Report of the 21st SPREP Meeting of Officials and High Level Ministerial Segment

6 – 9 September 2010 Madang,

Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP)

SPREP Library/IRC Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

SPREP Meeting (21st : 2010 : Madang, Papua New Guinea)

Report of the Twenty First SPREP Meeting, 6 – 9 September 2010, Madang, Papua New Guinea. – Apia, : SPREP, 2011.

p. cm.

ISBN: 978-982-04-0412-0

1. Environmental policy – Oceania – Congresses. 2. Conservation of natural resources – Oceania – Congresses. 3. Environmental protection – Oceania – Congresses. I. Pacific Regional Environment Programme. II. Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP). III. Title.

363.7099

Report on the 21st SPREP Meeting of Officials

and

High Level Ministerial Segment

6 – 9 September 2010 Madang, Papua New Guinea

Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) PO Box 240, Apia, Samoa Telephone: (685) 21 929 Fax: (685) 20 231 Email: [email protected] Website: www.sprep.org

Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

Table of Contents

Officials Meeting Opening and Introduction ...... 1 Agenda Item 1: Official Opening ...... 1 Agenda Item 2: Appointment of Chair and Vice‐Chair ...... 1 Agenda Item 3: Adoption of Agenda and Working Procedures ...... 2 Agenda Item 4: Action Taken on Matters Arising from Twentieth SPREP Meeting ...... 2 Agenda Item 5: 2009 Overview ...... 2 5.1 Presentation of Annual Report for 2009 and Director’s Overview of Progress since the 20th SPREP Meeting ...... 2 5.2 Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Report on the 2009 Annual Work Programme and Budget ...... 4 5.3 Audited Annual Accounts for 2009...... 7 Agenda Item 6: Institutional Reform and Strategic Issues ...... 7 6.1 SPREP Strategic Plan 2011 ‐ 2015 ...... 7 6.2 ICR and EC Assessment Follow up ...... 10 6.3 Regional Institutional Framework (RIF) Update ...... 11 Agenda Item 7: Strategic Financial Issues ...... 11 7.1 Report on Members’ Contributions ...... 11 Agenda Item 8: Regional Conventions ...... 11 8.1 Report on the Conference of the Parties to the Noumea Convention ...... 12 8.2 Report on the Conference of the Parties to the Waigani Convention ...... 13 Agenda Item 9: 2011 Work Programme and Budget ...... 13 9.1 Island Ecosystems Progamme ...... 13 9.1.1 Regional Marine Species Programme ...... 13 9.1.2 CBD COP10 preparations ...... 14 9.2 Pacific Futures Programme ...... 15 9.2.1 PIFACC Mid‐Term Review ...... 15 9.2.2 Review of Regional Meteorological Services ...... 17 9.2.3 Directions in the UNFCCC Process ...... 19 9.2.4 Global Environment Facility (GEF) developments and issues in the Pacific ...... 21 9.2.5 Waste Reduction and Pollution Prevention ...... 23 9.3 Consideration and Approval of Proposed Work Programme and Budget for 2011 ...... 24 Agenda Item 10: Corporate Services ...... 25 10.1 New Salary Banding Model ...... 25 10.2 Annual Market Data ...... 27 10.3 Appointment of the SPREP Director – proposed revisions...... 27 10.4 Appointment of Auditors ...... 28

i Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting 10.5 Amendments to Staff Regulations ...... 28 10.6 Report by the Director on Staff Appointment Beyond 6 years ...... 29 Agenda Item 11: Items Proposed by Members ...... 29 11.1 Mainstreaming Invasive Species and Biodiversity – A paper by ...... 29 11.2 Streamlined reporting by Pacific Island countries to the biodiversity‐related multilateral environmental agreements – final report – A paper by Australia ...... 30 11.3 Country Profiles – Exchange of Information by Members on year of Biodiversity ...... 30 Agenda Item 12: Regional Cooperation ...... 31 12.1 CROP Executives Meeting Report ...... 31 Agenda Item 13: Statements by Observers ...... 31 Agenda Item 14: Other Business ...... 31

Annexes Annex I: List of Participants...... 32 Annex II: SPREP Director’s Opening Remarks ...... 47 Annex III: Opening Remarks by Hon. Minister of Environment and Conservation of PNG – Hon. Benny Allen ...... 50 Annex IV: Agenda ...... 54 Annex V: SPREP Director’s Annual Report – Summary ...... 56 Annex VI: Observer Statements ...... 61

High Level Ministerial Segment Summary of Discussions ...... 83 Agenda Item 15.1: Welcome ceremony for Ministers ...... 83 Agenda Item 15.2: Introduction to Meeting ...... 83 Agenda Item 15.3: Environmental Financing ...... 83 Agenda Item 15.4: Climate Change ...... 84 Agenda Item 15.5: Recommendations from the Officials Meeting ...... 86 Agenda Item 15.6: Strategic Plan ...... 88 Agenda Item 15.7: Madang Communiqué ...... 88 Agenda Item 16: Date and venue of Twenty‐Second SPREP Meeting ...... 89 Agenda Item 17: Close ...... 89 Attachment I: Opening Address by Hon. Minister of Environment and Conservation of PNG – Hon. Benny Allen ...... 90 Attachment II: Keynote Address by GEF ...... 91 Attachment III: Statement by Hon. Minister of Natural Resources and Environment of Samoa – Hon. Faumuina Tiatia Liuga ...... 94 Attachment IV: Madang Communiqué ...... 98

ii Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

Opening and Introduction The Director’s address is contained in Annex II. 1. The Twenty‐first SPREP Meeting (21SM) was convened in Madang, Papua New 5. The Chief Guest and keynote speaker, Guinea from 6 to 10 September 2010. Minister for Environment and Conservation Representatives of the following SPREP of Papua New Guinea, Hon Benny Allen MP, countries and territories attended: American welcomed all delegates to Papua New Guinea Samoa, Australia, , Federated and to the 21SM. He observed that this was a States of Micronesia (FSM), , France, special meeting as it was the first time it was , , , being hosted in PNG. The Minister , New Caledonia, New Zealand, , acknowledged the regional coordinating role Papua New Guinea (PNG), Samoa, Solomon of the Secretariat but urged the organisation Islands, , , , United Sates to be more visible and participatory at the of America (USA) and . Observers national level in order to better assist from a range of regional, international and countries with addressing their national non‐governmental organisations (NGOs) also needs. attended. The Minister’s keynote address is contained A list of participants is contained in Annex I. in Annex III.

Agenda Item 1: Official Opening Agenda Item 2: Appointment of Chair and Vice‐Chair 2. The 21SM was officially opened on Monday 6 September, 2010. Master of 6. The current Chair of the SPREP Ceremony, Mr Kosi Latu, Deputy Director of Meeting, Kiribati, represented by Mr Farran SPREP, welcomed delegates to the 21SM and Redfern, called the meeting to order and invited Mr Robert Rage to open the Meeting advised on the Rules of Procedure for the with a prayer. Mr Rage reminded delegates of SPREP Meeting. their role in managing their natural environment and encouraged them to bear 7. The Meeting, in accordance with the this in mind during their deliberations. Rules of Procedure, confirmed Papua New

Guinea, represented by Dr Wari Iamo, as 3. Mr David Sheppard, Director of SPREP, welcomed delegates and partners to Chair and Tonga, represented by Mr Asipeli Palaki, as Vice‐Chair. the Meeting, noting that the full agenda reflected a busy and active past year and 8. The outgoing Chair thanked the ambitious future plans designed to refocus Secretariat for its support to Kiribati over the the organisation to better serve the SPREP past year, noting that Kiribati had enjoyed Members. working with the Secretariat on several 4. The Director drew attention to the issues. He acknowledged the positive new Strategic Plan to guide the organisation’s progress made in implementing the work over the next five years and invited recommendations of the last SPREP Meeting. Members to provide guidance on the Plan and the SPREP vision during the week. 9. PNG took the Chair and thanked the Meeting for his election to Chair. He noted the full agenda and outlined a list of ground‐

1 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting rules to help ensure a smooth meeting. He  noted that an open‐ended working then called the Meeting to order. group on the Strategic Plan would be established; and  appointed an open‐ended Report Agenda Item 3: Adoption of Agenda and Drafting Committee comprising of a Working Procedures core group of representatives from , Australia, FSM, 10. Various representatives requested France, New Zealand, PNG, Tokelau clarification on a number of agenda items to and USA, with the Vice‐Chair (Tonga) which the Secretariat responded. chairing the Committee.

11. On Agenda Item 6.1 on the Strategic Plan, the Director advised that the informal Agenda Item 4: Action Taken on Matters meeting held in the previous week had Arising from Twentieth SPREP Meeting proposed that a working group be established on this matter. Major discussion 14. The Director referred to a summary of on the Plan would be deferred until the the 29 actions undertaken in response to working group had met. All key issues requests from the 20SM for follow‐up. He discussed at the informal meeting had been noted that considerable progress was made summarised and provided to delegates against every item, and that many items had together with all written comments received been completed. earlier. 15. The Cook Islands extended its thanks 12. On Agenda Item 15, relating to the to the Secretariat, and indicated it would be High Level Segment, the Director advised that in a position to work further with SPREP on the Secretariat was acting on asbestos management in 2011. recommendations from the 20SM which had directed that (a) the Ministerial meeting be 16. The Meeting: part of the SPREP meeting; and (b) the  noted the paper and actions taken by Ministerial meeting focus only on those the Secretariat on the decisions of the issues of major importance and be more 20SM. strategic. As a result, two key issues of environmental financing and climate change had been identified for discussion at the High Agenda Item 5: 2009 Overview Level Segment. Rather than formal recommendations, roundtable discussions 5.1: Presentation of the Director’s Annual would be held. A communiqué would be Report for 2009 and Overview of developed from the officials’ segment to the Progress since the Twentieth SPREP high level segment. Meeting

13. The Meeting: 17. The Director tabled the Annual  adopted the Revised Agenda Report for 2009 and presented his overview (contained in Annex IV) and its of progress since the 20SM. He referred to proposed hours and programme of the past year and a half as a period of change work; for both the Pacific environment and for the work of the Secretariat. The Director

2 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting highlighted progress against four guiding of the Secretariat and resulted in improved principles: staff morale. The representative noted that  the improved delivery of tangible the report was clear evidence that SPREP is services to and engagement with headed in the right direction. Members, and increased investments in areas of priority to Members; 20. PNG acknowledged the efforts of  the change management process to SPREP to consult Members on their priority improve the Secretariat’s internal needs for assistance and requested that processes, which has continued into capacity building consider tailor made the strategic planning consultations of approaches that accommodate the different 2010; circumstances of different countries.  strengthened partnerships with other regional organisations and donors’ 21. Samoa welcomed the achievements, growing confidence and levels of but noted that there were also many aspects investment in SPREP; and of the Performance Monitoring and  improved links between policy and Evaluation Report (PMER) – particularly in practical in‐country work and science. leveraging financial assistance from donors – that showed no activity. Samoa suggested The full text of the Director’s summary is that this might be because SPREP has, in the available as Annex V. past, built the capacity of Members to access these resources and that Members are 18. Tonga called on the Secretariat to therefore no longer requesting this assistance focus more on improving service delivery to of the Secretariat. national governments. The representative suggested that the other three guiding 22. New Caledonia congratulated the principles were less significant, as they relate Secretariat for responding to the to the internal processes of the Secretariat. Independent Corporate Review (ICR) and EC He also suggested that Member countries assessment by integrating the should have a more proactive role in recommendations into its operations. New evaluating the performance of the Caledonia also welcomed the well‐framed Secretariat, as their views were more Strategic Plan and vision, which would important than the reviews by external improve the transparency of SPREP’s work groups such as the European Commission and its links with scientific and technical (EC). The Secretariat confirmed that while the input. The representative welcomed the external reviews were a feature of recent opportunity for territories to contribute, years, in coming years under the new particularly on cross‐cutting issues such as Strategic Plan the focus will be on climate change and biodiversity. mainstreaming the reforms endorsed by Members and improving service delivery. 23. Tuvalu emphasised the importance of Furthermore, the three principles were delivering on‐ground activities, particularly crucial components in ensuring that the relating to protecting vulnerable populations Secretariat was enabled to carry out its from the adverse impacts of climate change. increased support to Members. While assessments and legislative support were important there was a need to ensure 19. France commended the internal that these resulted in action on the ground. reforms which have improved the efficiency

3 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

24. French Polynesia commended the 28. Although activity in territories had report and advised they were extremely increased, this was still lower than in satisfied with the progress of the Secretariat. countries, possibly due to the fact that territories often are not eligible for some of 25. The Meeting adopted the 2009 the funding provided by donors. Additionally, Annual Report. it was suggested that perhaps territories also do not make requests of the Secretariat because they receive financial and other 5.2: Performance Monitoring and support from their metropolitan Evaluation Report (PMER) on the counterparts. 2009 Work Programme and Budget 29. The Secretariat acknowledged with 26. In accordance with the Rules of gratitude the many donors to the work of Procedure, the Secretariat presented a SPREP and provided an outline of the summary of progress with the disbursements to Members in 2009. The implementation of the SPREP work Secretariat highlighted that while funding in programme, through its internal Performance general had increased, there had been no Monitoring and Evaluation Report (PMER) for increase in core funds to the organisation in 2009. The PMER provides a tool for the the past year. Fund‐raising efforts of the Secretariat to identify emerging issues and Secretariat and specific proposals were also challenges and make necessary adjustments outlined. in its work programme. The Secretariat advised that capacity development, 30. The Secretariat advised the Meeting education and communication and that in general, it had strengthened work knowledge management are cross‐cutting with partners, increased donor funding and areas that support the delivery of work under disbursements to countries, and increased its the two programme areas in addition to activities in waste and pollution. having specific activities under the work programme and budget. Key activities under 31. Niue thanked the Secretariat for its the Secretariat’s thematic areas comprehensive report and acknowledged the (environmental governance; climate change; assistance of the Secretariat to Niue in areas species conservation and management; of invasive species, persistent organic ecosystem management; and pollution and pollutants (POPs) and waste management, waste management), including the cross‐ particularly the disposal of asbestos. The cutting areas, were outlined and highlighted representative also thanked the Secretariat in the presentation. for its assistance with developing its national solid waste management strategy and 27. The Secretariat noted that there had acknowledged the support and contribution been increases in work done in areas of of the Pacific Adaptation to Climate Change climate change, pollution and waste (PACC) project in addressing climate change management, and ecosystem management, issues. reflecting Member needs. Work on species management had decreased significantly, 32. French Polynesia concurred with the mainly due to the lack of personnel in that comments by Niue. particular area and lack of requests from countries on species conservation. 33. Samoa acknowledged the work of the Secretariat and noted that it had received

4 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting assistance with preparing and submitting its Development Mechanism (CDM). On marine 4th National Report to the Convention on pollution, he observed that the International Biological Diversity (CBD). However, he Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) was observed that other Members still required promoting the Pacific Ocean 2020 Challenge this assistance. He noted that there were and he asked that consideration be given to areas of inactivity in the PMER and that these linking such initiatives to ensure best use of needed to be addressed. He highlighted resources. Fiji also raised the issue of limited invasive species as a major issue for Samoa in personnel in the Secretariat and suggested the protection of biodiversity and noted that that in the area of Environmental Impact a regional programme was yet to be finalised. Assessment (EIA), countries with experience He acknowledged with appreciation, the and expertise could be approached to assist Aleipata rat eradication programme and others needing assistance. programmes for protection of marine areas as well as other conservation programmes 35. PNG acknowledged assistance of the with SPREP and other partners. He also Secretariat in conducting training in EIA and acknowledged PACC as an important mining risk management. He asked that risk programme supporting Samoa’s work in management be included in all EIA training. climate change. He noted with appreciation, He asked for SPREP assistance with a review the availability of specific Pacific briefings for of PNG’s National Biodiversity Strategy and climate change conferences and asked that Action Plan (NBSAP). The representative also this be continued. He urged members to asked for clarification on a graph presented support common positions in COP meetings. by the Secretariat relating to distribution of The representative also raised the issue of funds and in‐country activities and sought lengthy gaps in recruitment of key staff clarification on how performance was positions, noting that suitable acting measured by these. positions should be established in these cases to ensure the Secretariat could continue its 36. Tonga requested more information work unhindered. The support by the GEF on the Secretariat’s response to events such Adviser at SPREP was duly noted and as tsunami, asking whether, in such cases, the appreciated. He further asked that in the Secretariat is expected to approach the future, the PMER consider looking at affected country or whether countries should reporting on impacts and outcomes rather approach the Secretariat. He also observed than on activities of the Secretariat. that there were a number of support activities provided by the Secretariat that 34. Fiji requested that prior planning be may be considered minor but that had great done with countries to ensure coordination benefits to the countries. He gave EIA training of in‐country activities across the as an example. The representative further programmes. He also asked that SPREP requested that the Secretariat assist provide Members with science‐based advice Members with developing proposals to GEF5, to better inform country activities and noting however, that under GEF4 several requested a report at the next SPREP activities had not yet been implemented. Meeting. The representative further requested that the Secretariat assist new 37. Tokelau thanked the leadership of the focal and operational points with familiarising organisation for turning around the themselves on issues such as the GEF and Secretariat into a new organisation with urged SPREP to assist members with improved morale and significant developing practical projects on the Clean achievements.

5 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

38. Vanuatu outlined activities with 42. The Secretariat acknowledged the which it had received assistance from the need for a strong Pacific voice at climate Secretariat. These included development of a change conventions and advised that the waste management bill; EIA training; ozone Pacific briefing meeting would be held in depletion; and climate change. He noted that in November prior to the there had been gaps in some of the work Cancun Conference of Parties (COP) to the areas due to personnel issues and asked what United Nations Framework Convention on mechanisms were in place to ensure that Climate Change (UNFCCC). these gaps would not recur in the future when positions become vacant. He also 43. On programme coordination, the noted that Vanuatu had received significant Secretariat advised that this was being increase in assistance and thanked the addressed through joint activities, e.g. Secretariat and donors and partners for their climate change and biodiversity, and that assistance. Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific (CROP) agencies were also 39. The responses of the Secretariat to cooperating through joint country missions. the various Member comments and queries Coordination of regional initiatives is based are outlined below: on partnerships with NGOs, CROP agencies and others and an example of this is the 40. On the issue of no activities in some recently‐endorsed Oceanscape initiative. areas, the Secretariat advised that the PMER is for the year 2009 and that there had been 44. Regarding the request for assistance significant action since the last SM in with CDM, Members were advised that the November 2009, which was not reflected in Pacific Islands Greenhouse Gas Abatement the report. For example, all the key vacant through Renewable Energy Project positions had now been filled. The Secretariat (PIGGAREP) is providing the inputs necessary further advised that a major challenge in for supporting countries in developing 2009 was that of the Regional Institutional appropriate renewable energy projects that Framework (RIF), which took up a large part could potentially be funded under the CDM. of Secretariat time. The Secretariat further acknowledged that the PMER could be 45. PNG requested assistance from the improved to include outcomes and impacts, Secretariat with review of its NBSAP to however, it observed that outcomes were not enable its implementation. The Secretariat always evident within a year. It invited advised that it had provided two advisors to suggestions from Members in improving the assist PNG with its national capacity self‐ PMER. assessment (NCSA) and that a review of the NBSAP was done as part of this. This 41. The Secretariat advised that the information fed into the Department of proposal for the invasive species project was Environment and Conservation (DEC) review now waiting approval from the Global of its NBSAP and the 4th National Report to Environment Facility (GEF) and is expected to CBD. commence towards the end of 2010. There are also moves to link the GEF project with a 46. The Secretariat acknowledged and similar project in the French territories, which agreed with the suggestion by Fiji to assist will ensure significant resources and other countries with EIA issues but raised the strengthened action on invasive species. issue that resources were required to enable this to happen. It also noted that SPREP had

6 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting conducted a number of training programmes 52. The Meeting adopted the audited and had made EIA guidelines available on the Financial Statements and Auditors’ Report for web in an effort to assist with capacity 2009. building in this area.

47. On the request for science‐based Agenda Item 6: Institutional Reform and studies, the Secretariat noted that its work Strategic Issues under the Australian‐funded Pacific Climate Change Science Program is underway and this 6.1 SPREP Strategic Plan 2011 – 2015 will be something to report on at the next meeting. The Secretariat reported that all 53. The Secretariat introduced the draft advice is underpinned by good information Strategic Plan and the Summary of and science but that it would endeavour to Responses, as well as a paper summarising look at this further in 2011. the discussions of the earlier informal meeting. 48. The Secretariat referred the Members to attachment 3 of working paper 5.2 to 54. The Secretariat advised that the 20SM provide more detailed information on the had agreed that the Action Plan should be type of assistance provided to countries in combined with the Strategic Programmes, the past year. The Secretariat also observed and that consultations should be wide that its resources were finite and therefore it ranging. Extensive consultations were tries to prioritise its activities accordingly. conducted by the Secretariat, including two sub‐regional meetings: in and in Fiji. 49. The Meeting noted the report of the These meetings provided guidance on the Secretariat. overall vision, goals and strategies of the Strategic Plan and highlighted the need to tailor the Plan to a broad audience. The 5.3: Audited Annual Accounts for 2009 meetings stressed the need to continue regional coordination, but at the same time 50. In accordance with the Financial to give greater attention to national Regulations, the Secretariat, represented by implementation. the Finance Manager, Mrs Alofa Tu’uau, tabled the Audited Annual Accounts for the 55. The Secretariat advised that it was year ending 31 December 2009. now seeking Members’ assistance in finalising the Plan and that there was a proposal on the 51. Responding to a query from Vanuatu, table for an open‐ended working group to be the Secretariat advised that the list of country established. contributions provided in the working papers refers only to actual payments received and 56. Responding to a query on process does not include unpaid contributions. On regarding communicating the draft Plan to “Deferred Income”, it was explained that this Ministers, the Secretariat noted that this year refers to the annual value of the usage of the the SPREP Meeting was a single meeting with property, plant and equipment gifted to the two components: the first component Secretariat. This value is shown annually as comprised officials, the second component depreciation and the contra‐entry is offset comprised ministers or heads of delegation. against reducing the deferred income. The intent of the high level segment would be to focus on strategic issues. This segment

7 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting would also consider for adoption the emphasised the need for actions to be based Strategic Plan and the recommendations on the latest available scientific knowledge. from the officials’ segment of the SPREP Meeting. 63. New Zealand raised the monitoring and evaluation aspect, noting the importance 57. Australia, Cook Islands, FSM, France, of demonstrating tangible results on the French Polynesia, New Caledonia, New ground. The representative also emphasised Zealand, PNG, Samoa and USA agreed with the need for a clear process for consultations the proposed methodology, were with countries in terms of regional and appreciative of the consultative process and national priority setting. He further noted committed to participating in the working that while a sub‐regional presence could be group which would meet and report to helpful, a detailed cost/benefit analysis plenary. would need to be done.

58. France and French Polynesia 64. Niue sought the Secretariat’s expressed their hope that the Plan would be guidance regarding whether there was any adopted by the end of the week and French component in the Strategic Plan reflecting Polynesia noted that the four strategic ongoing work to manage hazardous waste priorities were in line with their national such as asbestos and, if not, could this be priorities. included in the Strategic Plan. He advised that Niue would raise any other issues when the 59. Australia advised the Meeting that it report of the working group comes out. had provided a range of comments. These would be addressed in the working group. 65. PNG called for all Members to set a deadline for discussions on the draft Plan in 60. Fiji also supported the process the event the Meeting was unable to reach a observing that this would help them structure final agreement at the 21SM. their national strategic plan. The representative noted that the matrix being 66. Samoa agreed with the priorities used had raised some confusion for his outlined in the Plan and for SPREP staff to delegation, but that this would be raised with continue to support countries at international the Secretariat. fora but not as representatives of their own countries. Samoa was also of the view that 61. Nauru supported the draft but on SPREP should take on the role of an Section 3.4 on Funding, suggested that there implementing agency of the various funding should be an annotation on direct access to mechanisms, and not just as an executing funding, so that countries who did not meet agency, and that this should be reinforced by the fiduciary standards required by various strengthened relations with national focal donor agencies could utilise SPREP as an points. The representative also suggested accredited implementing entity. that “regional environmental data” should be clarified as being based on national data and 62. New Caledonia welcomed the efforts that the provision of legal advice needed to to ensure that SPREP’s role is complementary be consistent with national and international to other regional organisations such as SPC. instruments. Samoa further called for the The representative also commended the mention of gender considerations in the text action‐oriented nature of the Plan. He and added that monitoring and evaluation should not be an additional burden on the

8 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting countries. There was also a need to look at an 72. Vanuatu advised that his country had indication of costing. The representative been engaged in the consultations and, called for clarification on whether this was a having seen the comments reflected in the plan for the Secretariat or for the Programme revised draft, did not feel the need for any as a whole. If it was the latter, there would major changes. need to be inclusion of national activities, while noting the need to avoid mixing 73. The Chair then closed discussions bilateral programmes with regional and until the working group on the Strategic Plan international activities. had met.

67. Solomon Islands advised that they Report of the Working Group would like to see that the actions being visionary but realistic, cost‐effective and 74. The chair of the working group building on existing national plans. New reported that there had been much progress actions for emerging issues facing the region on the Strategic Plan and linkages had been should not be an additional burden on the made between the Plan and the work countries. Actions should be tailored to fit the programme and budget. Targets and countries needs. The representative also indicators had been carefully considered, and raised a question on whether adoption of the the group had also provided clarification of Strategic Plan would allow for opportunities responsibilities. The group also identified to adjust national plans. gaps and omissions. The group had developed a new version of the plan, which 68. Tokelau endorsed the approach, but had taken on board most of the comments noted the challenge would be to maintain made by Members. He emphasised that, flexibility in the Strategic Plan to enable while the Plan was ready to be adopted as reflection of country priorities when revised, it would still require further editing developing annual work plans. after the SPREP Meeting. He noted that, as the issue comes up under both agenda items 69. Tonga agreed with others, and hoped 6.1 and 15.6, the group proposed that the to endorse the Plan at the 21SM. Meeting endorsed the Plan and then recommend it to the High Level Segment 70. Tuvalu advised that his country was under item 15.6. preparing for new elections and would welcome deferring the adoption to a later 75. The Chair thanked the working group stage. The Plan was supported but there and its chair. needed to be a sense of realism and to keep the Strategic Plan within the capacity of the 76. RMI stressed the importance of Secretariat. highlighting climate change as a serious threat to the survival of her country. Focusing 71. USA noted that the Strategic Plan on climate change could help the should look at the role of the Secretariat as organisation stand out. The chair of the the facilitator and coordinator of regional working group noted that the foreword had activities. The Plan should be clear on the fact not been amended, and that the intention that it serves the whole of the SPREP was for the Director and Chair to collaborate membership. Where SPREP is the lead in finalising the foreword. regional agency, it should represent the whole of the membership.

