60785 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) March 2008 Global Environment Facility Evaluation Office GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) March 2008 (The main findings and recommendations of this evaluation were presented to the GEF Council in June 2007.) Evaluation Report No. 37 © 2008 Global Environment Facility Evaluation Office 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 Internet: www.gefeo.org Email: gefevaluation@thegef.org All rights reserved. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF Council or the governments they represent. The GEF Evaluation Office does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denomi- nations, and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of the GEF concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The GEF encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission promptly. ISBN 10: 1-933992-09-3 ISBN-13: 978-1-933992-09-9 Credits Director of the GEF Evaluation Office: Robert D. van den Berg Task Manager: Claudio R. Volonté, Chief Evaluation Officer, GEF Evaluation Office Evaluation Team: Joe Reti, Cedric Schuster, and Sam Sesega, Pacific Environment Consultants Ltd Editing and design: Nita Congress Printing: Graphic Communications Cover photo: Upolu, Samoa, by Claudio R. Volonté, GEF Evaluation Office Evaluation Report No. 37 A FREE PUBLICATION Contents Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... vi Foreword ...................................................................................................................................... vii Acknowledgments .................................................................................................................... viii 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Recommendations......................................................................................................................................... 8 Notes .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9 2. Description of the Evaluation ............................................................................................... 10 2.1 Background .................................................................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Objectives of the Evaluation ...................................................................................................................... 11 2.3 Key Questions for the Evaluation ............................................................................................................. 11 2.4 Focus and Limitations of the Evaluation ................................................................................................. 12 2.5 Methodology.................................................................................................................................................. 12 Note .......................................................................................................................................................................... 13 3. Context of the Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 14 3.1 General Description..................................................................................................................................... 14 3.2 Environmental Resources in Key GEF Focal Areas .............................................................................. 14 3.3 Environmental Legal Framework in Samoa ........................................................................................... 18 3.4 Changes in Implementation for GEF-4 .................................................................................................. 25 Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 26 4. Activities Funded by the GEF in Samoa ............................................................................... 27 4.1 Overall GEF Portfolio .................................................................................................................................. 27 4.2 Portfolio by IA/ExA ..................................................................................................................................... 29 4.3 Portfolio by Focal Area ................................................................................................................................ 29 4.4 Portfolio by Objective .................................................................................................................................. 30 4.5 GEF Small Grants Programme .................................................................................................................. 31 4.6 Activities over Time ..................................................................................................................................... 33 iii 4.7 GEF in the Context of Official Development Assistance .................................................................... 33 4.8 GEF Support to Samoa in the Context of SIDS and the Pacific ........................................................ 34 Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 35 5. Results of GEF Support to Samoa......................................................................................... 36 5.1 Global Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................. 36 5.2 Outcomes: Advances in Policies and Strategies .................................................................................... 37 5.3 Outcomes: Catalytic and Replication Effects......................................................................................... 38 5.4 Outcomes: Institutional Sustainability and Capacity Building .......................................................... 39 5.5 Results of Completed Projects................................................................................................................... 39 6. Relevance of GEF Support to Samoa ................................................................................... 41 6.1 Relevance to Samoa's Sustainable Development Strategy and Environmental Priorities ........... 41 6.2 Relevance of GEF Modalities to Country Needs and Challenges ..................................................... 43 6.3 Relevance of Project Outcomes and Impacts ....................................................................................... 44 6.4 Relevance to GEF Agencies and SPREP .................................................................................................. 45 6.5 GEF Funding and Other Development Assistance .............................................................................. 47 Notes ........................................................................................................................................................................ 48 7. Efficiency of GEF-Supported Activities in Samoa ............................................................... 49 7.1 Resources Needed for Project Development and Implementation .................................................. 49 7.2 Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................................... 53 7.3 Lessons Learned across GEF Projects ..................................................................................................... 53 7.4 Synergies among GEF Stakeholders and Projects................................................................................. 54 Note .......................................................................................................................................................................... 55 Annexes A. Terms of Reference ......................................................................................................................................... 57 B. Evaluation Matrix ............................................................................................................................................ 63 C. Literature Reviewed ....................................................................................................................................... 65 D. Workshop Participants .................................................................................................................................. 68 E. People Interviewed ......................................................................................................................................... 69 F. All GEF-Funded Activities in Samoa, as of December 31, 2006 .......................................................... 70 G. Management Response ................................................................................................................................. 73 H. Country Response ......................................................................................................................................... 76 References ................................................................................................................................... 78 Boxes 3.1 Duties and Responsibilities of the GEF Consultant within the MNRE ........................................... 24 6.1 Main Duties and Responsibilities of the SPREP GEF Adviser ........................................................... 46 7.1 Lessons Learned from Selected GEF Projects in Which Samoa Has Participated ...................... 54 iv GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) Figures 1.1 GEF Support to Samoa by Focal Area and Project Status ................................................................... 2 4.1 GEF Support to Samoa by Project Scope ............................................................................................... 28 4.2 GEF Support to Samoa by Focal Area and Project Status ................................................................. 30 4.3 GEF and Official Development Assistance to Samoa, 1991­2005 ................................................... 34 7.1 GEF Activity Cycle ....................................................................................................................................... 50 Tables 1.1 Number of GEF Projects in Samoa, by Modality.................................................................................... 2 3.1 Status of Key Development Indicators .................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Inventory of GHG Emissions in Samoa, by Source and Sink Category, 1994................................ 17 3.3 Environmental-Related Legislation .......................................................................................................... 20 3.4 Policies and Key Environmental Issues ................................................................................................... 23 3.5 International Treaties Samoa Has Ratified Related to the GEF Mandate and Objectives .......... 24 4.1 Number of GEF Projects in Samoa, by Modality.................................................................................. 28 4.2 GEF Portfolio in Samoa as of December 2006 ...................................................................................... 28 4.3 Portfolio by Focal Area and Project Scope ............................................................................................. 30 4.4 Main Objectives of GEF-Supported Activities in Samoa by Focal Area and Modality ............... 31 5.1 Project Achievements for Regionally and Nationally Executed FSPs and MSPs .......................... 