions to protect and sustainably use its marine and terrestrial biodiversity. The project will focus on production of a National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), the first and third national reports to the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, and establishment of a biodiversity information Clearing House Mechanism (CHM). The principal tasks of this project will be to: (1) Conduct a comprehensive assessment of the existing information on biodiversity in Timor-Leste; (2) Implement a participatory, strategic planning process and develop priorities for action in protecting Timor-Leste’s biodiversity culminating in a NBSAP; (3) Conduct a public information campaign to encourage participation in the strategic planning exercises; (4) Prepare the first and third National Report for submission to the CoP; and (5) Carry out a comprehensive capacity building needs assessment and define country-specific priorities for capacity development in the area of biodiversity management.

TUVALU NAPA-LDCF Title: Increasing resilience of coastal areas and community settlement to climate change in Tuvalu
The overall objective of the project is to build the resilience of communities in the atoll islands of Tuvalu (population 11,000) to climate change, including variability. The project has three components: (1) Further development of individual, institutional and systemic capacity to respond to climate change in selected coastal areas . This intervention will target all local communities in Tuvalu as well as the national government; (2) Implementation of demonstration pilots in selected sites around Tuvalu targeting in particular the urgent and immediate activities identified in the NAPA for this project. This will include the generation of climate risk scenario information, incorporating climate risk strategies into demonstration pilots that protect coastal areas in selected sites in the atoll islands of Nukulaelae, Nanunea, Niutau, Funafuti and Nukufetau; and (3) Establishment of a knowledge management system for use throughout Tuvalu, dissemination of lessons learnt from demonstration activities and promotion of best practices for replication and up-scaling.

The following PIFs were submitted earlier:

PACC- Title: Pacific Adaptation to Climate
(Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu)
The project objective is to enhance the capacity of the participating countries to adapt while pursuing food security strategies, improving water management, and reducing risks on coastal development. SCCF funds will improve adaptive capacity at the national and sub-national policy and institutional level to integrate risks into key strategies and programs. The components of the project are as follows: (1) Demonstration projects in that can be replicated and scaled-up to build resilience to climate change in the coastal sector (Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Samoa and Vanuatu; agriculture and food security sector (Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands) and the water sector (Nauru, Niue, Tonga and Tuvalu). (2) National Policies and Programmes in the above economic sectors integrating adaptation to climate change priorities. Technical capacity of decision makers will be developed, institutional coordination mechanisms established, tools to assess economic costs of adaptation options developed and utilized and progress made towards the adoption of legislative and policy governance directives; (3) Regional cooperation will be promoted through the exchange of lessons learned and the use of a common framework for technical assistance and coordination, with the support of SPREP. These components represent core pillars of a framework which not only will enhance adaptive capacity, reduce vulnerability, but also inform future investment priorities on adaptation in the Pacific.

IWRM- Title: Sustainable Integrated Water Resources management in Pacific Island Countries
(Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu)
The overall objective of this regional International Waters project is to assist Pacific Island Countries (PICs) to implement applicable and effective Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and Water Use Efficiency (WUE) plans based on best practices and demonstrations of IWRM approaches. The project will use demonstration activities focusing on sustainable water management within each of the 14 PICs to highlight how IWRM approaches can bring significant environmental stress reduction benefits as well as local livelihood benefits. The project has the following components: (1) Demonstration projects will act as catalysts for replication and scaling-up approaches to improve national water resources management, and regionally to support the Pacific in reducing land based pollutants from entering the ocean. (2) IWRM and Water Use Efficiency Indicators Framework that will produce, analyze and implement IWRM indicators and monitoring to ensure project impact and provide SIDS with a regional monitoring tool; (3) Policy, Legislative and Institutional Reform for IWRM and WUE through strengthening National IWRM governance structures, institutional reform for IWRM implementation and acceleration of existing best practice approaches and technologies; (4) Regional Capacity Building and Sustainability Programme to improve project management, monitoring, integration, financing, networking and knowledge; and (5) South-South Inter Regional SIDS Knowledge, Exchange and Learning to enhance regional knowledge sharing and learning to develop regional and global SIDS capacity and replication of demonstration project best practices.


7. Program Co-financing
Discussions are on-going regarding program co-financing


Annex 1: Past and Current Projects1

Country


Biodiversity
Climate Change

International Waters
Sustainable Land Management
Persistent Organic Pollutants
Mitigation
Adaptation
Cook Islands
Enabling activity (N)
National strategy

Invasive species management (R)

Conservation Program (R)
Climate change assistance project (R)

Expedited financing of enabling activities (R)

Climate Change training (Phase II) (G)
Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)

Fisheries management project (R)

Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Toxic wastes collection
Renewable assessments (R)
Adaptation project (R)
Federated States of Micronesia
Enabling activities (N)
Community conservation & enterprise development
National strategy
Assessment of capacity of building needs

Invasive species management (R)

Conservation program (R)
Climate change assistance project (R)

Expedited financing of enabling activities (R)

Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)

Fisheries management project (R)

Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Development of national implementation plans (G)

Toxic wastes collection
Renewable assessments (R)

Adaptation project (R)
Fiji Islands
Enabling activity (N)
National strategy
Clearing house mechanism
Additional funding

Invasive species management (R)

Conservation program (R)

Mangrove conservation project (G)
Climate change assistance project (R)

Climate change training (Phase II) (G)
Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)

Fisheries management project (R)

Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Enabling activity, implementation of Stockholm Convention on POPs (N)

Toxic wastes collection
Renewable project (R)

Renewable energy hybrid power systems project (N)

Renewable assessments (R)
Adaptation project (R)
Kiribati
Enabling activities (N)
National strategy
Clearing house mechanism
Assessment of capacity building needs

Invasive species management (R)

Conservation program (R)
Climate change assistance project (R)

Expedited financing of enabling activities (R)

Climate change training (Phase II) (G)
Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)

Fisheries management project (R)

Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Enabling activity, implementation of Stockholm Convention on POPs (N)

Toxic wastes collection
Renewable assessments (R)

Pilot adaptation project (N)

NAPA (N)
Marshall Islands
Enabling activities (N)
National strategy
Assessment of capacity of building needs

Invasive species management (R)

Conservation program (R)
Climate change assistance project (R)

Expedited financing of enabling activities (R)

Climate change training (Phase II) (G)
Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)

Fisheries management project (R)

Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Enabling activity, implementation of Stockholm Convention on POPs (N)

Toxic wastes collection
Renewable assessment (R)


Nauru
Enabling activity (N)
National strategy

Invasive species management (R)

Conservation program (R)
Climate change assistance project (R)

Expedited financing of enabling activities (R)

Climate change training (Phase II) (G)
Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)

Fisheries management project (R)

Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Enabling activity, implementation of Stockholm Convention on POPs (N)

Toxic wastes collection
Renewable assessment (R)

Niue
Enabling activities (N)
National strategy
Clearing house mechanism

Enabling activities (N)
Capacity building financing
Preparation of first national communication


Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)

Fisheries management project (R)

Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Enabling activity, initial assistance for Stockholm Convention on POPs (N)

Toxic wastes collection
Renewable assessments (R)

Palau
Enabling activity (N)
National strategy

Invasive species management (R)

Conservation program (R)
Enabling activity (N)
Preparation of first national communication on UN Framework Convention
Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)

Fisheries management project (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Enabling activity, implementation of Stockholm Convention on POPs (N)

Toxic wastes collection
Renewable assessment (R)

Papua New Guinea
Enabling activity (N)
Strategy & action plan

Community coastal & marine conservation (N)