9 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

77. PNG thanked the working group for as to ensure that the Secretariat’s operations its efforts in the limited time available, but met international best practices. requested clarification on why the reference to establishing a sub‐regional office had been 82. In response to a question from Tonga, removed. The chair of the working group the Secretariat clarified that as one of the EC responded that the working group had review outcomes, SPREP had now put in debated this at length and concluded that it place a Procurement Manual that met would retain references to improving international standards, and that its audits regional and sub‐regional links, on the were now conducted consistent with current understanding that the Secretariat would International Financial Reporting Standards investigate all options, including sub‐regional (IFRS). offices. 83. Responding to a query from New 78. American Samoa noted that all Caledonia, with regard to SPREP’s country Members had been enabled to participate profiles through focal points and strategy and to have their issues addressed. He development, the Secretariat clarified that, in commended the working group on the work accordance with ICR recommendations 62 they had done, and suggested that the and 101, it was attempting to broaden the Strategic Plan be endorsed. system of focal points to involve other appropriate institutions and collaborating 79. Vanuatu agreed on the importance of agencies such as those involved in regional sub‐regional co‐operation, and also observed cooperation. that there were avenues open to be explored in this regard. He also endorsed the 84. Samoa commended the Secretariat recommendations. on progress in adopting key review recommendations, but stressed the 80. The Meeting endorsed the SPREP importance of performance‐based reviews of Strategic Plan 2011‐2015. staff and the importance of internal audits to ensure transparency. The Secretariat agreed

6.2 ICR and EC Assessment Follow up that both were important, but stressed the need to secure finances to enable this to take 81. The Secretariat outlined progress place. taken on the key recommendations of the ICR and the implementation plan of the EC’s 85. The Secretariat assured the Institutional Assessment of SPREP. The ICR representative of Nauru that all project recommendations had been endorsed at the funding is transferred to countries in their 2008 SPREP Meeting and had been assisted national currency to ensure that financial by the ICR task force which met twice in losses were not made through multiple 2009. Progress had been reported to the currency conversions. 2009 SPREP Meeting and then to Members via reports in May and July 2010, which also 86. New Zealand emphasised the reported progress on the EC importance of the ICR as the heart of the recommendations. The Secretariat reforms taking place at SPREP, and emphasised the importance of the ICR for the acknowledged the efforts already made by formulation of the Strategic Plan and delivery the Secretariat to implement key elements. of member services by the Secretariat, as well NZ elaborated on the integral links with the

10 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting new Strategic Plan, which was critical to 92. The Secretariat stated the transfer of demonstrate tangible benefits to Members. the functions would strengthen SPREP’s work on climate change. Additional funding had 87. USA requested the removal of the been secured for a Pacific Islands Global term “assessed” from the phrase “members’ Oceans Observing System (PI‐GOOS) assessed and voluntary contributions”. The coordinator to start in the 4th quarter of Secretariat clarified that the use of this term 2010. In relation to the transfer of the Island had been agreed at the 2009 SPREP Meeting, Climate Update (ICU) functions, talks with the but could be modified at the request of the NZ National Institute of Water and 2010 SPREP Meeting. Atmospheric Research (NIWA) were expected to result in a smooth transfer by December 88. The Secretariat clarified references to 2010. the ongoing status of the ICR where actions were simultaneously listed as being both 93. New Zealand congratulated the completed and ongoing. It was explained that Secretariat for the swift transfer of functions this typically meant that the process to meet and raised for Members’ consideration, an identified action had been completed, but whether the transfer climate change was still being implemented internally. functions should be part of SPREP’s core business. 89. The Secretariat agreed to complete actions 100 and 101 (country profiles and 94. The Meeting focal points) before the Strategic Plan was  noted the full and effective transfer implemented. as of 1 April 2010 of the SOPAC climate change related functions to 90. The Meeting noted the good progress SPREP; and in implementation of the recommendations  endorsed the full and effective of the ICR and EC assessments. implementation of the four SOPAC functions within the Secretariat work programme. 6.3 Regional Institutional Framework (RIF) Update Agenda Item 7: Strategic Financial Issues 91. The Secretariat provided background to the RIF Joint Council Meeting agreement 7.1 Report on Members’ Contributions of July 2009 to transfer four functions from the Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience 95. In accordance with Financial Commission (SOPAC) to SPREP. A Letter of Regulation 14, the Secretariat submitted its Agreement in March 2010 between SPREP report on Members’ contributions. The and SOPAC gave effect to the transfer. The Secretariat advised that SPREP was not the remaining SOPAC functions have been only CROP agency with unpaid member earmarked for transfer to the Secretariat of contributions, but that it was highlighting the Pacific Community (SPC) in January 2011 these particular concerns due to funding at which point SOPAC will become a implications, especially in terms of the use of geosciences division of SPC and cease to exist core funding as leverage for other funding as a separate CROP agency. sources.

11 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

96. The representative of Nauru of 2009, and that this had already been used explained the financial situation of his to balance the 2010 budget. country and advised that Nauru would begin paying its contributions as of 2010. However, 102. USA said that the voluntary funds he requested assistance from the Meeting in column in the Members’ Contribution addressing payment of Nauru’s arrears and Schedule should not be carried on into the requested the Members’ consideration in arrears column as this reflected a specific writing off these arrears. financial situation (i.e. a request for goodwill funds from Members to assist with a budget 97. Cook Islands, Niue, PNG, Tonga, deficit in 2008). The Secretariat agreed to Tuvalu and Vanuatu undertook to pay their this. arrears in full either by the end of the week or within the year. 103. It was agreed that the Friends of the Chair Group would be tasked with providing 98. France advised that the shortfall as a suggested wording of the recommendations result of exchange rates would be addressed as well as advising on the arrears situation of shortly. The representative also outlined Nauru. Samoa, Fiji, Tuvalu and Tonga were several activities being funded by France, also invited to participate in this. including the regional solid waste management project. 104. In response to the recommendations of the Friends of the Chair group, the 99. Samoa commented that there was no Meeting: rationale for providing the detailed  noted the on‐going and critical issue information on country contributions against of Members’ unpaid contributions; assistance received from the Secretariat. encouraged Members to commit

themselves to paying current 100. Representatives discussed the contributions and unpaid proposal for a review of Member contributions from previous years in contributions. Cook Islands, Samoa and PNG full in 2010; and expressed their view that they did not  directed the Secretariat to work consider this necessary or appropriate at this closely with Nauru regarding the stage. France suggested that member latter’s request for assistance in contributions would be best discussed in meeting its membership payments. conjunction with discussions on the Strategic

Plan. Fiji and Tokelau registered their approval for the proposal, with Tokelau Agenda Item 8: Regional Conventions noting that it was up to Members to look at the long term financial sustainability of their 8.1 Report on the Conference of the Secretariat. Parties to the Noumea Convention

101. The Secretariat advised that the 105. The Secretariat presented the report reporting format was aimed at full of the Tenth Ordinary Meeting of the transparency, but that it would be guided by Contracting Parties to the Convention for the the Members on this. On the issue of an Protection of the Natural Resources and apparent surplus in the organisation’s Environment of the South Pacific Region and budget, the Secretariat advised that the Related Protocols (Noumea Convention), held surplus funds referred to were as at the end on 2 September. The Secretariat advised that

12 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting the focus of the Convention was primarily on Item 9: 2010 Work Programme and marine and coastal pollution and reported Budget that the meeting of the Convention, although short, provided for discussion on substantive 9.1: Island Ecosystems Programme matters. The meeting report was noted. 9.1.1: Regional Marine Species 106. The Meeting was invited to note Programme paragraph 37, regarding the lack of consensus on amendments to the Convention; 110. The Secretariat provided an outline of paragraph 41, seeking to draw in and ongoing and proposed work in marine species integrate broader marine pollution issues; conservation, focusing on proposing 2011 as and paragraph 54, on the approval of the the Pacific Year of the Dugong and a regional work programme for the Secretariat. The Plan of Action for Sharks. contribution from USA of the amount of US$60,000 was acknowledged. 111. American Samoa, Australia, France, Kiribati, RMI, New Caledonia, New Zealand, 107. The Meeting: PNG and USA endorsed the Secretariat’s  noted the Report of the Conference work, including supporting the proposed of Parties to the Noumea Convention. Pacific Year of the Dugong in 2011.

112. On the regional action plan for sharks, 8.2 Report on the Conference of the New Zealand noted that this should also be Parties to the Waigani Convention extended to coastal sharks and rays. NZ could assist with further iteration of this action 108. The Secretariat presented the report plan, and with the development of th of the 5 Meeting of the Conference of the identification material on sharks and rays. Parties to the Convention to Ban the Importation into Forum Island Countries of 113. Australia reiterated the importance of Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes and to cooperation to improve regional conservation Control the Transboundary Movement and and management of marine species, the Management of Hazardous Wastes within particularly sharks and dugong. Australia also the South Pacific Region (Waigani highlighted other avenues for regional Convention), held on 3 September 2010. The cooperation including the recently concluded meeting report was noted. The Secretariat Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) MOU drew attention to: on Sharks and the MOU on Conservation and  The reports from the Convention’s Management of Dugongs. Australia two subsidiary bodies; and congratulated and the USA for signing  The discussion at the Conference of a the sharks MOU. proposal from a regional organisation in China to become a coordinating 114. Kiribati asked for direction regarding centre for related matters in Asia and the role during the Year of Dugong for the Pacific. countries that are not range states for dugongs. The representative also advised 109. The Meeting: that issues relating to sharks were handled by  noted the report of the Conference of the Ministry of Fisheries in his country and the Parties to the Waigani called on SPREP to assist countries to Convention. implement the Plan at the national level.

13 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

115. PNG informed the Meeting that they representation at COP due to lack of funding. would sign the MOU during the week of the A ‘One Pacific Voice’ was proposed, along SPREP Meeting and that work on with the desire to launch National Reports conservation of dugongs and protection of from all 14 Pacific parties to the CBD at the sharks, including customary linkages, was COP10. It was noted that currently only seven ongoing. Pacific Island Countries (PICs) had completed these. 116. The Meeting:  endorsed the year 2011 as the Pacific 118. The Chair noted that there was too Year of the Dugong; much reliance on inter‐governmental  called on partners and donor agencies organisations for representation and that it to provide assistance where possible would better if forums could be provided to ensure a successful Pacific Year of during COPs so as to allow PICs to detail the Dugong; issues, and to consult each other.  noted the Pacific Islands Regional Plan of Action for Sharks, produced jointly 119. All members responded with a word by FFA, SPC and SPREP; and of thanks to SPREP on the support provided.  directed the Secretariat to provide Tonga, in particular, expressed appreciation assistance to Members in the for the pre‐CBD COP meeting. implementation of the Pacific Islands Regional Plan of Action for Sharks 120. Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, New where possible. Zealand, Tonga and USA supported the ‘One Pacific Voice’ approach, though they cautioned that national circumstances and 9.1.2: 2010 International Year of priorities need to be considered while Biodiversity and Pacific supporting a common agenda. participation in the CBD 10th Conference of the Parties 121. Cook Islands and PNG offered their (COP10), Nagoya, Japan 18‐ support for the 2012 Nature Conservation 29 October 2010 Conference. In addition, PNG informed the Meeting that it would seek clarification and 117. The Secretariat detailed activities that guidance from the Secretariat to implement had occurred with regard to the International recommendations made at the Nature Year of Biodiversity (IYOB) and in preparation Conservation Conference. for the CBD COP10 in Japan (October 2010). These activities included the Mainstreaming 122. Cook Islands, PNG, Samoa, Tonga and Biodiversity meeting, held in Fiji (February Tuvalu all noted that they had completed and th 2010); the 4 National Report CBD workshop submitted their 4th National Reports. RMI th held in Samoa (April 2010); the 13 Pacific advised that they were working on theirs, but Island Roundtable for Nature Conservation had capacity and financial issues, and needed held in Samoa (July 2010); and the Pacific further support. Niue, RMI and Tuvalu pre‐CBD COP10 Meeting (supported by requested SPREP for support in NBSAP EU/UNEP) in Fiji (August 2010). The Pacific implementation. Kiribati stated that they pre‐CBD COP10 Meeting allowed for the were planning to review their NBSAP to preparation of a brief to highlight successes, coincide with the formulation of the next issues and challenges in the Pacific Islands National Sustainable Development Plan. region and to address the lack of Cook Islands had already reviewed their

14 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

NBSAP, while Fiji and RMI noted that the suggested that SPREP link with the CBD’s implementation of the CBD and NBSAPs identification work on ecologically and needed to be considerate of national biologically significant areas (EBSA). France priorities. The Secretariat advised that it noted that a booklet had been produced on would endeavour to assist all countries with their policies on biodiversity. their NBSAP review and implementation, as necessary. 127. Australia noted the positive response of Members and the number of CBD 4th 123. Regarding issues of representation to National Reports that had been completed. CBD COPs, both Tuvalu and Samoa noted the issue of the attention to (and clashes with) 128. The Secretariat noted the positive climate change meetings and urged Members and constructive comments and the need to to focus greater attention on biodiversity. work together to support common agendas under a ‘One Pacific Voice’, whilst noting that 124. New Caledonia advised that they had national circumstances and priorities need to completed their NBSAP with support from be considered; the need to link with other France. The NBSAP has five objectives regional and sub‐regional initiatives; and to focused on biodiversity, conservation, focus on oceans and marine issues, and to knowledge acquisition, economic valuation of offer nature‐based solutions. The Secretariat biodiversity, and mainstreaming of also reiterated its support for Members in biodiversity in public policies and civil and reviewing and implementing NBSAPs. customary societies. New Caledonia offered to share their knowledge and experience with 129. The Meeting: other Members and mentioned in this regard  encouraged contracting parties to the th the “Biodiversity” country profile presented CBD to complete and submit their 4 under Item 11.3. New Caledonia added that National Reports before CBD COP10, France had signed in March 2010 (on behalf if they had not done so; of New Caledonia) a letter of agreement with  supported the ‘One Pacific Voice’ for Australia to protect the Coral Sea Corridor. CBD COP10;  encouraged Members to consider 125. PNG advised that they would have including in their 2011 national work good representation to CBD COP10 and programmes implementation of would also be featuring a side event. PNG NBSAPs, and where necessary, also noted the need to incorporate climate review; and change in protected area priorities, and  supported the preparations for the advised that biodiversity would be 2012 Nature Conservation mainstreamed across all sectors by aligning Conference. the NBSAP with PNG’s Environmentally Sustainable Economic Growth Policy. 9.2 Pacific Futures Programme 126. France, French Polynesia and New Caledonia highlighted the need to address 9.2.1: PIFACC Mid‐Term Review the issue of marine biodiversity and drew attention to the recently endorsed 130. The Secretariat introduced the Framework for Pacific Oceanscape and the findings of the 2010 mid‐term review of the need for it to be supported and brought Pacific Islands Framework for Action on forward at CBD COP10. France also Climate Change (PIFACC) and advised on the

15 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting implementation of outcomes of the 2009 allow the Secretariat to finalise its work to Pacific Climate Change Roundtable. The implement the next steps. Tonga noted that Secretariat noted that SPREP Members had its national climate change policy was not participated in a consultative workshop to reflected in the PIFACC. American Samoa determine the outcomes of the PIFACC suggested that the United States and review in Fiji in May 2010, and that the Australia could present alternative review was noted by the Pacific Islands recommendations to address their concerns. Forum in August 2010. The emphasis of the review was to maintain a broad regional 135. France observed that the review did strategic framework, with better links to not address the role of the Secretariat in closely related regional frameworks, helping Pacific island countries to access improved monitoring and evaluation, and adaptation and mitigation funds at the clearer guidance to partners and donors on regional and national level. The Secretariat regional and national climate change clarified that there was no specific allocation priorities. of funds to implement the PIFACC, but that while using the PIFACC as an overarching 131. Australia recognised the importance guiding document, the Secretariat worked of PIFACC and its review, but wished to with partners and donors to tailor assistance. register its concerns with a number of the The Secretariat would also produce by recommendations, and called for the October 2010 the report of its feasibility recommendations to be further discussed to study on a regional climate change financing ensure that all Members support the mechanism, which should address any proposals. remaining questions. This had been discussed by Forum Leaders in August 2010 and would 132. USA noted that some of the be discussed again at the Forum Economic recommendations represented a departure Ministers’ Meeting in late 2010. from the original functions of the PIFACC and PCCR. The representative observed that while 136. PNG registered its support in principle the PIFACC had value as a starting point, it for the overarching importance of the did not represent the views or needs of the PIFACC. While PNG supported full membership of SPREP as well as it could. recommendations 1 to 8, it had some questions over recommendations 9 to 12. 133. The Secretariat clarified that the pre‐ PNG suggested additional time for Members meetings of the 2010 Pacific Islands Forum to consider the recommendations and ensure confirmed SPREP’s role in leading the that they were consistent with national implementation of the findings of the PIFACC climate change policies. review. It further clarified that the Meeting was being requested to approve the process 137. Samoa reminded the Meeting that for implementation and not to alter the the PIFACC had been endorsed at the highest PIFACC policy document itself. level – by Forum Leaders in 2005 – and that it is the mechanism for SPREP’s technical 134. American Samoa, Cook Islands, Niue, assistance to Members. Samoa noted that Samoa and Tonga called for the the review had found major areas that were recommendations to be approved, in light of not being adequately addressed under the opportunities Members had already had PIFACC, and therefore urged the to contribute to the PIFACC review. This recommendations be approved to ensure the would be the first step forward and would improvements take place. Samoa also

16 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting reminded the Meeting that improved used to guide and inform the drafting coordination of financing for climate change of a revised PIFACC to meet the is a high priority: Samoa’s own assessment region’s needs in 2011 – 2015; found that Samoa would require more than  established an out‐of‐session working $US200 million for its adaptation activities. group constituting of ‘friends of the chair’, tasked with the revision of the 138. Tokelau questioned the resources PIFACC, guided by the Review and that would be required to coordinate and developments over the last 5 years; implement the PIFACC and urged the  tasked the Secretariat with circulating Secretariat to help Members appreciate the the revised Framework (PIFACC — implications of the findings and the 2011) to Members for input with a recommendations more fully. view to out‐of‐session finalisation by mid January 2011; and 139. USA noted that the recommendations  agreed that monitoring and were prepared by a consultant in light of evaluation of PIFACC implementation widespread consultations and confirmed the should form an integral part of the USA could support including the report as an SPREP Strategic Plan and work annex to the SPREP Meeting report, rather program and be funded accordingly. than be asked to endorse all the consultant’s recommendations. 9.2.2: Review of Regional 140. The Meeting established a ‘friends of Meteorological Services the chair’ group to resolve this. 143. The Secretariat presented a paper 141. The Friends of the Chair group outlining the Review of Regional reported back to the Meeting with a revised Meteorological Services since 2008 as series of recommendations, which were requested by the Pacific Islands Forum discussed briefly before acceptance. Leaders’ 2009 communiqué. The Review was tabled at the 2010 Small Island States Leaders 142. The Meeting, on the Pacific Islands Forum where its recommendations were Framework for Action on Climate Change endorsed. (PIFACC) Review:  noted the continuing importance of 144. USA commended the work of the the Pacific Islands Framework for Secretariat in completing the review and Action on Climate Change in providing stressed the critical role of meteorological an overarching strategy to ensure services for the region. USA supported the that regional coordination in recommendations of the Secretariat relating supporting national climate change to proposed follow up activities. USA further initiatives and priorities are relevant noted that the World Meteorological and coherent; Organization (WMO) was upgrading in the  recognised that the PIFACC is a living region and this would benefit all document and that the mid‐term meteorological services in the region. SPREP review was included in the had previously been providing that function, Framework and was called for by which needed to be fully supported. USA and Pacific leaders in 2005; Cook Islands strongly encouraged the  agreed that the PIFACC mid‐term Secretariat to fully staff the Secretariat in review and its recommendations be

17 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting order to carry out its work in meteorological advised that is reflected in the Strategic Plan. services. It also advised that the Secretariat aims to address territories along with countries. 145. Kiribati, Cook Islands, Samoa, Marshall Islands and Australia supported the 150. Samoa informed the Meeting that it recommendations. The Kiribati had been active in implementing representative emphasised the need to meteorology‐related activities. Samoa also formalise the services that the Regional Desk requested further information on a proposal for Pacific National Meteorological Services relating to a plan to corporatise the Fiji would provide. He also noted that the names Meteorological Service. The Secretariat of countries in table 1 needed to be advised that this report was not yet available corrected, clarifying that Banaba is part of but assured the Meeting that this had no Kiribati. bearing on the recommendations.

146. Cook Islands informed the Meeting 151. RMI informed the Meeting that her that his country had formed a task force that office worked closely with the Meteorology included sector‐wide agencies to help Office and she supported the Secretariat address national disaster risk issues dealing recommendations. with public safety. 152. The Meeting: 147. Australia requested the Secretariat to On the recommendations put forward by fully integrate the Pacific Desk into its the Review: programmatic work activities and added that • endorsed the Recommendations and fragmentation of functions was not desirable. the Next Steps as outlined by the Review of Regional Meteorological 148. Tokelau commended the work of the Services; Secretariat and inquired whether territories • agreed to the nomination of SPREP to were covered as well since the review was undertake the role of the Pacific Desk considered at the Small Island States (SIS) to provide support to the efforts of Leaders’ Meeting. He also pointed out the countries and the region in need to move to implementation noting that coordinating and facilitating regional this requires resources and partnership. coordination and implementation of relevant meteorological services; 149. Responding to the various comments, • endorsed the formation of a Pacific the Secretariat noted the support for the Meteorology Council and directed the review and recognised the need to mobilise Secretariat to develop terms of resources for implementation. To this end reference for the Pacific Meteorology the Secretariat undertook to convene a Council and to submit them for partnership of interested Parties, with WMO endorsement to the Council’s first as key partner. The Secretariat also meeting in 2011; acknowledged that the Meteorology and • urged Members, donors and partners Climatology Officer (MCO) position has been to assist including strengthening a standing item in many Meetings and it was existing technical support to SPREP as hopeful that the extensive dialogue with the well as additional resources; Commonwealth Secretariat would bear fruit. • requested the Secretariat to report The Secretariat agreed that integration was on the implementation of these logical and critical for the Pacific Desk and decisions to the 22nd SPREP Meeting;

18 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

and on the current arrangements for 154. Tonga raised the issue of the fast the supply of regional specialised tracking of funds under the Copenhagen meteorological services to support Accord and that Solomon Islands had national meteorological services, to: received these funds. He asked that the • acknowledged and expressed Secretariat work towards becoming an appreciation for the role played by implementing agency to enable fast tracking Fiji, Australia, New Zealand, United of funds under the Accord and the Kyoto States and France in support of Protocol. The representative explained that regional meteorological services in countries are required to establish a national the Pacific, and to the ongoing implementing agency but due to capacity support provided by development constraints, a regional implementing agency partners, particularly Australia, Japan, would be helpful. The Secretariat clarified New Zealand, the United States and that the funds received by Solomon Islands Finland, and the global network of were under the Kyoto Protocol and that meteorological services. currently no country in the region had accessed the Fast Track funds. The Secretariat

was preparing its application proposal to 9.2.3: Directions in the UNFCCC Process become an implementing agency but advised this was a lengthy and difficult process. 153. The Secretariat provided an update 155. Nauru commented that the on developments relating to climate change Secretariat should consider adding legal negotiations. The representative advised that advisory personnel to the SPREP delegation the December 2009 Copenhagen Climate to strengthen COP negotiations and that the Change Conference did not deliver a legally Secretariat facilitate common positions on binding agreement. The COP noted the areas of divergence to assist for the region at Copenhagen Accord (CA), a political the COP. agreement that 138 Parties to the UNFCCC have chosen to associate with, to date. The 156. FSM, Fiji, NZ, RMI, Samoa and Tuvalu Secretariat advised that, while some donors commended the work of the Secretariat, had started to deliver their Fast Start noting the challenging nature of the work, Financing, the longer‐term financial especially in the area of negotiations. Several arrangements under the UNFCCC were yet to Members highlighted the need for continued be delivered. The Secretariat also advised negotiation skills training as well as that the pledges to date under the CA could convening separate Pacific meetings during still warm the planet by an average of around the FCCC COP. 3‐4.5 degrees Celsius in the future. Details of the update are provided in working paper 157. Tuvalu urged that work on adaptation 9.2.3 and its attachment. The Secretariat also continue due to its importance to small advised that the proposed November islands. On mitigation, he informed the meeting in the Solomon Islands will likely meeting that Tuvalu is setting up a policy to serve as a preparatory meeting to the COP set an example for mitigation by the year and negotiations training for those attending 2020. He also called for collaboration and the COP. Media training and a side event are partnerships in the region be continued. being planned to help with outreach at the COP. 158. France advised that it was very supportive of the ambitious goals announced

19 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting before Copenhagen but noted that it was acknowledged this essential support from the important to implement adaptation activities Government of Samoa with gratitude. and fast‐track financing. Supported by American Samoa, he suggested that practical, 163. The Chair informed the Members that concrete stories on successes be developed PNG had established a climate change office. and that these be used to feed into the It has now appointed 12 staff. A climate international processes. change compliance strategic action plan was being prepared. An interim plan of action has 159. NZ requested clarification regarding been developed to prepare an enabling funding of the proposed communication environment for a demonstration project tools. The Secretariat advised that many under REDD‐plus (Reducing Emissions from materials had already been developed (e.g. Deforestation and forest Degradation). With factsheets, media posters and films) but that that, the PNG Government is seeking legal reprints would require additional funding. advice to declare a moratorium to prevent The Secretariat also advised that logging of forests under the pretext of agro‐ opportunities were being identified to forestry developments. In addition to the strengthen these activities through other above, a number of climate change funded projects such as a proposed series of adaptation projects are underway, which documentaries under the PIGGAREP on includes coastal environments. renewable energy. 164. Tokelau asked whether there was a 160. Fiji requested information on whether regional approach to the climate change issue there was a “Plan B” in the event that there by the CROP agencies. would be no legally binding agreement at Cancun and recommended that the 165. The Secretary General of the Pacific Secretariat identify other opportunities for Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) was invited financing adaptation and mitigation in the to make comment. He advised that the sub‐ region. committee, co‐chaired by the Director of SPREP and the PIFS Secretary General, will 161. USA acknowledged the strong deal with coordination of climate change emphasis on climate change in SPREP and across the CROP agencies with the aim of welcomed the opportunity to engage in these identifying what each organisation is doing in issues. USA encouraged SPREP to enhance its response to climate change. The sub‐ support under the UNFCCC. USA suggested committee will meet towards the end of that communication could be improved in October 2010. Leaders have identified access order to understand the different positions of to funding as a key issue. Currently the region the Members and to use the opportunity to does not have the capacity to manage the engage the Membership as a whole and to do large sums of money being promised under this more openly. USA urged the Membership the Copenhagen Accord and a large amount to be more ambitious than what it had been of groundwork is required before these funds doing to date. can be accessed. He also stressed the need for good projects to be designed in order to 162. Samoa noted that its Government attract such large‐scale funds. accredits the Secretariat as part of its delegation to enable better access to the COP 166. The Secretariat advised that to support all Pacific parties. The Secretariat negotiations training would be provided as part of the pre‐Cancun meeting and also

20 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting informed Members of plans to make details on the involvement of the GEF in the negotiations training an ongoing component region. In past years the region had of a proposed climate change course at the concluded that the Pacific had not received University of the South Pacific. On the issue its commensurate share of GEF resources. of lessons learned and success stories, the The position of GEF Support Adviser was Secretariat advised that more work was established and funded by NZAID and needed in this area and that it would focus on AusAID, but will complete its cycle in 2011. sharing lessons from its current projects. The region had been successful in securing around US$100 million in the GEF‐4 cycle. 167. The Meeting: Some new challenges have emerged in GEF‐5, • noted the various ways in which the such as whether the region would be able to Secretariat is supporting Members to replicate its successes from GEF‐4 in terms of prepare for and participate in levels of financing. The Secretariat noted that negotiations under the UNFCCC; a future challenge for the region would be • noted the efforts to strengthen the the need to develop national and regional climate change team at SPREP and project concepts in order to benefit from the endorsed the recommendations on GEF‐5 funding. This may require further the establishment of PCCR Working support for coordination of these efforts in Groups as a means for more effective the region. The Secretariat also delivery on climate change in the acknowledged the support and contributions region and enhancing interactions of Australia and New Zealand, particularly in between SPREP, CROP and national funding the position of GEF Support Adviser climate change focal points; at the Secretariat. It sought the Meeting’s • endorsed the approach taken by agreement to continue this position, for SPREP in support of PICs and which funding would end in March 2011. undertook to support and work with SPREP in the UNFCCC process, 169. Fiji, Nauru, RMI, Samoa, Tonga and including the delivery of negotiations Tuvalu supported the continuation of the GEF training and preparatory meetings for Support Adviser position, noting the need for the FCCC; and support on project proposal development. • agreed to provide support to the Nauru also supported the need for development of communications engagement with the GEF Secretariat, but on tools such as national climate change the basis of country needs. Fiji also called for profiles, as well as any other capacity building for GEF focal points. suggestions as to how to strengthen support to PICs in the FCCC 170. Australia noted the success of GEF‐ negotiations process. PAS in improving Pacific island countries’ access to funding. Australia added that changes to the resource allocation in GEF5 9.2.4: Global Environment Facility would be beneficial to the region and (GEF) developments and provided for more certainty about the issues in the Pacific resources they can access. Australia

encouraged PICs to consider the option of 168. The Secretariat introduced its report undertaking a GEF ‘National Portfolio on recent developments and issues relating Formulation Exercise’ either through a direct to the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The grant or with support of a GEF implementing Secretariat noted that the paper provided agency. In regard to the GEF‐PAS monitoring

21 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting and evaluation coordination unit, Australia 173. Vanuatu noted past difficulties in questioned whether there would be resourcing project personnel as well as delays significant benefit in establishing a separate in the process of funds disbursement. The coordination mechanism for GEF‐PAS, given representative called for greater engagement that GEF‐PAS projects are now at the of national counterparts in the development implementation stage. Australia expressed of regional projects. He also expressed appreciation of the work carried out by the concern over the management fees charged GEF Support Adviser, and noted that if by various GEF implementing agencies. Members consider the functions of the Adviser essential then it would encourage 174. French Polynesia observed that while Members to ensure that these functions are they were not eligible for funding from the captured in SPREP’s strategic planning GEF, the issues being discussed were for the process and supported by core funding. whole of the organisation. The representative was in favour of seeking support for the unit 171. RMI noted the complexities of the and the position through the GEF resources, GEF‐4 process, but believed that, based on as opposed to burdening the core budget learned experiences that the new STAR costs that are shared by all Members. resource allocation framework would be beneficial. The representative added that 175. France noted the significant increase national coordination would be key to in funding that would become available success and that there was a need to avoid under the GEF‐5. The representative also conflicts between countries and the noted that the French GEF was also available Secretariat arising from implementation of for funding projects in the region. France the first recommendation below. She raised a thought that the Secretariat should give question regarding the M&E unit. The priority to providing country assistance to Secretariat clarified that the M&E unit was mobilise GEF funds. France considered that approved as part of the GEF‐PAS, however its financing relating to the GEF unit within the placement, whether with a GEF Secretariat should be borne within the Implementing Agency or a CROP Agency, had framework of GEF not been clarified. Meetings of the GEF constituency and the 20th SPREP Meeting had 176. FSM commended the work of the GEF confirmed the preference in the region for Adviser, noting the value of the Small Grants this unit to be housed at SPREP. Programme as a useful modality for channelling parts of the national GEF 172. New Zealand expressed some allocations. Supported by Cook Islands, the hesitation as to the added benefits of the representative also commented on the need establishment of the M&E unit, when the to engage other CROP agencies in the focus should now be on the successful dialogue with the GEF Secretariat implementation of individual projects. Commending the work of the GEF Support 177. Many speakers expressed gratitude to Adviser, NZ added that the future Australia and New Zealand for their support relationship between the Secretariat and the and to the GEF Support Adviser for his work. GEF needs to be considered in the context of discussions on the new Strategic Plan, 178. PNG also noted concerns in regards to including whether the GEF Support Adviser GEF implementing agencies and requested should be made part of SPREP’s core that the Secretariat seek feedback from the functions. GEF Secretariat in this regard.