40 Contents v Abbreviations AusAID Australian Agency for International PDF project development facility Development POP persistent organic pollutant EA enabling activity RAF Resource Allocation Framework ExA Executing Agency SAT Samoan tala (currency) FAO Food and Agriculture Organization SDS Strategy for the Development of Samoa FSP full-size project SES statement of economic strategy GEF Global Environment Facility SIDS small island developing states GHG greenhouse gas SGP Small Grants Programme IA Implementing Agency SPBCP South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation LDC least developed country Programme MNRE Ministry of Natural Resources and SOPAC Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Environment Commission MPA marine protected area SPREP South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme MSP medium-size project UN United Nations NAP national action plan UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat NAPA national adaptation program of action Desertification NBSAP national biodiversity strategy and action UNDP United Nations Development plan Programme NCSA national capacity self-assessment UNEP United Nations Environment NDP national development plan Programme NGO nongovernmental organization UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention NIP national implementation plan on Climate Change NZAID New Zealand International Aid and UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Development Agency Organization vi Foreword This report is the third in a series of country Pacific islands, it also represents two important portfolio evaluations produced by the Evaluation groups for which the GEF Evaluation Office has Office of the Global Environment Facility (GEF). not previously conducted evaluations: small island Using the country as the unit of analysis, these developing states (SIDS) and least-developed coun- evaluations examine the totality of GEF support tries (LDCs). Even though no two countries are across all GEF Agencies and programs. The GEF alike and findings cannot necessarily be transferred Council had two objectives in undertaking such to other countries in the region or to other SIDS or studies: (1) to gain knowledge on the results of LDCs, some lessons learned can be shared. In par- GEF-supported activities and how they are imple- ticular, Samoa's experience can provide feedback to mented and (2) to evaluate how GEF-supported the GEF Pacific Alliance for Sustainability. activities fit into national strategies and priorities as well as within GEF-mandated global environ- The evaluation found that GEF support has con- mental objectives. tributed positively to both the Samoa Develop- ment Strategy and the development and imple- The approach was piloted in a 2005­06 evaluation mentation of national environmental policies. of GEF support in Costa Rica during 1992­2005. The GEF, as the main source of external financial Based on this experience, in October 2006, the assistance to the country's environmental sector, Evaluation Office prepared standard terms of ref- has contributed to Samoa's success in building erence for country portfolio evaluations, delin- a strong foundation for national environmental eating objectives, main questions, scope, and activities and meaningful contributions to inter- methodology. Country portfolio evaluations are national environmental efforts. GEF support conducted fully and independently by the Evalua- has been consistent with its global mandate, and tion Office and, when possible, in partnership with Samoa has a strong sense of local ownership of other evaluation offices of GEF Agencies, govern- GEF-supported activities. Despite these successes ments, and nongovernmental organizations. and the close linkages between GEF global priori- ties and Samoan national priorities, the evaluation Samoa was chosen as one of the countries to be found that the longer term sustainability of results evaluated in this way based on several criteria, is somewhat at risk. including its long history with the GEF, the avail- ability of baseline information, the role of the envi- ronmental sector in its sustainable development agenda, opportunities for synergies, and the role of GEF partners in the country. Moreover, Samoa Rob van den Berg not only provides a country example from the Director, Evaluation Office vii Acknowledgments This report was prepared by a team led by Clau- country. The team is also grateful for the field dio Volonté, Chief Evaluation Officer of the GEF mission support provided by staff from the United Evaluation Office, and consisting of three consul- Nations Development Programme and the Small tants from Pacific Environment Consultants Ltd, Grants Programme. Joe Reti, Cedric Schuster, and Sam Sesega. A draft document was presented in Samoa on Members of the government of Samoa--in par- March 29, 2007, to national stakeholders, includ- ticular Tu'u'u Dr. Ieti Taule'alo, Chief Executive ing representatives of the national government, Officer, and Tepa Suaesi, Principal Terrestrial GEF Agencies, nongovernmental organizations, Conservation Officer, both of the Ministry of and other civil society partners. Feedback was Natural Resources and Environment--provided very constructive, and the comments received full cooperation and participated actively in this have been incorporated in this evaluation report. evaluation. The Evaluation Office is particularly The Evaluation Office remains fully responsible thankful to them for facilitating access in their for the contents of the report. viii 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations 1.1 Background Samoa was selected through a randomized selec- tion process from among all GEF-eligible coun- Samoa has been the recipient of Global Environ- tries in the Asia and Pacific region and then by a mental Facility (GEF) financial support since the set of strategic criteria. Based on these, Samoa was pilot phase of the GEF when Samoa participated selected for country portfolio evaluation because in two regional projects: one on biodiversity, the other on climate change. These two projects set z it represents two groups of countries that are the stage for GEF interventions in Samoa--and highly relevant to the GEF: small island devel- the Pacific region as a whole--creating a partner- oping states (SIDS) of the Pacific and least ship among the GEF, the United Nations Devel- developed countries (LDCs); opment Programme (UNDP), the South Pacific z it has a diverse portfolio, with projects in all GEF Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP), focal areas and implemented through several and the Samoan Ministry of Natural Resources GEF Agencies--specifically, UNDP, the United and Environment (MNRE) that continues to this Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), day. the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the Food and Agriculture Organization The evaluation of GEF support to Samoa took of the United Nations (FAO), and the United place between January and April 2007; it followed Nations Industrial Development Organization the standard terms of reference for GEF country (UNIDO); portfolio evaluations developed by the GEF Evalu- ation Office in October 2006. (See annex A for z it has a well-established environmental sector. the terms of reference.) A team comprised of GEF During the evaluation process, it became evident Evaluation Office and Pacific Environment Con- that although Samoa experiences difficulties that sultants Ltd staff members conducted the evalu- are common to SIDs and LDCs with regard to ation. The evaluation's objectives were to (1) pro- accessing and implementing GEF-funded proj- vide the GEF Council with additional information ects--such as limited capacity, high transaction on the results of GEF-supported activities and how costs of doing business, and high vulnerability-- they are implemented in Samoa and (2) evaluate not all lessons from this case can be transferred to how GEF-supported projects are linked to national the other countries in these groups. environmental and sustainable development strat- egies as well as the GEF-mandated global environ- The evaluation explored three key questions for mental benefits within its focal areas. the GEF and Samoa: 1 z Is GEF support relevant to the Strategy for most of which are full-size projects (FSPs); and the Development of Samoa (SDS) 2005­2007, three are global, which have national components national development needs and challenges, in Samoa. The GEF focal areas of biodiversity, cli- action plans for the GEF's focal areas, and the GEF mate change, international waters, land degrada- mandate and focal area programs and strategies? tion, and persistent organic pollutants (POPs), as well as the multifocal area, are represented in this z Is GEF support efficient, as indicated by the cohort of projects. Although 80 percent of these time, effort, and money needed to develop and projects are implemented through UNDP, UNEP implement GEF projects; by any particular and the World Bank have also had experience with issues related to regional projects; and by the projects in Samoa. creation of partnerships and synergies within GEF projects and between them and other Figure 1.1 shows the level of funding for all GEF projects funded by government agencies as well activities under way or completed in Samoa, by focal as other GEF stakeholders? area. Table 1.1 shows the distribution of GEF-sup- z What are the results of completed projects, ported projects by geographic scope and modality. aggregated at the focal area and country levels? Table 1.1 The evaluation focused on a portfolio of 18 proj- Number of GEF Projects in Samoa, by Modality ects funded by the GEF from 1992 to December Project scope EA MSP FSP Total 2006 with an estimated investment of $7 million.1 National 6 2 0 8 Eight are national projects--six enabling activi- Regional 2 1 4 7 ties (EAs) and two medium-size projects (MSPs); Globala 0 0 3 3 seven are regional (projects in which Samoa par- Total 8 3 7 18 ticipates as a member of the Pacific Island States), a. Includes the Small Grants Programme. Figure 1.1 GEF Support to Samoa by Focal Area and Project Status Million $ 2.50 Com pleted Active 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Biodiversity Climate International Land POPs Multifocal change waters degradation 2 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) 1.2 Conclusions to the country's environment sector. Samoa thus has a high level of dependency on GEF financing Based on the information collected and analyzed in to meet its needs, and it is expected that this level this evaluation, the following conclusions about the of dependency will continue and perhaps increase relevance, efficiency, and results of GEF support to in future. Samoa over the last 15 years can be reached. GEF modalities of support have been appro- Relevance of the Portfolio priate to the state of Samoa's development. The Conclusion 1: GEF support has been relevant to modalities supported so far--primarily project the Samoa Development Strategy and national development facilities (PDFs), Small Grants Pro- environmental policies. gramme (SGP) projects, enabling activities, MSPs, and regional projects--are relevant and appropri- GEF support has direct linkages to the key out- ate to Samoa's capacity, knowledge base, existing comes of the Samoa Development Strategy. environmental frameworks, and type of environ- The GEF has supported key outcomes for the pro- mental issues. The various GEF stakeholders in tection/conservation of biodiversity; protection Samoa particularly value the availability of fund- of water catchments; and increased awareness of ing for PDFs. This funding makes it possible to potential climate change impacts, importance of devote the time and resources needed to achieve a ozone-depleting substances, community-based thorough understanding of the issues and modali- natural resource management, and community ties of intervention to prepare for a project.2 The development. The GEF enabling activities facili- country has received support to fulfill convention tated the development of national policies related reporting requirements where such reporting is to Samoa's National Environmental Management eligible for GEF support. All enabling activities Strategy. For example, the country's biodiversity have been completed, with the exception of the policy was developed in conjunction with the land degradation National Action Plan (NAP) and National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan the National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA), (NBSAP) and Watershed Management Policy, and both of which are near completion. Regional the country's Water Resources Policy took advan- approaches were found appropriate when deal- tage of a GEF international waters project, Imple- ing with transboundary issues, and the SGP was mentation of the Strategic Action Programme of the appropriate for providing nongovernmental orga- Pacific Small Island Developing States, to advance nizations (NGOs) and community groups with its implementation. Furthermore, the evaluation transparent access to GEF support. found that the GEF had targeted national pri- orities established under Samoa's environmental policies. The fact that GEF support is consistent Conclusion 2: All GEF-funded