Conservation & Resource Management project (N)

Forestry conservation project (N)

Invasive Species Management (R)

Conservation program (R)

Data management capacitation (G)

Country studies (G)

People, land management and environmental change (G)
Enabling activity (N)
Assistance project





Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)

Fisheries management project (R)

Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
DDT alternative programs (R)

Development of national implementation plans (G)

Termite control program

Toxic wastes collection
Renewable assessment (R)

Renewable project (R)

Sustainable Energy Financing (R)

Teachers solar lighting project (N)

Adaptation project (R)
Samoa
Enabling activities (N)
National strategy
Clearing house mechanism
Additional funding

Marine biodiversity project (N)

Conservation program (R)
Climate change assistance project (R)

Expedited financing of enabling activities (R)

Climate change training (Phase II) (G)
Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)

Fisheries management project (R)

Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Enabling activity, initial assistance for Stockholm Convention on POPs (N)

Toxic wastes collection
Renewable assessments (R)

Adaptation projects (N/R)

NAPA (N)

Community-based adaptation program (G)
Solomon Islands
Enabling activities (N)
National action plan
Clearing house mechanism

Invasive species management (R)

Conservation program (R)
Climate change assistance project (R)

Expedited financing of enabling activities (R)

Climate change training (Phase II) (G)
Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)

Fisheries management project (R)

Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
DDT alternative programs (R)

Toxic wastes collection
Renewable assessments (R)

Sustainable energy financing (R)
NAPA (N)

Adaptation program (R)
Timor Leste



Sustainable development strategy (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming

Tonga
Enabling activity (N)
National strategy

Conservation program (R)
Enabling activities (N)
Preparation of first national communication
Capacity building financing


Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)

Fisheries management project (R)

Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Enabling activity, implementation of Stockholm Convention on POPs (N)

Toxic wastes collection
Renewable assessments (R)

Adaptation project (R)
Tuvalu
Invasive species management (R)

Conservation program (R)
Climate change assistance project (R)

Expedited financing of enabling activities (R)

Climate change training (Phase II) (G)

Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)

Fisheries management project (R)

Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Enabling activity, implementation of Stockholm Convention on POPs (N)

Toxic wastes collection
Renewable assessments (R)

NAPA (N)

Adaptation project (R)
Vanuatu
Enabling activities (N)
National action plan
Clearing house mechanism
Assessment of capacity-building needs

Community conservation management project (N)

Invasive species management (R)

Conservation program (R)
Climate change assistance project (R)

Expedited financing of enabling activities (R)

Climate change training (Phase II) (G)

Integrated water resource and wastewater management (R)

Fisheries management project (R)

Implementation of strategic action program (R)
MSP for assessment and mainstreaming
Enabling activity, implementation of Stockholm Convention on POPs (N)

DDT alternative programs (R)

Toxic wastes collection
Renewable assessments (R)

Sustainable energy financing (R)

NAPA (N)

1 Projects and programs are classified as follows: N = National; R = Regional; G = Global
Annex 2: Past, Current and Planned Development Assistance
Australia. The Pacific Regional Aid Strategy 2004-2009 provides the framework for Australia's long-term development goals in the Pacific.

The framework focuses on four themes:

§ stronger broad-based growth – by addressing issues of strengthening the enabling environment for private sector development such as legislative and administrative reform and through policies aimed at improving economic competitiveness as well as expanding the productive sectors that drive broad-based growth, with a focus on providing income generation and employment opportunities and sustainable management of the environment.
§ more effective, accountable and democratic government - through active support for good governance and economic and public sector reform including improved public expenditure management and by considering means of broadening the revenue base, strengthening democratic institutions and political governance and engaging more broadly with civil society as drivers of the demand for better governance.
§ improved law and justice and security – through support for police and legal institutions underpinning adherence to the rule of law, assisting regional security initiatives, addressing potential instability and the causes of conflict and investing in peace.
§ enhanced service delivery, including effective fiscal management - through investing in government capacity to deliver basic health, education and infrastructure, particularly in rural and peri-urban areas and to disadvantaged groups.

Australia is applying a 'hands-on' approach to its aid program in the Pacific. Rather than let regional neighbors' problems deteriorate, it is working to build the region's capacity to pursue governance reform and work collectively to address shared problems. Making the best use of regional approaches such as those under the Pacific Plan, while tailoring these partnerships to the specific needs of individual countries through their own national development frameworks, is key to success. Encouraging greater donor coordination in-line with these regional and national strategies was a focus of our efforts in 2006-07, and will continue to be so.