22 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

179. Kiribati supported the 9.2.5: Waste Reduction and recommendation and urged the Secretariat Pollution Prevention to engage countries to develop a clear approach to assessing GEF 5 resources taking 183. The Secretariat outlined past into account different capacity levels in campaigns and current strategies and member countries. highlighted the need to more strongly draw critical links between waste management and 180. The Secretariat welcomed the other environmental sectors and processes, comments from Members, and noted the such as biodiversity and environmental need for continued capacity building as well protection. The Secretariat advised that it as the continuation of the position of the GEF was seeking to conduct a one‐year regional Support Adviser, bearing in mind the need to campaign to address waste reduction and find external resources for that position. The pollution prevention in 2012. Secretariat also noted that the M&E unit was intended to be funded through GEF 184. Tuvalu thanked the Secretariat for its work in Small Island States, which face real resources. There could also be opportunities for territories benefiting from GEF projects, problems in this area. The representative as evidenced, for example, by the Micronesia asked that the campaign address the removal Challenge. of hazardous waste, which had been stored for some years since the earlier removal 181. At the request of the chair, the under a previous SPREP project. Friends of the Chair addressed these issues and reported back to the Meeting. 185. Cook Islands reiterated the need to address removal of asbestos particularly in 182. The Meeting: Small Island States and indicated that the  urged the Secretariat to engage with campaign was on the right track to achieve countries, other CROP agencies, the this. The representative also expressed the GEF Secretariat and GEF need to deal with growing amounts of implementing agencies to develop whiteware waste and e‐waste. and implement an approach to accessing GEF‐5 resources; 186. France expressed full support for the  reiterated SPREP Members’ support awareness raising and communication for establishing a GEF‐PAS monitoring campaign proposed by the Secretariat. and evaluation coordination unit to Indeed, the struggle against waste was be located at SPREP; and considered a priority for Small Island States in  agreed that the position of GEF the Pacific. Because of this, France had, Support Adviser with SPREP be through the Agence Française de continued, with revisions to Développement (AFD), tabled a one million responsibilities reflecting the above Euro project for a period of 4 years designed GEF operational changes and urged to undertake training action, waste collection the Secretariat to seek funding for the and the strengthening of capacity inter alia position as necessary, and Members by creating networks including, in those to consider possible options for networks, the donors. The awareness and funding. communication campaign presented by the Secretariat would come upstream from the projects to combat waste and more specifically, the action of AFD.

23 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

187. The Meeting: funds, depending on the amount available  endorsed the Secretariat’s proposal after staff salaries were covered. for a Waste Reduction and Pollution Prevention Campaign in 2012; and 192. In response to a request from USA,  encouraged Members to fully the Secretariat agreed to remove from future participate in the planning and budget documents references to ‘assessed delivery of activities and nominate a contributions’ and ‘arrears’, and to refer contact point for the campaign. instead to ‘contributions’ and ‘unpaid contributions’. The Secretariat would also ensure that references to PIFACC were Agenda Item 9.3: Consideration and consistent with the decisions of this Meeting. Approval of Proposed Work Programme and Budget for 2011 193. FSM, NZ, PNG and RMI called on the Secretariat to provide more detailed 188. The Secretariat presented a balanced information in future on which countries and budget for 2011 of US$11,550,052, which the territories were likely to receive assistance SPREP Director observed was a significant under which budget lines – i.e. a more increase on the scale of budgets of recent specific list of the benefits individual years. He also noted that, while the annual Members could expect from the work work programme had been structured in programme. accordance with the previous planning documents of the Secretariat, it would be 194. The Secretariat noted that the adjusted to match the priorities of the new purpose of the presentations under agenda Strategic Plan. item 9 at the SPREP Meeting were to allow more detailed scrutiny of individual budget 189. The Secretariat outlined the details of line items, and that all budget documents the anticipated income and expenditure for were subject to auditing, both by the coming year and acknowledged the range independent auditors, and by donors under of donors that would contribute to their memoranda of understanding. programme funding. 195. France welcomed the increasing trust 190. New Zealand welcomed the work donors were showing in SPREP, as evidenced programme but noted that NZ was still by the growing overall budget and the undertaking its internal processes required to mobilisation of donor funds. France would approve its budget line to SPREP for 2011, welcome an assessment of the leverage of and thus its support was subject to the Secretariat, to determine how this results confirmation. in actions within countries and territories. The Secretariat undertook to provide more 191. In response to a question from New country‐by‐country detail in the 2011 PMER. Zealand, the Secretariat acknowledged that the vast majority of its budget (approximately 196. American Samoa urged all Members $9 million) was project and programme to pay their contributions in full to prevent funding, while its core budget comprised any shortfalls. He asked whether the increase approximately 20%. The Secretariat in the budget from 2010 – in the vicinity of confirmed that SPREP charged a 10% $1.7 million – was justified, in light of the fact administration fee on project funding, but that there was a surplus in the 2010 core had a smaller levy (1‐4%) on programme budget. The Secretariat clarified that this

24 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting increase was largely due to the increase in Agenda Item 10: Corporate Services PACC and PIGGAREP project funding. 10.1: New Salary Banding Model 197. American Samoa queried the high level of expenditure on travel shown in the 203. The Secretariat reported on progress budget. The Secretariat confirmed that the relating to the new Salary Banding Model for amount included funding of sponsored the Secretariat as part of the CROP participants to SPREP workshops. American harmonisation process. It was noted that the Samoa called for measures to reduce this consultant assessment had identified seven burden, such as for Members to cover the staff positions for increase in salary under the costs of their own travel to attend SPREP new banding model. This equates to an events. additional requirement of US$25,000 for the 2011 budget. The Secretariat advised that 198. PNG noted that the proposal to placement of the salary banding for CEO establish sub‐regional offices of the positions was open for consideration by the Secretariat was also relevant to PNG’s desire respective governing councils. The new salary to better align its activities with the regional banding model for SPREP would be linked to priorities of SPREP. the newly developed Performance Development System (PDS). The Secretariat 199. The Secretariat noted that the work also recommended that the evaluation of the programme is designed to be flexible, and Director’s performance follow the same that other documents gave more detail on policies and guidelines as the PDS, with the individual countries and territories targeted exception that this be conducted by a for assistance. standing committee of Members, and headed by the current Chair. 200. RMI observed that the explanation for some of the smaller island countries 204. American Samoa and Cook Islands appearing to receive more assistance than queried what guidelines would apply for the others may be due to some projects focusing proposed Standing Committee. RMI agreed on some places more than others in that guidelines would be needed and these particular years. would need to be prepared with guidance from the SPREP governing council. 201. In response to a query from USA, the Secretariat noted that the PI‐GOOS position 205. French Polynesia also queried the role was not listed in the budget because at the of the Standing Committee, noting that a time of preparation, the funding details had review of the Director’s performance is not yet been finalised but that good progress conducted at the time of the renewal of was being made to secure that funding. The his/her mandate; and questioned the viability Secretariat agreed to include the PI‐GOOS of the Standing Committee overall, given position in the work programme and budget additional logistical and financial at the request of USA. requirements. France also suggested that the Director’s performance evaluation could be 202. The Meeting: conducted prior to the SPREP Meeting,  approved the proposed Work facilitated by a questionnaire to all Members, Programme and Budget of thus negating the need for a standing US$11,550,052 for 2011. committee.

25 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

206. FSM, Samoa and Tokelau 210. Samoa queried how the consultants recommended that the issue of salary had determined the salary banding but banding be separated from performance. supported the proposed increase in principle, Tokelau suggested that in the future, these due to the increasing focus on environment. be two separate agenda items. Samoa Australia, FSM, NZ, RMI, PNG, Tokelau and suggested that the Director’s evaluation be Tonga also supported the evaluation done before each SPREP Meeting, and processes taken by the consultants. Members supported the Secretariat recommendation also noted that the increase did not impact of having annual performance evaluations for on the 2011 budget. the Director. Cook Islands also agreed with the recommendation for the Director’s 211. Finally, at the initiative of French performance evaluation process. Polynesia it was decided to continue the discussion and to request the consultant to 207. PNG queried the impacts that the further discuss this matter with the SPREP salary banding would have on Member chair. contributions, particularly when taking in consideration the deletion of a previous 212. The Meeting: recommendation under Item 7.1 to review • approved the proposed new CROP Member contributions. The Secretariat harmonised banding model as replied that the increase of US$25,000 for the outlined in WP.10.1; 2011 budget was not an issue, as the monies • noted that the cost of required were already covered by other implementation is approximately programmatic and core sources, but would US$25,000 for which a provision has need to be considered in future meetings. been made in the 2011 Budget and Work Programme; 208. Tuvalu and Vanuatu both stated that • noted that implementation of the since the salary banding had financial new banding model will be effective implications for the annual budget, that this from 1 January 2011; issue should have been discussed before the • noted the evaluation of the SPREP budget was approved. Vanuatu also asked if Director role and relevant banding as there were any other cost implications of the recommended in the ‘Report on the salary banding for those Members who are Banding of CEO roles’ by the also members of other CROP agencies. Consultants and request the consultant to further discuss this 209. The Meeting discussed the issue of matter with the SPREP chair; and determining the banding position of the SPREP Director based on the consultant on the matter of Director Performance assessment, which was at Band 17. Several Evaluation countries were in favour of accepting the • agreed to appoint a Standing assessment while others were in favour of Committee, to be chaired by the moving to the upper band (18). American current SPREP Chair, to evaluate the Samoa and Cook Islands considered that this Director’s performance on an annual was best done by Members while Australia, basis. France and RMI noted that the consultant assessment was part of an agreed process and should be the basis for consideration.

26 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

10.2: 2010 Market Data Review country as a candidate. The representative further noted that the role of ministers in the 213. The Secretariat advised that the 2010 appointment of the Director was an issue market data had been evaluated by that was strongly voiced by the Ministers consultants as part of a harmonisation from Tuvalu and Samoa at the 19th SPREP initiative to determine appropriate salary Meeting in FSM. The representative felt that scales for SPREP professional and support the issue of the role of ministers should be staff, with the long‐term view of attracting adequately addressed otherwise the role of and retaining a skilled work‐force to serve Ministers would be perceived as just rubber member countries. Costs associated with stamping decisions of the SAC. implementation of the new staff salary scale were estimated at US$80,000 and this cost 217. In response to the issue regarding the has been provided for in the approved 2011 role of ministers, the Secretariat advised that budget and work‐plan. there is no rule preventing ministers from attending the SPREP Meeting. In the past, the 214. The Meeting: ministerial segment came after, and was  approved the salary scales for separate from, the SPREP Meeting. Starting professional staff (positions this year however, the ministerial segment advertised internationally), presented would be part of the SPREP Meeting and in SDR, effective from 1 January 2011; therefore this should no longer be an issue.  approved the salary scales for The Secretariat also pointed out that Rule 8 support staff (positions advertised acts to protect decisions of the SAC from locally), presented in SAT, effective political preferences. from 1 January 2011; and  noted that the cost of 218. With regard to Rule 4, the Secretariat implementation is approximately advised that conflict of interest situations US$80,000 for which a provision has need to be declared and it is the role of the been made in the 2011 Work SAC as well as the discretion of the Chair of Programme and Budget. the SAC to assess the seriousness of that conflict of interest. The Secretariat also reminded the Meeting that the selection and 10.3: Appointment of the SPREP Director – appointment of the Director is based on proposed revisions merit rather than country or nationality.

215. In response to Member requests for 219. FSM reaffirmed that the Officials revised rules for appointing the SPREP Meeting is the legal decision‐making body Director, the Secretariat introduced the and he suggested that the amendments to revised Rules of Procedures for the the Rules of Procedure was a step forward to Appointment of Director. The Secretariat address issues of conflict of interest in the thanked Members for their input and selection process in a transparent manner. comments on the revisions. The representative proposed to endorse the recommendation subject to revisions to Rule 216. Cook Islands raised reservations on 8.3. the amendments and drew attention to Rules 3, 4, and 7, in particular Rule 4 on Conflict of 220. The Secretariat responded that Rule Interest where a member of the Selection 8.3 would only come into effect should the Advisory Committee (SAC) is from the same recommended candidate decline the offer

27 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting and in such cases, the post should be offered 227. The Meeting endorsed the revised to the second most suitable candidate. Rules of Procedure for Appointment of Director. 221. Tokelau reminded the Meeting of the sensitivities of hearsay comments made by 10.4: Appointment of Auditors Members, recalling comments made by other Members. The Secretariat advised that at the 228. The Secretariat advised the Meeting drafting committee stage it would be possible that two tenders for the 2010 and 2011 for such statements to be modified. audits had been received and that Betham and Company was being recommended for 222. RMI and Tuvalu expressed support for these years. the work undertaken by the Secretariat to address concerns on this issue and Tuvalu 229. The Meeting approved the selection added that further scrutiny of the of Betham and Company of Samoa to audit amendments may be necessary. the SPREP accounts for the years 2010 and 2011. 223. American Samoa raised concerns over the role of ministers in the appointment of the Director and drew attention to the fact 10.5: Amendments to Staff Regulations that not all countries have their Ministers represented in the ministerial meeting. On 230. The Secretariat advised the Meeting this matter, the representative pointed out that it was proposing some minor that, if it was ever changed to be based on amendments to the Staff Regulations, which donor contribution, this would mean that the had resulted from internal consultations of countries with major contributions to SPREP the Secretariat. It noted that currently such should then have a major role in the amendments can only be approved by the appointment process. SPREP Meeting and that there was a need for a more efficient process to deal with these 224. French Polynesia sought clarifications amendments. The Secretariat proposed that on the ranking process and queried why an open‐ended working group be established there were two ranking processes, one by the to consider such amendments between Selection Advisory Committee and the other sessions of the SPREP Meeting. by the SPREP Meeting. 231. The Meeting: 225. France sought clarification on the  approved the proposed amendments schedule of the appointment of the Director to the Staff Regulations as outlined in and whether the new Rules of Procedure Attachment 1 of WP.10.5; and would be applied to the contractual renewal  approved the establishment of an process. open‐ended Working Group comprising interested Members to 226. The Secretariat clarified that the meet inter‐sessionally in order to: Rules of Procedures would come into effect (i) dispose of proposed immediately and so would be used next time amendments to the Staff there is a new appointment. The renewal of Regulations that arise during the the current Director’s contract is based on an course of the year; and assessment of his performance. (ii) recommend a more efficient process of dealing with Staff

28 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

Regulation amendments other 237. Several delegates expressed their than solely by way of the SPREP appreciation to the Environmental Legal Meeting. Adviser for the services that have been

provided over the years. 10.6: Report by the Director on Staff Appointment Beyond 6 Years 238. The Meeting noted the reappointment of Mr Clark Peteru to the 232. The Secretariat advised the Meeting position of Legal Adviser for a final 3 year on the reappointment of Mr Clark Peteru to term. the position of Legal Adviser for another 3‐ year term after serving 6 years in the same post. Agenda item 11: Items Proposed by Members 233. FSM noted that this was a sensitive issue, given that a person is already in the 11.1: Mainstreaming Invasive Species and position, and requested further information Biodiversity – a paper by New on the selection process. The Secretariat Caledonia responded that this had been done in the past, as happened in the case of the Finance 239. New Caledonia introduced a paper Manager in 2008, and that a competitive highlighting issues relating to invasive species regional recruitment process had been and their impacts on livelihoods and conducted. The incumbent was the successful ecosystems, including the need to assist in applicant and the Secretariat was satisfied preserving the biodiversity of the region in with the performance of the person. the face of climate change. The Invasive Alien Species (IAS) project reflects the continued 234. Cook Islands noted that this was not and particularly successful collaboration the first occasion that this had occurred, and between New Caledonia and the Secretariat there may be a need to look at the terms of which was begun when New Caledonia was reference for different positions within the brought in to the Pacific Islands Invasives Secretariat to allow for a broader applicants Learning Network (PILN). base. However, the representative agreed with the recommendations. 240. FSM, Fiji, French Polynesia, Kiribati, 235. Samoa noted that the appointment NZ, Niue, PNG, RMI, Samoa and USA strongly had already been made, and that the supported the project presented by New Membership would therefore have to go Caledonia and the recommendations. USA along with the recommendations. The and Kiribati also highlighted complementary representative recommended that in future, work with the Micronesian Biosecurity Plan there should be an outside panellist on all and the Phoenix Islands Protected Area selection panels for senior appointments for initiatives respectively. Niue also raised the purposes of transparency. issue of biocontrol measures, which should be carefully considered. 236. American Samoa agreed with the recommendation of the Secretariat, in light of 241. The Meeting: the experience and good work of the • reaffirmed the importance of incumbent. healthy ecosystems in helping Pacific islands to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change;

29 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

• reaffirmed that invasive species capabilities and connectivity, and requested constitute a primary threat to support to assist Members who do not have livelihoods and ecosystems; sufficient bandwidth. PNG suggested that • noted prior efforts in invasive streamlined reporting could also be part of species control and encouraged the the ‘One Pacific Voice’ at the CBD COP10. Secretariat and Members to search for increased resources and 244. NZ stated that it would like to see this collaborative efforts to address the streamlined reporting approach as a model, invasive species threat; one which might be adopted in other • requested the Secretariat to develop international regimes with overlapping a social marketing strategy and reporting requirements. Vanuatu echoed programme that emphasises both similar sentiments. Samoa would like to see political mainstreaming and the continuation of this project and urged environmental inspiration for the Australia to continue with this initiative. very young, to raise the level of understanding of the values of 245. The Meeting: biodiversity and healthy ecosystems • noted the final report and and of threats to it, including achievements of this project; invasive species and climate change, • noted the project end date of 30 and thereby generate increasing November 2010; and public and political support for • agreed to continue to support the management of these threats to concept of streamlined reporting in livelihoods and the environment; international meetings where and possible. • encouraged itself and all members to support such a programme within their respective jurisdictions. 11.3: Country Profiles – exchange of information by Members on Year of Biodiversity 11.2: Streamlined reporting by Pacific Island countries to the biodiversity‐ 246. This was an information sharing related multilateral environmental session on activities carried out under the agreements – progress update (a International Year of Biodiversity. Reports paper by Australia) had been received from Australia, France, French Polynesia, New Caledonia, New 242. Australia presented its report and Zealand, Samoa and USA. The Chair invited detailed the background to the processes and Members to provide brief verbal efforts to streamline reporting for PICs for presentations on new developments that biodiversity‐related Multilateral Environment hadn’t been covered during the week. Agreements (MEAs), noting that the project Countries provided verbal updates on their will cease at the end of November 2010. activities, which ranged from schools‐based activities to tree planting, banning of plastic 243. Cook Islands, NZ, PNG, Tuvalu and bags and innovative public awareness Vanuatu noted the work of Australia and programmes. Several countries have taken supported the recommendations and a steps to engage high level decision‐makers in streamlined approach to reporting. Tuvalu, their activities. however, noted the difficulties of internet

30 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

247. Members undertook to provide their Agenda Item 13: Statements by Observers written country profiles to assist the Secretariat with ongoing work in biodiversity 251. Statements were made by several conservation. observers at the Meeting. A full list of the observers and text of their statements is attached as Annex VI. Agenda Item 12: Regional Cooperation

12.1: CROP Executives Meeting Report Agenda Item 14: Other Business

248. The Secretariat tabled the Summary 252. Samoa advised that, as co‐chairs of of Decisions of the Council of Regional the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI), Organisations in the Pacific (CROP) Chief Samoa and the Government of France would Executives on their meeting of 10‐11 June be hosting the next ICRI meeting in Apia, 2009. The SPREP Director highlighted some of Samoa from 8 to 12 November. Members the key achievements and some proposed were invited to contact the Samoa delegation tasks for the future, in particular the for more information if required. establishment of the CROP CEO working group on climate change. 253. American Samoa advised that his country would be hosting a climate change 249. RMI noted the recommendations and summit and its representative could be the report and commended the established contacted for further information on this. coordination between the CROP agencies. The representative noted that while SPREP Agenda Item 15 – 18 are part of the High had the mandate for the coordination of Level Ministerial Segment and is a separate PIFACC, there are cross‐cutting issues such as report. climate change and energy, biodiversity and food security, therefore meaningful coordination is required to make the most of investments. She welcomed the report.

250. The Meeting noted the report of the CROP Chief Executives.

31 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

ANNEX I: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS KEY: N: Noumea COP Mtg W: Waigani COP Mtg O: Officials Meeting HLS: High Level Segment

AMERICAN SAMOA

Dr Fanuatele Toafa Vaiaga’e N W O HLS Director   American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tel: (684) 633 2304 PO Box PPA Fax: (684) 633 5801 PAGO PAGO Email: [email protected] American Samoa 96799

AUSTRALIA

Mr Andrew McNee N W O HLS Assistant Secretary   Strategic & Advice Branch DEWHA Tel : +612 6274 2490 GPO Box 787 M: +614 9697‐039 Canberra ACT 2601 Email: [email protected] Australia

Ms Melissa Jacques N W O HLS Senior Policy Officer   International Section Tel: +612 627‐61072 Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage & Arts Fax: +612 627‐61058 GPO Box 787 Email: [email protected] Canberra ACT 2601 Australia

Mr Jonathan Mitchell N W O HLS Program Manager ‐ AusAID     Australian High Commission Tel: +679‐338‐2211 PO Box 214 Fax: +679‐338‐2316 Suva, FIJI Email: [email protected]

Ms Anne Giles N W O HLS Assistant Director   International Adaptation Strategies Team Tel: +612 6159 7136 DCCEE Email: [email protected] GPO Box 854 Canberra ACT 2601 Australia

Ms Louise Yabsley N W O HLS Assistant Director   Sector Negotiations & Liaison Team Tel: +612 6159 7560 DCCEE Fax: +612 6159 7136 GPO Box 854 Email: [email protected] Canberra ACT 2601 Australia

32 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

COOK ISLANDS

Mr Vaitoti Tupa N W O HLS Director     National Environment Service Tel : +682 21 256 PO Box 371 Fax: +682 22 256 Rarontonga, Cook Islands Email: [email protected]

FEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA

Mr Andrew Yatilman N W O HLS Director     Office of Environment and Emergency Management Tel: +691 320 8814/5 FSM National Government Fax: +691 320‐8936 PS‐69 Palikir, Pohnpei 96941 Email: [email protected] Federated States of Micronesia

FIJI

Hon. Samuela Alivereti Saumatua N W O HLS Minister  Ministry of Local Government Tel: +679 3304‐307 Urban Development, Housing & Environment Mobile: +679 9904‐700 PO Box 2131 Email c/o: [email protected] Suva, FIJI Islands

Mr Jope Davetanivalu N W O HLS Director     Department of Environment Tel: +679 3311 – 699 Ministry of Local Government, Urban Development, Housing Mobile: +679 9905‐366 & Environment Email: [email protected] PO Box 2109 FIJI Islands

FRANCE

Ms Josiane Couratier N W O HLS Representant permanent‐adjoint   Aupres de la Communaute du Pacifique Tel: +687 26 16 03 Delegation francaise aupres Fax: +687 26 12 66 De la Communaute du Pacifique Email:[email protected] 7 rue de Sebastopol – BP 8043 Noumea, Nouvelle Caledonie

Mr Laurent Caplat N W O HLS DAEI‐ SDCCDD‐BBM    Charge’ de mission Tel: +33 1 40 81 76 13 Mers Régionales et Eaux Douces Fax: 689 47.22.71 Ministère de l'Ecologie, de l'Energie, E:Laurent.Caplat@developpement_durable.gouv.fr du Développement Tour Pascal A, 6 place des Degres, 92055 La Defense cedex France

33 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

FRENCH POLYNESIA

Mr. Bruno Peaucellier N W O HLS Chef du Service des Relations Internationales   Office of the President Tel: +689 ‐ 47.22.76 PO Box 2551 Fax: +689 ‐ 47.22.71 98713 Papeete Email: [email protected] French Polynesia

KIRIBATI

Hon. Amberoti Nikora N W O HLS Minister  Ministry of Environment, Lands and Agricultural Tel: +686 28000 Development Fax: +686 28334 P.O. Box 234 Email: [email protected] Bikenibeu, Tarawa‐Kiribati

Ms. Teboranga Tioti N W O HLS Deputy Secretary   Ministry of Environment, Lands and Agricultural Tel: +686 28000 Development Fax: +686 28334 P.O. Box 234 Email: [email protected] Bikenibeu, Tarawa‐Kiribati

Mr. Farran Redfern N W O HLS Senior Environment Officer     Environment & Conservation Division Tel: +686 28211/28000 Ministry of Environment, Lands and Fax: +686 28334 Agricultural Development Email 1: [email protected] P.O. Box 234 Email 2: [email protected] Bikenibeu, Tarawa‐Kiribati

Mr. Timoa Tokataam N W O HLS First Secretary  Kiribati High Commission Tel: +679 9929 843 Suva Email : [email protected] Fiji

MARSHALL ISLANDS

Ms. Yumiko Crisostomo N W O HLS Director   Office of Environmental Planning and Tel: +692‐ 625 7944 Policy Coordination (OEPPC) Fax: +692‐ 625 7918 PO Box 975 Email 1: [email protected] MAJURO 96960 Email 2: [email protected] Republic of the Marshall Islands 96960

34 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

NAURU

Hon. Fredrick. W. Pitcher N W O HLS Minister  Ministry of Commerce, Industry & Environment Tel: +674 444 3133 Government Offices F: +674 4443157 Yaren District Email: [email protected] Republic of Nauru

Mr. Michael Aroi N W O HLS Director     Regional Affairs Tel: +674‐ 557 3133 Department of Foreign Affairs & Trade Email: [email protected] Republic of Nauru

Mr. Russ Kun N W O HLS Secretary   Department of Commerce. Industry & Environment Tel: +674‐ 557 3042 Yaren Email: [email protected] Republic of Nauru

NEW CALEDONIA

Hon. Jean‐Louis d’Anglebermes N W O HLS Minister  Ministry of Environment, Agriculture & Fishing Tel: +687‐75 56 40 98848 Noumea Cedex Fax: +687 New Caledonia Email: [email protected]

Dr Yves Lafoy N W O HLS Senior Adviser    Scientific & Cultural Cooperation to New Zealand Regional Tel: +64 27 260 1477 Cooperation and External Relations Email: [email protected] Government of New Caledonia Currently on Secondment to New Zealand BP.P M2 98 849 Noumea CEDEX New Caledonia

NEW ZEALAND

Ms. Marion Crawshaw N W O HLS High Commissioner   New Zealand High Commission Tel: +675 325 9444 Waigani Crescent Fax: +675 325 0565 PO Box 1051 Email: [email protected] Waigani NCD Port Moresby PNG