projects are highly with national priorities has helped Samoa develop relevant to the GEF mandate and focal areas, but slow follow-up support from government a strong ownership of GEF activities. sources could jeopardize the sustainability of results. The GEF is the main source of external finan- cial assistance to Samoa's environmental pro- All GEF-funded projects were developed and tection and conservation needs. The GEF con- approved on the basis of their relevance to the tributes about 60 percent of total external funding GEF mandate and focal area strategies. GEF 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations 3 projects have primarily focused on biodiversity, members dedicated to environmental work; today, climate change, land degradation, or international more than 100 staff members attend to the full waters. Enabling activities have concentrated spectrum of environmental issues. Staff who had largely on capacity building. managed now-completed GEF projects have been retained within the ministry, thereby sustaining The sustainability of project results could the lessons learned from previous experiences. be jeopardized. As one example, although the Marine Biodiversity Protection and Management Enabling activities in the climate change area project and South Pacific Biodiversity Conserva- have supported strategies and frameworks. Cli- tion Programme (SPBCP) met their objectives by mate change enabling activities have contributed establishing four community-based and commu- to increased public awareness about greenhouse nity-managed protected areas in Samoa, all these gases (GHGs) and ozone-depleting substances as protected areas have suffered from inadequate well as about natural disasters and their potential financial follow-up support from the government impacts on people and the environment. Priorities since GEF funding ended. Moreover, the former identified in the NAPA are beginning to be imple- project had very ambitious objectives and set mented and mainstreamed into investments such a high cost for services, which the government as the Coastal Infrastructure Management Plans could not sustain once GEF funding ended. and Coastal Emergency Recovery Project which are funded as credits from the World Bank. Fur- Results of the Portfolio thermore, the country's draft national energy plan has made notable progress in promoting the use Conclusion 3: Enabling activities have supported of renewable energy with pilots on solar energy Samoa in building the foundations for its envi- and coconut oil under way, and planning begun ronmental frameworks and strategies, which are necessary conditions for generating global for more hydro schemes on the island of Savaii. environmental benefits. All of these actions create the conditions to enable GEF support achieved its greatest results in the impacts to emerge. By supporting the establish- area of policy and strategy development. Samoa ment of these policies, strategies, and frameworks, has completed all necessary national plans, poli- the GEF has contributed to building a strong cies, and legislation related to the environment. foundation for Samoa to make a useful contribu- These include the NBSAP, National Adaptation tion to international efforts to protect the global Program of Action (NAPA), land degradation NAP, environment. and POPs National Implementation Plan (NIP). To address environmental issues systematically Conclusion 4: Completed projects have achieved in Samoa, the Ministry of Natural Resources and concrete on-the-ground results; however, actual Environment has, over the last 15 years, focused reporting on results has limitations because of GEF support on building its capacity. Capacity has the poor quality of final evaluations and limited baselines. been built by developing the necessary strategies and supporting other relevant stakeholders so all GEF support in the biodiversity focal area are able to implement the plans developed. The enabled the conservation and sustainable MNRE has contracted with a consultant to handle management of forest and marine ecosystems. GEF matters. In 1992, the ministry had only 5 staff GEF projects eased the participation of more 4 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) than 20 village communities within critical forest Evaluating the impacts of GEF-funded initia- and mangrove ecosystems on the island of Upolu tives is not straightforward. Often, the type of in resource conservation and management and information generated by project evaluations is helped build local capacity in effective planning primarily limited to reports on outcomes and does and management of Samoa's environment. The not contain information related to project impacts Marine Biodiversity Protection and Management on environmental conditions. This absence of project initiated bans on commercial scuba fishing information is attributed to the fact that evalu- within certain protected areas. The Ministry of ations were conducted before intended project Agriculture and Fisheries subsequently expanded impacts could be detected or have had time to the ban on this fishing practice throughout the emerge. In fact, it has been suggested that project country; this was adopted by about 50 communi- impacts often cannot be detected until well after ties. The project also imposed bans on the com- the projects have ended. Many GEF-funded proj- mercial harvesting of sea turtles within the pro- ects in Samoa have been completed only over the tected areas, thereby supporting regional and last two or three years. international efforts to protect these endangered Other results on the ground have been achieved marine animals. through the replication of approaches, pro- The species conservation component of the cesses, and lessons learned from the experi- SPBCP initiated efforts for the conservation of ences of other GEF-funded projects. The repli- marine mammals and turtles in the region; in cation of approaches, processes, and lessons to new Samoa, this led to a ban on the commercial har- GEF initiatives and other development assistance vesting of sea turtles at the national level. Since programs in Samoa has produced good results. 1995, when the first Pacific Year of the Sea Turtle For example, the community-based conservation campaign was launched, populations of sea turtles approach supported by the SPBCP in Samoa was have increased in Samoa as evidenced both at the replicated on a larger scale by the Marine Biodi- nesting beaches and by sightings by fishermen versity Protection and Management project. The and divers. consultative and participatory processes that were important features of the country's initial There is some anecdotal information of marine regional projects (SPBCP and the international ecosystem impacts deriving from such interven- waters projects) are accepted as best practices tions as the Marine Biodiversity Protection and for all other environmental initiatives in Samoa, Management project and some recent SGP activi- particularly in light of the customary land and ties. For example, the marine project collected natural resource ownership that exists there. Vil- baseline data that later helped demonstrate that lage bans on the use of certain types of fishing the fish population had increased over the last few gear and practices in marine protected areas years. The two marine communities visited by the (MPAs) have been adopted by around 50 com- evaluation team and supported by SGP activities munities in Samoa. Finally, the ban on commer- reported improvements in coral health and fish cial harvesting of sea turtles under the Marine populations. In particular, one of the communi- Biodiversity Protection and Management project ties reported that fishermen from neighboring vil- complemented the government's own efforts to lages were coming to their no-take zone illegally protect migratory species and marine mammals because the fish population is better. in Samoan waters. 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations 5 The Portfolio's Efficiency egies that potentially generate global environ- mental benefits. Conclusion 5: Samoa has improved its efficiency in accessing GEF funding, but there are still some z Samoa is sharing lessons from GEF projects obstacles. within and outside the country. Samoa has improved its efficiency in accessing ...but there are still some obstacles. GEF funding... z The GEF Activity Cycle is too long and costly. z The MNRE has improved its capacity by retain- Consistent with the findings of other evalu- ing expertise within its staff, hiring a consultant ations from the GEF Evaluation Office, the to coordinate all GEF activities, and expand- absence of project information is a critical ing its mandate to cover most environmental problem. The recently completed Joint Evalu- issues. ation of the GEF Activity Cycle and Modalities provided the most accurate information but did z All enabling activities have produced action not collect information for enabling activities, plans and strategies that are ready for imple- which are half of the GEF support activities in mentation. Samoa. In general, the GEF does not properly z The SGP is an efficient mechanism for delivery and systematically compile and conduct qual- support to local communities and for helping ity control of project data (for example, project them access the GEF. SGP support is already cycle dates, status, and finances). Uncertainties helping increase GEF visibility throughout about the status of projects within the Activity Samoa. The SGP's flexibility and its accessibil- Cycle are common. ity to village communities and NGOs enable z Lengthy delays between project preparation it to respond effectively to country priorities and actual start-up hinders implementation. at the local/community level. The small fund- There are also variations in the time it takes to ing involved is easily absorbed by the limited prepare and implement GEF projects in Samoa capacity of local communities, and the small according to modality.3 As one example, the community-based project supports are more SPBCP took less than 8 months to design, but it manageable and their outcomes easily sus- took UNDP and the GEF almost 16 months to tained by local groups. (These features are often approve the design. The more than two years of not present in medium- and full-size projects, preparation ("wait and see" period) generated which are usually more difficult to sustain after negative feedback, reduced the project's readi- donor funding has ended.) ness for start-up, and dampened the enthusi- z Samoa has implemented projects using most asm of participants. available GEF modalities, from enabling activi- z The implementation of the Resource Alloca- ties, MSPs, projects approved under umbrella tion Framework (RAF) has created additional global projects (which have a national compo- uncertainties, particularly about the fate of nent), regional projects, and the SGP. projects in previous pipelines. z The government has shown a willingness to z Harmonization has not taken place among reach out to other GEF Agencies (in addition all players working in the environmental sec- to UNDP) to implement action plans and strat- tor, although two of the main donors, AusAID 6 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) and NZAID (respectively, the international aid have included GEF cofinancing. FAO also has a organizations of Australia and New Zealand), significant technical assistance program with the are beginning to harmonize their contribu- government of Samoa but has no plans to include tions to Samoa. AusAID has taken the leader- the GEF. ship. However, the GEF, GEF Agencies, and the Most relevant GEF Agencies now have a pres- government of Samoa have different require- ence in the Pacific region. The GEF Agencies ments for project preparation, monitoring, and have established (or are planning to expand) their reporting. (A project implemented through presence in the region. UNDP plans to increase its SPREP, for example, has different reporting number of national offices in the region and has requirements for the GEF, UNDP, SPREP, and relocated a GEF staff member from its regional national governments.) office in Bangkok to the Samoa regional office. z Most relevant government agencies have not ADB has an officer in Fiji, the World Bank has an prepared and implemented GEF projects. This office in Sydney, UNEP