The environment strategy for Australian aid - Aid and the Environment - Building Resilience, Sustaining Growth signals a significant increase in investment to meet the growing environmental challenges confronting the Asia-Pacific region. The goal of the strategy is to sustain economic growth and reduce poverty in the Asia-Pacific region by improving the management of natural resources, increasing community resilience and better conserving natural heritage. Australia will build a portfolio of activities through the aid program to address key development challenges under three major themes: coping with climate change, managing water resources and managing the environment, including strengthening environmental governance. The strategy will be implemented through partnerships with national governments, regional and multilateral organisations, other donors and Australian environment and development institutions. Australia will continue to share knowledge and expertise in the region to combat key environmental challenges.
Canada. The Canadian government has been an active development assistance partner in the Pacific Islands for more than thirty years. It is a dialogue partner in the Pacific Island Forum and a modest donor country. The goal of Canada’s assistance is to foster sustainable development as a vehicle for promoting economic progress and regional stability. Its contributions are in part influenced by the shared experiences of the indigenous peoples of Canada and the Pacific.
To assist in the strengthening of the NGO sector, CIDA, made a three year, $CAN500, 000 commitments to work with UNDP to strengthen civil society in the Pacific through a program to assist Pacific NGOs to plan, implement, manage and monitor projects. The Canada-South Pacific Ocean Development Program is a seven year, $CAN14 million initiative with strategic focus on the sustainable development and protection of the South Pacific’s ocean and marine resources. Canada also made $CAN2.3 million contribution to the Pacific Islands Climate Change Assistance Program, to strengthen Pacific Island nations’ abilities to develop capacity building programs, projects, and activities to lessen the adverse impacts of climate change.
The Canada Fund is a smaller, more “hands-on,” component of the aid program. It responds to local needs and provides short-term support for projects at the community level through local NGOs and other grass-roots organizations such as village councils, co-operatives and women’s groups.
France. France has direct strategic and economic interests in the region through its Pacific entities of New Caledonia, French Polynesia and Wallis and Futuna. In addition, France is a member of the Pacific Commission and the South Pacific Regional Environment Program, and has been a dialogue partner of the Pacific Islands Forum since 1989. France frequently works in cooperation with Australia and New Zealand on Pacific issues in areas of development assistance to Pacific island countries, including through such initiatives as the joint Australia-France HIV and STI programs for Pacific Islands, announced in July 2003. Cooperation is well established in some defence areas, including improving vigilance, responses, planning and alert systems for natural disasters and reinforcing impact reduction and alert systems for tsunamis, both under the trilateral FRANZ arrangement, and improved maritime surveillance to combat illegal and unreported fishing in the wider South Pacific, also under trilateral arrangements. The latter cooperation was formalized under a joint declaration in March 2006.public health, relief to disaster struck populations and more recently with a tripartite initiative to
Japan. Japan has five priority areas for its assistance, namely economic growth (trade and investment, infrastructure, fisheries and tourism), sustainable development (environment including, environmental protection, climate change and waste management, health, water and sanitation and education and vocational training), good governance (strengthening administrative capacity and strengthening institutions), security (including disaster mitigation and management and measures against organized crime) and people to people communication and exchange (youth exchange, cultural exchange and preservation of cultural heritage). Japan often works in cooperation and collaboration with other development partners and is a party to the Joint Statement on Enhanced Donor Cooperation for "Okinawa Partnership for a more robust and prosperous Pacific Region" along with Australia and New Zealand.
New Zealand. The Pacific Strategy, 2007–2015 guides New Zealand’s ODA Program with Pacific partners, other donors and agencies, civil society and NGOs in assisting Pacific countries to achieve their development goals. The goal of the strategy, Reduced Poverty and Hardship in the Pacific, is achieved by targeting four outcomes: strengthened governance; broader-based growth and improved livelihoods; improved health and education and reduced vulnerability. The strategy supports a whole of government approach to development through strengthened policy coherence between domestic and development policies. Through an enhanced policy dialogue with partners and donors there is a greater focus on ‘how’ to work with partners as well as ‘what’ to do, based on the principles of The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness. In addition to its bilateral country programmes, New Zealand provides regionally focussed assistance to the Pacific in the areas of education, health, environment, governance, fisheries, and trade and economic projects. Recognizing that the Pacific region is particularly vulnerable to biodiversity loss, non-sustainable resource use, climate change, natural disasters and waste proliferation, and that many communities in the region rely on local natural resources for their day-to-day livelihoods, and many of these resources are traditionally owned and managed, protecting the environment and sustaining the well-being and livelihoods of people are therefore intertwined and are best achieved if pursued together. As a result, NZAID supports programmes that combine the protection and enhancement of the Pacific environment with sustainable development outcomes. The Pacific Regional Environment and Vulnerability Programme are currently divided into the following main components:
§ Enhancing the capacity of communities to manage their environment, through co-funding support to the Global Environment Facility Small Grants Programme.
§ Supporting the establishment and operation of regional partnerships for environment and development (the World Summit on Sustainable Development Type II partnerships).
§ Assisting Pacific countries and communities to respond to the world's changing climate.
§ Support to the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC) and SPREP to assist Pacific Island countries and territories to sustainably manage island and ocean natural resources.
§ Support for regional work to better prepare for, and respond to, natural disasters such as cyclones, earthquakes or volcanic eruptions.
Given that the Pacific is one of the most vulnerable regions in the world to the impacts of global climate change, and that these impacts are likely to pose significant challenges to sustainable development and will affect the region's environment, society and economy, New Zealand made a voluntary commitment to spend NZ$5 million per annum to support climate change activities in developing countries from 2005. Of this, $1.5 million per annum has been allocated to NZAID's Pacific Regional Environment programme 2005-2007. The purpose of the support is to assist Pacific countries and communities to respond to the world's changing climate and to reduce vulnerability to climate change. Interim guidelines have been developed and are available from NZAID on request. The guidelines will determine funding decisions within this allocation until the new programme strategy is finalised. NZAID also responds to the immediate humanitarian needs after disasters and supports and promotes longer-term disaster management, preparedness and risk mitigation in Pacific communities.
United States. In 2006 the United States assistance to the Pacific Islands totaled just over $US200 million. Of this amount, about $US150 million was comprised of grants from the United States to the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Palau under the Compacts of Free Association administered by the Department of the Interior. The remaining funding was devoted to the rest of the Pacific Islands through such programs as the Peace Corps, military assistance (International Military Education and Training and Foreign Military Financing), counter-terrorism, and child health. The United States also provided, via an Economic Assistance Agreement associated with the South Pacific Tuna Treaty, another $US18 million annually to the South Pacific Parties to the Treaty for economic development purposes. The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), a United States Government corporation designed to assist some of the poorest countries in the world, is working with Vanuatu on an assistance compact totaling over $US65 million. The United States Government continues to work with MCC to develop programs tailored to the needs of smaller nations, including island states. Other recent initiatives include a greater focus on the region’s health concerns, including a senior-level conference on diabetes prevention in the Pacific planned for 2008, as well as an increase in U.S. health care funding for the Marshall Islands and Micronesia and a substantial increase in U.S. funding for HIV/AIDS programs in Papua New Guinea. United States assistance also focuses on regional environmental concerns, including a project to assist Pacific Island nations in protecting coastal areas from the effects of climate change and a partnership with the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) to improve food security through the collection and storage of crops resistant to sea-level rise salinization. The United States is also cooperating with PICs and regional organizations to enhance the protection of maritime resources, including fisheries, and to address other concerns, including search and rescue and transnational crime and is providing assistance for two new tsunami-warning sites in Kiribati to help safeguard the lives and properties of Pacific islanders.
Asian Development Bank Over the past 30 years assistance provided to the Pacific has related to a wide range of activities, including good governance, environmental protection, information and communications technology, poverty, private sector development, investment promotion, fisheries, civil aviation, and statistics. A specific example is the undertaking of Mainstreaming Environmental Considerations in Economic and Development Planning Processes in Selected PDMCs. To prepare country environmental assessments that will provide inputs to country programming for selected PDMCs and country medium-term development strategies, particularly in addressing eight key environmental challenges.

ADB’s Regional Operations Business Plan (ROBP) for the Pacific (2007-2010) aims to contribute to reducing poverty in the Pacific by strengthening national ownership of regional approaches, increasing the regional provision of services and improving the environment for private sector development. ADB’s approach focuses on building opportunities for effective regional cooperation and integration in the Pacific, by promoting national-level dialogue about, and ownership of, regional actions, and focusing only on support for activities that provide direct benefits to PDMCs and clearly support country-level interests. This involves prioritizing support for activities with clear country-level benefits that offer effective models for regional cooperation and integration.

ADB will leverage its limited regional resources by working closely with key development partners in the Pacific—including Australia, the European Union, and New Zealand—that can provide support to joint activities. For example, ADB is working with international and regional organizations to develop regional partnerships for climate change adaptation and disaster preparedness. This includes enhancing linkages with other ADB programs, to help Pacific countries adopt investment programs, plans, policies and other actions to adapt to current and changing climatic conditions.
European Union. The European Union Strategy for the Pacific consists of three components:
§ stronger political relations on matters of common interest such as global political security, trade, economic and social development and the environment;
§ more focused development action, with greater emphasis on regional cooperation to build up critical mass, enhance regional governance and facilitate mutual enrichment; and
§ more efficient aid delivery, including greater use of direct budget support and closer coordination with other partners, in particular Australia and New Zealand.
Under the strategy, the European Union concentrates on sound management and protection of the environment, this being essential to the prosperity of the Pacific region, and takes into account its specific character. The action will focus on three priorities: governance, regionalism and sustainable management of natural resources. With regard to the latter, a central theme is support for selected Pacific countries to cope with environmental problems and resource-management issues, including Europe contributing its added value, collective experience and know-how. The European Union assists countries to manage their ocean and coastal resources in a sustainable manner through initiatives that could combine the use and conservation of fisheries and marine biodiversity. The new generations of Fisheries Partnership Agreements are an important milestone. They provide regulated access to fishing opportunities for European vessels and envisage close cooperation to promote responsible fishing and ensure conservation and sustainable use of the fishery resources of the partner countries concerned. To make European Union development assistance more efficient, assistance is now more concentrated, with a stronger focus at regional level, more efficient use of small-country allocations and greater use of budget support. This facilitates donor coordination and avoids overlap or inconsistencies between those seeking to achieve common goals.