35 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

Mr. David Dolphin N W O HLS Deputy High Commissioner   New Zealand High Commission Tel: +685‐21635 PO Box 1876 Fax: +685‐20086 Apia, Samoa Email: [email protected]

Mr. Willy Morrell N W O HLS Programme Manager   NZ AID Programme Tel: +64 4 439 8618 Pacific Group (EMAIL ONLY) F: +644 43988683 Private Bag 18‐901 Email: [email protected] WELLINGTON New Zealand

Ms. Annie Wheeler N W O HLS Conservation Engagement Group   Conservation House Tel: +64 9 307 4843 Wellington Email: [email protected] New Zealand

NIUE

Mr. John Talagi N W O HLS Environmental Education Officer     Department of Environment Tel: +683‐ 4021 PO Box 80 Fax: +683‐ 4391 Alofi, NIUE Email: [email protected]

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

Hon. Benny Allen N W O HLS Minister  Ministry of Environment & Conservation Parliament House Tel: +675 3277‐520 Fax: +675 3253 551 Waigani, National Capital District Email: [email protected] Papua New Guinea

Hon. Roy Biyama N W O HLS Vice Minister  Ministry of Environment & Conservation Tel: +675 3250‐180 Parliament House Fax: +675 3250‐182 Waigani, National Capital District Email:[email protected] Papua New Guinea

Hon. Ben Semri N W O HLS Minister  Ministry of Fisheries Tel: +675 3277‐579 Parliament House Fax: +675 3277‐480 Waigani, National Capital District Email: Papua New Guinea

36 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

Hon. Francis Potape N W O HLS Minister  Ministry of Climate Change & Development Tel: +675 3277‐520 Parliament House Fax: +675 325 0182 Waigani, National Capital District Email: Papua New Guinea

Dr. Wari Lea Iamo N W O HLS Secretary     Dept of Environment & Conservation Tel: +675 3250‐180 P O Box 6601 Fax: +675 3250‐182 Boroko, National Capital District Email 1: [email protected] Papua New Guinea Email 2: [email protected]

Prof. Frank Griffin N W O HLS University of Papua New Guinea     Team PNG SPREP Special Advisor Tel: +675 3267‐319 Department of Environment and Conservation Fax: +675 3260‐369 Papua New Guinea Email 1: [email protected] Email 2: [email protected]

Ms. Kay Kalim N W O HLS Deputy Secretary     Sustainable Environment Program Tel: +675‐325‐0180 Dept of Environment & Conservation Fax: +675‐325‐0182 PO BOX 6601, Boroko Email: [email protected] Papua New Guinea

Ms. Gwendoline Sissiou N W O HLS Deputy Secretary     Policy & Evaluation Tel: +675 3250‐180 Department of Environment and Conservation Fax: +675 3250 182 Papua New Guinea Email: [email protected]

Mr. Vagi Rei N W O HLS Executive Manager     Marine Environment Program Tel: +675 3250 180 Department of Environment and Conservation Fax: +675 3250 182 Papua New Guinea Email: [email protected]

Mr. Michael Wau N W O HLS Director     Environment Protection Tel: +675 3250 180 Department of Environment and Conservation Fax: +675 3250 182 Papua New Guinea Email: [email protected]

Mr. Michael Bongro N W O HLS Executive Manager     International Policy Tel: +675 3250 180 Department of Environment and Conservation Fax: +675 3250 182 PO Box 6601 Email: [email protected] Boroko, National Capital District Papua New Guinea

37 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

Ms. Rose Singadan N W O HLS Manager     Terrestrial Protected Area Tel: +675 3250 180 Department of Environment and Conservation Fax: +675 3250 182 Papua New Guinea Email: [email protected]

Mr. James Sabi N W O HLS Manager     Terrestrial Ecosystem Management Tel: +675 3250 180 Department of Environment and Conservation Fax: +675 3250 182 Papua New Guinea Email: [email protected]

Mr. Bernard Suruman N W O HLS Manager     Marine Protected Area Tel: +675 6250 180 Department of Environment and Conservation Fax: +675 3250 182 Papua New Guinea Email: [email protected]

Mr. Veari Kula N W O HLS Manager     Industry Services Tel: +675 6250 180 Department of Environment and Conservation Fax: +675 3250 182 Papua New Guinea Email: [email protected]

SAMOA

Hon. Faumuina Liuga N W O HLS Minister  Ministry of Natural Resources & Environmnet Tel: +685‐23800 Government of Samoa Fax: +685‐23176 Private Mail Bag Email: [email protected] Apia, Samoa

Mr. Taulealeausumai Laavasa Malua N W O HLS Chief Executive Officer     Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment Tel : +685 23800 Government of Samoa Fax : +685 23176 Apia, Samoa Email : [email protected]

Ms Afoa Arasi Tiotio N W O HLS General Manager     Samoa Land Corporation Tel : +685 24881 Government of Samoa Fax : +685 21914 Apia, Samoa Email : [email protected]

Mr. Hele Matatia N W O HLS Principal Foreign Service Officer     Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Tel : +685 21171 PO Box L1859 Fax : +685 21504 Apia, Samoa Email : [email protected]

38 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

SOLOMON ISLANDS

H.E Bernard Batahanasia N W O HLS Solomon Islands High Commissioner  Port Moresby Fax: Papua New Guinea Email: [email protected]

Mr. Joseph Hurutau N W O HLS Ministry of Environment     Conservation and Meteorology Tel: (677) 27751 HONIARA Fax: (677) 28054 Solomon Islands Email: [email protected]

Ms. Debra Kereseka Potakana N W O HLS Senior Environment Officer   Environment Conservation Division Tel: +677‐23031/2 Ext 201 Ministry of Environment, Conservation & Meteorology Fax:+677‐28054 PO Box 21 Email: [email protected] Honiara Solomon Islands

TOKELAU

Hon. Kuresa Nasau N W O HLS Minister  Ministry of Economic Development & Natural Resources Tel: +690 2132 Office of the Ongoing Government of Tokelau Fax: +690 2108 Tokelau Email: [email protected]

Mr. Jovilisi Suveinakama N W O HLS General Manager Apia/National     Office of the Ongoing Government of Tokelau Tel: +685‐20822 PO Box 3298 Mobile: +685‐7771820 Apia Email: [email protected] Samoa

TONGA

Hon. Lord Ma’afu Tukui’aulahi N W O HLS Minister  Ministry of Lands, Survey & Natural Resources Tel: +676 25‐050 PO Box 5 Fax: +676 25‐051 Nukualofa Email: Kingdom of Tonga

Mr. Asipeli Palaki N W O HLS Director     Ministry of Environment & Climate Change Tel: +676‐ 25‐050 PO Box 5 Fax: +676 – 25051 Nukualofa Email: [email protected] Kingdom of Tonga

39 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

TUVALU

Mr. Mataio Tekinene N W O HLS Director     Department of Environment Tel: +688 – 20179 Private Mail Bag Fax: +688‐ 20167/ 20836 Vaiaku, Funafuti Email: [email protected] Tuvalu

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Dr. Robert Domaingue N W O HLS International Relations Officer    Bureau of Oceans, Environment & Science Tel: +202 647‐3073 Office of Ocean & Polar Affairs Fax: +202 647‐4353 2201 C Street, NW, Rm 2665 Email: [email protected] Washington, D.C 20520 United States of America

Dr. Norman Barth N W O HLS Regional Environment Officer   31 Loftus street Tel: +679 331‐4466 US Embassy Suva Email: [email protected] Suva, FIJI

Ms. Susan Ware Harris N W O HLS NOAA Office of International Affairs   14th St. & Constitution Ave., N.W. Tel: 202‐482‐6196 Room 6224 (Mail Stop 5230) Direct Line: 202‐482‐5143 Washington, DC 20230 United States of America Email: susan.ware‐[email protected] U.S. Department of Commerce

Ms. Sandeep Singh N W O HLS Regional Environmental Affairs Specialist   31 Loftus street Tel: +679 331‐4466 Ext 8210 US Embassy Suva Email: [email protected] FIJI

Dr. Stephen R. Piotrowicz N W O HLS Oceanographer   National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/OAR Tel: +301 427‐2493 Fax: +301 427‐2131 1100 Wayne Avenue Email: [email protected] Suite 1210 Silver Spring, MD 20910 United States of America

Mr. Brian Asmus N W O HLS Political/ Economic Officer   US Embassy Tel: +675 321‐1455 Ext:2136 PO Box 1492 Fax: +675 321‐1593 Port Moresby Email: [email protected] Papua New Guinea.

40 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

VANUATU

Hon. Paul Telukluk N W O HLS Minister  Ministry of Lands, Geology, Mines Tel: +678‐23105/22892 Water Resources, Energy & Environment Fax: +678‐22213 Government of Vanuatu Email: [email protected] Private Mail Bag 9007 Port Vila, Vanuatu.

Mr. Albert Williams N W O HLS Director     Department of Environment & Conservation Tel: +678 22227/25302 PMB 9063 Mobile: +678‐555‐2174 Port Vila Email 1: [email protected] Vanuatu Email 2: [email protected]

Mr. Jean Tranut N W O HLS First Political Advisor  Ministry of Lands, Geology, Mines Tel: +678 23105 Energy & Rural Water Email: [email protected] Port Vila. Vanuatu

CROP AGENCIES/ADVISERS

PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM SECRETARIAT

Mr. Tuiloma Neroni Slade N W O HLS Secretary General   Pacific Island Forum Secretariat Tel: +679‐3312‐600 Private Mail Bag Fax: +679‐322‐0230 Suva Email: [email protected] Fiji

Dr. Scott Hook N W O HLS Economic Infrastructure Adviser   Pacific Island Forum Secretariat Tel: +679 322‐0212 Private Mail Bag Fax: +679 322‐0249 Suva Email: [email protected] Fiji

SECRETARIAT OF THE PACIFIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Amena Yauvoli N W O HLS Manager   SPC Regional Office for Northern Pacific Tel: 691‐320‐7523 Pohnpei Fax: 691‐320‐2725 Federated States of Micronesia Email: [email protected]

41 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

SOPAC

Mr. Marc Overmars N W O HLS Manager‐ Water & Sanitation Programme   South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC) Tel: +679 338 1377 Private Mail Bag, GPO Email : [email protected] SUVA, Fiji

FFA

Ms. Barbara Hanchard N W O HLS Oceanic Fisheries Management Project Coordinator   Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Tel: +677 21124 Ext: 216 Management Project Coordinator Fax: +677‐23995 1 FFA Road, PO Box 629 Email: [email protected] Honiara Solomon Islands

OBSERVERS

Birdlife International

Dr. Mark O’Brien N W O HLS Senior Technical Advisor   Birdlife International Tel: +679‐331‐3592 GPO Box 18332, Suva Fax: +679‐331‐3492 Fiji Email: [email protected]

Conservation International

Ms. Modi Pontio N W O HLS Country Program Manager   Conservation International Tel: +675 641‐00349 Port Moresby Fax: +675 641‐0359 Papua New Guinea Email: [email protected]

CSM

Ms. Heidrun Frisch N W O HLS ASCOBANS Coordinator/CMS Marine Mammals Officer UN   Campus‐ Room 927 Tel: +49 228 815 2418 Hermann‐Ehlers‐Str.10‐53113 Bonn Fax: +49 228 815 2440/49 GERMANY Email: [email protected]

Dr. Donna Kwan N W O HLS Programme Officer‐Dugongs   UNEP/CMS Office‐Abu Dhabi Tel: +971 (0) 2 6934 410 C/o Environment Agency‐ Abu Dhabi Mobile: +971 (0) 56 6987830 Al Mamoura Building A, Al Muroor Rd (St No.4) Email: [email protected] PO Box 45553, Abu Dhabi United Arab Emirates

42 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

European Union

Dr. Kay Beese N W O HLS Counselor   Rural & Human Resources Development Tel: +675‐321‐3544 Delegation of the European Union to PNG rd Fax: +675‐321‐7850 3 Floor, The Lodge, Brampton St. Email: [email protected] Port Moresby, NCD Papua New Guinea

Finish MeteoroIogical Institute (FMI)

Mr. Jaakko Nuottokari N W O HLS Manager   FMI Consulting Services Tel: Finnish Meteorological Institute Fax: FINLAND Email: [email protected]

Global Environment Facility (GEF)

Mr. Rawleston Moore N W O HLS Adaptation & Country Relations Officer  Global Environment Facility Tel : +1 202 473 8231 1818 H Street, NW Fax : +1 202 522 3240 Washington DC 20433. USA Email : [email protected]

International Union Conservation Nature (IUCN)

Mr. Etika Rupeni N W O HLS Roundtable Coordinator  IUCN Office Tel: +679 PMB, 5 Ma’afu St Fax: +679 Suva, FIJI Email: [email protected]

Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)

Mr. Kikuo Nakagawa N W O HLS Director General  Global Environment Department Tel: +81‐3‐5226‐9510 5‐25,Niban‐cho,Chiyoda‐ku Fax: +81‐3‐5226‐6343 Toyko 102‐8012 Email:[email protected] Japan

Mr. Shiro Amano N W O HLS Senior Advisor  th 5 Floor, Nibancho Centre Blg Tel : +685‐ 21593/28569 5‐25 Niban‐cho, Chiyoda‐ku Fax : +685‐ 28570 Tokyo 102‐8012 Email : [email protected] Japan

43 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

Mr. Kentaro Yoshida N W O HLS Environmental Management Division 1  Global Environment Department Tel: +81‐3‐5226‐9542 5‐25,Niban‐cho,Chiyoda‐ku Fax: +81‐3‐5226‐6343 Toyko 102‐8012 Email: [email protected] Japan

Mr. Shun Nesaki N W O HLS Assistant Resident Representative  JICA PNG st Tel: +675 321 2677 1 Floor, Pacific Place,Musgrave St Fax: +675 321 2679 PO Box 1660, Port Moresby, NCD. Email:[email protected] Papua New Guinea

Mr. Faafetai Sagapolutele N W O HLS Waste Management Consultant  Private Mail Bag Tel: +685 774 5668 Apia, Samoa Email: [email protected]

Mrs. Naoko Laka N W O HLS Project Formulation Adviser  JICA Samoa office Tel : +685‐22‐257 Apia, SAMOA Mobile : +685‐770‐1252 Email : [email protected]

National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd (NIWA)

Mr. Doug Ramsay N W O HLS Manager‐ Pacific Rim & Coastal Consultant   National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd Tel : +64 0 7 859 1894 NIWA. PO Box 11115 Gate 10 Fax : +64 0 7 856 0151 Silverdale Road Email : [email protected] Hamilton New Zealand

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Mr. David McLachlan‐Karr Tel : +675 Resident Representative Fax: +675 Port Moresby Email: Papua New Guinea

Ms. Carol Flore Tel : +675 Deputy Resident Representative Fax: +675 Port Moresby Email: Papua New Guinea

Ms. Gwen Maru Tel : +675 PNG Country Office Fax: +675 Port Moresby Email: Papua New Guinea

44 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Dr. Greg Sherley N W O HLS Task Manager Biodiversity Conservation   Division of Global Environment Fund Tel: +685‐23670 UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Fax: +685‐7505346 Private Mail Bag Email: [email protected] Apia Samoa

World Meteorological Organization (WMO) N W O HLS Mr. Henry Taiki   WMO Office for the South West Pacific Centre Tel: (685) 25706 PO BOX 3044 Fax: (685) 25771 Vailima, APIA Email: [email protected] SAMOA

World Wide Fund (WWF)

Dr. Eric Verheij N W O HLS Conservation Director   Western Melanesian Programme Tel: WWF Fax: Port Moresby Email: [email protected] Papua New Guinea

TRANSLATORS & INTERPRETERS French Language Solutions Pty Ltd Phone: +612 93981767 21 Queen Street Fax: +612 85691383 Randwick Email: [email protected] NSW 2031 Australia

INTERPRETERS TRANSLATORS Mr Bertold Schmitt Mr Olivier Richards Ms Dominique Toulet Mr Pierre Pellerin Mr Tyrone Carbone Mr Raymond Poirrier

TECHNICIAN Mr. Alan Doyle

45 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

SPREP Secretariat

Mr. David Sheppard Ms. Easter Galuvao Director Biodiversity Officer

Mr. Kosimiki Latu Mr. Anthony Talouli Deputy Director Marine Pollution Adviser

Mr. Stuart Chape Mr. Dean Solofa Programme Manager – Island Ecosystems PI‐GCOS Officer

Dr. Netatua Pelesikoti Mr. Joe Stanley Programme Manager – Pacific Futures Global Environmental Facility‐Support Adviser

Mr. Clark Peteru Ms. Seema Deo Environmental Legal Adviser Education & Social Communications Adviser

Mr. Espen Ronneberg Mr. Stephen Powell Climate Change Adviser Institutional Capacity Adviser

Ms. Alofa S Tuuau Mr. Christian Slaven Finance Manager IT Database & Systems Administrator

Mr. David Haynes Ms. Apiseta Eti Pollution Prevention & Waste Management Adviser Personal Assistant to the Deputy Director

Mr. Jeffrey Kinch Ms. Lupe Silulu Coastal Management Adviser Registry Supervisor

Ms. Pauline Fruean Conference & Travel Officer

46 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

ANNEX II: OPENING ADDRESS BY THE SPREP DIRECTOR, MR DAVID SHEPPARD

Honourable Minister Mr Benny Allen, your Pacific Island Countries and Minister for Environment and Territories. Conservation in Papua New Guinea Distinguished delegates to the SPREP I believe SPREP is becoming stronger and Meeting better able to support our Members in Donors and Friends of SPREP these efforts. Observers Ladies and gentlemen We have spent most of this year looking to the future – addressing issues such as Good morning, where is SPREP heading and how do we best get there. In looking forward it is also Bikpela gut morning i kam long you olgeta important to look back and to learn the lessons of history. Thank you Minister for your courtesy and consideration in making time in your busy In August this year we celebrated the 10th schedule to address our gathering and anniversary of moving into the SPREP officially open the 2010 SPREP Meeting. Compound in Vailima in Apia and also – in We are looking forward to your opening a sense ‐ the 36th birthday of SPREP. As address. we noted at the time this is much older than all of the ladies currently at SPREP. I would like to extend a warm welcome to everyone to this Opening Ceremony. I We recalled that SPREP’s origins date hope your journey here was a safe one, from a Regional Conference on and thank you for making the time to Conservation of Nature in 1969 which attend this very important meeting. recommended the recruitment of a regional ecological adviser. And that I am well aware that this is a challenging SPREP then started as a small programme time for all of us working in the in July 1973 ‐ in fact a one man band, environmental field and also that you are Arthus Dahl ‐ within the Secretariat of the all busy people. Pacific Community – SPC.

We have a full agenda in front of us – A tour ceremony marking 10 years in the reflecting a busy and active past year and SPREP compound, we paid tribute to the also ambitious future plans. many persons who have guided SPREP

since that time, including past SPREP We will outline many activities and Directors: Vili Fuavao, Tamarii Tutangata, initiatives over the next few days. and Asterio Takesy. We also noted the Following your instructions from last transition of SPREP from a programme of years’ SPREP Meeting we have embarked SPC to an independent organisation. on an ambitious change management Like any birth there are always nervous strategy ‐ the bottom line is that we are moments but we were fortunate for the refocusing to better serve and assist you, guidance of wise men and women from our Members, in addressing the major many Pacific Islands to steer us through environmental challenges you face in this process, including Robin Yarrow from

47 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

Fiji, Sione Tongilava from Tonga, and We note PNG’s commendable progress in Kilifoti Eteuati from Samoa. conserving biodiversity, including the establishment of protected areas on land We noted the many changes for SPREP and at sea, and your measures to work and for the Pacific environment since we with and involve local communities. Like first set up shop in Noumea. On the other Pacific countries there are major environment front – many of the same challenges in addressing issues such as threats and challenges still exist ‐ and, in pollution, including that from mining fact, have become more critical. operations, and in developing the capacity to effectively manage your In PNG as for other Pacific countries, the environment. environment has special meaning. It has shaped our Pacific cultures ‐ it is our Minister – thank you your efforts to heritage and the basis of our life. It better manage the environment in PNG in provides us with an income, a home and a a sustainable manner and we look sense of self respect as Pacific people. forward to learning from your experience while in your country. Biodiversity is an area of even more focus than usual for SPREP this year as we Climate change remains the key celebrate the International Year of overarching threat facing us all. I have Biodiversity in the Pacific under the visited a number of Pacific countries over theme: Value Pacific Island Biodiversity – the last year and have seen at first hand It’s Our Life. The biodiversity of the Pacific the immediate threats facing the low region is of global significance but is lying atolls and islands of the Pacific. highly at risk. Extinction rates in the region, especially for bird species, are Climate Change is not just an among the highest in the world. There are environmental issue – it is also an issue many reasons why the Pacific has so with immense social, economic and moral many threatened species, including the dimensions. vulnerability of small, isolated islands to impacts such as invasive species, loss of Many of us participated at the habitat and excessive resource Copenhagen Climate Conference last exploitation. year. While the results were less than we hoped for we must still work together to Issues relating to biodiversity are clearly ensure that the Pacific voice is heard and bought into focus in Papua New Guinea. heard loudly at the international level.

We note that PNG in itself contains over We must ensure the funding 5% of the world’s biodiversity in less than commitments made at Copenhagen are 1% of the world’s total land area. This honored, including those part of the biodiversity has both global and local Copenhagen Accord. Funds must flow value – it is vital for the many endemic immediately to assist Pacific countries – and rare animal and plant species but it is among the most vulnerable in the world – critically important for local people who to adapt and respond to climate change. depend on this biodiversity for their food and livelihoods, and as a source of There are many other important climate spiritual inspiration. financing issues that should be addressed

48 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting in our region in particular, the need for The SPREP Secretariat is here to help you quicker access to available funding and and will provide every assistance to the need to reduce administrative support your efforts and ensure useful requirements and process wherever outcomes arise from this Meeting. possible. This is my second meeting as the SPREP The last year has been a period of change Director and I would like to acknowledge as we have moved to implement findings the hard work of Kosi Latu, our Deputy of the Independent Corporate Review of Director and the SPREP staff, over the last SPREP and the Regional Institutional year. I feel honored and very fortunate to Framework. These provide many be able to lead such a team of competent opportunities for SPREP to move forward and hardworking men and women. as a stronger and more effective organization. Many of you have had the opportunity to work directly with our staff members. We have done our best to follow the clear We look forward to strengthening the directions you provided at the 2009 bonds of this relationship and our SPREP Meeting and we will report on friendship over the coming week and progress to this SPREP Meeting. beyond.

At all times our work has been guided by We have appreciated the positive support the principle that we must be more from SPREP Members as we have worked responsive to our Members and ensure to support your country environmental that all programmes and projects are priorities. addressing identified country priorities in environmental management and climate Thank you to the many donors of partners change. of SPREP who have ensured that our work has translated to practical and tangible We have worked with all SPREP Members outcomes at the national and regional to develop a new Strategic Plan for the level. organisation to guide our work over the next 5 years. We seek guidance from you, Thank you Honorable Minister and all our Members, on this Plan and on the your staff for the very warm, positive and vision for SPREP over the coming week. friendly hosting of this the 21st SPREP Meeting. Delegates, ladies and gentlemen, we have a busy agenda ahead of us. We will Thank you address many of the major challenges facing the people of the Pacific. We look Fa’afetai lava forward to your guidance and wisdom as Tank yu tumas we work through our agenda.

49 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

ANNEX III: OPENING ADDRESS BY MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION, GOVERNMENT OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA – HON. BENNY ALLEN MP

Your Excellencies, the High It is widely recognized in the region that commissioners from New Zealand and the destruction of the environment is one Solomon Islands of the major threats to sustainable Distinguished delegation leaders and your development in the Pacific islands and delegates has a direct influence on the quality of The Director of SPREP and the Secretariat people's lives. Without adequate staff measures to combat the growing Invited officials from the UN agencies, the destructive practices the Pacific islands' GEF, and relevant government, non efforts to maintain healthy societies, to government and collaborating stimulate development and new organisations investment and ensure a sustainable Staff of Department of Environment and future for its people may be severely or Conservation and Foreign Affairs and significantly undermined. Trade Ladies and gentlemen Rapidly increasing populations are putting huge pressures on the ability of our Good morning, environment to sustain our evolving way of life. Developmental activities and On behalf of the Government and people increasing urbanisation are beginning to of Papua New Guinea, I have the honor show this. In addition, increased imports and privilege to stand before and formally of polluting and hazardous substances welcome you all to this country, combined with a lack of resources and especially Madang to this 21st Meeting of adequate knowledge on safe disposal Pacific Regional Environment Programme techniques, make general pollution or SPREP as it is often referred to. This prevention and waste management a meeting is a special one us as this is the critical issue for all of us. Waste first time this country is hosting this management, ladies and gentlemen has meeting. Many of you have already been both a direct and indirect relationship to here for almost a week and I hope the and influence on the health of the arrangements that have been put in place environment. In addition, inappropriate to welcome and accommodate you have and over usage of land for unsustainable been adequate. agricultural and forestry practices is also putting pressure on the land to sustain Distinguished delegates and observers ‐ in growing communities. this day and age where our nations strive to achieve sustainable development, the Our marine resources are being harvested importance of managing the integrity of at alarming rates and if we do not react our environment, be it local, national or quickly enough and/or put in place regional in an environmentally sound appropriate conservation measures and manner cannot be emphasized enough. sustainable usage practices then we stand to lose many of our traditional food As we all know, one of the three pillars sources and edible species of marine for acquiring sustainable development at fauna and flora which will be devastating any national level is the environment – to our future generations. more specifically a healthy environment. Climate change is a no longer an issue

50 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting that we can only read about in books, The downstream economic effects of reports and documents ‐our people in the destructed environments can also be Pacific region are beginning to be affected significant. These can include reduction by this phenomenon. Our region is one of in land value and productivity due to the most vulnerable regions in the world contamination, direct effects on fish and and the concerns of increases in the other marine resources, and increased intensity of natural events such as health costs due to the adverse effects on cyclones, hurricanes, floods and coastal people. Export markets are also inundations are becoming regular potentially at risk as many developed realities ‐ some as frequent as on a half countries continue to tighten their yearly basis. For some low lying atolls, monitoring and control of contaminated these may mean relocation. We in Papua foods. New Guinea have already had to relocate a community of people from the Cataret Another potential downstream effect of Island. destructed environments is on tourism. Much of the tourism industry in the Our region is the home to the world's Pacific Islands is based around the images most diversed collection of coral reefs of clean unspoilt beaches, crystal clear which are in turn home to a massive waters and thriving coral reefs. This range of flora and fauna which cannot be image can be severely jeopardised by found anywhere else in the world. In inappropriate land usage, littering and many pans of the region, these coral reefs rubbish dumping, and through the are the backbone of our food supply. associated contamination of marine These are now under threat because of areas. Tourists may also be discouraged coral bleaching due to climate change. by public health concerns over infectious and vector‐borne diseases, which can Distinguish delegates and observers, sometimes be attributed to inadequate environmental pollution and destruction waste management practices. through what I have just explained can have direct and indirect linkages to The potential economic benefits from a economic development. The generation clean and well managed environment of waste materials through, for example, should also be recognised. In the the purchase of goods with a high manufacturing and energy sectors this disposable content (e.g. packaging) can include reductions in raw material represents a waste of raw materials and costs, while at the consumer level also a waste of money by the purchaser. reductions in waste materials such as Many of the materials thrown away as packaging will often be associated with municipal rubbish represent lost reductions in overall costs for the goods resources when the materials could be associated with that packaging. In the used in other ways (e.g. use of green case of tourism, clean surroundings and a waste as compost). The recovery of some healthy environment will enhance the of these materials can have direct overall tourist experience and assist in economic benefits through incentive promoting future visits. mechanisms (e.g. recovery and resale of aluminium cans and glass bottles) and in Properly managing all aspects of our other cases indirect benefits (e.g. use of environment can also help improve our waste oil as a fuel substitute). In addition, health. Rubbish dumps are a potential there is an economic cost involved in source of numerous toxic and harmful collecting and disposing of these materials, which have the potential to materials properly. impact on humans through leaching into

51 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting water supplies or by uptake into foods especially at a domestic level. There arc grown in contaminated soils. Fish, class aspects as well, with most waste shellfish and other marine food sources management activities being seen as can also become contaminated through connected with people of lower social surface run‐off or leaching into coastal status. Poor people can least afford to marine areas. spend money on "waste∙∙ materials such as packaging. In addition, they are Rubbish burning is a common practice in amongst the most vulnerable to losses of many Pacific Islands, and this can be a basic food supplies through the effects of major source of air pollution and the contamination of land or marine release of toxic chemicals such as dioxins resources. They are also amongst the and furans. Poorly managed rubbish most vulnerable to the potential adverse collection systems and disposal facilities health effects associated with exposure to are also a significant source of odours and harmful pollutants. a breeding ground for rodents, flies and mosquitoes, with the resulting potential Future Trends: for increasing outbreaks of infectious and Over the last two decades, the Pacific vector‐borne diseases. Islands region has undergone a great deal of progress and development both at the There are numerous health aspects national and regional level. This trend is associated with improper environmental unlikely to change over the next decade management activities. At a very basic and consequently the associated level, poorer neighbourhoods are often environmental issues are also unlikely to the preferred locations for rubbish deviate significantly from the current dumps. And, the residents of these trend. neighbourhoods are often most at risk from the associated pollutants, due to This means that as countries in the their generally poorer health status regions continue to develop in all aspects compared to other groups. Women and of their progress the inevitable increase children have been shown to be more at pressure on our environment to sustain risk than men from many pollutants. For us is also likely to continue. Populations in example, most persistent organic the region will continue to grow and with chemicals accumulate in body fats and it come an increase in the destruction of the accumulation rates tend to the higher our environment as well as the need for for women than for men because of their other services. People in the region are generally high fat levels. Those same becoming more prosperous through their pollutants can be readily transferred from involvement in the commercial and mothers to their babies, either through industrial development of the countries placental transfer to the unborn child, or and as such their generation of waste and via breast milk in lactating mothers. environmental use is also going to Infants and young children are especially continue to increase. Industries continue vulnerable to the effects of pollutants to develop in modern technology and in such as mercury and lead, which can have many of these cases the requirements for adverse effects on both mental and their existence need an increased amount physical development. of material, many of which will ultimately end up as waste. In Pacific communities, women are often the people most directly involved in All these progresses will also increase the aspects of environmental management, need for environmental and public utility services to be provided under the

52 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting different sections described above. All critical, analytical and strategic in your these will inevitably result in a need for all interventions but above all, let us be of us to collectively work together to sensitive to the needs of others and assist make sure that the integrity of our is not the Secretariat in putting together what compromised but at the same time, our real needs are so it can assist us allowing economic development to occur effectively and properly with your needs for the benefit of our people. so together we can make a change. Because in environmental protection in SPREP is an organisation that we all the real world, no one group, approach or belong to and believe in. It is also the action in isolation can achieve the goal. Regional Organisation that has been This is where our partnerships or charged by our leaders to assist the synergistic approaches are necessary in countries with all of these environmental managing our environment. issues that I have highlighted. The Government of Papua New Guinea In the environment, everything is linked. supports the work of the Secretariat and I And so the actions to deal with threats to know that in this meeting there will be the environment must also be linked. deliberations on the new Strategic Plan And all sectors and the community must for the next five year (2011∙20 15) among be involved. The different players may other things. I encourage you all to be take different approaches, but it is critical, frank and candid in your important that these approaches are interventions and input in the discussions. coordinated, are in step, and that each Let us be reminded that this is our knows what the other is doing – at both Strategic Plan and we need to direct our the national, and regional levels. Secretariat on what we want it to do – not the other way around. I thank you once again for your commitment and effort and wish you all a successful and productive week. The Secretariat needs to be guided on how we want it to work at the national In concluding distinguish delegate and level and this meeting is an excellent observers. I hope your deliberations over opportunity for us to do just that. The the next couple of days will transpire into regional coordinating role it plays is a decisions that will set the way for our given but the management and staff of issues to be addressed in a way that will the Secretariat also needs to understand benefit the very people we all represent. I that the environmental problems exist at also hope that you will take time out to the national level and we need them to enjoy the friendship, culture and food be more visible and participatory at the that the people of Madang and Papua national levels rather than just providing New Guinea at large have to offer. advisory roles remotely from the Headquarters in Samoa and meeting up Finally, I wish you all well in your meeting with them at international meetings. This and safe journeys home following the will have resourcing implication and we as meeting. individual members need to assist in this manner by digging deeper.