is bringing an additional affects Samoa's ability to access the GEF at full person to be located within SPREP, and FAO has a capacity. Although many government agen- regional office in Samoa. cies have participated in the implementation of GEF projects, only the MNRE has been an The high transaction costs involved with, and executing agency responsible for implementing limited knowledge about, GEF activities in the GEF projects. To date, NGOs and community- Pacific are due to many factors: based organizations only participate in SGP z The price of airline tickets for travel from out- activities, mainly due to their lack of capacity to side as well as within the region is very high, implement medium- and full-size projects and and travel times are long. limited cofinancing. z The limited network of local consultants means that outside consultants must be hired, who Conclusion 6: Most GEF Agencies have not been must then travel to the region. engaged in Samoa, primarily because of the high transaction costs and limited understand- z There is a lack of awareness about and knowl- ing of GEF objectives and procedures. edge of the GEF, with many stakeholders not The leading GEF Agency in Samoa is UNDP. fully understanding the potential of GEF objec- Stakeholders attributed this to the fact that tives and their complementarity with their reg- UNDP is the only GEF Agency with an office in ular activities. Samoa; it recently assigned a UNDP-GEF adviser z Agencies lack internal communications about to this office. The World Bank and ADB have the potential of the GEF and GEF procedures. extensive portfolios of currently active loans, z Accessing GEF funds is complex, and it takes a representing a combined $70 million in invest- long time to prepare for a GEF project; more- ments and $10 million in technical assistance. over, GEF Activity Cycle requirements are Both banks are working in areas highly relevant often out of sync with Agencies' own project to the GEF (cyclone recovery, infrastructure cycles. improvement along coastal areas, power sector improvement, sanitation and drainage, and small z Limited GEF resources available in Samoa make business development), but none of their loans investment less cost effective. 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations 7 1.3 Recommendations z The case of Samoa substantiates that high trans- action costs are characteristic of the Pacific Recommendations to the GEF Council region. To reduce these costs, GEF stand-alone Recommendation 1: The proposed program- projects should not be encouraged. There are matic approach for the Pacific SIDS should take ways to reduce these transaction costs, espe- into account Samoa's experience. cially when GEF activities are made part of The lessons from Samoa's experience with the GEF the regular programs of GEF Agencies already should be considered when developing the pro- working in the region. posed regional programmatic approach for Pacific z Harmonization needs to be strengthened SIDS for implementation in GEF-4. Although no across the GEF stakeholders. The experiences two countries are alike and the diversity of this of NZAID and AusAID should be studied as region should be recognized, Samoa shares sev- possible models for future programs. eral common problems with the rest of the Pacific island states (such as limited capacity, high trans- z The GEF, in partnership with its Scientific and action costs of doing business, high vulnerabil- Technical Advisory Panel and the Pacific SIDS, ity, and fragile ecosystems). Key lessons learned should identify more specific global environ- from the GEF experience in Samoa include the mental benefits in Samoa and the Pacific. Two following: areas requiring more clarity across the GEF sys- tem are the global benefits of marine resources z GEF support to Pacific SIDS should first focus and the role of the GEF in adaptation to climate on assisting countries in establishing the foun- change impacts. dation for policies and strategies and in devel- oping action plans, frameworks, and priorities, Recommendations to the Government of primarily through enabling activities. After Samoa these items have been accomplished, as in the case of Samoa, GEF support should then focus Recommendation 2: Environmental concerns, on implementation of priorities and action which are seen as a cross-cutting issue, need plans that will generate global benefits. to become visible in the Samoa Development Strategy. z The comparative advantages of the various GEF stakeholders--national, regional, and Although environmental concerns have been global--need to be taken into account. In the well integrated into many sectors and policy same vein, roles and responsibilities should be areas, the environment is not specifically iden- clearly discussed and agreed upon for the GEF tified as a priority or sector in the Samoa Devel- Secretariat, the Council, SPREP, UNDP, other opment Strategy. Instead, the environment is GEF Agencies, and bilateral donors. The GEF considered a cross-cutting issue. The lack of is a major player in the region's environmental clarity about the importance of environmental sector, but it is not the only one. concerns has caused confusion among Samoa's z There should be sufficient flexibility to accom- external partners when it comes to financial modate the different capacities of the differ- support. Because the sector is not explicitly rec- ent Pacific island countries. A one-size-fits-all ognized as a priority, donors do not prioritize it approach should not be proposed. for support. 8 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) Recommendation 3: Increased participation by proactive plan for public awareness and capacity other stakeholders (ministries, civil society, and building on GEF issues and create a demand for the private sector) in implementing GEF-sup- GEF funding in these other sectors. ported projects will increase national capacity. The Samoa evaluation showed that the MNRE's Notes capacity to develop and implement GEF proj- 1. All dollar amounts are U.S. dollars unless other- ects has increased considerably over the last few wise indicated. years. The implementation of the national priori- 2. This preparation includes consultations with stake- ties and action plans developed from GEF support holders and the hiring of experts familiar with GEF involve activities in many sectors of the country's guidelines and GEF document preparation. development strategy. The ministry alone cannot 3. Enabling activities take between three and six implement all of these plans, however. It is recom- months to prepare (from PDF approval to project mended that the MNRE reach out to other sectors approval) and then three to four years for imple- of Samoa, both within government and civil soci- mentation, which is longer than the GEF expec- tation of 18 months. The regional FSPs (most of ety, to assist in implementation and increase the which include 14 countries) have taken six months country's capacity to access and implement those to two years to prepare, and up to 10 years for plans. For example, the ministry could develop a implementation. 1. Main Conclusions and Recommendations 9 2. Description of the Evaluation 2.1 Background that all countries in this region could potentially The GEF Council requested that the GEF Evalu- be selected. The strategic criteria indicated that ation Office continue conducting evaluations of Samoa was an excellent choice for several reasons: the GEF portfolio at the country level after the z Samoa represents both SIDS and LDCs, two positive pilot experience of the evaluation of GEF important groups for which the GEF Evaluation support to Costa Rica was completed in 2006. Office has not conducted evaluations before. These evaluations will provide the Council with z The country has concluded all enabling activi- additional information on how the GEF func- ties reports within GEF focal areas and is very tions at the country level and on the results of the close to finishing its national capacity self- activities it supports, enhancing its understanding assessment, which could provide good baseline of how these activities contribute to the country's information for the evaluation. sustainable development, national strategies and priorities, and the GEF mandate. z The environmental sector is a cross-cutting issue in Samoa's national sustainable develop- Since the GEF-4 (2006­10) is implemented under ment agenda. the Resource Allocation Framework for biodiver- sity and climate change focal areas and allocations z The World Bank, UNDP, and ADB have con- are made at the country level, this type of evalua- ducted work in the environment sector in tion is expected to provide useful feedback. The Samoa, including evaluations; this provides case of Samoa brings an additional dimension to additional baseline information. these evaluations because this is the first time the z The GEF portfolio in Samoa provides good oppor- GEF is looking at how its initiatives are imple- tunity for synergies with ongoing evaluations, mented in two groups of countries of particular in particular the evaluation of the SGP, capacity interest for the GEF and the conventions it serves: building, and the catalytic role of the GEF. SIDS and LDCs. z Samoa could be considered a representative Samoa was selected through a randomized selec- example with problems similar to those of other tion process from among all GEF-eligible coun- Pacific island countries (limited capacity, a high tries in the Asia and Pacific region. The final selec- transaction cost of doing business, high vulner- tion was made using a set of strategic criteria and ability, and fragile ecosystems). Of course, no synergies with ongoing evaluations in the GEF two countries are alike, situations vary, and this Evaluation Office. The random selection ensured is a very diverse region. 10 z SPREP, a major GEF partner, operates in Samoa. ­ Is GEF support relevant to the action plans for GEF's focal areas (such as the ones from 2.2 Objectives of the Evaluation GEF-supported enabling activities)? The evaluation of GEF support to Samoa has four ­ Is GEF support relevant to the GEF mandate objectives: and focal area programs and strategies, and what is the relationship between the results z Independently evaluate the relevance and effi- of GEF support and impacts (proposed ver- ciency of GEF support in the country from sus actual) and the global environmental various viewpoints, including national envi- indicators of each focal area? ronmental frameworks and decision-making z Efficiency of GEF support processes, the GEF mandate (achievement of ­ How much time, effort, and money are global environmental benefits), and GEF poli- needed to develop and implement GEF proj- cies and procedures. ects in the various GEF modalities (FSP, MSP, z Assess the effectiveness and results of com- enabling activity, and SGP project)? Is there pleted projects and those expected from ongo- any difference in this regard between nation- ing ones. ally and regionally implemented projects? z Provide additional evaluative evidence to other ­ Are the roles and responsibilities of the vari- evaluations conducted or sponsored by the ous players (GEF Agencies, NGOs, GEF focal GEF Evaluation Office. point, other government entities, SPREP and z Provide feedback and knowledge to be shared other regional agencies) involved with the with (1) the GEF Council in its decision-making GEF during the project design and imple- process on distributing resources and develop- mentation phases clear? ing policies and strategies to Samoa and other ­ What are the synergies and partnerships Pacific island countries and (2) the various among GEF projects, the GEF Agencies in Agencies and organizations involved in prepar- Samoa (UNDP, UNEP, the World Bank, ADB, ing and implementing GEF-funded projects FAO, and UNIDO), other relevant govern- and activities. ment agencies, other national stakeholders (NGOs, the private sector, academia), and 2.3 Key Questions for the other donors (such as NZAID, AusAID, the Evaluation Japan International Cooperation Agency, The key questions explored during this evaluation and the European Union)? were as follows: z Results and effectiveness z Relevance of GEF support and activities ­ What are the outcomes and impacts of com- ­ Is GEF support relevant to the present pleted projects? Strategy for the Development of Samoa ­ What are the aggregated results at the focal 2005­2007 and any of the past strategies? area and country levels? ­ Is GEF support relevant to the national ­ What is the likelihood that objectives will development needs and challenges (such as be achieved for those projects that are still those presented in the NCSA)? under implementation? 