United Nations. The United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) for the Pacific Subregion sets out the strategic focus for the UN’s dialogue with the Pacific Islands Countries (PICs) from 2008 to 2012. It is the product of partnerships between the UN Country Teams of Fiji and Samoa and the 15 UN agencies, programs and offices in the Pacific, and is driven by the needs and priorities of governments of 14 Pacific Island Countries (Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Niue, Palau, Vanuatu, Tokelau, Tuvalu, Tonga, Kiribati, Nauru, Samoa and the Solomon Islands). Previously the UN developed separate frameworks for five of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) of the region (Samoa, Kiribati, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu). But for the 2008 -2012 programming cycle it is proceeding with a regional UNDAF, in order to obtain greater program cohesion and harmonization among agencies. It will focus on the five LDCs in the region and will work only in areas in which it can have the greatest impact, in accordance with its comparative advantages, choosing capacity development and policy support as its main tenets of assistance in the region. In developing the UNDAF, the UN has sought to embed its framework within national and regional development plans, and to generate national ownership of and commitment to development initiatives.

The UNDAF aims to achieve the following priorities or ‘outcomes’:
§ Equitable economic growth and poverty reduction , by supporting the development and implementation of evidence-based, regional, pro-poor National Sustainable Development Strategies to address population, poverty and economic exclusion issues, stimulate equitable growth, create economic opportunities and decent employment, and promote sustainable livelihoods;
§ Good governance and human rights, by enhancing national and regional governance systems that exercise the principles of inclusive good governance, respecting and upholding human rights; and supporting the development of resilient Pacific island communities participating in decision-making at all levels;
§ Equitable social and protection services, through support to the development of evidence-based and inclusive policies and plans; improved systems to deliver accessible, affordable, well-managed, gender-sensitive quality social and protection services; and individual and community behavior that reflects healthy lifestyles, social protection and better use of social services.
§ Sustainable environmental management, by mainstreaming of environmental sustainability and renewable energy into regional and national policies, planning frameworks and programmes; and supporting Pacific communities to sustainably use their environment, natural resources and cultural heritage.

UN agencies will collaborate to support governments to mainstream environmental sustainability and sustainable energy into regional and national policies, planning frameworks and programmes, including on conservation, sustainable use and equitable sharing of benefits of natural resources, and sustainable energy. Agencies will focus on building national, regional and global knowledge and information networks and capacity to fulfill multilateral environmental agreements and to implement environment programmes. The UN will also target the community level, supporting communities to effectively manage and sustainably use their environment and natural and cultural resources. This will be achieved by including indigenous knowledge and practices in local governance systems and decision making processes, and building community capacity to manage and conserve their environment, natural resources and cultural heritage and to prepare adequately for long term threats.

UN agencies will form a Joint Programme on the Environment to coordinate UN efforts, pool together resources and expertise and to work closely with key partners to address key environmental issues in the Pacific, specifically targeting local/communities. The Joint Programme will focus on supporting local governance systems, documenting and sharing local and traditional knowledge and practices, promoting community-managed conservation areas including eco-friendly income generating activities, capacity-building, and knowledge management.

Some UN programs in the Pacific will not pursue the objectives of the Pacific UNDAF, and will not be subject to the coordination, implementation or monitoring mechanisms of the UNDAF. These programs are generally driven by specialized agency mandates, ongoing partnerships with governments, or in response to specific, specialized country needs or requests.

World Bank. In recent years the World Bank has completed analytical work on regional environmental issues, trade policy, non-communicable diseases, and climate change adaptation, and has offered policy advice on environmental risk management and climate change adaptation. The Bank has also financed a small number of lending operations in the health and infrastructure (including natural hazard recovery) sectors and provided technical assistance grants in health, private sector development, environment and conservation. It has supported client countries in the region to address their environmental challenges through the financing of projects with environmental objectives, analytical work, advice, and support for capacity building. In addition, through the implementation of its environmental and social development policies, the Bank has introduced tools and procedures to ensure that all projects and programs financed by the Bank adhere to internationally accepted good practices in environmental management.

A Regional Engagement Framework for the Pacific Islands directs the World Bank's work in the Pacific Islands region from 2006-2009. It includes a set of country-specific activities for the nine countries that are World Bank members (Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Palau, Solomon Islands, Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu.) The World Bank regional strategy focuses on creating an environment conducive to generating sustainable economic growth and employment, while recognizing that small populations and marked remoteness of the Pacific Island Countries pose significant development challenges to this region. More specifically, the focus of the Bank’s assistance is on:
§ Strengthening government capabilities in service delivery, including improving the effectiveness of public expenditures, primarily in the social sectors; improving the management of infrastructural assets; and safeguarding service delivery by improving resilience to natural hazards; and
§ Improving the incentives for private sector-led growth and employment by facilitating domestic job creation through reductions in the regulatory and administrative barriers to business development, and improving service and costs in utilities; increasing sustainable revenues from resource-based sectors, such as fisheries or tourism; and improving access to regional labor markets.

The Bank delivers its assistance through strategic economic and sector work, multidonor dialogues to promote donor coordination on a thematic basis, targeted policy notes to disseminate key messages, and focused technical assistance to implement reforms. Selective lending activities actively seek to leverage donor resources to maximize their policy impact. The assistance balances demand-driven, country specific initiatives with regional level initiatives to help create regional public goods. Close coordination within the World Bank Group is a priority to harvest global and intraregional lessons on promoting growth in small states. Since the focus of the Bank’s assistance is primarily on analytical and advisory work, intensified efforts at communications outreach and dissemination is being undertaken.

The Bank is not in a position to lead a broad donor coordination effort given its limited presence in the region and the multiplicity of donor objectives in delivering aid to the region. However, the Bank offers its convening power to the development partners by intensifying dialogue on the thematic objectives and instruments central to this strategy, as well as pursuing implementation of the harmonization agenda.
Annex 3: Comparative Advantages of the GEF Agencies
The World Bank will work with countries and other partners to implement projects where it has been nominated as a GEF agency. The Bank has strong experience in investment lending focusing on institutional building, infrastructure development and policy reform across all the focal areas of the GEF. This focus on investment is enhanced by the Bank’s convening power to support donor alignment, its policy dialogue and emphasis on analytical underpinnings, and its ability to leverage support to help mainstream global environment issues into national sustainable development strategies

UNDP with its network of field offices in the Pacific, is experienced in integrated policy development, human resources development, institutional strengthening, and non-governmental and community participation. It would assist countries in promoting, designing and implementing activities consistent with the goals of GEF PAS.

UNEP has important networks in the region through its sub-regional office in Apia. It would be engaged in projects that promote sub-regional collaboration and integration as well as the exchange of information in the relevant GEF focal areas backed by the best available science and knowledge. It would also promote targeted research and capacity building in priority areas identified as bottlenecks by the countries. UNEP also has good experience in serving as a broker in multi-stakeholder consultations

FAO specializes in providing policy, technical and thematic support services on fisheries, forestry, agriculture and natural resources management. It has strong experience in sustainable use of agricultural biodiversity, bioenergy, biosafety, sustainable development in production landscapes, and integrated pest and pesticides management, land degradation and POPs and has experience in integrated approaches and frameworks to address land degradation

The Asian Development Bank is experienced in implementing investment projects at country and multi-country levels in Asia as well as the ability to incorporate capacity building and technical assistance into its projects. Similar to the World Bank, ADB has strong experience in the areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy, adaptation to climate change and natural resources management including water and sustainable land management.

