SUSTAINABLE INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES AND WASTEWATER

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 SUVA 000245

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

BANGKOK FOR REO AND USAID

COMMERCE FOR NOAA

STATE PASS TO INTERIOR FOR USGS AND IOA

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SENV TPHY EAID XV GEF UNDP
SUBJECT: SUSTAINABLE INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES AND WASTEWATER
MANAGEMENT (IWRM) FOR PACIFIC ISLAND COUNTRIES



1. Summary: The Regional Environmental Specialist (RES) from Embassy
Suva's Pacific Environmental Hub attended a week-long meeting on the
GEF-supported Sustainable Integrated Water Resources and Wastewater
Management (IWRM) Project in Nadi, Fiji, from April 23 to 27. IWRM
is a new idea in the Pacific, and interest has been driven by the
availability of donor funding. Nevertheless, participants showed
enthusiasm for the project and recognized its potential. They also
expressed frustration with the GEF process and the difficulty in
accessing GEF funds. Many countries are behind the curve in
identifying co-financers for their country projects, a GEF
requirement that might cause some countries to fall out of this
regional initiative. Despite this obstacle, IWRM presents
significant opportunities for small, vulnerable Pacific island
nations, and the donor community, to expand access to clean water,
safeguard biodiversity, and support climate change adaptation
activities. End summary.


2. The South Pacific Geosciences Commission (SOPAC) organized this
meeting with funding from the GEF to informally assess national
diagnostic reports and hotspot analysis from the Pacific island
countries (PICs) it supports. Late last year, SOPAC requested these
reports from countries as part of its effort to design a full scale
regional IWRM demonstration project proposal for GEF funding. The
overall value of the project could reach 10.4 million USD, with
individual country components receiving up to 500,000 in GEF
funding.

--------------
Participation
--------------


3. Meeting participants included IWRM country focal points and
Pacific Adaptation to Climate Change Project country focal points
from 14 PICs and French Polynesia. (The involvement of both sets of
focal points promoted synergies between these two GEF-supported
activities.) Embassy Suva-based RES Sandeep K Singh, a locally
recognized expert on wastewater management, was invited to
participate in the meeting as a resource person, along with UNDP,
UNEP, and IUCN representatives, and staff from the South Pacific
Regional Environmental Program (SPREP). Other participants included
NGOs and private consulting firms working in the Pacific on water
issues.

--------------
Overview
--------------


4. Meeting sessions included presentations, working groups and
discussions on the IWRM, which is a systematic process for the
sustainable development, allocation and monitoring of water resource
use to enhance integration of social, economic and environmental
objectives. Although the idea is relatively new in the Pacific
Region, it has been extensively tried out in the greater Caribbean
through the White Water to the Blue Water Initiative, in which the
USG is a partner. Some PIC participants showed confusion about the
IWRM concept, despite being part of the project for nearly a year.



5. Countries' diagnostic reports and hotspot analysis highlighted
that many PICs have very limited fresh water resources; what little
water they do have is often contaminated through poor wastewater
management. Small Island countries like Tuvalu, Kiribati and Niue
are dependent on ground and rainwater. The reports and discussion
also pointed to pollution of ground water as a real threat to PICs,
especially to small atoll countries. Once ground water systems are
contaminated, it is difficult and costly to clean them up. (Poor
water quality can also result from salt water intrusion from coastal
zones, which can be exacerbated by extraction at unsustainable
rates.) In addition, reports from Fiji, Samoa, PNG and the Cook
Islands discussed how poor watershed management has lead to
degradation of coastal resources, particularly coral reefs.


6. The participants recognized that poor wastewater management
threatens PICs vital fresh water systems and near-shore marine
resources and that the IWRM project offers an opportunity to
introduce best-practices to the region to counter this threat.
Despite participants' recognition of the opportunity, however, many

SUVA 00000245 002 OF 002


were obviously overwhelmed by the prospects of securing required
co-financing for the country components of the project and of
complying with the bureaucratic requirements of accessing GEF
funding over the next 3-4 months before the looming application
deadline.


7. Participants complained that, while the Caribbean has significant
donor support to implement the IWRM concept, including a 3.5 million
dollar total U.S. commitment to White Water to Blue Water since
2002, PICs have come late to the party and are struggling to engage
the donor community. SOPAC pointed out that the EU, through the next
phase of its assistance program for the Pacific (EDF 9, which starts
mid-year),has pledged 3.4 million Euros for drought resilience
projects in PICs. Some of this funding could serve as possible
co-financing for IWRM, since the EU is encouraging PICs to make
possible linkages between EU-funded programs and other assistance
efforts. (Recognizing that some of the demonstration projects are in
high biodiversity areas, the IUCN representative suggested
additional linkages to countries' National Biodiversity Strategic
Action Plans under the Convention on Biological Diversity and to the
Ramsar Convention.)


8. Comment: The IWRM concept is relatively new to the Pacific and
has not been employed here in a systematic manner. GEF support could
help to bring that about. Despite being driven by the availability
of GEF funding, most PIC representatives at the event showed real
enthusiasm for the IWRM approach and embraced the opportunity it
represents for better integration of water sectors and for promoting
good governance and sound environmental management. Lack of
familiarity with the concept, poor forward planning, difficulties
identifying co-financing, and a profound lack of government capacity
may, however, result in this opportunity being lost for some PICs
and for donors looking for a vehicle to address the region's
pressing water needs. End comment.