In as far as the rest of the program is concern, I encourage you all to take time in healthy debates of the issues that are before us in this meeting. Let us be

53 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

ANNEX IV: AGENDA

Agenda Item 1: Opening Prayer Agenda Item 8: Regional Conventions

Agenda Item 2: Appointment of Chair 8.1 Report on the Conference of and Vice‐Chair the Parties to the Noumea Convention Agenda Item 3: Adoption of Agenda 8.2 Report on the Conference of and Working Procedures the Parties to the Waigani

Convention Agenda Item 4: Action Taken on

Matters Arising from Twentieth Agenda Item 9: 2011 Work Programme SPREP Meeting and Budget

Agenda Item 5: 2009 Overview 9.1 Island Ecosystems Programme

5.1 Presentation of Annual Report 9.1.1 Regional Marine Species for 2009 and Director’s Programme Overview of Progress since 9.1.2 CBD COP10 preparations the Twentieth SPREP Meeting 9.2 Pacific Futures Programme 5.2 Performance Monitoring and Evaluation Report on the 2009 9.2.1 PIFACC Mid‐Term Review Annual Work Programme and 9.2.2 Review of Regional Budget Meteorological Services 9.2.3 Directions in the UNFCCC 5.3 Audited Annual Accounts for Process 2009 9.2.4 Global Environment

Facility (GEF) Agenda Item 6: Institutional Reform and developments and issues Strategic Issues in the Pacific

9.2.5 Waste Reduction and 6.1 SPREP Strategic Plan 2011 ‐ Pollution Prevention 2015

6.2 ICR and EC Assessment Follow 9.3 Consideration and Approval of up Proposed Work Programme and Budget for 2011 6.3 Regional Institutional

Framework (RIF) Update Agenda Item 10: Corporate Services

Agenda Item 7: Strategic Financial Issues 10.1 New Salary Banding Model

7.1 Report on Members’ 10.2 Annual Market Data Contributions 10.3 Appointment of Director ‐ proposed revisions

10.4 Appointment of Auditors

54 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

10.5 Amendments to Staff Agenda Item 15: High‐Level Ministerial Regulations Segment (9 September)

10.6 Report by the Director on 15.1 Welcome Ceremony for Staff Appointment Beyond 6 Environment Ministers years 15.2 Introduction to meeting Agenda Item 11: Items Proposed by 15.3 Environmental Financing in Members the Pacific (keynote address:

Monique Barbut, GEF CEO) 11.1 Mainstreaming Invasive Species and Biodiversity – A 15.4 Climate Change – UNFCCC paper by New Caledonia Process: from Copenhagen to Mexico and PIFACC Mid‐ 11.2 Streamlined reporting by Term Review Pacific Island countries to the biodiversity‐related 15.5 Recommendations from multilateral environmental Officials Meeting agreements – final report – A 15.6 SPREP Strategic Plan 2011‐ paper by Australia 2015 11.3 Country Profiles – Exchange of 15.7 Madang Communiqué Information by Members on Year of Biodiversity Agenda Item 16: Date and Venue of Agenda Item 12: Regional Cooperation Twenty‐Second SPREP Meeting

12.1 CROP Executives Meeting Agenda Item 17: Adoption of Report of Report the Twenty‐First SPREP Meeting

Agenda Item 13: Statements by Observers Agenda Item 18: Close

Agenda Item 14: Other Business

55 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting ANNEX V: DIRECTOR’S ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2009 & OVERVIEW OF PROGRESS SINCE THE 2009 SPREP MEETING

SPREP Members, distinguished guests, destruction of property. The Secretariat Ladies and Gentlemen. assisted Samoa through impact assessments, surveying and mapping It is my pleasure to present to you the 2009 affected areas as well as assessing impacts Annual Report for SPREP and also to report on fisheries and sea turtles. on progress since the last SPREP Meeting. The impacts of climate change continue to Our achievements are detailed in the pose major challenges for Pacific countries. Annual Report and in the Project Leaders at the recent Pacific Islands Forum Management and Evaluation Report which meeting noted that climate change remains will be discussed next. the greatest threat to the livelihoods, security and well being of the peoples of the In this presentation I would like to highlight Pacific. a few items to illustrate how SPREP is becoming a more relevant and focused SPREP has actively responded to climate organisation responding to member change and to other major challenges priorities. during the year.

At the outset I would like to say how happy I Your Secretariat has closely followed your am to be back at SPREP. directions from last year's SPREP Meeting to ensure we are a more efficient and effective It has been my pleasure to have visited 9 organisation. SPREP Member countries since starting – thank you very much to all involved for your We launched an ambitious change warm hospitality. I have appreciated the management strategy in 2009, guided by opportunity to see at first hand your four key principles. environmental challenges and to discuss with you how they can be addressed. The first principle has been to improve the delivery of tangible services to SPREP It has also been an honour and a pleasure to Members. work with the professional, hardworking and dedicated team at the SPREP Last year you directed the Secretariat to Secretariat. I can assure you that you are increase its level of support to Pacific Island well served by this team. Countries and territories

The last year and a half has been a period of I am pleased to report major progress. change – both for the Pacific environment and for SPREP itself. We have made good progress with implementing decisions of last years’ SPREP From an environmental perspective, many meeting and this is outlined in the Working Pacific countries and territories were papers for this meeting. affected by extreme weather events and natural disasters, the worst of which was The first item on the list of suggestions from the tsunami that severely impacted Samoa, SPREP Members at the last SPREP Meeting American Samoa and Tonga on 29 (see Working Paper 4) was for the September 2009, with tragic loss of life and Secretariat to improve the awareness of

56 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting Pacific environmental issues by developing Through this exercise you have informed us appropriate material, such as a calendar. that the region's strategic priorities are climate change, biodiversity, waste and I hope that you will be pleased with the pollution management, and environmental 2011 SPREP calendar that has been monitoring and governance. distributed to you. These are the priorities outlined in the draft Some other highlights have included Strategic Plan under consideration at this increasing the attention to waste SPREP Meeting. management and pollution – in 2008 we allocated 6% of our budget to this area – We seek input from you ‐ the Members ‐ to this has now been increased to 15%. We will finalise the plan at this SPREP meeting. sign an agreement at this meeting with the Japanese government to greatly expand The second principle has been to improve work on waste management in Pacific Island internal processes, in particular in response countries. We have also increased our to recommendations of institutional reviews engagement with Pacific Island Territories – such as through our joint work with New The first half of 2009 was dominated by the Caledonia on the major regional Ramsar finalisation of the Regional Institutional meeting held recently. We will continue to Framework (RIF) review process, which expand our involvement with Pacific recommended a number of functions be Territories. transferred from SOPAC to SPREP and to SPC. We have moved decisively to We have significantly increased our level of implement RIF recommendations. direct support to SPREP Members. The large number of activities SPREP has All functions relating to SPREP, including the implemented in each ‐ and every ‐Pacific PIGOOS position and the Island Climate Island Member country and territory is Update, have been transferred under a outlined in Attachment 3 of Working Paper Letter of Agreement in April, 2010. 5.2. Two major reviews – the Independent Please look through this list and take this as Corporate Review (ICR) and the European a measure of our commitment to support Union review ‐ have provided SPREP with a practical country initiatives and to respond platform for institutional strengthening, to your identified needs and priorities. which will put your Secretariat on a better footing to deliver services to member Efforts to consult members on priorities has countries and territories. increased since the last SPREP Meeting, notably through the preparation of the draft These reviews highlighted a number of Strategic Plan. I am proud we have issues where improvement was required, implemented the largest Member particularly in relation to strategic planning, consultative exercises in SPREP’s history. I staff morale and financial management. am also delighted that three‐quarters of all SPREP members responded to the strategic The Secretariat has moved quickly to plan questionnaire and participated in the address key recommendations from these consultative workshops – this is a huge reviews, and this is reported in the increase on the level of involvement in the background papers for this meeting. last SPREP Strategic Planning exercise in The need to improve staff morale was 2004. highlighted in the ICR. We have

57 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting strengthened team building initiatives, around 80% of our budget, and that the including through a staff retreat in July level of core funding, currently around 20%, 2010, which we also used to involve staff in has remained relatively stable over many drawing up SPREP’s first ever set of years. organisational values and code of conduct. We believe this pleasing growth in the Recently we undertook a staff satisfaction SPREP budget reflects a growing confidence survey to monitor progress in morale. This of donors in our performance and also in will be undertaken annually and the results our improved financial management. used to monitor progress and to address particular issues and problems. We value this trust and we will work hard to maintain it. Last year I reported to you that the 2009 staff survey found that 21% of staff Our aim is to ensure that this increase in assessed their morale as high or very high. I budget is resulting in improved services to am pleased the results from this year’s SPREP members and that all financial survey indicate a significant increase in management is transparent, accountable, overall staff satisfaction, with 74% of staff and in accord with global best practice. currently rating their morale as high or very high. The SPREP budget will be discussed later in the meeting but I am pleased to also note We have made our management more open that the auditors have provided a clean and and consultative. We regularly meet as a full unqualified opinion of the Secretariat’s Secretariat and have established a financial operations in 2009. functioning Executive Team which is reporting regularly to staff in an open and The third key principle has been to transparent manner. Our performance strengthen SPREP’s partnerships, to better indicator is that all outcomes from each support Member countries. Executive Team meeting are reported to all staff within 2 days of the meeting. The environmental challenges facing the Pacific are too large for any one We have also strengthened our financial organisation to tackle. Effective and more management, including through approving focussed partnerships are essential. state of the art procurement guidelines and implementing a number of improvements We recognise the critical role of to our financial systems to tighten our partnerships to SPREP’s work. Over the last accountability. year MoUs have been signed with key partners such as the International Maritime In relation to financial matters, I am pleased Organisation, the University of the South to report that the SPREP budget has Pacific (USP) and the Ramsar Convention increased from a dip in recent years. In Secretariat. 2007 the SPREP budget was 7.19 million, this has increased to 9.8 million in 2010, One outcome of the RIF process has been a and we anticipate the budget to increase in more collegial and cooperative approach 2011 to 11.5 million. This will enable the between the different CROP agencies. Secretariat to better support your national SPREP hosted a meeting of CROP CEOs in environmental priorities. June and we agreed on a number of measures to improve cooperation, including We note that this increase is through through establishing a CROP Working Group project and programme funding, currently on Climate Change.

58 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting The CROP Marine Sector Working Group The fourth principle is to improve the was also re‐activated last year, and already linkage between SPREP’s policy work and inter‐agency cooperation through its practical, on‐ground demonstration leadership has resulted in the development projects. of the Pacific Oceanscape concept proposed by Kiribati and its endorsement by the We are striving to ensure SPREP’s work at Pacific Leaders Forum this year. the policy level is based on practical, on ground experience and better linked to The Oceanscape initiative provides an good information and science. excellent way of linking different initiatives related to conservation and sustainable use SPREP provides policy support to its of the Pacific Ocean, including the Coral members in a number of fora, such as the Triangle, the Micronesia Challenge and the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Pacific Ocean 2020 Challenge. Our challenge UN Framework Convention on Climate is to work with Members and regional Change. It is essential that this advice is agencies to ensure that it is funded – and grounded in reality and based on the best becomes a reality. knowledge available. Decisions on key issues affecting the region such as climate I would also like to acknowledge the many change must be based on the best available donor organisations supporting SPREP. A science. glimpse through our 2009 Annual Report shows that 46 donors and supporters have A good example of SPREP’s shift to practical contributed to SPREP’s work. national support is our increasing development waste management We are particularly pleased that several key programmes within Pacific countries, with SPREP Member countries have increased the support of Japan, through JICA and their support to SPREP, including France in support from France. relation to solid waste management and Australia in relation to climate change. We are developing partnerships to strengthen the scientific basis of our work, I apologize for not mentioning all donors by such as through our joint work with the name but I would like you to know how Australian funded Pacific Climate Change appreciative we are for your support and Science Program. for your confidence in SPREP. In summary, SPREP has made considerable What we can never fully convey adequately progress over the last year in addressing the in a set of numbers or an overview concerns expressed by SPREP members and presentation like this is the multiplier effect as outlined in the various reviews of the of these investments – every dollar invested organisation. in SPREP is resulting in tangible benefits to We have achieved many practical on ground the countries and peoples of the Pacific. In outcomes for the environment and for many cases that funding is used to lever sustainable development in the Pacific support from other partners, to multiply region as outlined in the Annual Report. those benefits many times over. However major challenges remain.

The biodiversity of the Pacific is of global To our donors and partners ‐ thank you all, significance but is also highly at risk. For most sincerely, for supporting and working example, extinction rates in the region, with SPREP to make the Pacific environment especially for bird species, are among the a healthy and sustainable one. highest in the world.

59 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting Climate change remains the overarching environments. Excellent progress was made challenge for Pacific countries. in helping Pacific countries better manage their solid waste, address marine pollution, In 2009, the Secretariat heavily supported and protect ecosystems and important Pacific country preparations for the species, both on land and in the sea. The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference Secretariat continued to support Pacific which proved to be one of the largest‐ever countries in United Nations and other global UN gatherings. processes on biodiversity, species conservation, wetlands conservation and There was strong representation of our support for sustainable development. region, with eight Pacific Heads of State sending a clear message about the The Secretariat is committed to making importance of climate change for the SPREP a more efficient and effective Pacific. All Pacific island countries at organisation that can better serve the needs Copenhagen worked hard to ensure the of its Member Countries and Territories in Pacific voice was heard, and heard loudly. addressing their environmental and climate challenges. The outcomes from Copenhagen fell short of the hopes of Pacific countries. However, I We will accelerate and continue to improve believe that SPREP and its Members should the efficiency and effectiveness of our work not give up. We should recognise the with Members and partners at all times. conference as one step along a path, even though it is neither as ambitious nor as Together I am confident that we can rise to effective an outcome as that for which and meet the major challenges facing the many were pushing so hard. Pacific.

It is also essential that the targets and the In closing I would like to say thank you. financial pledges in the Copenhagen Accord are honoured and directed to help our Thank you to the dedicated and communities adapt to climate change. professional staff at SPREP

The strategy for follow up on climate Thank you to our host country, the change will be one of the major topics Government of Samoa. We appreciate under discussion this week and, in being hosted in Samoa and we also particular, at the high‐level segment of the appreciate the opportunity to learn from SPREP meeting, which will be attended by the practical and innovative experience of many environment ministers from the Samoa in managing its environment region. Thank you again to the many donors who We are pleased that we have strengthen support SPREP. We value your support and our work on Climate Change through the increasing trust in our organisation. We will innovative PACC and PIGGAREP projects, work hard to ensure that we have earned implemented in partnership and with the your trust and confidence. generous support through UNDP/GEF. We Thank you to SPREP Members who we as a acknowledge this support with Secretariat have worked hard to support. appreciation. We appreciate your guidance and your The 2009 Annual Report highlights the partnership. breadth of work SPREP is undertaking to SPREP Members, ladies and gentlemen, support its Members to improve thank you very much. management and protection of their

60 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting ANNEX VI: OBSERVER STATEMENTS

BirdLife International Birds provide a quick way of identifying Key Biodiversity Areas‐ sites that are essential The Chair for increased conservation effort and Director of SPREP and Staff Birdlife is thankful to SPREP for advertising Distinguished Delegates, Observers, Ladies or showcasing the 180 Important Bird Areas and Gentlemen that have been identified across the region. If you weren't aware that IBAs had been Three years ago Don Stewart, Pacific proposed for your country, can I ask that Regional Director of BirdLife International, you check out the SPREP website and gave a passionate and heartfelt plea to the provide feedback on your views. Identifying th 18 SPREP Meeting in Apia highlighting the sites is only the first step – improving the disproportionately high rate of extinctions conservation status of those sites, be that of birds in the Pacific Region, compared through legislation, community involvement with elsewhere in the globe, in the last 500 or active management is, the real aim. All years. Rather than regale you any more information gleaned at the site level is with depressing statistics about the combined to enable a global assessment of continued parlous plight of birds and other progress. This year's UN Millennium biodiversity in the region, I thought I would Development Goals used information to outline actions that have happened since indicate that over a quarter of the c11,OOO Don's speech 3 years ago. IBAs identified globally are completely covered by legal protection, but we have a Within the Pacific Islands countries and lot of catching up to do to get to this level of territories there are 20 species of birds that protection in the Pacific. are classed as Critically Endangered – that is species that will become extinct in our BirdLife, through its country partners, aims lifetime if we don't do something to help at practical delivery of on‐the‐ground them. Recovery programmes are underway conservation measures. However, we can for 6 of these species with basic surveys to only achieves so much, and therefore we find and identify the distribution of a rely on organizations that are able to further 7 species leaving another 7 species promote national and regional policy and for which we have not, as yet, made any advocacy changes to facilitate conservation progress. We know we can succeed in of sites. Hence our partnership with SPREP. preventing extinctions – the Rarotonga Monarch would be extinct now if it hadn't Bird conservation across the region needs been for intensive conservation action on to do more than simply focus on priority the Cook Islands, the Monarch is still sites. Two important broad scale issues present thanks to a long‐term but costly need to be addressed. First, many bird intervention project co‐ordinated by SOP extinctions across the region can be directly Manu – the BirdLife partner in French related to the introduction of invasive alien Polynesia. We know we can succeed – we species. Counter measures, such as rat have a responsibility to future generations control, have recently been successfully to make it succeed. employed although this only represents the first step toward restoration of island ecosystems.

61 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting Forests hold much of our most charismatic this role and could not be here, I would like fauna and flora. Opportunities to develop to congratulate SPREP and its members for sustainably‐managed forests that can a successful 21st meeting. additionally contribute non‐timber derived income to local communities need to be In this region SPREP is CI’s most important investigated. We need to ensure that the partner. Indeed one of the key reasons that ecosystems services provided by our forests CI’s Pacific Islands Program is located in are highlighted and that the global benefits, Samoa, is to ensure a close working such as for climate change mitigation, collaboration in planning, funding and derived from maintaining our forests are delivering nature conservation and healthy recognised. ecosystems outcomes throughout this region. And CI has reinforced this All these benefits will come to nothing if we collaboration since July 2010, by merging its are unable to persuade the communities Melanesia and Pacific Islands programs into that live and work with these habitats and one, representing the same geographical sites. We need to be able to demonstrate and political boundaries as SPREP’s that long‐term sustainable development membership. can be achieved hand‐in‐hand with biodiversity conservation. W e need to We commend the leadership of SPREP in provide communities, local stakeholders developing and promoting its Strategic Plan and civic society with the information to 2011‐2015 into a single plan that aligns enable them to make the choices that will regional priorities with SPREP’s action best deliver the required results for their strategy and response. In this context, CI communities and for the environment. At would like to reaffirm our commitment to the very least we have the responsibility to model our own Pacific islands strategy pass on to future generations a natural 2011‐2015 in full alignment with the SPREP environment that is no worse than the one Strategic Plan and the current and next that we have received. But surely we must Action Strategies for Nature Conservation in do better than that. And you can help in the Pacific, in full respect of its principles doing so. and guidelines.

I thank you for your attention and the Conservation International has had a MOU Director of SPREP, and its members, for the with SPREP since 2002. Our current MOU is opportunity to talk to you, and everyone active until 2013 and focuses largely on here for your attention. biodiversity conservation. Our joint activities with SPREP are wide ranging and include collaboration over marine target Conservation International Pacific Islands setting in the Pacific, to conducting Program (CI) ecological gap analyses studies in Samoa

and Kiribati, to funding SPREP to implement Thank you Chair for this opportunity to conservation projects in a number of SPREP present our Observer Statement to the member states. Currently we have active Secretariat and the Members of SPREP. and approved grants to SPREP worth more than 800,000 USD. On behalf of Conservation International’s President, Dr. Russell Mittermeier, and CI As you can now see, today marks the official Pacific’s Executive Director, Mr François launch of CI’s new logo – a new logo that Martel, who is shortly stepping down from symbolizes, not unlike SPREP’s new

62 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting Strategic Plan, Conservation International’s Invasives Initiative under the newly new strategy focusing on healthy formed Pacific Invasives Partnership, ecosystems and the conservation of nature along with our funding support for for people to thrive. invasive species management projects from the CEPF, will complement this Our pillars remain the same, strong science, effort. sustained partnerships and focus on human well‐being. Although this new strategy 3. The 2010 Year of Biodiversity and focuses on human well‐being securities, achievement of CBD targets. We are with such as climate, food, health, water and SPREP looking forward to COP10 in species, thus aligning well with the four Nagoya, now only weeks away, and priority strategies of the new Plan. assessing our performance as part of the committed partner in this region. To that So, in partnership with SPREP, we remain end we were pleased to be involved in committed to the full implementation of: ecological gap analysis projects jointly with SPREP in Samoa and Kiribati, 1. The Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund However, we acknowledge that this is an for the Polynesia‐Micronesia Hotspot. area that needs significantly more effort We are also currently hard at work and looking towards the future, at the developing an Ecosystem profile for the next targets. New Caledonia Hotspot with many New Caledonia‐based partners, while 4. The World Heritage listing of the Phoenix hopefully the Eastern Melanesian Islands Islands Protected Area (PIPA). CI is Hotspot (PNG northern islands, Solomon honored to continue our close Islands, Vanuatu) should become eligible partnership with the Government of for investment from CEPF in 2011. We Kiribati and our colleagues at the New are particularly grateful for the support England Aquarium for the design and of the Government of France to the CEPF establishment of what is the world’s and providing the funds to allow the largest MPA World Heritage site. The launch of a new round of CEPF funding work on this undertaking is proceeding globally. Since we launched the CEPF in well thanks to grants from the Global this region two years ago, we have Conservation Fund, the Governments of committed more than $4 million USD to Australia and New Zealand as well as the 58 projects in 14 countries and CEPF. We are continually impressed with territories, all of which are SPREP Kiribati’s commitment to this endeavor members. and this confidence in the partnership has helped CI secure our first 2. Invasive species management. In this endowment contribution of $2.5 Million regard CI strongly believes that Invasive USD. Species Management remains one of the core activity for ecosystems and species 5. The Pacific Oceanscape Framework. Also conservation and is pleased to see SPREP with Kiribati’s leadership, CI together take a lead role in capacity building and with CROP agency partners, have made a promotion for the successful commitment to assist the development implementation of the new Guidelines of a Pacific Oceanscape as per the Forum for Invasive Species Management. CI’s Leaders Decision in Aug 2009 and ongoing support to the Pacific Invasives consistent with the Pacific Plan and Learning Network and the Pacific Ocean Policy. This is a bold and

63 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting significant pledge now endorsed by all the opportunity to make this brief leaders with this new initiative statement on behalf of the Secretariat for integrating much of our marine the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency, conservation effort across the region, and the Director General Mr. Tanielu Su’a. including the outcomes of the Coral reef Initiative for the Pacific (CRISP), but at a The FFA has in recent years infrequently larger scale aimed at ocean stewardship attended SPREP Council meetings. I would for a large part of the largest ocean on stress that this is not a reflection of a poor the planet. level of inter‐agency communication and collaboration on work from overlapping 6. The restoration of watersheds for carbon mandates for countries, but a period of sequestration, conservation, community concentrated effort by the FFA Secretariat livelihoods in the Fiji Islands. With as we helped Pacific Islands countries take a numerous partners, including the central and lead role in the negotiation and National Trust of Fiji, FIJI Water and the adoption of the Western and Central University of the Pacific, as well as Fiji Fisheries Convention for the Conservation Government key institutions, CI and Management of the region’s tuna and continues to work closely with other related highly migratory species. The landowners and communities of various Commission for the WCPFC is successfully part of Fiji for new innovative projects in established and based in Pohnpei after an support of healthy ecosystems, from the energy consuming 10 years of working to Sovi Basin forests to the Tokaimalo ensure that Pacific Island’s sovereign rights reforestation projects. These form part to conserve and manage the fisheries of our contribution to SPREP and Fiji’s resources in their waters are not eroded by efforts towards forest protection on the the agenda of other players in the region’s islands and we hope that in looking at large and significant tuna fisheries, and that ecosystem services and the approaches they themselves take the lead in developing developed here, this could be adapted to and implementing measures that will other Pacific Islands, with much interest ensure that the region’s tuna stocks remain in New Caledonia, Samoa and Papua globally significant. New Guinea, among others. In the past decade there has been a In concluding, I would like once again to worldwide shift to incorporate more holistic thank the Director and Deputy Director of forms of management for natural resources. SPREP and the SPREP staff for their support This change has been particularly evident during the past year and to congratulate within marine systems, and has been most SPREP and its members for the commonly focused on fisheries achievements so well presented at this management where one of the numerous meeting and in adopting the coming years titles for such a concept is Ecosystem SPREP Strategic Plan. Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM).