UNIDO has a comparative advantage in that it can involve the industrial sector in GEF projects in the following areas: industrial energy efficiency, renewable energy services, water management, chemicals management and biotechnology. UNIDO also has extensive knowledge of small and medium enterprises (SMEs).
Annex 4: GEF PAS Project Screening Tool
___________________________________________________________________

Project Type:
Country (ies):
Project Title:
Proposed GEF Agency:
Proposed Executing Partners:
GEF Focal Areas:
GEF-4 Strategic Programs:

Eligibility

1. Does the project fit one or more of the GEF Strategic Programs? Yes No

2. Is the project consistent with the recipient’s national priorities? Yes No

3. Does the selected IA have a comparative advantage? Yes No

4. Is the proposed GEF grant within the RAF (if applicable)? Yes No

5. Does the project contribute to the overall goals of GEF PAS? Yes No


Project Design

6. Is the project objective consistent with solving the problem/issue? Yes No

7. Are the expected outcomes consistent with addressing the problem? Yes No

8. Is project design (proposed intervention) technically sound and justified? Yes No

9. Will the project deliver tangible global benefits and/or enhance the
Sustainability of GEF interventions? Yes No


Incremental Reasoning and Co-financing

10. Is the value-added of GEF involvement in the project clearly?
demonstrated through incremental reasoning? Yes No

11. Is the indicative co-financing adequate and likely? Yes No

Recommended Yes No


Annex 5: Project Identification Forms - Provided in a separate file
Annex 6: Program Level Results Framework and Arrangements for Results-based Monitoring
Program Goal
Goal-level Indicators
Data Sources
Use of Results Info

Enhanced achievement of global environmental benefits and national sustainable development goals


1.1 Program contributes to reduction in regional biodiversity loss in support of 2010 biodiversity target
1.2 Program supports achievement of national sustainable development goals


1.1 End of program evaluation



1.2 Project reports; end of program evaluation

Increase GEF/PAS accountability for higher level strategic results and alignment of results with national sustainable development priorities.

Program Development Objective
Program Outcome Indicators
Data Sources


Improved natural resource and environmental management in the target Pacific Island Countries (PICs)


1.1 Enhanced regional and national environmental governance.
1.2 Increased capacity for ENRM in targeted organizations[14]
1.3 Total hectares of effectively managed protected areas in PICs
1.4 Total square miles of marine area under effective protection
1.5 Total tons of carbon emissions avoided

1.1 PAS ENRM Governance Index

1.2 Universalia/IUCN Organizational Assessment Tool
1.3 GEF FASP2 Tracking Tool, Question II: Coverage
1.4 GEF FASP1 Tracking Tool: Marine Protection Effectiveness
1.5 GEF CE protocol. To be developed.

Enhance strategic decision-making by GEF and PAS program management team about where to concentrate program resources to achieve maximum impact

To demonstrate emerging program results at national and regional levels

Identify emerging good practices to enhance program learning
Intermediate Results
Results Indicators for each Component
Data Sources

Component One: Design

GEF Pacific Alliance for Sustainability (PAS) projects designed following PAS framework.


1.1 # of projects designed and approved following GEF PAS principals
1.2 Average time between PIF approval and CEO endorsement

1.1 Program records and Project Scoring Checklist
1.2 Program records and client satisfaction surveys.

Ensure strategic alignment of newly proposed PAS project with program strategy and principals.

Increase accountability of PAS for rapid processing of projects

Component Two: Implementation

GEF PAS projects implemented, efficiently and effectively according to plan.



2.1 % of projects being implemented within 20% time variance based on implementation plan.
2.2 % of projects meeting expenditure forecasts within 20% variance



2.1 Country team reports



2.2 Country team reports

Guide country teams towards efficient and effective project implementation

Flag and assist country teams with problem projects
Component Three: Learning

Pacific Island Countries enhance learning on strategic ENRM issues.



3.1 Program learning plan developed with clear specification of learning products
3.2 % of learning products developed and disseminated according to plan
3.3 Program learning products used by stakeholders to support regional, coordinated action on ENRM.


3.1 Program learning team reports


3.2 Program learning team reports


3.3. Annual survey
of individuals/groups that use program knowledge products

Ensure PAS program accountability for promoting shared learning

Gauge end-user satisfaction with program learning strategy and utility of learning products
Component Four: Management

Program management, monitoring and evaluation are operating effectively to support strategic program management.



4.1 % of projects operating with practical, harmonized M&E
4.2 Program-level M&E systems established and operating effectively
4.3 Effective regional coordination mechanisms are established, including common vision and strategy for ENRM, and increased trust among key ENRM partners in the region


4.1 Project M&E Checklist Tool


4.2 Interviews with program management team members

4.3 ENRM Partnership Effectiveness Survey

Boost M&E performance of country teams and to flag and assist country teams with weak M&E

Strengthen performance and usefulness of program M&E systems and to provide links with program learning strategy.

Enhance program partnerships and to flag and strengthen weak partnering processes.





Monitoring and Evaluation Design

Summary and Overview

The purpose of the PAS M&E system is to provide PAS project and program managers with useful and timely information on project and program level results and performance so that PAS will achieve its intended results and impacts. Additionally, the M&E system will provide program stakeholders with performance information and learning products that can be shared throughout the region to improve good practices in ENRM. The main users of the system include country implementing agencies, Ministries of Environment, the PAS program management team, GEF Agencies and the GEF Secretariat.

The main principles of the system are to:

Ø Focus M&E on the management information needs of implementing and executing agencies
Ø Simplify and streamline M&E as much as possible to reduced the M&E burden across the program
Ø Balance M&E to track the process (governance, partnerships, capacity building) and the environmental results of the program

A program M&E Coordinator will be based with the PAS program coordination team in (location to be decided). The Coordinator will be responsible for assisting country level PAS project teams to develop strong M&E arrangements in line with program objectives and standardized indicators. The Coordinator will also be responsible for synthesizing and reporting on program level results based on monitoring information submitted by country teams during project implementation.

Project level M&E. During the proposal stage of PAS projects, each Project Identification Form (PIF) will require a preliminary Log Frame and results monitoring plan based on a menu of standardized core indicators. Proposals will be reviewed for strategic alignment with overarching PAS objectives and the degree to which they are likely to contribute to measurable outcomes in the PAS program-level results framework. Proposal may include some additional indicators beyond those in the core indicator menu. Final, approved proposals will require baseline values and realistic performance targets and plans and budgets for data collection and reporting. The PAS M&E Coordinator assist project teams as needed to implement M&E arrangements.

Program level M&E. Based on data from the country projects, the M&E Coordinator will synthesize, aggregate where possible, and report quarterly on program progress. Program level M&E will be coordinated closely with the communications coordinator. M&E information will help to identify and synthesize emerging good practices in ENRM from the country projects and will be linked to the development of learning products. Ideally, program level M&E information, project level performance reports and program learning products should be available on a common, easy-to-access website or portal.

The program M&E Coordinator will work with program managers to determine realistic baseline and target values for PAS program indicators. Initial baseline and target values for program indicators will be established once the first pipeline of operations is approved. Baselines and targets will be revisited, modified and adapted at each stage of the program.

Collaborative Evaluations. The results based monitoring provisions of the program will be supplemented by two collaborative evaluations during program months 20 and 36. The evaluations will bring key program stakeholders together in a common location to review program progress and to develop practical strategies and action plans to improve program performance. The evaluations will also be an opportunity to share emerging good practices from program experience and to reinforce PAS partnerships and common vision for strengthened environment and natural resource management in the region.