2. Description of the Evaluation 11 Annex B presents an evaluation matrix in which has not been in isolation. Other donors and orga- each of these questions is further explored, indicat- nizations are also providing support and working ing the main sources of information as well as the on similar topics; this includes the governments main methods used to obtain the information. of New Zealand, Australia, Japan, and the Euro- pean Union as well as GEF Agencies, such as the 2.4 Focus and Limitations of the World Bank and ADB, which are providing loans; and UNDP, UNEP, and FAO, which are providing Evaluation technical and financial assistance. The evaluation focused on 18 approved projects as of December 30, 2006.1 These projects, which The inclusion of regional and global projects is constitute the GEF portfolio in Samoa, include extremely relevant to the case of Samoa since 7 of eight national projects (six enabling activities the 18 projects in which Samoa participates are and two MSPs); seven regional projects in which implemented regionally. These regional projects Samoa participates; and three global projects that included some on-the-ground activities as well as enabling activities. also have national components, including the SGP biosafety framework and the community-based 2.5 Methodology adaptation projects. The methodology used included a combination of The evaluation did not include projects in the quantitative and qualitative methods: pipeline because the implementation of GEF-4 in the Pacific will not start until a GEF programmatic z An in-depth review and analysis was made of approach is approved in December 2007. 10 documents containing information on the development of Samoa's environmental, politi- The evaluation also focused on the context in which cal, and legal sectors; more than 20 documents these projects were developed and approved and on the GEF and the implementation of GEF are being implemented. This is covered in chapter Agencies' assistance programs in Samoa; and 3, which includes a historic assessment of national more than 30 documents containing informa- sustainable development and environmental poli- tion on progress in implementation and evalu- cies, strategies, and priorities; the legal frame- ative information from GEF projects. Annex C work in which these policies are implemented lists all the documents reviewed. and enforced; GEF Agencies' country strategies, z One consultation workshop was held with regional strategies, and approaches (such as from key players in GEF implementation in Samoa SPREP); and GEF policies, principles, programs, to discuss the first draft of this report. Partici- and strategies. pants included about 40 representatives from The evaluation has several limitations inherent in government agencies, GEF Agencies, regional the way the GEF operates. As of the end of GEF-3 organizations, and NGOs (see annex D for a (June 2006), the GEF did not operate under GEF full list of participants). country strategies. Thus, there is no GEF/Samoa z Three site visits were made by staff from the national framework against which to evaluate GEF Evaluation Office to introduce the evalua- results or effectiveness; evaluation must be done tion, conduct extensive interviews, conduct the on a project-by-project basis. Attribution of results consultation workshop, and conduct field visits is also difficult, because GEF support to Samoa to project sites. 12 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) z Visits were made to two protected areas estab- contents analyzed. Annex E presents a list of all lished by the completed Marine Biodiversity persons interviewed. Protection and Management project, to two SGP recipients, and to one demonstration Note site from the Implementation of the Strategic 1. The evaluation focuses on GEF support, approved Action Programme of the Pacific Small Island by Council and/or the GEF Chief Executive Offi- Developing States international waters proj- cer from the GEF pilot phase through the end of ect. GEF-3, that was concluded by December 31, 2006. For Samoa, no new projects were approved after z Extensive interviews were conducted with over the special Council meeting in August 2006, and 40 individuals and 10 global, national, and local no new projects were endorsed by the GEF Chief institutions associated with the GEF and their Executive Officer after September 2006. 2. Description of the Evaluation 13 3. Context of the Evaluation One of the fundamental objectives of this evalu- 3.2 Environmental Resources in ation was to analyze the relevance of GEF sup- Key GEF Focal Areas port, both for Samoa and for the GEF itself. This chapter thus presents a brief summary of Biodiversity Conservation the context in which GEF support is provided Samoa's biological environment reflects a rich nat- in terms of both the environmental sector in ural heritage of species diversity and endemism. Samoa and the mandate and operations of the Samoa supports an estimated 775 native vascular GEF. plant species, of which approximately 30 percent of the angiosperms are endemic.1 There are about 3.1 General Description 280 genera of native angiosperms, which is more Samoa is a small island country in the Southwest than in any other archipelago in Polynesia. In addi- Pacific, with a land area of 2,935 square kilome- tion, there are about 250 introduced plant species ters. Samoa consists of two main islands, Upolu and 47 threatened plants. and Savaiit; two other inhabited smaller islands, Samoa's fauna consists of 21 butterfly species; Manono and Apolima; and several uninhabited 11 species of reptiles; 43 resident bird species, 8 of small islands and islets. Samoa's exclusive eco- which are endemic; and 3 flying fox species. This nomic zone is approximately 120,000 square kilo- biodiversity constitutes an essential aspect of the meters, which is smaller than that of any other Samoan culture, with many cultural proverbs and Pacific island country. oral traditions derived from or reflecting relation- Samoa has a relatively low population density of ships with the forests, reefs, marine life, and land 60 people per square kilometer, and a total popu- animals. lation of 176,710, according to the country's 2001 The marine resource base in Samoa is very frag- Population and Housing Census. About 21 per- ile. The mangrove, lagoon, and coral reef house cent of the total population, or 40,000 people, an enormous diversity of marine invertebrates, live within the main Apia urban area; the rest many of which are harvested as food. Fourteen of the population is spread over villages along threatened species have been identified, including the coast. Between 1991 and 2001, Samoa had numerous corals and clams and the coconut crab. an annual population growth rate of 1 percent. Table 3.1 presents Samoa's ratings on various key Of the 19 recognized terrestrial plant communi- indicators. ties in Samoa, the country's 2001 National Biodi- 14 Table 3.1 Status of Key Development Indicators Indicator Value Year Population size 176,848 2001 Annual population growth rate 1.29% 2000 Life expectancy at birth (females) 71.9 years 1997/98 Life expectancy at birth (males) 65.4 years 1997/98 Per capita gross domestic product SAT 4,806 a 2001 External debt as a percentage of gross domestic product 54.8% 2002 Poverty ratio (population below extreme poverty line, defined as $1/day) 7% of households 2000 Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 births) 12 2003 Children ages 5­14 enrolled in primary school 94.7% 2001 Enrollment ratio for girls in primary school 85% 2003 Enrollment ratio for boys in primary school 84% 2003 Enrollment ratio for girls in secondary school 62% 2003 Enrollment ratio for boys in secondary school 48% 2003 Literacy rate for 15- to 24-year-olds 99.9% 2003 Literacy rate for all adults 95.7% 1999 Population use of traditional wood fuel <50% and dropping 2000 People without access to safe water 10% 1999 Prevalence of HIV/AIDS (known cases) 4 2004 Prevalence of noncommunicable diseases Increasing 2004 Source: Samoa National Development Report 2006. a. SAT 2.65 = $1 (March 2007). versity Strategy and Action Plan recognized that tional fishery reserves, and community-based littoral vegetation, wetland vegetation, rainforest, indigenous forest management. and volcanic scrub are threatened global ecosys- tems and thus conservation efforts should be pri- The small size and geographical isolation of oritized in these ecosystems for actions. Samoa's islands from continental land masses resulted in the country's high level of species ende- More than 171,000 hectares of Samoa's total land mism. These same factors provide the seeds for its area is covered in forest. To conserve Samoa's bio- ecological fragility and vulnerability. For instance, diversity, the national protected area system was many species have limited defenses against aggres- expanded to accommodate the customary land sive invasive species; and while endemism is high tenure system of the country and empower com- at the species level, it is less diversified at higher munity participation in its management. These taxa levels. Genetic variability is thus limited. protected area approaches include the following: national parks and reserves, community conser- The ecological vulnerability inherent in its size, vation areas, conservation covenants, manage- isolation, and limited genetic variability is exacer- ment of complete watershed catchments, tradi- bated by the ever-present threat of natural events 3. Context of the Evaluation 15 such as cyclones and climate variability, and the Samoa is sensitive to threats to water supplies, impacts of human activities. food production, and natural resources associ- ated with climate change and climate variability. Climate Change The island's small size increases the seriousness of Samoa's First National Communication to the climate change impacts because any one of these UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Conven- impacts is likely to affect the whole country rather tion on Climate Change) and NAPA both indicated than a small portion. that climate change would have a serious impact The mapping of areas vulnerable to natural haz- on Samoa (Gos/DEC 1999 and MNRE 2005). The ards under a World Bank­funded project indi- critical sectors and other areas that would experi- cated that 65 percent of all stations assessed for ence adverse impacts of climate change and vari- sensitivity to coastal hazards were highly vul- ability include: nerable, 20 percent showed medium sensitivity, and 11 percent were very highly sensitive (Beca/ z food security and agriculture, GoS 2001 and GoS 2002). Only 4 percent of the z water supply, coastline is resilient to coastal hazards, which z biodiversity loss, are normally climate related. Improving Samoa's resilience to natural hazards and its preparedness z health sector (from the increase in vector- and through adaptive regimes is a current priority water-borne diseases), consideration. z role of forests in watershed management and Samoa's greenhouse gas emissions as noted in its environmental protection, First National Communication to the UNFCCC z vulnerability of coastal assets, are presented in table 3.2. The majority of emis- z energy supply, sions come from fuel combustion caused by trans- port and building inefficiencies. By world stan- z tourism sector. dards, these levels are quite insignificant. However, a comparison of 1994 and 1997 GHG emissions Approximately 70 percent of Samoa's population shows that all categories of gases recorded increas- and infrastructure are located in low-lying coastal ing trends during this period. For example, the areas. Projected sea level rise caused by climate net carbon dioxide emissions of 34.09 gigagrams change could exacerbate coastal erosion and result between 1994 and 1997 indicate a yearly increase in land and property losses, dislocation of island of about 8.52 gigagrams (GoS/DEC 1999). inhabitants, and saltwater intrusion. The extreme events of tropical cyclones Ofa (1990) and