Soifua The major change required for these forms of management is that not only must there be management of the target stocks, but Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency any impacts on the broader ecosystem (FFA) arising from the fishing activity need to be Director General, your staff and delegates considered along with the social and of the 21st SPREP Meeting, many thanks for economic outcomes of this activity

64 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting compared to other potential uses or It is an effort that requires increased and priorities. This results in assessments now strengthened coordination and being required of by‐catch levels and a communication between countries, and general drive to introduce more with other regional organisations such as environmentally friendly fishing methods the Oceanic Fisheries Progam of SPC, the and techniques. Forum Secretariat and with SPREP who share mandates that underpin the Leaders The oceanic tuna fishery is one of the major endorsed regional oceans governance components of a complex marine policies such as the ‘Pacific Plan’, ecosystem that exists in this region. Pacific the‘Regional Ocean’s Policy’ and the ‘Pacific island countries influenced by their Oceanscape framework’ whose principles obligations to various international and amongst other things are to improve our regional management regimes, are involved understanding of the Pacific Ocean, to in the development of viable management sustainably develop and manage the use of arrangements that will be effective in ocean resources and to maintain the health addressing issues such as resource of our ocean, sustainability, fishing capacity and effort control, maximizing benefits from resource We heard yesterday of the successful utilization and mitigating impacts on the completion of the Regional Plan of Action environment and non‐target species. These for Sharks. This is a good example of how issues are the objective of the WCPF inter‐agency coordination and collaboration Convention as it seeks to ensure long‐term in order to assist countries address conservation and sustainable use of highly principally the issues surrounding the migratory fish stock in the WCPO in incidental and targeted capture of sharks in accordance with the United Nations the commercial tuna fisheries in the Pacific Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982). region. We take note of New Zealand’s

intervention concerning the lesser focus on The initiative of the Forum Fisheries Agency coastal sharks and rays in the plan. The is to introduce EAFM as a more RPOA Sharks serves as a guide on sophisticated approach to fisheries management arrangements for countries to management in the western and central address their shark conservation Pacific region, to be of assistance in obligations. In places where impacts on efficiently implementing the objectives of those species are an issue, national plans of not only the WCPF Convention but also action are an option but should in most other international and regional fisheries circumstances be included in national management instruments and their fisheries legislation and management obligations. arrangements of which the development

and review processes for countries are It is recognised that our general knowledge assisted by both the oceanic and coastal of the complex marine ecosystem in this fisheries work programmes at the FFA and region is limited, and the possible affects of SPC. tuna fisheries are poorly understood.

Consequently, the EAFM is a long‐term Allow me to mention the great value that undertaking for FFA member countries in an FFA recognises in working with SPREP, and effort to reduce uncertainty in the decision in particular Joe Stanley as the GEF Pacific making process particularly for the Advisor, on all matters relating to the Global sustainable development of the region’s Environment Facility. Seeking to win global tuna resources. environment benefits, the relationship

65 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting between the work of the GEF in from GEF for the implementation of oceanic International Waters and the Pacific fisheries conservation and management in countries has its foundation in the Strategic the Pacific region has been developed by Action Programme (SAP) for International Pacific fisheries officials and ministers. The Waters in Pacific Islands Region led and concept for Phase II and its budget of developed in the late 1990s by SPREP. USD13 million for a further five year project is based on a number of principles which The FFA executes a full GEF supported will use resources to implement regional oceanic fisheries management conservation and management measures, project. The ‘Pacific Islands Oceanic with less focus on the Commission and a Fisheries Management Project’ was timely greater focus on national fisheries and instrumental in the negation and management particularly for the smaller of establishment of the WCPF Convention and the Pacific countries. There remains a high in assisting Pacific countries meet their degree of compatibility between these obligations to that Convention. Preceded by regional oceanic fisheries management a pilot phase in the Pacific SAP, the GEF needs and the objectives of the GEF Council approved a full programme of International Waters focal area in the fifth oceanic fisheries management work in the GEF cycle of funding principally the Pacific in 2005 to address a major area of promotion of multi‐state cooperation in concern about the unsustainable use of marine fisheries in Large Marine Ecosystems transboundary oceanic fish stocks, while considering climatic variability and especially the impacts of unregulated change. fishing in areas of high seas in the region and across all waters of the region. On that note Mr. Chair please let me conclude by saying that we can only expect A five year programme of work scheduled that the technical exchanges between the to conclude next year, the Pacific Islands FFA and SPREP Secretariat will only Oceanic Fisheries Management Project strengthen as countries further make their (OFMP) has with a great deal of success, commitments to holistic forms of assisted countries address concerns about sustainably managing their marine the weaknesses in governance, awareness resources and maintaining broad marine and information gaps in oceanic fisheries ecosystem health. management in the Pacific on a number of levels. The most satisfying outcome from Thank you the project at a regional level, of course is the establishment of the WCPF Commission Finnish Meteorological Institute (FMI) itself. Mr Chair, dear SPREP secretariat, While it’s acknowledged that significant distinguished delegates and fellow gains had been made under the current observers. project, the complexity and burden of work for countries to meet their WCPFC and The Finnish Meteorological Institute would international obligations and stay apace of like to thank SPREP and Papua New Guinea the Commission measures emerging for the invitation to join this productive and remains. efficient meeting in beautiful Madang. The newly formed cooperation between FMI With the eminent completion of the OFMP, and SPREP has now continued for 1.5 years a concept for another phase of assistance and I would like to transmit the warm

66 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting thanks of the Government of Finland for the Secretariat works closely and collaboratively continuing cooperation and support by with SPREP on many matters, such as the SPREP for the project, and to the Pacific RIF, and CROP issues, and the Director Meteorological Community. I would like to knows that we stand ready to assist and especially give thanks to Mr. Dean Solofa for cooperate with SPREP, including with its the continuing excellent cooperation in the corporate reforms and the new Strategic project implementation. Plan, if and when required. The ongoing support for PI‐GCOS, MCO and Chairman, the Pacific Island Forum now the Pacific Meteorological Desk Officer Secretariat appreciates the opportunity to positions within SPREP is crucial to the participate at this meeting and to be able to meteorological community as these have a make this intervention. What I say will be substantial influence in the development of general in nature, though I should devote climate and weather services in the region. time to the challenge of climate change. The FMI is committed to provide its technical assistance to SPREP in the Challenging as its environmental mandate development of multilateral efforts for is, SPREP functions in a work‐environment investment into regional and national that is even more challenging. Our region, weather and climate services. We hope to of course, is characterised by the smallness see the visibility, impact and capacity of the and isolation of island countries and their National Meteorological and Hydrological lack of resources and capacities. Those Services significantly improved in the around the main table which are not part of coming decade and for the wider metropolitan areas are all small developing community to take note of the important countries, a number of them being least work being done at the NMHSs. developing countries. Not one can cope with the devastations of natural disasters or Thank you the exacerbations of the global economic crisis in the past few years, and certainly not the impacts of climate change. Forum Secretariat (ForSec) Millennium development goals Chairman, I would note that one of the principal MDGs

I should like to congratulate you on your is to ensure environmental sustainability. presidency of this important SPREP As a global target, and by 2015. This will be meeting, and to offer words of appreciation a major challenge for member countries, to the Government for its largesse in and for SPREP, and we know that, generally, hosting this meeting. With such rich and Pacific countries are at this time unlikely to abundant biodiversity, underpinning some achieve their MDG goals. I stand to be of the most unique and outstanding corrected, Mr Chairman, but I should say cultures in the world, PNG could not be a that I have not read or heard much of the more appropriate setting for an MDG targets (specifically MDG7 – Ensuring environment meeting such as this, and one Environmental Sustainability) at this to finalise the preparations for the meeting. Though I should mention that the International Year of Biodiversity. MDG Tracking Report recently prepared highlighted that there has not been enough Allow me also to thank and congratulate the data to effectively measure progress on this Director of SPREP, Mr David Sheppard, for goal. his excellent stewardship of this, his first governing council meeting. The Forum Rio+20

67 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting In similar vein I am also wondering whether meeting in June this year, and the Sub‐ we should already be giving attention to Committee will meet early next month for regional preparatory work for the 20th the first time to discuss how best to ensure anniversary of the Rio conference on effective regional coordination. As I environment and development in 2012. indicated yesterday, this group will be held Two of the major international conventions at CROP Executive level and will be co‐ dealt with at this meeting, the CBD and the chaired by the Director of SPREP and the Climate Change Convention, were born of Forum Secretary General. Rio as, indeed, the Barbados Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Climate change, in particular, has exposed Small Island States which will be review by the vulnerability that is inherent in the the UN in New York later this month. condition of small island countries. Certainly, as the United States has noted, all In so wondering, I am addressing myself as countries are vulnerable, however, by well as the Forum Secretariat as I do other whatever measure, there is about small CROP agencies, noting that the UN has island communities that dimension of already commenced its preparations in this survivability and finality which tends to respect. mark them out as being vulnerable in a truly existential sense. Climate change Climate change is encompassing, ever In the Pacific context, you will recall that at present, and for all SPREP countries a reality their meeting last year in Cairns, Forum of urgency and seriousness. Climate change Leaders had set the Pacific Plan priorities for impacts widely, and indiscriminately. As Mr the next three years on the basis of the Sheppard correctly noted in his opening vulnerability of Pacific communities. So, in statement, climate change is not solely fundamental terms, the policy of the region environmental, for the consequences affect is focused on the need to strengthen and national economies, agriculture, health, improve the coping abilities of all Forum human safety and security, and many other countries, in terms of the natural resilience sectors. In the report on the mid‐term of peoples and communities, of their social review of the Pacific Islands Framework for and economic organisations and Action on Climate Change (PIFACC) it is governance and to ensure the sustainability noted that climate change is a cross‐cutting of the natural eco‐systems. issue and that the PIFACC needs to be implemented in line with and to take Funding for climate change has been account of other related regional policies discussed extensively, internationally at the such as the Pacific Plan, the Cairns Compact climate change negotiations and regionally, for the strengthening of development in this Council meeting and by Forum coordination, the regional Oceans Policy, Leaders at their meeting last month. As we the Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster have heard from Mr Ronnenberg and the Management Framework for Action, and so other experts, there is some degree of on. uncertainty about the Copenhagen funding. However, in the event of international Recognising the importance of addressing consensus on the matter, we in this region climate change from all sectors in a must be ready to act. As I have indicated, coordinated manner, the CROP Sub‐ there are presently no regional Committee on Climate Change was arrangements or a regional mechanism to established by CROP Executives at their handle funds of the magnitude

68 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting contemplated by the Copenhagen Accords, Forum Leaders have put the spot light on including ‘fast track’ funding. the problem of access to international funding sources, and this aspect has also Moreover, perhaps the greatest challenge been canvassed in this meeting. Over the for the region would be to ensure that there past decade there have been consistent is an appropriate and effective regional calls from this region to improve access to mechanism, or mechanisms, plus the international resources by simplifying necessary capacity to manage such funds. access, reducing conditionality, establishing Directly relevant to all this would be the quick disbursement procedures, reducing need for national arrangements to be in transaction costs and untying donor place in member countries, or upgraded assistance. and reformed as necessary, including essential public financial management I would note that these are calls from the systems to ensure transparency and full region, not to strangers, but to traditional accountability. donors and friends of the region: the GEF, the World Bank, UNDP, ADB and so on. In this respect, the Forum Economic Some of our donor friends are SPREP Ministers Meeting (FEMM), which includes Council members and are being regional Ministers of Finance, has been represented at this meeting: four Council tasked by Forum Leaders to look at options members of the GEF Executive Council, US, to better access and manage funds and France, Australia and New Zealand; as well resources to address climate change. This as the EU, UNDP, UNEP and others of the call reinforces the importance of UN family. The Pacific island countries have mainstreaming climate change into national their own direct representation, through planning processes and budgets as well as the Pacific islands tripartite constituency on all sectors. the GEF Executive Council, and through the AOSIS seats on the respective Boards of the Specifically, Forum Leaders at their recent Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of meeting in Port Vila have: the Kyoto Protocol, and the Adaptation ‐ tasked Forum Economic and Fund. My point would be that as we take Environment Ministers and Executives up the directive of Forum Leaders and turn of CROP Agencies to advise on to study in detail the problem of access to options to improve access to, and international funding sources, we in the management of, climate change region would need to have a clear resources; and understanding of the difficulties or ‐ they also tasked the Forum disadvantages being experienced by Pacific Secretariat to work with relevant island countries, and be able to explain organisations to develop mechanisms exactly to the international community to assist countries access the different what it is we seek to remove or minimise international financing for climate such difficulties; and further to press our change. case as conscientiously and as effectively as possible, including through our own island We in the Forum Secretariat look forward to constituencies and representations. working collectively with all stakeholders, including SPREP, to respond to these We expect that the consultancy looking at important directives. the feasibility of a regional funding mechanism will have started looking at some of these issues, and we very much

69 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting look forward to seeing the consultant’s report. On behalf of Mr Taholo Kami, Regional Director of the IUCN Regional Office for There is also the important matter of the Oceania and chair of the Pacific Islands expenditure of climate change funds. My Roundtable for Nature Conservation (PIRT), own expectation is that, except for the is delighted to participate in this 21st SPREP current trend of direct budgetary support Meeting and would like to congratulate measures, international funding will SPREP and its members for the continue to respond to individual or achievements in 2009/2010 and the success regional climate change projects. Here of this meeting. again, I believe it is incumbent on the region to be absolutely clear on our plans for IUCN and PIRT extends sincere appreciation climate change responses, in each member to SPREP for the support and partnership country and for the region as a whole. with IUCN this past year and we Undoubtedly, this is ongoing and substantial congratulate the SPREP Director Mr. David work, especially in adaptation efforts, for Sheppard and the dedicated and member countries and for all regional professional staff for SPREPs 2009 organisations with SPREP leading much of achievements, leadership and vision. this work. We need to be clear where Please be assured that IUCN and the Pacific resources and efforts are required and Islands Roundtable for Nature Conservation where necessary develop a top‐line of well is committed to the development of a thought out and well‐designed projects strong and lasting partnership with SPREP programmes and/or strategies. An obvious and its member countries, to enhance concern would be a situation where, for environmental governance and example, the international system is ready management in the Pacific Region. to start the flow of Copenhagen funding; IUCN greatly values the Memorandum of and we find ourselves unable to match the Understanding between IUCN and SPREP, international effort with a credible signed in 2007, and looks forward to articulation of our priorities which require continuing to build the level of collaboration funding. with SPREP, which has already been significantly enhanced with the presence of Chairman, this is my first SPREP Council IUCN’s Regional Office for Oceania in Suva, meeting, and I have followed your Fiji. proceeding with great interest. Thank you for allowing me to do so. IUCN is a unique and democratic membership union with more than 200 government members, over 800 NGO International Union for Conservation of member organisations, and almost 11,000 Nature (IUCN) Oceania and the Pacific volunteer scientists in more than 160 Islands Roundtable for Nature countries. Conservation (PIRT) IUCN membership in the Oceania region is Mr Chair, Distinguished Delegates, diverse, drawing together States, Observers, Ladies and Gentlemen; I am government agencies and non‐government making the presentation for the organisations. There are currently 27 International Union for Conservation of members based in Australia and 9 Members Nature, IUCN Oceania and the Pacific in New Zealand. The Pacific islands have Islands Roundtable for Nature Conservation. seen a significant increase in membership

70 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting since the IUCN Oceania office opened in islands for the first time. This is important 2007.We welcomed our new state members work and will become even more so given Fiji, Nauru, Solomon Islands and most that our fragile islands are so vulnerable to recently Tonga who join Australia, France, climate change. The species on our islands New Zealand and the USA as IUCN state are too important to lose. Members bring total members in the Pacific to 10. Other organisations and IUCN is a member of the Pacific Invasives governments, most notably from PNG, Initiative (PII) and has established an Samoa, Kiribati and the Cook Islands have Invasive Species programme node through recently shown interest in becoming IUCN the IUCN Invasive Species Specialist Group Members. We look forward to welcoming based at the University of Auckland in New more Pacific island countries and Zealand. This team is working though our organisations into the global IUCN family in Oceania Regional Office on Pacific invasive the near future. 2010 is our 4th year since species issues through PII and PILN. We are being established and we have seen committed to providing the best possible amazing growth in partnerships, programs, advice and support to address this vital membership and funding. issue in the Pacific.

Investing in Biodiversity is IUCN Oceania IUCN’s regional Energy programme is underlying theme – recognising that currently working in 6 of your countries: biodiversity and related ecosystems provide Marshall Islands, Palau, Samoa, Tonga, the natural infrastructures of life, nature Tuvalu and Vanuatu, to accelerate the solutions can contribute to the mitigation transition to energy systems that are and adaptation to climate change’s worst ecologically efficient, sustainable and impact. socially equitable. Switching from inefficient mercury and vapour street lights to more The IUCN Oceania Regional programme of efficient LED lights in the Marshall Islands is work for the next 4 years, 2009‐2012, projected to save USD$200,000 per year in focuses on 5 thematic areas and focuses on the operation of lights, which is equivalent supporting governments in their efforts in to a saving of 60% of the cost of existing biodiversity conservation, identification of lights. endangered species, and management of water, marine, freshwater and terrestrial Water and Nature Initiative (WANI): A environments. IUCN recognises the global initiative of IUCN’s Water Program importance for ecosystems to be managed initiative focusing on 5 themes: ecosystems not only to protect biodiversity but also to and security; governance; democracy and provide livelihoods to local communities. participation; economics and finance and learning and leadership. The initiative is IUCN would like to take the opportunity to working on three sites and these are Kadavu highlight some of our work that may be (Fiji), Nadi (Fiji) and Togitogiga in Samoa. A relevant to your governments. Most of this decision‐making support tool for assessing work is being supported through alliances of and enhancing project impacts on local organisations represented at this meeting, adaptive capacity to climate variability and including SPREP. climate change will be trialled to develop in Nauru, a State member of IUCN, and the IUCN, SPREP and NGO partners have Cook Islands. Awareness‐raising materials embarked on an effort to develop an IUCN addressing water issues peculiar to atolls Red List of endangered species in the Pacific and a document compiling the lessons

71 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting learnt from the projects in the Pacific will be participating in regional activities and produced. communications.

The IUCN Oceania Pacific Centre for Chair, I would like to now brief on the Environmental – Is intended to act as the Pacific Islands Roundtable for Nature regional virtual centre of excellence in Conservation environmental law, policy, economics and leadership. It will provide cost effective The Pacific Islands Roundtable for Nature access to expertise in these areas, and Conservation (PIRT) is a coalition of nature seeking to play a leadership role in conservation and development development and delivery of environmental organizations, governments, inter‐ governance programs in the region. government, donor agencies and community groups created to increase The Pacific Mangrove Initiative: Promotes effective conservation action in the sustainable management of mangroves and Secretariat of the Pacific Islands Region. It associated ecosystems and raises was formed in 1997 at the request of Pacific awareness on the value of coastal Island countries and territories. The forum ecosystems goods and services, including enables those organizations working on resilience to natural disasters and climate nature conservation in the Pacific to change. It will work with other initiative improve their collaboration and promoting ‘ridge to reef’ to integrate coordination towards effective conservation catchment management. action. It is the key coordination mechanism for the implementation of the The Pacific 2020 Challenge: A Pacific Ocean Action Strategy for Nature Conservation in Initiative to increase global attention to the the Pacific Island Region 2008‐2012. Pacific Ocean issues, build new partnerships and generate necessary commitments, to PIRT partners have been encouraged to sign address threats to the world’s largest a charter outlining their commitment to the natural resource – the Pacific Ocean. IUCN 2008 to 2012 Action Strategy and Principles has noted the need raised by some adopted at the 8th Pacific Nature members to ensure integration of this Conservation and Protected Areas initiative with other regional oceans conference held in Alotau, PNG in 2007. A initiatives such as the regional oceanscape total of thirteen key partners have now framework, CTI and Micronesian Challenge. signed1. At the 2008 PIRT meeting in Fiji, IUCN reaffirms its commitment to working partners agreed to focus roundtable with SPREP and its Member Countries with support at the country level, initially in Fiji, a range of relevant experiences, technical the Solomon Islands and Papua New expertise, and the best available science Guinea, towards improving coordination and knowledge to support sustainable and implementation of their existing development and the implementation of national nature conservation strategies and the Programme of Work for 2010 and mainstream them into national beyond. development strategies. This will provide

We continue to actively support the United 1 IUCN, WWF, Conservation International (CI), The Nature Nations Year of Biodiversity and working Conservancy (TNC), The Locally Managed Marine Area (LMMA) network, University of the South Pacific (USP), the Secretariat with you all by producing information of the Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP), Pacific briefings to Pacific island countries and Islands Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC), RARE and Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), Foundation of the Peoples of the South Pacific International (FSPI), Birdlife International, Pacific Biodiversity Information Forum (PBIF) and SeaWeb

72 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting lessons to guide roundtable support in other Pacific island countries. National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd (NIWA) This year we convened our 13th Meeting in Mr Chair, Distinguished Delegates, Director Samoa and we would like to thank SPREP of SPREP and Staff, Ladies and Gentlemen; and the Samoan Government for their on behalf of New Zealand’s National outstanding hosting during the week. We Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research saw 60 participants from the region ranging (NIWA) we are very pleased to be part of from Heads of Organisations, CROP working this 21st SPREP meeting and thank you for groups, academics, government this opportunity to contribute. representatives, field practitioners, scientists. Working Groups in Invasive As Delegates discussed earlier in this Species, Marine, Climate Change, Capacity meeting, the Island Climate Update was one Building, Species and Regional Initiatives of the four functions of SOPAC to be such as CTI and some specific country transferred to SPREP as part of the Regional interest groups e.g PNG were convened and Institutional Framework. NIWA has been they assessed regional issues, gaps and set honoured to provide the technical support, some regional priorities to address these in partnership with the region’s National areas which will be monitored during these Meteorological Services, SPREP and SOPAC, annual meeting. This continue to build for the production of the Island Climate strong partnerships and networks amongst Update since it’s inception over eleven the nature conservation NGOs, CROPS and years ago, and we thank both NZAid and Government. Seven Member countries NOAA for their continued financial support were invited by the UNDP CBD POWPA to for the project. The ICU plays an important share lessons on their POWPA work. The role in developing and building climate 2011 meeting has been currently discussed forecasting capacity in the region with this to be hosted by French MPA Agency in one role was recognised by the National of the French Territory countries and the Meteorological Service Directors at their focus will be to compile the report on the 13th meeting in Nadi in May 2009. We look Action Strategy for the 2012 Nature forward with much enthusiasm to working Conservation conference. with SPREP and the National Meteorological Services to continue to develop the ICU to Mr Chairman, as the Secretariat of the enable it to have a greater impact in Pacific Islands Round Table for Nature informing and supporting climate sensitive Conservation working closely with SPREP, sectors in Pacific Island countries and we would like to reiterate the Round Table’s territories. support to the One Pacific Voice at the CBD COP 10. I would also like to thank the Whilst I am on the topic of strengthening meeting for your support and assistance to the region’s Meteorological Services we are the preparations for the 2012 Nature heartened to hear from the SPREP Director Conservation Conference. that funding support may soon be available to enable the regional Meteorology and With that Mr Chair, Delegates, members Climate Officer position to be re‐ and observers, IUCN Oceania and the Pacific established. We join our colleagues from Islands Roundtable for Nature Conservation the US in encouraging the SPREP Secretariat would like to thank you for the opportunity to fill this position as soon as is possible. to address you, VINAKA

73 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting Over this last year we have increasingly with demolishing the Star Wharf at Port been working with our Pacific Island Vila. This builds on the training course on colleagues on activities within many of port biological baseline surveys and marine SPREP’s strategic priority areas and if I may pest surveillance we conducted with SPREP Mr Chairman I would like to briefly as part of the International Maritime highlight some of these activities. Organization’s GloBallast Partnerships Programme in early 2009. In the area of climate change adaptation a In closing NIWA looks forward to continuing major focus for NIWA in this last year has to actively work with and supporting SPREP been our involvement with the Ministry of and its Member Countries in implementing Natural Resources and Environment in the programme of work and related Samoa to assist with the first of their NAPA activities in contributing to sustainable implementation projects to develop a development in the region. Finally, Mr climate early warning system for the Chair, I would like to take the opportunity agriculture and health sectors. In Kiribati we to thank you, your Government, and the have continued our involvement with Phase people of Papua New Guinea for your Two of the Kiribati Adaptation Project to hospitality during this SPREP Meeting. develop and integrate climate risk information for climate proofing activities. We are also providing some initial technical support to a number of the in‐country South Pacific Applied Geoscience project teams, including Fiji, Cook Island Commission (SOPAC) and FSM, in implementing their Pacific Colleagues, Adaptation to Climate Change demonstration projects, and are also First may I take this opportunity to working with our Australian and Pacific congratulate the SPREP Director, not so colleagues on some of the implementing much on his appointment which is now activities associated with the Australian almost a year ago, but more importantly on funded Pacific Climate Change Science this occasion being the first SPREP Council Program and Pacific Adaptation Strategy and Ministerial session that he has held Assistance Program. responsibility for. David, let me assure you that you have the Our recent biodiversity and biosecurity full support of the SOPAC Secretariat. activities include our continued work with SOPAC looks forward to 2011 when, as the Palau and US colleagues to study the new Applied Geoscience and Technology biodiversity of the Palauan lakes which, in Division of SPC, we will be able to further these unique environments, has identified develop and strengthen our efforts to work to science many new species of sponges. together through joint programming not We have also been working with only at the regional but also, and in Micronesian and US partners to assess the particular, at the national level in order to risks posed by invasive aquatic weeds in improve service delivery to members. Guam, , Federated States of Micronesia and the Palau, and In accord with the Leaders decision on the have recently provided basic training in Regional Institutional Framework (RIF) marine pest surveys to staff from the review on 31st March SOPAC and SPREP Vanuatu Department of Fisheries and signed an Letter of Agreement (LOA). The Environment to undertake an initial specific functions covered by that LOA were assessment of marine pest risks associated as follows:

74 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting efforts and these should be encouraged.  Pacific Islands Global Ocean Observing These include Federated States of System (PI‐GOOS). Micronesia, Cook Islands and Fiji. More  Islands Climate Update (ICU). however needs to be done.  Climate and Meteorological Databases th (CMD) During the 16 Regional Disaster Managers  Energy functions related to Climate Meeting held in Suva in mid August disaster Change, specifically monitoring and managers pondered the issue and identified evaluation of Greenhouse Gas and the that a significant shortcoming was the lack Clean Development Mechanism. of an appropriate institutional framework at the country level to support harmonisation. The LOA stipulates that SOPAC undertakes This means that we at a regional level, must to continue to support SPREP in its future take the lead and create an environment to role in regard to these four work encourage the key DRM and climate change programme functions, in the spirit of stakeholders to come together. Presently cooperation, collaboration, and partnership there exist at least two formal regional amongst regional organisations, and as mechanisms that deal respectively with described in the CROP Charter. climate change and with DRM. The Pacific Platform for DRM is held annually with the Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Pacific Climate Change Roundtable held Change Adaptation biennially. We must bring these two One of the most significant challenges communities together and if possible have a facing SOPAC, SPC, SPREP and other single forum; SOPAC and SPREP need to regional and global partners is in relation to work together on this. By consolidating our the need to integrate our efforts in assisting efforts in terms of these cross cutting member countries and territories to development issues we in turn encourage mainstream disaster risk management and the countries to re‐think, harmonise, and climate change considerations (especially maybe even re‐align their national adaptation) into the national planning and institutional mechanisms for DRM and for budgetary processes. There is an climate change. overwhelming convergence on this at a philosophical level and over the last 2 years Developing an institutional framework to or more, both regional and global fora have better enable mainstreaming of DRM and made commitments towards an integrated climate change is one challenge to approach. What we have not seen to a overcome but this must be complemented significant extent are the practical by improved coordination of funding and applications of the philosophy. resource support for our countries and th territories in these areas. The 5 Annual In the Pacific, Tonga is the first country to Meeting of the Pacific DRM Partnership take strides to harmonise climate change Network in Suva in mid August re‐ and DRM mainstreaming efforts into a emphasised the need for improved single National Action Plan and both SOPAC coordination through joint programming and SPREP assisted the Tongan government and implementation of Climate Change and in its planning efforts. The joint NAP in DRM regional and national initiatives guided Tonga was approved by its Cabinet in July by PIFACC and Regional DRM Framework, as this year. A number of other countries have well as the need to use the funds related to expressed an interest to also harmonise these issues most effectively. Related to their respective DRM and climate change this, the meeting re‐emphasised the need

75 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting to strengthen national capacity to access conduct of a Regional Economics of Climate funds from various sources and Change Study. Robust figures on the costs opportunities for joint implementation of to the region of climate change will not only climate change and DRM priorities, thereby assist in future negotiations but improve increasing resilience in PICTs. information for land planning and That meeting of country representatives adaptation. Because of SOPAC's key role in and donor partners also acknowledged the generating scientific information to assess recent 2010 Communiqué by Forum vulnerability including climate change (sea Leaders and its statements concerning DRM level rise etc.), there is considerable and Climate Change, including the need for potential for this project to further sustainable funding mechanisms for climate strengthen links between SOPAC and change. SOPAC supports the comments of SPREP. This relationship may be the Secretary General on this matter and strengthened further given SOPAC's stands ready to fully engage in future longstanding expertise in resource deliberations leading up to a recommended economics. way forward to be presented to Leaders in 2010 together with establishing any Much of SOPAC’s economics work can have necessary interim arrangements that may a bearing on climate change analyses be required. because of the extent to which it can be used to inform adaptation. For example, the SOPAC science joint SOPAC and SPC work on vegetation SOPAC has for nearly 40 years built a strong mapping and monitoring, and SOPAC’s reputation for doing sound scientific and economic assessments of flood mitigation technical work. A knowledge base which is options including early warning still at best, minimal. The reality is we need systems, improved forecasting systems and to understand fully all the pieces in the raising the height of houses to jigsaw, and only then we may develop an accommodate floods. All of these strategies understanding of how they fit together to can be used to adapt to increased intensity complete the picture. and or frequency in hydrometeorological threats. SOPAC remains deeply concerned that good science and technical data are collected and Likewise, work on the economic feasibility made available in order to better inform of alternative aggregate sources can enable decision‐making. This is particularly atoll nations to minimise coastal threats in important in the environmental the face of rising sea levels. SOPAC vulnerability context where we must assessment of the economic costs of understand “normal” or historic natural disasters will also provide an important change. Thereby with ongoing monitoring, baseline for assessing the feasibility of island communities at all levels will be future adaptation strategies. better able to build coping strategies that will build resilience to the increasing Future collaboration vulnerability the islands are facing ‐ not the SOPAC, as the new Applied Geoscience and least of which is from the adverse impacts Technology Division of SPC, will be fully of climate change. committed to continue and strengthen the collaboration with SPREP, not only in the Regional Economics Climate Change Study fields of climate change and resource SOPAC congratulates SPREP economics, but also in other relevant fields on securing new project funds for the

76 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting such as environmental management and members for the excellent organization and protection. programming of the 21st SPREP Meeting.