Overview of Selected M&E Tools

The program objectives and key performance indicators are described in the PAS Results Framework. Following is an overview of the key evaluation tools that will be used to track project and program performance.

Program Goal

At the end of program years 3, 4 and 5 the M&E coordinator will report on program progress in reducing the rate of biodiversity loss and supporting adaptation to climate change in PAS project countries and in each of the sub regions of Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia. This report will be based on data collected from the PAS project teams as part of their performance monitoring and it will be supplemented by other environmental data from the region.

Program Development Objective

The PDO of “Improved environment and natural resource management in targeted Pacific Island Countries” has five key performance indicators:

1. Enhanced regional and national environmental governance. This indicator will be measured using a simple Environmental Governance Index. The Index will be developed to contain a series of questions related to: 1) presence of national environmental policies and regulations and their monitoring and enforcement by national governments; 2) transparency in procurement for environmental programs; 3) stakeholder participation in decision-making for national and sub national environmental policies and programs. Based on a total possible score of 100 the Index will be “scored” by an expert panel at the beginning of a PAS project in a particular country and each year during which a PAS project is operating in that country. The expert panel of 5-8 persons will be comprised of representatives from the host country MoE, GEF, GEF Agencies and selected NGOs working in country. Ideally, there will be continuity of representation on the expert panel from one year to the next. The Index must be completed as a baseline to qualify for PAS funding and scores will be reported annually to the PAS Program M&E Coordinator.

2. Increased operational capacity for ENRM in targeted organizations. This indicator will be based on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Organizational Assessment Tool. The tool is an organizational self –assessment and planning method that will enable targeted Ministries of Environmental and other environmental organization to assess their relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and financial viability. With a focus on improving operational effectiveness each targeted organization will assess its: 1) leadership, 2) human resources, 3) financial resources, 4) infrastructure, 5) program management, and 6) institutional linkages. The main purpose of the self-assessment is to develop organization understanding and commitment to a plan of action for organizational strengthening. Following the assessment each organization will derive a composite “organizational strength score” based on a total possible score of 100. The assessment will be required as a baseline and annual assessment for all PAS proposals with a capacity building focus. The capacity scores will be reported to the PAS Program M&E Coordinator annually.

3. Total hectares of effectively managed protected areas in PICs. This indicator is based on the Tracking Tool for GEF Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Priority Two: Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Landscapes/Seascapes and Sectors. In particular, the GEF tool and measurement protocol will be used by implementing organizations to assess landscape/seascape area directly and indirectly covered by the PAS project and the management practices applied to these protected areas. For those projects that have identified market transformation or improved livelihoods as project objectives implementing agencies will be required to report on Section III and IV of the tracking tool. All PAS funded projects that have central biodiversity mainstreaming objectives will be required to use this tool and to report on progress annually to the PAS Program M&E Coordinator

4. Total square miles of marine area under effective protection. This indicator is based on the Tracking Tool for GEF Biodiversity Focal Area Strategic Priority One: Catalyzing Sustainability of Protected Area Systems at National Levels. The tracking tool rates factors such as: 1) protected area status, 2) regulations, 3) enforcement provisions, 4) management plans, 5) management of budget, 6) engagement of communities and indigenous peoples in management decisions, 7) staffing, 8) community education, 9) economic benefits to communities, and 10) monitoring of protected areas against planned area objectives. All PAS projects applying for funding for marine protected areas will be required to use this tool as a baseline and to report progress annual to the PAS Program M&E coordinator.

5. Total Tons of Carbon Emissions Avoided. The GEF is currently developing some standardized metrics and a tracking tool for this indicator. Once available, the use of this tool will be required for PAS projects with a carbon emissions focus. Each project team will be required to establish an estimated baseline carbon emissions value and report on progress against emission reduction targets annually to the PAS Program M&E Coordinator.

M&E Tools for Program Components ((please also see Attachment 1 for more detailed descriptions and examples of the tools discussed below)

Most of the indicators and M&E tools for the program components in the PAS Results Framework are relatively simple and straight forward and do not require additional explanation. .

However, under Component Four: “Program management, monitoring and evaluation are operating effectively” two indicators and their corresponding M&E tools require some added explanation.

% of projects operating with practical, harmonized M&E systems. This tool is a simple M&E scorecard to help implementation teams assess the quality/usefulness of their project level M&E systems. The tool assesses clarity of objectives, quality of indicators, availability of baselines and targets and on-going data collection and utilization for management purposes. The self-assessment provides a composite score for project M&E quality that is reported to the Program M&E Coordinator annually. The same tool can be used to assess the function of the program level M&E system.

Effective regional coordination mechanisms established. This is a composite indicator designed to measure the effectiveness of the partnership arrangements of PAS partners. Using a simple survey approach the tool asks partners to rate their sense of a common PAS vision, strategy, communications, trust and monitoring and learning arrangements. The tool is used to monitor and improve partnership arrangements. Given the critical importance of partnerships and regional collaboration in the PAS this is an essential M&E tool. The tool is administered annually to implementing agencies and other key PAS partners, including governments and donors.

M&E During PAS Program Start-up

During program start-up the PAS M&E Coordinator will begin implementation of the PAS M&E program based on this M&E plan. A toolkit consistent with the indicators in the PAS results monitoring plan will be developed and provided to PAS project teams. The M&E Coordinator will provide M&E technical support to project teams as needed and where M&E capacity building is a component of PAS projects the Coordinator will provide or help to coordinate in-depth M&E technical support for the targeted organizations.

The M&E coordinator should be a dedicated position based in the region in order to effectively carry out program M&E activities. (This is to be further discussed with GEFSEC)

In addition, each PAS project proposal should include a realistic budget for M&E activities in the range of 2-5% of project funds. Project M&E funds will also cover the participation of project team members in the two collaborative mid-term evaluation activities for the program.

M&E Start-up Activities will include:

Search and recruitment for PAS Program M&E Coordinator
Development of PAS M&E tool kit based on indicators and M&E tools suggested above.
Finalize PAS M&E plan, including definition of baseline and target values for key program indicators
Assistance to project teams during preparation to develop strong M&E provisions as part of project proposals
Pilot testing and refinement of project and program level M&E tools
Development of data base of regional consultants to support project teams with M&E activities and M&E capacity building where needed.
Design and develop interactive website for PAS results-monitoring and knowledge sharing with PAS partners. This activity should be closely linked with the program learning component and learning plan.

M&E Budget

An M&E budget would be prepared once a decision has been taken on the number of staff and location. It is proposed that M&E be coordinated by a PAS Program M&E Coordinator as well as periodic technical assistance to support PAS project teams with regional M&E technical assistance and specialized cross-cutting studies.
Annex 7: Selected PAS M&E Tools
This annex provides more detailed guidance on the use of several innovative M&E tools that will be adapted for the PAS Program. The four tools that are covered in this section include:

The PAS Environmental and Natural Resource Governance Index,
The ENRM Organizational Capacity Assessment Tool
The PAS Project M&E Assessment Tool
The PAS Partnership Assessment Tool

The GEF Tracking Tools for Strategic Priorities One (Protected Areas Management) and Two (Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Production Landscapes and Seascapes) are not included in this annex as they are readily available to the reviewers.