Val Energy is a critical element underpinning the gov- (1991) caused damages that cost approximately ernment of Samoa's strategy for economic growth four times the gross domestic product of Samoa. and social development. Throughout the 1990s, The high winds, storm surges, and heavy rains Samoa experienced a rapid transformation in its severely damaged agricultural plantations, infra- energy consumption pattern, shifting from heavy structure, and the country's socioeconomic base. use of traditional indigenous biomass toward a Projected changes in tropical cyclone systems due more commercial energy supply. Nevertheless, to climate change increase the risk to life, prop- biomass still accounts for about 48 percent of the erty, and ecosystems. As a semisubsistence nation, total primary energy supply in Samoa; petroleum 16 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) Table 3.2 Inventory of GHG Emissions in Samoa, by Source and Sink Category, 1994 Gigagram/year GHG source and sink category Carbon dioxide Methane Nitrous oxide Total (net) national emissions 20.22073 3.303743 1.260135 Energy (fuel combustion) 102.20193 0.017078 0.000872 Industrial processes 0 0 0 Agriculture 0 2.140598 1.244289 Land use change and forestry -81.9812 0 0 Other (for example, waste) 0 1.146067 0.0104974 Source: GoS/DEC 1999. products represent 39 percent. No hydrocarbon Several conservation programs have been estab- deposits have been found in Samoa. Solar energy lished to promote the conservation and sustain- usage is currently limited to water heating and able use of the marine environment, such as some photovoltaic systems on the smaller islands. MPAs; traditional fishery reserves; and species Electricity consumption from diesel and hydro- conservation programs for sea turtles, whales, and power account for about 13 percent of usage. other cetaceans. Biomass, primarily from fuel wood and coconut A regional program supported by the GEF residues, is the dominant cooking fuel. An unde- addressed the underlying causes of pollution in termined amount (estimated at 12 megawatts) of the marine environment and has established a on-site unaccounted-for standby diesel electric- water catchments program for Samoa. ity generation is used by hotels, commerce, and industry in the event of supply outages or to avoid Land Degradation high electricity costs. Most of the country's land (81 percent) is owned by extended families or villages under custom- International Waters ary ownership, and alienation of customary land As mentioned before, Samoa's total exclusive is prohibited by law. Customary land cannot be economic zone of approximately 120,000 square transferred or made freehold, although lease kilometers is the smallest for all Pacific island arrangements are possible. Eleven percent of the countries because of its proximity to other island land is government owned and is used mainly nations and territories on all four sides. for plantation farming, national reserves, public buildings, and infrastructure. Five percent of the A survey and monitoring program conducted land remains under the Samoa Trust Estates for in preparation of Samoa's National Biodiversity commercial plantations; although an increasing Strategy and Action Plan showed a reduction amount is being sold or leased to the public-- in biomass and size of reef fish in shallower and thereby expanding the amount of freehold land more heavily fished areas, while high biomass available, particularly on the island of Upolu, was found in less fished and deeper reef slopes. where it now comprises 3 percent of total. Declines in fish stocks are attributed to overfish- ing and destructive fishing practices (dynamiting) Of the total land area, 56 percent is classified as and the targeting of juveniles. indigenous forest, 2 percent as plantation forest, 3. Context of the Evaluation 17 and 3 percent as under livestock; the remain- The levels of pesticide release in Samoa vary ing 39 percent is currently used for agricultural throughout the years--the last major releases of purposes. DDT, dieldrin, and aldrin occurred between the 1950s and 1970s. Heptachlor and chlordane had Land is central to the economic and cultural fabric confined uses for termite spraying up to the early of Samoa, and land that has productive potential 1990s; it has been determined that these chemi- is in ample supply (GoS 1999). However, in areas cals have had limited nationwide contamination. of heavy population concentration, lands under The presence of only three PCB-contaminated customary ownership are becoming evidently transformers above acceptable levels denotes the stressed, and lands of marginal value are increas- limited spread of contamination nationwide. ingly coming under pressure to be developed for village sector production. Proper use of land Since POP pesticides and PCBs are no longer resources according to their appropriate capa- allowed to be imported into Samoa, intentional bilities and vulnerabilities is critical to sustainable releases into the environment are effectively land use management. curbed, except when they are imported illegally. Current levels of contamination, which are very Samoa has only recently been engaged in devel- confined and localized to soils, are expected to oping a sustainable land management strategy as decrease over the years, especially if the highly part of a GEF project (approved in 2006) in sup- contaminated areas can be cleaned and disposed, port of the United Nations Convention to Combat or sealed from further contact by humans or Desertification (UNCCD). The goal is to have at animals. the project's end a plan that will identify appropri- ate practices to reduce land degradation and pro- 3.3 Environmental Legal mote the sustainable use of land resources. Framework in Samoa Persistent Organic Pollutants National Framework Samoa ratified the Stockholm Convention on Samoa is a parliamentary democracy. Since its Persistent Organic Pollutants in 2002 as well as independence in 1962 until the introduction of six other regional and international conventions universal suffrage in the 1991 general election, that focus on the elimination of toxic chemicals. only matai (chiefly titleholders) could stand as In 2005, Samoa produced its national implemen- candidates and vote in elections. The change in the tation plan on POPs, which identified 8 of 12 toxic electoral system gave all Samoan citizens 21 years chemicals as being present in Samoa. old and over the right to vote in parliamentary elections; the right to stand as candidates remains Samoa does not manufacture any intentionally restricted to matai. The parliament consists of released substances such as pesticides and indus- the legislative assembly and the head of state, trial chemicals; thus, the main source of entry for whose written consent is required before a bill these substances is importation. The main sources can become law. The Samoan constitution blends for unintentional release are uncontrolled com- custom and tradition, and democratic institutions bustion of fires, controlled combustion processes and practices; it recognizes the division of state such as incineration, and incomplete combustion power into three independent branches: legisla- of motor vehicle engines. tive, executive, and judiciary. 18 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) Because there is no formal GEF program for fact, SPREP often develops proposals at the rec- Samoa, the Aid Coordinating Committee that ommendation of its governing body, the member- screens and approves proposals for donor fund- ship of the organization. Regional projects often ing has limited involvement with GEF proposals. incorporate transboundary priority issues that, Proposals for GEF funding therefore come to the because of limited local capacity and financial committee as approved projects with funding that resources, are often not adequately addressed by has already been decided by an executing agency nationally executed projects. In the case of Samoa, in the government. Unlike other donor-funded the MNRE has identified separate activities under projects, the allocation for GEF proposals does NAPA for government and other donor funding, not take place at the Aid Coordinating Commit- including from regional programs. This ensures tee but within the GEF. funding covers all aspects of the plan instead of honing in on any one aspect. Samoa does not have a comprehensive princi- pal law to promote environmental conservation, Regional programs are, as a rule, guided by regional protection, and management. Instead, the coun- strategies and action plans developed jointly by try relies on a wide range of laws--enacted from Pacific island countries and regional organiza- colonial times until the present--to serve this tions/institutions present in the region such as purpose. SPREP, the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, and others. The SPREP Action Plan for Managing the In recent years, a significant number of laws Environment of the Pacific Islands Region is con- addressing environmental conservation, protec- sidered the agenda for managing the region's envi- tion, and management issues have been enacted ronment. The plan covers a four-year period (the by the Samoan parliament. The importance of most recent was issued for the period 2005­09) sustainable development has been recognized in a and embodies the vision of SPREP and its mem- number of laws to some degree. Under these laws, bers and key stakeholders. It serves as the main a wide range of government entities play critical planning document for long-term management regulatory roles affecting environment-related of the shared environment, identifying broad pri- issues, but there are no clear procedures under orities, the regional agenda's key result areas , and any of the relevant laws that make provisions for associated capacity-building processes and inter- coordinating responses or for applying regulatory ventions. More than 90 percent of SPREP funding processes. Table 3.3 lists the range of environmen- comes from donors, most of it tied to specific proj- tal-related legislation, clustered by theme area. ects and programs linked to the action plan. The key result areas of the action plan are nature con- Regional Programming servation, pollution prevention, climate change GEF-funded regional projects in the Pacific have and variability, and economic development; these been executed mainly by SPREP. All 14 inde- are discussed below. pendent Pacific SIDS are eligible for participa- tion in regional projects, although a country may Nature Conservation choose not to participate.2 Regional projects are The SPREP Action Strategy for Nature Conser- developed by SPREP in close consultation with vation in the Pacific Islands Region, 2003­2007 its member states and are based on a priority (SPREP 2002) represents the regional consensus issue(s) previously identified by the members. In on priorities for actions to promote the main- 3. Context of the Evaluation 19 Table 3.3 Environmental-Related Legislation Theme Law Administrative responsibility for environmental y Lands, Surveys, and Environment Act protection y Agriculture, Forests, and Fisheries Ordinance y Samoa Water Authority Act y Ports Authority Act y Quarantine (Biosecurity) Act General protection of the environment y Water Act y Watershed Protection and Management Regulations y Police Offenses Ordinance y Health Ordinance y Plastic Bag Prohibition on Importation Regulations y Protection of the Ozone Layer Regulations Fisheries resources y Fisheries Act y Local Fisheries Regulations y Fishing (Scuba Fishing) Regulations y Fisheries (Ban of Driftnet Fishing) Act y Fisheries Bylaws Habitat protection y National Parks and Reserves Act y Forests Act y Forests Regulations 1969 Animals y Animals Ordinance y Protection and Conservation of Wild Animals Regulations y Protection of Wildlife Regulations y Animal Diseases Prevention Regulations Community involvement y Internal Affairs Act y Village Fono Act y Fisheries By-Laws Transboundary movement and quarantine y Biosecurity Act streaming of conservation and sustainable use Pollution Prevention of biodiversity and serves as a guide to interna- A regional waste management strategy was devel- tional, regional, national, and local communities; oped by SPREP in 2005 to help Pacific island organizations; and governments on development, countries