We are pleased that discussions are now Mr Chairman, this brief statement will focus ongoing between SOPAC and the SPREP on three issues: First, against a background Secretariat to jointly develop and of the Regional Institutional Framework implement programmes to support our (RIF) that were mandated by our Leaders, members in this regard. and would be completed by the end of this year, there is a need for strengthened Thank You partnerships amongst all stakeholders, including amongst CROP agencies, to better support Pacific Island Member Countries, in Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) bringing services closer to our communities and peoples that we jointly serve. Chairperson, Recognising numerous constraints that are Distinguished National Representatives, prevalent at the PICTs national levels, Director David Sheppard & Staff, pragmatic approaches and effective H.E. Tuiloma Neroni Slade‐ SG of PIFS coordination mechanisms that delivers Colleagues from Other CROP and tangible results on the ground is the key for International Agencies, our regional services. As we all know and Ladies & Gentlemen. appreciate, these are the real challenges we

need to synergistically overcome. We very Let me at the outset mention how grateful well noted that this meeting is gearing we are to attend the SPREP 21st Meeting SPREP towards meeting these challenges in here in Madang, PNG. The SPC Director the years to come. Let me assure you that General ‐ Dr. Jimmie Rodgers, who had my Director General is committed to further intended to attend this meeting himself strengthening SPC’s partnership with SPREP conveyed his sincere regret that due to his in many areas of mutual interest. SPC will prior scheduled commitments and support SPREP in particular in areas that engagements, including the preparations SPREP leads at the regional level. for the 40th Meeting of the SPC CRGA next month, he is heavily constrained from Secondly, SPC have a number of policy attending this important gathering. Given mechanisms in place, as directed by our the importance of SPREP to SPC he tasked Ministerial Conference in recent meetings me as the member of the SPC executive to help bringing its services closer to our most closely aligned with the work of SPREP members. Decentralisation of services to represent him at this meeting. beyond Noumea and Suva came about after

the 2005 SPC Corporate Review and Mr Chairman, we’ve noted the excellent endorsed at the subsequent Ministerial progress of the meeting during this week Conference hosted by the Independent and despite the heavy agenda, you State of Samoa in 2007. This has resulted in displayed skillful management and efficient SPC’s presence in the North Pacific running of the meeting. On the same note, (Micronesian Region) and plans for we wish to congratulate Director David establishments in other sub‐regions are Sheppard, who is leading the SPREP team in gradually progressing. We have a country his first SPREP meeting since taking up office in Honiara, Solomon islands, and are appointment late last year, and Deputy in the process of finalising arrangements for Director Kosi Latu, and the SPREP staff similar country offices in Papua New Guinea

77 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting and Vanuatu. The formulations of Joint‐ work of the subcommittee that is being Country Strategies (JCS) and establishments jointly chaired by PIFS and SPREP to bring of Country Profiles have facilitated a much our efforts to bear. This subcommittee can closer engagements with our members. This form the basis for the mechanism called for exercise have enabled SPC to work and by Forum Leaders in Vanuatu in which key identify member’s priorities over a five year development partners and countries could period and through an agreed M&E be members. The support of other mechanism, these are continuously international agencies is very important. reviewed so as to assess the progress, This is in recognition of the fact that the identify gaps, strengths and weaknesses of environmental challenges facing this region SPC’s regional services to our members. SPC are too large for anyone organization, local, is keen to further engage with all CROP and regional or international, to tackle. other agencies through our sub‐regional presence, and in the formulations of JCS, Finally, Chair through you, may I convey our that would broaden partnership platforms grateful appreciations to you and your and strengthen our services delivery to our Government of PNG for the excellent members. SPC is very happy that CROP arrangements and facilitations of this heads agreed at their recent meeting in meeting. It surely made this meeting a Samoa this year to do a joint mission to the wonderful success. Republic of the Marshall Islands later this year to develop a CROP‐wide / RMI JCS. United Nations Environment Programme Thirdly, climate change remains the (UNEP) overarching challenge for Pacific Island countries. Considering its cross‐cutting UNEP congratulates SPREP and hosts PNG nature into food & nutritional security, for organising an efficient and productive public health, gender, agriculture, marine, meeting. We are grateful for the close water resources it is crucial there is an collaboration with SPREP over the last two effective coordination mechanism at the years especially and look forward to regional level to ensure the best possible building on this in the future. outcome is achieved by the region. In this regard, SPC is working very closely with We appreciate the chance to comment on SPREP‐ as the lead CROP agency on the SPREP Strategy and are prepared to environmental matters, and PIFS, and other support its development in future. CROP agencies through the CROP Sub‐ Similarly, we look forward to working with Committee on Climate Change established SPREP and country Focal Points in by the CROP Executive at the June meeting developing new projects during the fifth to improve and strengthen adaptations and Global Environment Facility funding round. mitigation measures, into our respective Under the new funding regime for the GEF memberships. It is important however to 5, multi‐country and cross‐cutting projects note that climate change while it affects may well be more challenging to design, environment is not strictly speaking an thus placing more imperative for countries environmental matter but a cross‐cutting to collaborate with regional agencies ‐ if development matter with considerable such projects are their priorities. SPREP political challenge thus it is crucial that we could play a significant role in facilitating have a multi‐pronged approach involving the initiation of GEF 5 projects for its the best of all our organsiations and member countries. UNEP would be happy partners and thus the importance of the to collaborate in this. As already noted by

78 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting some countries, in developing new projects (NWS), with basic functions to providing using the GEF 5 funding, we should not lose weather forecasts, warnings on tropical sight of the progress made in biodiversity cyclone warnings and other severe weather conservation and other disciplines. events, and climate information, but the level of service varies from country to country, hence the importance of regional World Meteorological Organization (WMO) coordination of weather and climate Mr Chairman, services in the region. As this forum is Distiguished Delegates familiar with climate information and Ladies and Gentlemen, services for climate change, the rest of my statement will focus on weather services I have pleasure on behalf of Mr Michel and tropical cyclone warnings. Jarraud, the Secretary‐General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), to Mr Chairman, allow me to provide some express the appreciation of the background infonT1ationo n regional Organization and his own to Mr David coordination of weather and climate Sheppard, Director of SPREP and members services in the region. It all started with the of SPREP for the invitation extended to provision of weather information for the WMO, and to convey his greetings to you. aviation sector at the time of the 2nd World War. The South Pacific Air Transport Council I would like to indicate my appreciation to (SPATC) was set up immediately following the Government of Papua New Guinea for the War to continue services from Nadi hosting this meeting. I would also like to Airport in Fiji. The South Pacific Air seize this opportunity to express my Transport Council (SPATC) also set up a appreciation to Dr Wari Lea Iamo, Secretary Weather Forecast Office at Nadi airport ‐ for the Department of Environment and referred to as Nadi Weather Office (NWO) , Conservation, and his staff for the excellent operating as a sub‐office of the New arrangements made for this meeting. Zealand Meteorological Service, serving the weather services requirements of Madang, in particular this resort is not only international aviation traversing the Fiji a popular tourist destination but also an Flight Information Region (FIR) as important meeting venue for many designated by the International Civil significant regional meetings and Aviation Organization (ICAO). endorsement of regional frameworks, such At that time, there were other non‐aviation as the frameworks for actions on climate requirements such as weather forecasts and change and disaster risk reduction. Both of essential tropical cyclones warnings for the these frameworks have not only offered islands and international shipping. Nadi opportunities but also some challenges for Weather Office (NWO) took on all these National Meteorological Services additional responsibilities. (NMS)/National Weather Services (NVVS) to contribute to their implementation in areas Following independence, the Government relating to enhancing resilient of of Fiji decided to set up a national weather communities against risks associated with service as a part of its public service set up. natural disaster as well as contributing to In 1975 the Government of Fiji assumed sustainable development. Nearly all of the regional aviation responsibilities from the Pacific Island Countries and Territories South Pacific Air Transport Council (SPA TC), (PICT) have a National Meteorological with the subsequent formation of the Fiji Service (NMS)/National Weather Service

79 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) and the be more specific of its area of responsibility, Department of Meteorology (later named ‐ Fiji Meteorological Services (FMS)/RSMC as the Fiji Meteorological Service). Fiji Nadi: Department of Civil Aviation (DCA) was then (i) Monitors, tracks, forecasts and names transformed into an authority – Civil all tropical cyclones and issues regular Aviation Authority of Fiji, in 1979 while Fiji warnings and advisory services for Meteorological Service (FMS) remained a public interest and safety for the Government Department. Fiji South Pacific area extending from the Meteorological Service (FMS) retained all Equator to 25 degrees South Latitude the earlier responsibilities of Nadi Weather and from 160 East to 120 degrees Office (NWO) and continued to provide West Longitude. weather forecasts and tropical cyclones warnings for Pacific Island Countries and (ii) Fiji Meteorological Services Territories (PICT). It also provided weather (FMS)/RSMC Nadi is issuing regular forecasts and tropical cyclones for shipping weather forecasts and information sector for sea area extended from the and tropical cyclone warnings for Equator down to 25 degrees South latitude, safety of mariners over international and from 160 degrees East to 120 degrees waters within this area. West longitude. (iii) Fiji Meteorological Services In June 1995, following fulfillment (FMS)/RSMC Nadi is also designated prescribed criteria, Fiji Meteorological by International Civil Aviation Service (FMS) was designated as the World Organization (ICAG) as a Meteorological Organization (WMO) Meteorological Watch Office (MWO) Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre for the Nadi Flight Information Region Nadi (RSMC Nadi) ‐ Tropical Cyclone Centre (FIR), providing a variety of services. (TCC) with responsibility for tropical cyclones in the region ‐ commonly referred (iv) Fiji Meteorological Services to as RSMC Nadi. RSMC Nadi is one of the (FMS)/RSMC Nadi is also designated five Regional Specialized Meteorological by the International Civil Aviation Centre functioning globally. Also, its Organization (ICAO) as Tropical functions are incorporated into the Cyclone Advisory Center (TCAC) , Weather Forecasting Division of the Fiji having responsibility for providing Meteorological Service (FMS). The functions advisories on hazards relating to and responsibilities of the Fiji tropical cyclones for use by other Meteorological Service (FMS)/RSMC Nadi ICAO designated Meteorological are regularly reviewed and described in the Watch Offices (MWOs) within Nadi Tropical Cyclone Operational Plan for the Flight Information Region (FIR). South Pacific and Southeast Indian Ocean. (v) Fiji Meteorological Services Ladies and Gentlemen, as you are aware (FMS)/RSMC Nadi is providing from the background information, Fiji Significant Meteorological (SIGMET) Meteorological Services (FMS)/RSMC Nadi is messages on severe weather within one of the key stakeholders, playing a key the Nadi Flight Information Region role in regional coordination and provision (FIR). of weather forecasts and tropical cyclone warnings for public, marine and aviation (vi) Besides serving fully the two of Fiji's sectors safety and economic activities. To own international airports located at

80 Record of 21st SPREP Meeting Nadi and Nausori, Fiji Meteorological and Territories (PICT) are both regional and Services (FMS)/RSMC Nadi issues national in nature. The recommendations regular Terminal Aerodrome from the report titled "Reviewing of Forecasts (TAFs) for a large number of Weather and Climate Services in the Pacific. other international airports in the which you have endorsed, not only called Pacific Island Countries and for strengthening regional coordination of Territories, namely, Faleolo (Samoa), weather and climate services in the region Fuamotu, Hapaai and Vavau (Tonga), but to assist other Pacific Island Countries AJofi (Niue), Rarotonga and Aitutaki and Territories (PICT) who are fully or 100 (Cook Islands), Wallis & Futuna, per cent reliant on Fiji Meteorological Funafuti (Tuvalu), Tarawa (Kiribati), Services (FMS)/RSMC Nadi to enhance their Port Vila and Santo (Vanuatu). capacity and capability in the provision of basic or first level weather forecasts as well (vii) Fiji Meteorological Services as warnings at national level. Also, I would (FMS)/RSMC Nadi identifies tropical like to inform the delegates that members cyclones in the Nadi Flight of the WMO Regional Association V (South‐ West Pacific), during their fifteenth session Information Region (FIR) and issues in May this year, has placed high priority on warnings on them to aircrafts for their the review of weather and climate services safe operations. in the region and agreed that they would to

collaborate with SPREP to address its (viii) Fiji Meteorological services outcomes. (FMS)/RSMC Nadi provides regular

Aviation Area Forecasts to serve In conclusion, I would to re‐iterate that domestic flights and operations in Fiji, WMO will continue to collaborate with Tonga, Samoa, Southern Cook Islands, SPREP and its members, and development Tuvalu and Kiribati partners to address recommendations

emanating from the report titled (ix) Fiji Meteorological Services "Reviewing of Weather and Climate Services (FMS}/RSMC Nadi provides Route in the Pacific” which you have endorsed Forecasts (ROFORs) and other en‐ during the course of this meeting. route weather information for all

flights originating from Nadi and Once again, I would like to express WMO Nausori. appreciation to SPREP, the Government of

Papua New Guinea, and Madang Resort (x) Fiji Meteorological Services staff, for excellent arrangement made for (FMS)/RSMC Nadi is providing and this meeting. making available flight documentation

and briefing services available at Nadi Thank you for your attention. and Nausori for flights originating at or passing through these two international airports.

Distinguish Delegates, these are some of the weather information and warnings services which are currently coordinated in the region, Also, the services provided by Fiji Meteorological Services (FMS)/RSMC Nadi to the other Pacific Island Countries

81 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

Report of the High Level Ministerial Segment

9 September 2010 Madang, Papua New Guinea

82 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

Summary of Discussions GEF‐Pacific Alliance for Sustainability in the region; concern that there were currently only 12 projects on the ground; 1. The High Level Ministerial Segment st confirmation that the GEF5 replenishment of the 21 SPREP Meeting (21SM) was held will amount to US$4.25billion, meaning a on 9 September 2010. Heads of Delegation 52% increase for the Pacific region from included Ministers from Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, GEF4; the GEF Secretariat has taken note of New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Pacific needs and reduced the project cycle Tokelau, Tonga, and Vanuatu; and senior to 18 months; there is now a simpler officials from American Samoa, Australia, mechanism to enable countries to access to Cook Islands, Federated States of up to $500,000 for national Micronesia, France, French Polynesia, New communications and reporting to Zealand, Niue, Republic of the Marshall international conventions, and $30,000 for Islands, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and the the non‐compulsory national portfolio United States of America. formulation exercise (NPFE). He also recommended that the region consider a programmatic approach for the future to Agenda Item 15.1: Welcome ceremony enable coordination and effective for Ministers implementation. A copy of full statement is attached as Annex. 2. The High Level Ministerial Segment was opened with a prayer, singing of the 6. The Minister of Natural Resources national anthem of Papua New Guinea and and Environment of Samoa, Hon. Faumuina a traditional dance performance. Liuga, responded to the keynote address noting the important contributions that the GEF financing has made for the region, and Agenda Item 15.2: Introduction to provided his views on the way forward for meeting GEF‐5. The full statement of the Minister is attached as an Annex. 3. The keynote address by the Prime Minister of PNG, Rt. Hon Sir Michael Somare 7. Other Ministers and Heads of GCMG CH, was delivered by the Minister for Delegation also responded. In summary, key Environment and Conservation, Hon. Benny issues discussed were: Allen MP. A copy of the keynote address is attached. 8. Assistance to smaller islands to access funds – Smaller islands face various 4 The High Level Ministerial Segment challenges in accessing global funds, mainly considered the following issues. due to their limited personnel capacity and in some cases their inability to meet some of the fiduciary requirements of the GEF. It Agenda Item 15.3: Environmental was recommended that (a) the SPREP Financing Secretariat seek accreditation as an implementing agency to help address this 5. A keynote address was presented by issue; and (b) the GEF Support Adviser Dr Rawleston Moore from the Global position at SPREP be retained, with broader Environment Facility (GEF) on behalf of GEF terms of reference to include assisting Chief Executive Officer and Chairperson Ms countries with access to funding facilities Monique Barbut. Dr Moore highlighted the other than the GEF. need to progress implementation of the

83 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

9. Small Grants Programme – GEF 13. Ocean Fisheries Management – GEF clarified that all the relevant countries in recognised the importance of this and the region are categorised as either small advised that it will work with countries to island developing states (SIDS) or Least try and facilitate this. Developed Countries (LDC). Thus, $250,000 is accessible per year for Small Grants 14. Solid Waste – GEF advised that its 6 Programme (SGP) for all the countries in the focal areas are: International Waters, region. Each country is defined as a Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and category 1 country, and therefore there is Chemicals, Ozone Depleting Substances, also a regional component of $500,000 to Climate Change, Biodiversity, and Land help UNDP regionally implement the Degradation. Countries have been using the programme. This allocation can be area of POPs to address some of the waste supplemented from the country allocation issues which cannot otherwise be addressed under STAR, and reallocated to the SGP. under the GEF Focal Areas. However, countries are under no obligation to do this. The maximum a country is 15. GEF‐5 Preparations – The need to allowed for SGP is $600,000. Further identify a way forward for the Pacific region information on this can be found at GEF under GEF5 was noted. There are website, paper GEF/C.36/4. opportunities to meet with the GEF in October 2010 during the Nagoya CBD COP 10. Capacity building – The challenges and in November‐December during the of capacity in small islands is recognised by Cancun UNFCCC meetings. This will help GEF. To this end, GEF‐4 worked with an GEF and the region design programmes that adviser at SPREP to work with the countries. address national and regional needs. The GEF also recognised the need to build in‐ key role of SPREP in facilitating this was also house capacities at national level and saw recognised, in particular, the recent that SPREP had a key role to play in this. Strategic Plan development process, which could assist the GEF Secretariat in 11. Access to funds for territories – This identifying national and regional priorities. was noted as an issue for all territories mainly due to their relationship with their developed counterparts (USA, NZ and Agenda Item 15.4: Climate Change France). 16. The climate change discussion was 12. Accelerating the project cycle – The introduced by the Director of SPREP. He GEF secretariat advised that it has 10 days noted that this item was requested for to review a project once it is received from discussion by Ministers he had consulted, the implementing agency. After this, it is and was also highlighted at the recent placed on the GEF website for one month Pacific Forum meeting in Vanuatu. He for CEO endorsement and for comments by observed that international funding for donors and the GEF Council. It was now climate change was likely to increase in looking to move to a one stage process to coming months, but aside from speed up the process. Countries should international and regional mechanisms work closely with implementing agencies to being negotiated, the priority for the region facilitate the proposal development must be to secure delivery on the ground. process. The GEF Secretariat noted that Communications and coordination were there was also a role for SPREP to facilitate important in this regard. The CROP climate this, and referred to Samoa’s model of change task force, co‐chaired by SPREP and establishing a national GEF office. PIFS CEOs, was an important step. SPREP’s

84 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting financial mechanism study will consider Key issues discussed were: three key matters: the current financing situation; likely future scenarios; and 19. A six‐point point strategy to address options for delivery and support for PICs. issues for Cancun was outlined by Nauru The links between environment and and generally welcomed: financing will also be considered in the context of the Forum Economic Ministers’  A legally binding agreement should Meeting in Niue in late October 2010, to be concluded at Cancun, and not which he urged Environment Ministers to deferred to 2011. A two track provide input. process should be embraced that addresses all of the issues in the Bali 17. Hon. Benny Allen of PNG delivered Action Plan. If it is not possible to the keynote address, observing that climate reach such an agreement, then a change had, at some levels, been brushed new mandate, with timelines and aside by sceptics as an academic issue. But milestones, must be agreed at he emphasised that despite some Cancun. continuing scepticism, there is now  Financing for adaptation must be scientific proof that climate change is a fact. agreed as soon as possible, with For PNG that proof is clear to communities special recognition of the needs of through unforeseen weather events, sinking LDCs, SIDS and countries in Africa islands and saline intrusion. While the experiencing desertification and science and causes of climate change were drought. This financing must be new well known, as were the requirements to and additional, timely and halt climate change, the Minister stressed predictable. that the region must adapt to the changes  There is a strong need to separate to which the atmosphere was already out the impacts of response committed due to historical greenhouse measures from adaptation. gases. Speaking on climate resilience, he  The social, environmental and noted that PNG wishes to develop a thriving economic loss and damage economy but also to address climate associated with slow onset or change. To pursue this PNG has been unavoidable climate change must be preserving the forests as the lungs of the addressed through a new planet, and this stewardship of the forests mechanism for risk management provides PNG with a valuable opportunity to and insurance. treat the forests as suitable carbon sinks,  Global emissions must be reduced and to work with other rainforest nations. below what is considered dangerous PNG has established a new office of climate levels: the Pacific position as change and development and a national articulated prior to Copenhagen draft strategy for low carbon development. remains valid.  The accounting rules must ensure 18. The Ministers from Nauru and environmental integrity, for example Tokelau responded. The statements by the through limiting use of offsets, Ministers of PNG, Nauru and Tokelau are proper accounting for LULUCF, attached. The Secretary General of the accounting for major sources such Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat was also as forest and peat land degradation, invited to address the meeting. Other and should not include untested Ministers and Heads of Delegation joined technologies in the Clean the discussion. Development Mechanism such as carbon capture and storage.

85 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

20. SPREP was requested to organize a the next conference in Cancun must reflect PIC meeting and to assist with meaningful commitments to address communication tools to enable a higher greenhouse gas emissions by all major profile for PICs, for example through climate economies, contain provisions that ensure change fact sheets to highlight Pacific such commitments are carried out in a concerns at Cancun. In this regard, Ministers transparent manner and provide a supported having Pacific media present at framework for support for developing the COP. It was also proposed that SPREP countries in their efforts to mitigate and should support Members through briefings, adapt to the adverse effects of climate technical advice and backstopping, assisting change. PICs with side events, and advice on travel arrangements and logistics. 24. Financing ‐ Key constraints for the region relate to the challenges of preparing 21. Delegates also expressed support and formatting proposals, implementing for the intent of the pre‐Cancun meeting and reporting on activities, administrative proposed by Kiribati. They also expressed capacity and access to information. Many the need for unity in the region and to delegates highlighted the need for finance maintain respect for each other’s positions sources to reduce the complexity of access and avoiding any situations similar to that rules and reporting requirements, which occurred during the 2009 AOSIS assistance from SPREP and other agencies Summit and on the floor of the Copenhagen to Members with low capacity, a review conference. function under adaptation projects to gauge whether the project has been effective, and 22. Some delegates called for to allow adjustments in cases where climate vulnerable nations to keep pushing for the change impacts are greater than initially polluter pays principle, to allow PICs to keep expected. Climate change financing should living on ancestral lands. Consideration be viewed not in the short term context of should also be given to the humanitarian economic growth, but in the long term angle to account for possible migration context of sustainable development. Pacific forced by climate change. Furthermore, the Leaders laid out in their meeting in Vila validity of precautionary approaches was principles to promote effective coordination also highlighted. One delegation called for of adaptation and mitigation action. support for a proposal that would address Significant increases in funding would long‐lived greenhouse gases under the FCCC require commensurate implementation and phase out these gases as ozone structures and capacity. depleting substances under the Montreal Protocol. 25. While the emerging sources of finance underline the importance of 23. Preparations for UNFCCC COP16 integrating adaptation and mitigation into (Cancun) – Several delegates acknowledged national planning through mainstreaming, it the value of working through AOSIS, but was noted that many SIDS’ national budgets expressed disappointment with the do not yet provide for funding for climate outcomes of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate change, and thereby they rely exclusively on Change Conference and the slow, international funding. convoluted progress since. Other delegates referred to the need to maintain the 26. The need to avoid competition balance achieved by leaders in Copenhagen between national and regional efforts was to ensure forward movement and avoid emphasised, as was the wisdom of using the further stalemate. There was general regional approach where this make sense. A support for the idea that any outcome of menu approach for what each PIC could be

86 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting accessing in terms of support would also Climate Change had been adopted by the assist in developing proposals. It was noted Leaders, the suggestions of the PIFACC that while the GEF is only accessible to PICs, review for how PIFACC implementation the territories also need support, and this could be more effective were broadly should be considered in the context of the welcomed. Many speakers welcomed the SPREP financing study. proposed guide as a useful tool, and called for its aim to be to ensure tangible results 27. Since many donors have begun to on the ground. This will require capacity agree in principle to provide direct building at all levels, but nevertheless budgetary arrangements, which would implementation of actions can commence. avoid losses from transaction costs of implementing agencies, some delegates 30. The suggestion for working groups called for flexibility in the financing under the PCCR was also welcomed, with mechanism that recognized the value of the caveat that these would need funding to bilateral arrangements. Some delegates also be effective. Donors’ roles in supporting the noted the model proposed by AOSIS on working groups would be crucial. direct access, which would support the preferences in the PICs. 31. It was also noted that there is a need to maintain linkages with other 28. SPREP Support ‐ SPREP support for frameworks, such as the Pacific Plan, PICs to date on climate change was perhaps through a joint task force. The acknowledged as highly satisfactory. PCCR should be made more responsive to Delegates requested that SPREP consider the needs of PICs, and promote mechanisms also taking on a facilitative role to iron out like in‐country workshops to help identify differences that may arise between national needs. Some countries have Members. There was also strong support for already used the PIFACC for developing SPREP to continue to arrange negotiations their national strategy, giving comfort that training. Several delegates called for Pacific they are on the right track. summaries of various technical papers issued through AOSIS. Some also called for 32. The Director thanked Ministers and SPREP to develop capacity to assist the 5 heads of delegation for the rich debate and PICs with significant forestry resources to noted six key issues: assist these countries on REDD+. PNG was congratulated for its leadership on this i. Priority needs to given to implement issue. Furthermore, it was recommended tangible practical action at the that SPREP should convene a workshop of community level: this is the end insurance experts and climate change focal point that all other efforts should be points to discuss the need for a regional working towards. insurance mechanism. This could also be ii. Funding must be scaled up as soon complemented by a science advisory as possible, with new predictable committee to back up the negotiations, financing, and should be done by which delegates encouraged SPREP to partnership with and not consider establishing, perhaps in competition between national partnership with USP. Finally, there was a authorities and regional agencies, suggestion for a regional summit to allowing for different national consider success stories and share best circumstances, and encompassing practices. many aspects of climate change. iii. On FCCC preparations, the 29. PIFACC – While it was noted that the Secretariat will continue to support Pacific Islands Framework for Action on the PICs, provide negotiations

87 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

training and scale up efforts, as well the Meeting, and enabled officials to as facilitating as far as it can, bearing endorse a Strategic Plan 2011‐2015, to be in mind the limitations of resources. forwarded to the high‐level segment for iv. The importance of pushing for a adoption. legally binding agreement with strong targets is clear – SPREP will 36. The chair of the strategic plan work with hosts of pre‐Cancun working group – the head of delegation forums to prepare for the event. from Australia – outlined the operation of Speaking with one voice is the working group from 6 to 8 September. important and SPREP will seek to The group worked closely with the assist. Secretariat to address all comments v. Links are needed between regional Members had provided on the draft plan, and national levels, and good use ensured that the goals and targets were should be made of the CROP task ambitious, specific and measurable, and force. improved the clarity of many sections. The vi. SPREP will consider the constructive group agreed by consensus to retain the suggestions, such as the science four strategic priorities of climate change, committee and the climate change biodiversity and ecosystem management, summit, as clear instructions. waste management and pollution control and environmental monitoring and 33. The Chair reemphasized that governance. mitigation, adaptation and financing are inseparable. He reminded Ministers to 37. Vanuatu acknowledged the discuss with Finance counterparts the contributions from all Members to the plan, possibilities for a national budget allocation which captured the aspirations of the for climate change, and urged that any peoples of the region. He proposed that the differences of opinion in our region be Secretariat be directed to improve its resolved in the region and not aired at the service delivery, focused on the four international level. strategic priorities of the plan. He also wished to record his country’s wish for the proposal relating to sub‐regional presences Agenda Item 15.5: Recommendations for SPREP to remain on the table. from the officials segment 38. New Caledonia welcomed the Strategic Plan for addressing the recent 34. The high‐level segment reviewed reforms, including the RIF, welcomed its and adopted the recommendations of the transparent, action‐oriented nature, and officials segment. the capacity it should give the Secretariat to

secure additional funds from donors.