Attachment 1: Illustrative PAS Environment and Natural Resource Governance Index

1. Definition
The average score given to a national ENRM effort or program by a defined group of knowledgeable individuals asked about progress in over 50 individual areas of programming and enabling environment, grouped into 5 major components.
2. What it measures
The ENRM Governance Index is a composite index designed to measure political commitment and the relative strength of the ENRM enabling environment. The score is made up of 5 main components of an effective ENRM enabling environment: political support, policy formulation, organizational structure, program resources, evaluation, research and knowledge management; and legal and regulatory aspects.
The ENRM Governance Index can be used as a baseline, diagnostic and performance monitoring tool for countries managing PAS projects. When used for performance monitoring purpose the Governance Index should be used on an annual basis.
3. How to measure it
The ENRM Governance Index uses key informants from a designated mix of institutions to give opinions about central areas of ENRM commitment, enabling environment and programming, compiling an index out of scores given in various areas. The score, which is calculated as a percentage with zero indicating no program effort and 100 indicating maximum effort, may be converted into a grade to minimize informant variation. Suggested grades range from very weak and weak through moderate and strong to very strong, depending on the range in which the numerical scores fall.

4. Strengths and limitations
The major concern surrounding the ENRM Governance Index is its subjectivity and its reliability. The outcome depends largely on the choice of informants and informants will likely change from year to year. Since the indicator is still under development, the choice of informants has not yet been standardized. Though used widely in other sectors such as health[15], the Index needs to be further adapted and pilot tested for PAS.
Questions have also been raised about the utility of a single composite score, in which improvements in some areas may be masked by deterioration in other areas. For diagnostic as well as monitoring purposes, it is useful to report the indices separately by category. The separate category scores may stand alone as indicators. One area in which the CPI process yields a particularly useful indicator is in the area of policy formulation.
I. POLITICAL SUPPORT

Please indicate the level of support that is provided by the following groups for an effective ENRM policies and programs. Use a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 indicates no support or active opposition and 10 indicates strong support. Numbers between 0 and 10 indicate degrees of
support.

1. High-level national government support exists for effective ENRM policies and programs.
2. Public opinion supports effective ENRM programs and policies.
3. The main political parties support effective EMRM policies and programs.
4. Top government civil servants outside of the MOE recognize ENRM as a priority problem.
5. Major producer organizations support effective ENRM policies and programs.
6. Private sector leaders support effective ENRM policies and programs.
7. NGO leaders support effective ENRM policies and programs.
8. Professional associations (e.g., farmer and extension organizations) support effective ENRM policies and programs.
9. There are local activities to build support for effective ENRM programs
aimed at high-level political and community leaders.
10. International organizations have made a significant contribution to strengthening the political commitment of top leaders to ENRM.



II. POLICY FORMULATION

Please read the following statements and indicate the degree to which each statement is true or false. Use a scale of from 0 to 10 where 0 indicates "false", 10 indicates "completely true" and the numbers between indicate degrees. (For example, a score of 2 on item 1 would indicate that a national policy does exist but has little effect, while a
score of 7 would indicate that a good policy does exist but it ignores some key elements.)

1. A favorable national ENRM policy exists that supports adaptation to climate change.
2. Specific and realistic ENRM strategies are embedded in PRSP or equivalent.
3. Specific and realistic ENRM strategies to meet sectoral goals exist.
4. A national coordinating body for ENRM exists and functions effectively.
5. Ministries other than MOE are involved in ENRM policy formulation.
6. ENRM policy dialogue and formulation involves NGOs, community leaders, extension services, local governments, farmers, private sector
11. Representatives, women and indigenous groups.
7. International organizations have facilitated ENRM policy formulation through the provision of technical assistance and guidelines.
8. International organizations have facilitated governance for ENRM at all levels through the provision of technical assistance and guidelines.

III. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

Please read the following statements and indicate the degree to which each statement is true or false. Use a scale of from 0 to 10 where 0 indicates "false", 10 indicates "completely true" and the numbers between indicate degrees. (For example, a score of 3 on item 1 would indicate that an ENRM Program exists but is only a Unit within a
Department with the Ministry, while a score of 7 would indicate that the program is two layers below the Ministerial level.)

1. The ENRM Program is placed high in the government structure.
2. The ENRM Director is full-time and reports to an influential superior
3. officer.
4. A multi-sectoral ENRM approach has been implemented and functions well.
5. NGOs are formally included in the ENRM Program.
6. Key local stakeholders are formally included in the ENRM Program.
7. Efforts are made to enhance community participation in ENRM.
8. There is good coordination between ENRM activities of the national government, local government, NGOs, private sector and international donors.







IV. PROGRAM RESOURCES

Please read the following statements and indicate the degree to which each statement is true or false. Use a scale of from 0 to 10 where 0 indicates "false", 10 indicates "completely true" and the numbers between indicate degrees. (For example, a score of 3 on item 4 would indicate that funding is available but does not cover all essential programs while a score of 7 would indicate that most important programs are funded but a few are not.)

1. ENRM resources are allocated according to priority guidelines.
2. ENRM resource allocation decisions are based on considerations of the cost-effectiveness of interventions.
3. Procurement procedures for ENRM programs are fair and transparent.
4. There are technically competent professionals staffing the ENRM program.
5. The private sector plays a significant role in funding ENRM activities.
6. The ENRM program is organized to enhance long-term sustainability.
7. International organizations have provided a significant portion of funding for ENRM activities.

V. EVALUATION, MONITORING AND RESEARCH

Please read the following statements and indicate the degree to which each statement is true or false. Use a scale of from 0 to 10 where 0 indicates "false", 10 indicates "completely true" and the numbers between indicate degrees. (For example, a score of 3 on item 1 would indicate that evaluation activities do exist but results are not used
routinely while a score of 7 would indicate that evaluation and research are generally used in policy and planning.)

1. Operational and financial plans are developed that correspond to ENRM program objectives and targets.
2. ENRM evaluation, knowledge management and research results are
3. actively employed in policy formulation and program planning.
4. Mechanisms and structures for ENRM monitoring and evaluation, such as a formal evaluation unit, exist within the program.
5. Special studies are undertaken as needed to improve the ENRM program.
6. Environmental impact assessments and resource baselines are used in problem assessments, project design, implementation and monitoring
7. Currently available geographic information systems (GIS) area used to assemble relevant data layers (biophysical, economic, environmental, infrastructure and social).

VI. LEGAL AND REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

Please read the following statements and indicate the degree to which each statement is true or false. Use a scale of from 0 to 10 where 0 indicates "false", 10 indicates "completely true" and the numbers between indicate degrees. (For example, a score of 3 on item 1 would indicate that condom advertising is allowed under some circumstances while a score of 7 would indicate advertising is allowed with few restrictions.)

1. National government actively supports decentralization to local governments and communities for ENRM
2. Local governments and communities have capacity to design and execute regulations to manage natural resources.
3. There is rational landscape and seascape administration providing incentives for users to adopt ENRM practices.
4. Usufruct rights and/or property ownership are in place and enforced.
5. Landscape and seascape users involved in ENRM have adequate access to markets.
6. Input and credit services for ENRM are available.
7. Prices affecting ENRM-related producers respond to market signals.
8. No legal and regulatory barriers exist to knowledge on ENRM and market prices

Attachment 2: IUCN Organizational Assessment Tool

See attached PDF. The main use of this tool is for targeted ENRM organization to assess their operational strengths and weaknesses and to develop a road map for organizational strengthening. This tool will be adapted to include a composite “organizational health score” (between 0-100) based on the qualitative self-assessment. The composite score will be used for performance monitoring and reporting purposes. Each year the targeted organization will conduct a self-assessment, derive a composite score and provide a narrative justification for the score to the PAS Program M&E coordinator.