deal with waste issues in their respective review, and implementation of their individual countries and in the region. A GEF international plans and programs. The GEF-funded South waters project, Implementation of the Strategic Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Programme Action Programme of the Pacific Small Island was developed as a way to implement the action Developing States, supported the development strategy and hence the action plan. This program of this strategy as well as the implementation of provided invaluable support for the establishment country-specific actions to address root causes of of the Uafato Forest Conservation Area and the waste pollution in a number of Pacific island coun- Saanapau/Sataoa Mangrove Conservation Area. tries. AusAID assistance enabled the stockpiling 20 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) and removal of toxic waste from some Pacific conservation, pollution prevention, and climate island countries (including Samoa) to Australia, change. and the Japan International Cooperation Agency is helping establish state-of-the art landfills on the Samoa's Development Strategy and Policy islands of Upolu and Savaii. Framework Climate Change and Variability The Samoan government reclassified its national development plan approach in 1998 when it The Pacific Islands Conference on Climate changed its plan to annual statements of economic Change, Climate Variability, and Sea Level Rise strategy (SESs; later designated as development held in April 2000 began the process of strength- strategies--SDSs). Samoa's SESs of 1998­99 and ening regional collaboration and cooperation 2000­01 both identified the environment as an with regard to climate change. At this conference, important issue in terms of promoting the econ- a draft Pacific Islands Framework for Action was omy through improved public and private sector developed in a roundtable process. The strategy efficiency and effectiveness, and improving the addresses a wide range of actions and activities social service sectors such as education and health. at both the regional and national levels which are Although these statements did not identify the designed to help countries understand how cli- environment as a sector per se, the environment mate change must be linked to and integrated into is viewed as an important cross-sectoral issue that current development processes. needs be considered in most of the other sectors. Economic Development In fact, the environment is prominently covered in The Pacific Plan for Strengthening Regional the education and village economy sectors of the Cooperation and Integration provides a regional 1998­99 SES and in the agriculture and fisheries, framework for Pacific island countries and sustainable tourism, and village economy sectors regional organizations to work together to ensure in the 2000­01 SES. that environmental protection, management, and In the 2002­04 Strategy for the Development of planning parameters are integrated with develop- Samoa, the government pledged to ensure mutu- ment planning. The plan was endorsed by leaders ally beneficial partnerships with the private sector of the Pacific island countries and is administered for the sustainable management and development by the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. Regional of the environment in the areas of environment organizations contribute to the implementation of planning and policy, climate change, oceanic/ specific aspects of the plan through implementa- coastal resources, waste management, biodiver- tion of their respective work programs and proj- sity, and capacity building. The SES promotes ects. For example, in the area of economic devel- a vision of "improved quality of life for every opment, SPREP will focus mainly on providing Samoan premised on sustained economic growth, advice regarding the World Trade Organization improved education, enhanced health standards, Committee on Trade and Environment and on and strengthened cultural and traditional values" trade dimensions of relevant multilateral envi- (GoS/MOF 2002). ronment agreements such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. Sus- Enhancing health standards and sustaining eco- tainable tourism is also addressed through a well- nomic growth are dependent on, among other coordinated series of interventions for nature factors, a healthy biophysical environment and 3. Context of the Evaluation 21 natural resource base. This rationale underpins activities that promote environmental issues are environmental protection and Samoa's sustain- quite substantial. able development strategy. The government first documented the state of Although environmental considerations are men- Samoa's environment in 1993; a new version is tioned in the current SDS (2005­07), they are now under preparation. In the same year, the effective only in a limited way because there is no National Environment Management Strategy was integrated approach to mainstreaming important developed, which resulted in the formulation of environmental issues in the government's national national policies in key environmental areas. The plan. The Planning and Urban Management Act policies that are operational are listed in table 3.4. does require environmental assessments for all With regard to official development assistance, the major development projects in the country; how- Cabinet Development Committee, which screens ever, this requirement is not yet accepted as a pre- all project proposals, requires that all proposals requisite for all major development projects by with a value of SAT 100,000 or more be "environ- the majority of developers, some of whom claim mentally sound." to be ignorant of the law until directed to comply. Furthermore, the impacts of climate change and Relevant International Treaties, POPs are not addressed at all in major national Conventions, and Protocols planning documents such as the SDS. Samoa has signed and ratified most of the regional The limited reference to environmental consider- and international treaties and conventions related ations in important planning documents such as to the environment, as shown in table 3.5. the SDS makes it difficult to promote the global environment and does "raise eyebrows" at interna- GEF Focal Point Mechanisms tional and regional forums where climate change The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environ- adaptation is given paramount importance by ment was recently designated as the GEF opera- Samoa but is not treated correspondingly in the tional focal point in Samoa, assuming this respon- country's seminal planning document. Never- sibility from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and theless, the SDS 2008­10 that is currently being Trade (which still maintains its function as the formulated is expected to redress this gap in rec- GEF political focal point). The MNRE has been ognition of the importance of the environment to proactive in this capacity, creating a new position Samoa's economy and people. in the ministry--GEF consultant--at the deputy chief executive officer level. (The position is not The government's commitment to the environ- a permanent one, but was created for a one-year ment and sustainable development is evident in consultant.) The consultant will be dealing only its broader activities. The Ministry of Natural with GEF issues for now, but may later be respon- Resources and Environment is now one of the sible for coordinating all official development largest ministries in the Samoan government. assistance within the ministry. Box 3.1 lists the When the Lands and Environment Act of 1989 specific duties of this position. was first established, the Division of Environment and Conservation had only a three-person staff in Although the MNRE has been the primary exe- 1990. Furthermore, the government budget and cuting agency for GEF projects, the ministry has official development assistance provided toward not always been involved with GEF management 22 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) Table 3.4 Policies and Key Environmental Issues Year Policy framework Key environmental issue Link to the GEF 1991­97 y National Watershed Management Degradation of watershed areas, Technical support under Policy deforestation international waters FSP y National Forest Development Policy and land degradation MSP 1994­ y National Population Policy Population needs, land use manage- 2000 y National Land Use Policy ment, waste management, provision of y National Waste Management Policy clean water, protection of biodiversity y National Water Resources Policy y National Biodiversity Policy 2000 Coastal Infrastructure Management Identify coastal areas vulnerable to Enabling activity under Strategy erosion, landslides, flooding, impacts of climate change strong winds, and extreme events 2001 National Biodiversity Strategy and National priorities for conservation and Enabling activities in biodi- Action Plan sustainable use of Samoa's marine, fresh- versity, SGP water, and terrestrial resources 2005 National Adaptation Program of Action Identify urgent and immediate adapta- Enabling activity tion priorities 2005 National Implementation Plan for POPs Management of POPs Enabling activity in POPs 2005 Development Consents Policy Criteria for development consent 2005 National Biosafety Framework Regulatory regime for genetically modi- Supported under global fied organisms biosafety 2005 National Biodiversity Framework NBSAP update Add-on activity in biodiversity 2005 National Biodiversity Conservation Conservation of biodiversity Enabling activities in biodi- Policy versity, SGP 2005 National Forest Policy Update of 1990s policy 2006 National Action Plan Land degradation and land use Developed in conjunction management with land degradation MSP 2006 Ban on Commercial Logging Policy Save remaining forest cover Under Renewable energy develop- ment Source: GoS 2007, pp. 106­07. or coordination with the GEF structure (for exam- Currently, there is limited capacity outside the ple, contacting the GEF Council or Pacific Coun- MNRE to generate project proposals that would cil members). The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and be acceptable to the GEF (thus, the need to have Trade, as the GEF political focal point, acts as the assistance from UNDP in preparing and imple- clearinghouse for GEF information in Samoa and menting projects). The focal point does not oper- attends GEF Council meetings on behalf of the ate with a national GEF committee, as is done in government of Samoa; it also signs important other countries. This is because sufficient prioriti- communications from the government to the GEF zation exercises and action plans in the GEF focal and UNDP. The ministry is the focal point for most areas have been prepared through the enabling of the international treaties and agreements. activities, thus meaning there is no urgent need 3. Context of the Evaluation 23 Table 3.5 International Treaties Samoa Has Ratified Related to the GEF Mandate and Objectives International and regional treaties Ratified Convention on the Conservation of Nature in the South Pacific July 20, 1990 Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region July 23, 1990 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change December 29, 1994 Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer December 21, 1992 Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer December 21, 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity February 10, 1994 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982) August 14, 1995 Convention for the Prohibition of Driftnet Fishing in the South Pacific September 9, 1996 Convention to Ban the Importation into Forum Island Countries of Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes May 16, 2001 and to Control the Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within the South Pacific Region (Waigani Convention) Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of October 23, 1996 the Sea Relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification August 21, 1998 Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety March 13, 2002 Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention November 15, 2000 Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and January 2, 2001 Central Pacific