Agenda Item 15.6: Strategic Plan 39. The high‐level segment then adopted the SPREP Strategic Plan 2011‐ 35. The SPREP Director outlined the 2015. consultative process from March to August 2010 that gathered information on country and regional environmental priorities, and the drafting exercise before and during the Agenda Item 15.7: Madang Communiqué officials segment of the SPREP Meeting. This process resulted in a draft plan being made 40. In the discussions on the draft available to all Members two months before environment ministers’ communiqué, some

88 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting delegations emphasized the importance of Agenda Item 16: Date and venue of developing fall‐back positions to take into Twenty‐Second SPREP Meeting climate change negotiations, to prepare for the possibility that a legally binding 45. The 22nd SPREP Meeting will be held agreement is not accomplished at the in Apia, Samoa, 19‐22 September 2011. PNG Cancun climate change conference. noted that the dates were very close to the However, while the Meeting acknowledged UN General Assembly, and asked the the validity of this point, it agreed to retain Secretariat to reflect on this when planning positive and forward‐looking language in the Meeting. the communiqué. 46. The Meeting accepted with 42. Following further discussion and gratitude New Caledonia’s offer to host the redrafting, the Meeting adopted the 2012 SPREP Meeting, and meanwhile Madang Communiqué and is attached as an looked forward to that country hosting the Annex. 2011 .

43. After the adoption of the communiqué the delegations of Vanuatu, Item 17: Close Fiji, PNG and the Solomon Islands reaffirmed their interest in the concept of 47. The Director of SPREP, delegations establishing a sub‐regional SPREP office in of Cook Islands and Samoa made closing the Melanesian sub‐region, and called for statements. The Chair made a closing the Secretariat to investigate this option. statement and declared the meeting closed. Samoa noted that this would be conditional on the financial capacity of SPREP, and that funding should be focused first on delivering environmental outcomes within countries.

44. Samoa also observed that this question might be better addressed by Forum Leaders. The Director of SPREP noted the discussion and assured delegates that the Secretariat would give the matter appropriate consideration, as recommended by the ICR and allowed for under the Strategic Plan.

89 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

ATTACHMENT I: OPENING ADDRESS BY MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION, GOVERNMENT OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA – HON. BENNY ALLEN MP

Colleague Ministers, Delegates, It is not long are major contributors of greenhouse gas ago that climate change was an issue emissions, through logging and agriculture. brushed aside by politicians and bureaucrats as just an issue of academic debate not While much of the developed world, worth the attention. There was a lot of destroyed their forest generations ago, we skepticism about climate change, and in fact here in PNG should take pride in preserving there still exists now. However there is now our forests. The rest of the world is slowly scientific proof that climate change is coming to value our forests as the lungs of occurring and is caused by human activities the planet—not merely as a source for as the human race aspires to improve furniture. The stewardship of our forests lifestyles and embrace modern development. presents us with an opportunity.

For PNG proof has come about in the Since 2005 PNG has been working with unforeseen weather and climatic events other rainforest nations to create a that have hit our shores, the increasingly mechanism for Reducing Emissions from intense floods and droughts, the sinking deforestation and forest degradation or islands and salt contaminated ground REDD+, to enhance carbon stocks and water. Proof of climate change is apparent manage our forests sustainably. everywhere in PNG, especially in our As a government we have developed a draft villages. national climate compatible development

We all now know that Climate change is strategy. We are also establishing the new caused by increasing release of carbon Office of Climate Change and Development. dioxide into the atmosphere which upsets The action plan recognises that economic the natural dynamics of the climate system. development and climate change The world now knows that to stop climate adaptation and mitigation measures must change we need to reduce the level of be combined. It further recognizes that the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases strategy must be incorporated into our in the atmosphere. However there are national development plans. already climate change impacts we need to PNG is ready to act now to access resources deal with and to prepare for. That means to implement REDD+ in the country. We we need to rethink how we progress our have identified our emissions abatement development efforts. Our development measures and projects to begin therefore needs to address carbon demonstrating REDD+ aspects. We have a reduction and at the same time be more list of low carbon growth projects. We have climate‐resilient. also identified on ground projects to For PNG we are committed to developing a address our priority climate change hazards. thriving economy, a fair and happy society Discussions with our development partners and a sustainable environment. But we and available funding mechanisms has cannot continue to develop without begun and we look forward to addressing climate change. We have been implementing real projects very soon. taking a global lead in seeking to combat We are working continuously to ensure climate change, by basically promoting that negotiations address our issues and we look our forests be utilized as carbon storage forward to Cancun and a positive way sites. Deforestation and forest degradation forward. Thank you.

90

Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

ATTACHMENT II: KEYNOTE ADDRESS BY DR RAWLESTON MOORE, GEF SECRETARIAT

Ministers, Delegates, Mr. David Sheppard‐ it is supposed to? And we can easily Director of SPREP, Agency Officials, Ladies answer, yes! Currently 29 of the 32 and Gentlemen. projects have been given approval, by the secretariat. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here at such an important time. Our CEO So it took teamwork and now we can I Monique Barbut was honored by your think you all should be congratulated for invitation and I first want to apologize on your extreme hard work in putting this her behalf for being here. She just lost her programme in place. Without your hard father and is bereaving with her family. work these resources would not have However she does send her deepest been mobilized for your region, and I can regards and hopes to come to Pacific and tell that similar island regions in the world meet with you all at the next available have not been able to leverage the kind opportunity. of resources you have, and they have greater capacity to do so!. As you know, this region holds a special place in Monique’s heart. Before coming However we still have some work to do to to the GEF, she spent a good portion of truly reap the benefits. We need to her professional career here. And later speed up the implementation of the GEF‐ when she took the helm of the GEF in July PAS given at this date we only have 12 2006 one of the first mission’s she was projects on the ground up and running: sure to make was to the Pacific. She we need to have more projects working knows firsthand the unparalleled beauty on the ground. We recognize there are of these islands as well as the deep some capacity issues; and I am here to tell economic and environmental challenges you together we will make sure we are on you face the same page so this program meets its full potential at the earliest possible date As you remember at that time there was little GEF activity in the region; most GEF‐PAS of course is what we hope just projects were either part of a larger one step in a larger investment in the global desktop project or consisted of region. So the key question now is how enabling activities to assist in reporting to do we move forward? conventions. And, indeed for many countries the small grants country Here I should mention for those that may programme was still just getting started. not be familiar with how our fund works that this spring donors gave us a record Four years later we can tell a much better replenishment of US4.25billion. This story. The $100 million the CEO pledged means for GEF5 a 52% increase in new to you in fact is now in place; GEF‐PAS is resources compared to GEF 4. Given the up and running. We kept our promise to difficult economic times I think that this is deliver resources to the region. a considerable achievement. We have listened and understood many of the So the question now is: how is this problems which you been facing with GEF program working? Is it delivering the way access, and thus for GEF, we have

91

Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting reduced the project cycle to 18 months. financed sustainable forest management We are also piloting direct access for since its inception, and it is still a rather national communications (up to hidden fact that the GEF is the largest US$500,000) and for National Portfolio financer of forest management globally. Formulation Exercises (NPFE). For the Let me give you a few examples. As of NPFE, countries can receive US$30,000 June 2010, a total of US$74.4 million has directly from the GEF Secretariat (without been pledged for UN‐REDD, in an agency) to do a national planning comparison GEF has provided US1.6billion exercise on how countries would like to for sustainable forestry management utilize their GEF resources over the GEF5. since its inception. In 2007, the GEF launched the Tropical Forest Account, a Remember the NPFE is not compulsory; it pilot incentive scheme promoting country is NOT an obligation. It is simply up to the investments in multiple focal area country. If you want to do it then we will projects that yield benefits in REDD+. The provide the resources. If you do not, it $40 million initiative focused on the three will not affect your ability to access the regions of large and mainly intact tropical GEF resources which have been allocated forests (Amazonia, the Congo Basin, and to you. We have recognized the need to Papua New Guinea/Borneo) and gave rise provide additional help to Focal Points to comprehensive projects and programs, and thus we have increased the amount such as the GEF Strategic Program for of resources available to focal points Sustainable Forest Management in the through the Country Support Programme, Congo Basin worth $50 million GEF from US$8,000 to US$9,000 per year. The funding. country support programme will now be implemented directly by the GEF A year later, in 2008, the GEF approved a secretariat and you will now have the $13 million regional project aiming to opportunity for extended constituency enhance institutional capacities on REDD+ meetings, where focal points for the issues in the Congo Basin. environmental conventions (eg UNFCCC and CBD) and NGO representatives can I should also mention that there is a $9 attend. This will naturally facilitate the million GEF/FAO project, which leveraged accurate distribution of information as it $43 million, to help the Brazilian Forest relates to the GEF. We have also Service further strengthen its national introduced a facility of flexibility for policy and knowledge framework in countries who have smaller country support of SFM and REDD+. More allocations such as those in this region. recently, the GEF approved a $3million You can now use your resources as you project aiming to establish a market like in the focal areas, ‐‐so for example if mechanism for promoting and facilitating you want to use all of your allocated voluntary GHG emissions mitigation and resources on a biodiversity project or a offsetting in Colombia. This GEF/IADB climate change mitigation project you initiative contains, as a central element, can. national capacity building for REDD+ and the generation of Verified Emission For GEF 5 we will have a specific window Reductions (VERs) from REDD+ pilot for investment in Sustainable Forest projects. So you can see the GEF has a Management and REDD. I know that for comparative advantage when it comes to many countries in the Pacific in particular Forestry Management and REDD issues. the host country for this meeting forest management is a key issue. The GEF has For GEF 5 there will be a separate

92

Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

US$250million funding envelope for you MUST be the leading force on these Sustainable Forest Management and issues. And one way to efficiently do this REDD+, with the possibility that the GEF is through established funds such as the may provide up to US$ 1billion to address LDCF and SCCF that already have a track issues of deforestation. This is a 100% record tested and respected by donors. increase compared to GEF‐4. Unlike other institutions, the GEF is ready to Also remember that the GEF is a support the conservation and sustainable reforming and changing institution. management of all types of forests in Before Monique came, there were no potentially more than 60 countries officers to address the concerns of the worldwide. Also, by pooling investments SIDS and the LDCs. We now have specific from different focal areas, the GEF is in a staff to address your concerns. unique position to create multiple environmental and social benefits from Also during her tenure between the GEF‐3 REDD+ in a cost‐effective way. In that and the GEF‐4, the proportion of funds context, an innovative financing directed to the Least Developed Countries mechanism will make sure that REDD+ and the Small Island Developing States programs and projects in GEF‐5 will go rose from 11.9 percent to 18.4 percent. beyond focusing on climate change mitigation and generating quick carbon What’s the bottom line? The GEF is trying credits, but contribute also to biodiversity to serve you in a better fashion, and meet conservation, preserving indigenous your needs. We are still the major people’s rights and a new financial finance mechanism for climate change mechanism and the Copenhagen Green and for the foreseeable future the GEF Fund, the reality is that the GEF is still the will continue to be. Any new mechanism only financial mechanism and the only will take a very long time to be effectively way to get resources in the here and now. put it place, so until that day comes, if it How donors plan to meet the growing ever does, we need to work together to needs of this region and others to address have a strong GEF that has the resources climate change is still very much evolving: and finances to assist you. I promise you there is no consensus on structure or the GEF will do its part and we urge you governance. to redouble your own efforts to achieve our common goals. So for SIDS and countries in the Pacific who have suffered disproportionately in Ministers, thank you very much. the past when it comes to funding, there still is no clear answer on how any of these funds in question would truly meet the needs of this region.

Past promises to small island states, most recently in Copenhagen were not met to your satisfaction and the global financial picture is still an uncertain one with several large donors looking to scale back or at least retrench existing aid commitments. So in this environment, given that overall aid could in fact be declining you cannot afford to be quiet;

93

Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

ATTACHMENT III: STATEMENT BY HON. MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, SAMOA – HON. FAUMUINA TIATIA LIUGA

Ministers, Delegates, Mr. David Sheppard‐ In this context, my delegation on behalf Director of SPREP, the representative of of the SPREP members welcomes the GEF (Dr Rawleston Moore), Agency work thus far by the GEF, towards Officials, Ladies and Gentlemen. simplifying procedures and access to environmental funding. At the outset, I would like to thank the Government and the people of Papua Niu I am pleased to note the GEF Guinea for hosting this 21st meeting of replenishment of US4.25billion, which is a SPREP, and for the warm hospitality we 52% increase in new resources for GEF 5 have received since our arrival. I would compared to GEF 4. I agree that we are also like to thank the secretariat for the still in difficult times, hence this record excellent arrangements made for this replenishment is a considerable meeting. achievement. I would therefore like to thank our donor SPREP members around This ministerial session of the SPREP the table for this commitment and meeting convenes at a time when each pledges made to GEF. SPREP Member government, organization, and members of the civil Mr Moore, Guidance for approaches to society, is considering its own environment financing is an area that is contribution to our regional collective already complex. While the new funds efforts to sustainably use, conserve and become operational, with separate effectively manage our environment. criteria and access requirements, Meetings and dialogues particularly at our fiduciary and reporting requirements policy level continue since the remain a challenge. I am however Copenhagen Conference on Climate encouraged to note that the GEF has Change last December and the reduced the project cycle time to 18 consequent endorsement of the months, and that there is also further Copenhagen Accord that followed. We assistance towards national profiling and are also now preparing on how we can Multilaterall Environment Agreement constructively contribute to the reporting to fulfill member obligations to forthcoming Conference of the Parties to various MEAs that they are party to. the Biodiversity Convention scheduled next month, and the COPs and MOPS of The difficulties in accessing external other key MEAs which are all taking place funding by PICTs has been identified as a around the same time. This occasion is ciritcal issue for this region in the past. In therefore a timely and welcomed rsponse the SPREP countries decided that opportunity for us, as decision and policy a GEF advisor be instituted at the SPREP makers to discuss ways to strengthen our office in Apia as part of the GEF‐PAS abilities to both leverage and coordinate programme, where members were the utilisation of available funding, in assisted with technical advise on how to order to support regional and national access GEF funding and frame proposals. initiatives for the benefit of the Let us not forget that while this advise environment especially our people. was kindly availed, states (including

94 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

Samoa) continued to access funding from made notable recent progress under a their own bilateral development partners regional framework that enhances PICs’ (countries and financial insitutions) for access to GEF resources. Over US$ 100 national environment programmes. million in funding has been committed through projects at various stages of I have been informed that there are focal approval for the region over the last four area set‐asides, plus corporate budgetary years. This followed a fifteen‐year period provisions, before calculation of STAR since the GEF was established in 1991 national allocations, equivalent to 30% of during which Pacific SIDS received in total the total replenishment. These set‐asides only $86 million of GEF resources over a I believe, can be used to finance regional 15 year period, and is considered well and global projects, enabling activities, below our regions environmental and the sustainable forest management investment resource needs. programme. I welcome GEF's flexibility in considering the urgency of maintaining However, our regional experience points the GEF‐PAS coordinating unit within out that GEF‐PAS provided valuable SPREP to serve countries of our region lessons to Pacific SIDS, the GEF with needs pertinent to the GEF. Secretariat, implementing agencies, CROP agencies donor agencies and participating Through both inititaives, National systems international NGOs. It gave us the Pacific were strengthened to ensure SIDS early confirmation of an indicative transparency and accountability in lump sum figure of resources that is financial management systems, utilising accessible to us. It allowed for better existing national mechanisms that planning, scheduling and coordination of ensured facilitated flow of resources project development, tied to national towards our environment needs. sustainable development goals in country. This has encouraged closer synergies On a wider perspective there are further among agencies and between sectors, issues on access and utilisation of and better accounting for crosscutting available funding at the regional level, concerns regionally, and it has allowed and the much needed coordination. SIDS to draw on the experience of CROP These include country concerns with the and implementing agencies, and to need to progress projects in unison, develop regional consensus. which can mean that the slowest of partners can dictate the pace. Countries I am pleased to note with much were also wary that the principles of appreciation, that the Pacific SIDS are country‐ownership and country‐ allocated totals of $28 million for climate drivenness that guide the Programme change, $43.81 million for biodiversity, might be compromised by regional or and $10.08 million for land degradation, multi‐country approaches. Equally for an overall STAR total of $81.89 million important therefore, is the development under GEF 5. While it appears a little less of well‐targeted in‐country project than the previous allocation under GEF4, components and activities are therefore we are also reminded that once national essential to ensure adherence to these activities are defined, requests for principles. additional resources will become unavoidable. We urge that not only GEF As you will already be aware, the Pacific but also development partners will be in a SIDS and the Pacific Islands region have position to show flexibility and willingness

95 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting to respond positively. I would urge each its implementing agencies continue with member state of SPREP that is entitled to this excellent movement. I believe that GEF to also start pursuing this currently these GEF special funds will be the main available opportunity. ones for pacific SIDS to access financial support for Adaptation. Hence we would Ladies and Gentlemen, There has been welcome more security for these specific available funding from the UNFCCC sources. special funds such as the LDCF, SCCF, Adaptation Fund to mention the key ones On that note, I would like to acknowlegde for our region. The WB now joins the race with much appreciation the additional with its Pilot Programe for Climate funds approved towards the operational Resilience (PPCR). In light of the WB focal point, country support programme, serving also as the trustee for the GEF, and we hope that this is a beginning of Confusion is likely, particulalry with this more resources for this purpose to come. entry of the financial institutions that members states are used to as bilateral I am likewise pleased to share with you partners for coditional financing. our experience in Samoa with the However, I am cofident that with our establishment of our national GEF office. experiences with the ADB and World During GEF 3 all of Samoa's externally Bank, chances of dublication will be funded projects were part of regional avoided. Close coordination between the programmes in SPREP, SOPAC and SPC. In member governments' Ministries of GEF 4, this regionality in approach Finance and Environment Ministries is continued but with our NAPA sector also possible, and will or has become the projects taking off in partnership with normal mode of practise on a daily basis. UNDP as Impementing Agency. Samoa This same coordination at the national took an invesment in establishing a level can be replicated at the reigonal national GEF office which is now into its level among crop agencies, ensuring fourth year, and its work was entirely expedited development, submission and directed towards expediting access to implementation of GEF projects. GEF4 resources. As a result all of Samoa's allocation under GEF PAS and GEF 4 has The level of investment that the SPREP been committed to projects that are at countries considers commensurate with various stages of impementation. Despite environment degaradtion is reflected in such success Samoa’s National GEF office the large number of activities needs to be strenghtnened further, as we encompassed in the SPREP past and would also like to share our experience in present work programme and plans. At this area with our fellow SPREP Pacific the same time, states have progressed Island Countries and Territories (PICTs). bilateral projects within the environment sector, with repsonses to impacts of The impacts of such strenghteninng is cliamte change attracting most funds. testament to the expeditious manner in Funding for Adaptation under the which Samoa's GEF5 project for Land LDCFand SCCF, and in particular the Degradation that integrates biodiversity, entertainment of direct access is land degradation, and climate change, applauded with the recent activation of was completed. In fact the Samoan the Adaptation Fund. We welcome the government approved its GEF5 project of support of our development partners, US$5.32 million last week, and is already and strongly encourage that the GEF and on its way to GEF through the UNDP.

96 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

Let me end by making reference to the We all need to work together, and help Copenhagen Green Fund, and the notion each other out, but also help ourselves that the GEF plays a critical role in getting first. It is my sincerest hope, that the resources in this fund with immediacy. In SPREP members will continue to work agreement with such notion, and should closely with GEF as well as our own the Copenhagen Accord reaches development partners to ensure consensus and resources become sufficient resources are availed, and that available, a significant amount of synergies are also realized in the funding resources will start flowing into the of our environment management needs region and could be well over the usual in the past. Hence I am pleased to inform At last but not least, Mr Moore, Please that the Cartagena Dialogue continues convey our warm condolences to Ms later next month in Costa Rica and the Monique Barbut in her time of sorrow, group of Ministers that have been and I wish you a pleasant journey home working tirelessly to ensure this fund at the end of the meeting. becomes a reality urgently. Progress of this group has been positive so far, Thank you. striving towards a more positive outcome in Cancun later in the year. We are at same time hopeful that the fast‐track financing under the Copenhagen accord will come to fruition soon, although at the bilateral level, the European Union, Australia and New Zealand have already made a start.

Meanwhile, our region, particularly SPREP members need a mechanism to facilitate easy access, implementation monitoring of these funds’ utilisation. The feasibility study of a regional finance mechanism has started and we look forward to its findings. At the national level, parallel assessments are being carried out of which I hope our members could rise to such a challenge to complete national finance coordination mechanisms to institutionalise in‐country linkages up to a future regional mechanism,

97 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

ATTACHMENT IV: PACIFIC ENVIRONMENT MINISTERS’ COMMUNIQUÉ

1. The 21st Meeting of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme convened in Madang, Papua New Guinea, 6 ‐ 10 September 2010. The high‐level segment was attended by Ministers from Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tokelau, Tonga, and Vanuatu; and Heads of Delegation from American Samoa, Australia, Cook , Islands Federated States of Micronesia, France, French Polynesia, New Zealand, Niue, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and the United States of America.

2. Heads of Delegation thanked the Government of Papua New Guinea and the Provincial Government and people of Madang for the kind hospitality extended to them during their stay in Madang.

3. The Ministers and Heads of Delegation of the Pacific region responsible for environmental conservation and management, having met in Madang, Papua New Guinea during this International Year of Biodiversity, affirmed that:

• biological diversity is the foundation of the well‐being of our communities and cultures; • in the face of the predicted irreparable damage to the ability of ecosystems to provide the goods and services on which people depend, all must work together to conserve biodiversity, use it sustainably and respond to threats to its integrity; and • the loss of biodiversity is compounded by the overwhelming threat of climate change, and the region’s response to climate change must be linked to its efforts to conserve and manage the region’s species and ecosystems.

They further:

2011‐2015 Strategic Plan

4. Adopted the new Strategic Plan 2011‐2015 as the guiding document for regional environmental priorities and the work of SPREP to address these in the coming five years. They welcomed the consultative process that led to development of the plan, and endorsed the vision of ‘The Pacific environment, sustaining our livelihood and natural heritage in harmony with our cultures.’

5. Adopted the four priorities of the Strategic Plan as climate change, biodiversity and ecosystem management, waste management and pollution prevention, and environmental monitoring and governance.

6. Encouraged the Secretariat to prioritise and facilitate systematic monitoring and reporting on outputs and contributions to outcomes at the national level in order to demonstrate results.

98 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

7. Directed the Secretariat to ensure that resource allocation reflects the priorities in the Strategic Plan with core resources prioritised to core functions in the first instance, and to secure the resources and to facilitate and implement partnerships to meet the goals of the Strategic Plan.

8. Requested donor agencies and partner organisations to note that the Strategic Plan outlines the key environmental priorities for Pacific countries and territories and urged them to support implementation of the Strategic Plan.

Climate Change.

9. Noted with concern the ongoing issues of global climate change and the resulting impacts on Pacific islands including threat to the survival of some of these islands.

10. Endorsed the leadership role played by SPREP in supporting climate change activities in the region; in particular its leading role in the effective coordination and implementation of climate change mitigation and adaptation efforts, including on coordination and harmonisation of climate change financing in the region.

11. Urged Members of SPREP to enhance capacity at the national level to continue access and coordination of financing from bilateral partners and multilateral sources, noting the principles adopted at the 2010 Forum Leaders’ Meeting.

12. Noted the commitment of all Members to move towards a durable, environmentally effective and legally binding outcome in the UNFCCC as quickly as possible and to use COP16 in Cancun to achieve this objective.

13. Urged all countries to fulfil their voluntary commitments enshrined in the Copenhagen Accord including the implementation of mitigation commitments and actions, enhanced adaptation actions and commitments to fast‐start and longer‐term financing. They welcomed the fast‐start pledges of developed countries and the delivery of fast‐start funding to date.

14. Directed the Secretariat to continue to provide technical information and support to Pacific island countries and territories (PICTs) on climate change issues and negotiations, including assisting PICTs with a preparatory meeting prior to UNFCCC COP16 in Cancun.

15. Reiterated, in relation to climate change issues and negotiations, the value and significance of cooperation and exchange of information between SPREP Members and with the Secretariat.

16. Endorsed the approach to revision of the PIFACC to take account of the findings of the mid‐term review and developments over the first five years of its operation. Furthermore, timely support from donors to implement the PIFACC over the tnex five years was called for.

Conservation of the Ocean.

17. Emphasised the critical importance of ensuring the sustainable development, management and conservation of our ocean.

99 Record of the 21st SPREP Meeting

18. Reiterated the critical role of SPREP in the promotion of, and support for the management and conservation of island, coastal and marine ecosystems through its new Strategic Plan.

19. Welcomed the decision of the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders in Port Vila in August 2010 to endorse the Framework for the Pacific Oceanscape, noting with appreciation the role of SPREP in its development, and welcomed their request to CROP agencies to implement the Framework in partnership with other relevant organisations.

20. Directed the Secretariat to work with CROP agencies and to develop a recommended approach for SPREP in implementing the Framework ein th context of the Strategic Plan for consideration by the 22nd SPREP Meeting.

Biodiversity

21. Noted with concern the increasing challenge and need for greater commitment to achieve the 2010 biodiversity targets and the continuing high rate of biodiversity loss and decline of ecosystem services in the Pacific.

22. Commended the Republic of Kiribati for establishing the Phoenix Islands Protected Area, the world's largest marine protected area, and its successful inscription as a World Heritage Area; the United States for the establishment of its new Pacific marine monuments; and the successful inscription of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument as a World Heritage Area; and New Caledonia’s lagoons and coral reefs that were inscribed as a World Heritage Area in July 2008.

23. Encouraged other Pacific island countries and territories to take similar action to conserve and manage important terrestrial and marine ecosystems.

24. Noted the importance of having a One Pacific Voice at the forthcoming 10th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya, Japan, to ensure that COP decisions, including on developing post 2010 strategic plan goals and targets, take into account the needs of SIDS, as well as at other international conventions, in particular the UNFCCC.

25. Noted and welcomed the collaborative work of Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, which aims to conserve 30% of their nearshore marine resources and 20% of their terrestrial resources by 2020 as part of the Micronesia Challenge.

26. Noted the success of the regional pre‐COP 10 meeting held ,in Nadi Fiji, and

27. Directed the SPREP Secretariat to support Pacific island countries at the CBD COP10 meeting in Nagoya and at the UNFCCC COP16 meeting in Cancun

Madang, Papua New Guinea, 9 September 2010

100