Attachment 3: Partnership Assessment Tool (to be further adapted/ refined for PAS partnerships). This tool will be adapted from the Partnership Assessment Tool developed by the Strategic Partnering Task Force of the UK Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
http://www.hcn.govt.nz/documents/FINAL

Sample section from tool:


The Partnership Assessment Tool will also include a Knowledge Management Module with the following illustrative types of questions -
· Does the PAS partnership provides easy access to useful ENRM resources through the program website
· Do resources on the PAS website cover an appropriate range of ENRM technical topics
· Are resources on the PAS website practically oriented for ENRM program design and management purposes
· Is it easy to post and share ENRM resources on the PAS website
· Has the organization used some of the PAS learning products to design or improve ENRM projects or programs

The Partnership Assessment Tool will be used annually with PAS partners that have been engaged with the program at least six months. The country level PAS team will be responsible for administering the tool with team members and for reporting results to the PAS Program M&E Coordinator.
Attachment 4: Score Card for Strengthening PAS Project Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Systems

2. Score Card for Strengthening Project Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Systems

This Score Card is designed for assessing and strengthening project ME&L systems. The ME&L Score Card is used to assess the plans for new ME&L systems for PAS activities and it can be used as an improvement tool for ME&L systems that are already underway. The ME&L Score Card can be used as a self-assessment tool by project staff or it can be used by external reviewers. Modify and adapt the Score Card as needed to fit your project or program. Maximum Total Score = 100
Step 1. Assess Background and ME&L Plan (check all that apply)

q There is a written ME&L plan the project
q There is a Results Framework or LogFrame for the project
q Project documents describe ME&L training/capacity building activities for the project team
q There is some evidence that the ME&L system is actually being implemented
q There is evidence that some ME&L strengthening activities have already taken place
q There is evidence that the Project Director is genuinely interested in ME&L for the project

q 6 Excellent q 5 Very Good q 4 Good q 2-3 Fair q 0-1 Poor
Step 2a: Determine Key Users of ME&L information
List actual key users of ME&L info for the project/program












List any important “missing” ME&L users—groups that could potentially be benefiting from ME&L but who are not




Step 2b: Assess ME&L Coverage (check only one)
Pts
0
2
4
6
q No groups appear to be using ME&L info
q ME&L info appears to be mostly “donor driven” with little use by project management
q ME&L info appears to be used by project management
q ME&L info appears to be used by other key groups that could benefit from it

Step 3: Assess Usefulness of ME&L info for Key Users (check all that apply)
q Key users of the ME&L system can cite examples of how ME&L info is used for making
management decisions
q Key users can cite example of how ME&L info is used for improving program performance
q Key users can cite examples of how ME&L info is used for accountability purposes
q Key users can cite examples of how ME&L info is used for organizational learning
q Key users can cite examples of how ME&L info used by target groups to better manage their own activities
q Key users can cite examples of how ME&L info was/is used by other local organizations

q 6 Excellent q 5 Very Good q 4 Good q 2-3 Fair q 0-1 Poor
Step 4: Assess Quality and Timeliness of ME&L Outputs (check all that apply)
q M&E reports and outputs are brief, simple and direct
q M&E reports and output are timely
q Key users are largely satisfied with the content and quality of the M&E reports and outputs
q In the view of key users there is adequate and reliable reporting on project activities
q In the view of key users there is adequate and reliable reporting on outputs (deliverables)
q In the view of key users there is adequate and reliable reporting on outcomes or leading
indicators of impact

q 6 Excellent q 5 Very Good q 4 Good q 2-3 Fair q 0-1 Poor
Step 5: Assess Design of ME&L System (check all that apply)
q There are clear roles and responsibilities for ME&L for the project or program
q There are clear and measurable performance indicators for the project outputs that include
baselines and targets
q There are clear and measurable performance indicators for project outcomes that
include baselines and targets
q There is an adequately functioning Management Info System for the project
q The ME&L design includes provisions for beneficiary assessments
q The ME&L team has good capabilities for data analysis
q There are adequate provisions for storing and retrieving ME&L info
q The ME&L system design includes provisions for impact assessment
q The ME&L team has adequate human and technical resources to carry out its work
q There are adequate material resources to carry out ME&L work
q There are adequate financial resources to carry out ME&L work
q The ME&L system is practical and not overly complex

q 9-12 Excellent q 7-8 Very Good q 5-6 Good q 3-4 Fair q 0-2 Poor
Step 6: Assess Incentives for ME&L (check all that apply)
q The Project Director is a supporter of ME&L
q The Project Director expects the project team to use ME&L in management-decision making
q There are adequate incentives for project staff to participate in ME&L activities as needed
q Staff job descriptions contain provisions for supporting ME&L functions/activities
q There are adequate incentives for ME&L within partner agencies/communities
q In general ME&L is recognized as being important by the majority of project staff

q 6 Excellent q 5 Very Good q 4 Good q 2-3 Fair q 0-1 Poor
Step 7: Calculate Your Total ME&L Score
Step 1 ___
Step 2 ___
Step 3 ___
Step 4 ___
Step 5 ___
Step 6 ___
Total ____

q 37 (88%) to 42 Excellent
q 25 (59%) to 36 Very Good
q 17 (41%) to 24 Good
q 9 (21%) to 16 Fair
q 0 (0%) to 8 Poor
Step 8: Develop Recommendations and Action Plans for Improving ME&L






Source: Social Impact




[1] Discussions are on-going with potential co-financiers.
[2] The term “GEF Agencies” refers to both GEF Implementing and Executing Agencies, including the World Bank, UNDP, UNEP, ADB, FAO, UNIDO and IFAD.
[3] Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.
[4] Views and Lessons: Effectiveness of the Global Environment Facility in the Pacific. Final Report, October, 2004. Delta Networks and Pacific Environment Consultants, 43pp.
[5] GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992-2007), GEF/ME/C.31/5, April, 2007
[6] GEF/C.17.Inf.11 The GEF Programmatic Approach: Current Understandings, April 12, 2001.
[7] Includes compact, approvals and on-going projects.
[8] This amount includes only approvals in FY06. Disbursement from on-going projects would make the volume much higher.
[9] Members of the Alliance comprise the PICS, the GEF Secretariat, the IAs, and relevant EAs and relevant regional organizations (both governmental and non-governmental) and multilateral and bilateral donors. Initial members of the Alliance include all 15 PICs eligible for GEF assistance (Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu), the GEF IAs (World Bank, UNDP, UNEP), relevant GEF EAs including ADB, FAO, UNIDO and IFAD, relevant regional governmental and non-governmental organizations including the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, SPREP, SOPAC, Forum Fisheries Agency and The University of the South Pacific, and relevant bi- and multilateral development partners including the European Union Commission for the Pacific (EU), Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), New Zealand's International Aid & Development Agency (NZAID) and United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

[10] TBD: To be determined
[11] Projects in Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and Kiribati are yet to be cleared with the countries
[12] Projects are yet to be cleared with countries.
[13] Thailand, Vietnam Philippines and Sri Lanka are as well included in this project.
[14] Targeted organizations will be identified through country-level PAS proposals.
[15] See for example the HIV/AIDS National Policy Index developed by UNAIDS. UN Special General Assembly Session on HIV/AIDS (2005). Guidelines on Construction of Core Indicators, Geneva. Also see Chapter 12 in Brinkerhoff, D. (2002). Managing Policy Reform, Kumarian Press, Westport, CT.