Ocean Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage August 27, 2001 Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants February 4, 2002 International Convention for the Protection of Pollution from Ships (1973) and Its Protocol (1978) February 7, 2002 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal March 22, 2002 Box 3.1 Duties and Responsibilities of the GEF Consultant within the MNRE Generally, the GEF consultant will facilitate MNRE access to GEF project funding through the effective planning and prepa- ration of project proposals. Specifically, the consultant will be responsible for: z Strengthening national awareness about the GEF and its links to the relevant multilateral environment agreements as well as the process for accessing GEF assistance z Identifying areas of greatest benefit to Samoa from GEF activities z Preparing both concept and detailed project proposals to the GEF z Conducting research and promoting strategic advice to the MNRE on GEF operations and funding opportunities z Coordinating the staging of GEF-funded projects and those of other donors z Working with GEF Agencies to ensure effective administration of GEF projects z Facilitating the participation of all stakeholders in GEF programs 24 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) to discuss them in committee. Samoa now needs group allocation for them to use in the second resources to enable government and stakeholders half of GEF-4. As of the writing of this report, to jointly implement action plans and strategies no GEF-4 resources (RAF or otherwise) have already developed through the enabling activities. been approved for Samoa. Adequate capacity is currently spread over several z The GEF Council removed the funding that it government agencies and NGOs to implement used to provide the GEF Implementing Agen- these plans if the MNRE can effectively mobilize cies (IAs--namely, UNDP, UNEP, and the them for this purpose. Future support should World Bank) to support their participation in include assistance to develop the capacity of other corporate activities (for example, development government agencies and NGOs to develop qual- of GEF policies, dissemination of information, ity GEF proposals. representation of corporate interest). One of At the request of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the functions of the IAs was to disseminate up- Trade, Samoa's ambassador to the United Nations to-date information on GEF objectives and pol- often represents Samoa on GEF matters in the icies and explain their implications for national United States. On other occasions, this ministry and regional programs. This change is very rel- and the MNRE together represent Samoa at GEF evant for UNDP, because it is the only GEF IA meetings. As political focal point, the Ministry with a substantial regional presence. of Foreign Affairs and Trade represents the state z SPREP has appointed a GEF adviser (see chap- in official negotiations and discussions regarding ter 6 for more details) to perform two main GEF policy issues. The operational focal point, by functions: help countries in the region better contrast, deals with all technical and operational access GEF programs and coordinate regional issues of the GEF. In practice, the Ministry of For- projects. The position is funded by NZAID and eign Affairs and Trade consults with the MNRE AusAID as a SPREP permanent position. The on GEF policies and management issues prior to GEF adviser will provide additional capacity to making representations to the GEF. access GEF support but potentially adds a new layer or step in the processing of projects. 3.4 Changes in Implementation for GEF-4 z The GEF Secretariat is preparing a regional programmatic approach for implementation of The following events have taken place in 2006­07 GEF-4 (all focal areas) in the Pacific; this was within the GEF and will affect the context in which announced in a letter dated March 1, 2007. the GEF operates in the region: Based on the finding that regions have lim- z New funding allocation procedures for the bio- ited capacity to access and implement GEF diversity and climate change focal areas was resources, a regional programmatic approach approved and implemented under the RAF. (with national execution) aims to save on both Samoa has been assigned a group allocation the transaction costs and time of implement- for both focal areas. This implies that, for each ing many small projects and expand the level of focal area, Samoa will receive a minimum of skills and knowledge sharing among countries. $1 million and a maximum of $3 million. If this No proposals and concepts for the region will funding is not accessed by mid­GEF-4, the bal- be considered until this program is approved ance will be reallocated to the countries in the by the GEF Council (it will likely be presented 3. Context of the Evaluation 25 at the Council's December 2007 meeting). The cumulative impact of these events has not Samoan government representatives have indi- been evaluated, but the potential for conflicts cated that they have not seen any specific infor- and confusion about the roles and responsibili- mation on this approach so far. ties of different players and programs of support and further delays for the region in accessing z NZAID and AusAID have begun a process of GEF support are likely. For example, the roles and full harmonization of their support to Samoa, responsibilities of different players and programs following the Paris Declaration on Aid Har- of support have not been discussed, overlaps monization. As one example, these two gov- between RAF and programmatic approach pro- ernments reached an agreement that, in the cedures and rules are not clear, and delays in the education sector, NZAID will take the lead; in region's access to GEF-4 resources is of great con- the environment sector, AusAID will. Harmo- cern to countries such as Samoa, which are ready nization means that if only one donor is coordi- for implementation. nating the support to a sector, the government will need to report to only one donor, reduc- Notes ing the burden on limited capacity. In addition, 1. Flowering plants, representing approximately 80 both donors (which were major donors for the percent of all the known green plants now living. environment sector) are reducing their bilat- eral support and will instead, in the interest of 2. The independent states are Cook Islands, Feder- ated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall harmonization, direct their support through Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, regional organizations such as SPREP or global Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, and ones such as the GEF. Vanuatu. 26 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) 4. Activities Funded by the GEF in Samoa 4.1 Overall GEF Portfolio pleted in 2004) and a second recently approved MSP in support of land degradation issues (part of GEF support to Samoa started during the GEF a global LDC land degradation project). As is the pilot phase when the South Pacific Biodiversity case for most Pacific island countries, no full-size Conservation Programme regional project was project or project in the international waters focal approved in 1992. This was followed by a second area has been approved for national execution in regional project on climate change, Pacific Islands Samoa. The primary GEF Implementing Agency Climate Change Assistance Project, which was active in Samoa throughout this period has been approved in 1995. The national projects started UNDP, which has implemented 16 of the 18 proj- at the beginning of GEF-2 (1998­2002), with the ects (including administration of the SGP). approval of a series of enabling activities to sup- port Samoa's responses to its obligations under Given the large number of regional projects (for the various global conventions for which the GEF which estimates of actual country allocations are is the financial mechanism. In all, 18 projects have not readily available), it is difficult to estimate the been approved in which Samoa has participated, precise amount of money provided by the GEF to including the Small Grants Programme.1 As men- Samoa. Assuming equal distribution among coun- tioned earlier, Samoa does not have a GEF pro- tries participating in regional and global projects, gram; rather, GEF support to Samoa is considered this estimate should be about $7 million (including as a portfolio of projects approved and imple- support to project development facilities)--$2.63 mented under different circumstances to achieve million through national projects, $3.33 million different objectives, not necessarily related to one through regional projects, and $1.38 million through another or attempting to form a GEF program. global projects in which Samoa participates.2 GEF support has been primarily of two types: Figure 4.1 shows GEF-supported projects in enabling activities (eight projects) and regional Samoa by project scope (national, regional, or projects (seven projects). Regional projects are global) and funding amount. Table 4.1 shows implemented mostly through SPREP, in which the number of projects implemented under each Samoa participates as part of the Pacific island modality. Table 4.2 provides a comprehensive countries community. Samoa has been one of the list of GEF-supported activities (completed and few Pacific island countries that has also received ongoing), and includes focal area, Implementing/ GEF support through medium-size projects--one Executing Agency (ExA), modality, and approval in support of two marine protected areas (com- date. 27 Figure 4.1 Table 4.1 GEF Support to Samoa by Project Scope Number of GEF Projects in Samoa, by Modality Million $ Project scope EA MSP FSP Total 3.00 National 6 2 0 8 National Regional Global 2.00 Regional 2 1 4 7 Globala 0 0 3 3 1.00 Total 8 3 7 18 0.00 a. Includes SGP. Enabling activities MSPs FSPs Table 4.2 GEF Portfolio in Samoa as of December 2006 Scope and project Focal area IA/ExA Modality GEF approval date Completed activities National: Preparation of National Biodiversity Strategy and Action BD UNDP EA March 1998 Plan, and First National Report to the COP of the CBD National: Additional Funding of Biodiversity Enabling Activity BD UNDP EA July 2001 National: Initial Assistance to Samoa to Meet Its Obligations under POPs UNDP EA September 2001 the Stockholm Convention on POPs National: Program of Action for Adaptation to Climate Change CC UNDP EA December 2002 National: Marine Biodiversity Protection and Management BD WB MSP January 1999 Regional: Pacific Islands Climate Change Assistance Project CC UNDP EA October 1995 Regional: Pacific Islands Climate Change Assistance Project Phase II CC UNDP EA July 2000 Regional: Pacific Islands Renewable Energy Program CC UNDP MSP February 2002 Regional: South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Programme BD UNDP FSP May 1991 Regional: Implementation of the Strategic Action Programme of the IW UNDP FSP July 1998 Pacific Small Island Developing States Global: Biosafety BD UNEP FSP 2004a Activities under implementation National: Clearing House Mechanism Enabling Activity BD UNDP EA September 2000 National: National Capacity Self-Assessment for Global Environmen- MF UNDP EA June 2004 tal Management National: LDC/SIDS Portfolio Project: Capacity Building for Sustain- LD UNDP MSP May 2006a able Land Management in Samoab Regional: Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisheries Management Project IW UNDP FSP April 2005 Regional: Pacific Islands Greenhouse Gas Abatement through CC UNDP FSP June 2005 Renewable Energy Project Global: Community-Based Adaptation Programmec CC UNDP FSP August 2006a Small Grants Programme MF UNDP FSP 2005a Note: BD = biodiversity; CC = climate change; IW = international waters; LD = land degradation; MF = multifocal; WB = World Bank. a. Date Samoa component was completed. b. This project was approved within the global UNDP project on LDC/SIDS support to land degradation. c. This global project includes a total of 10 countries; the Samoan component began in January 2007. 28 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) 4.2 Portfolio by IA/ExA ing the GEF through these Agencies in Samoa at this time.4 The national focal point said that the GEF support to Samoa is virtually synonymous government will be interested in working through with UNDP. About 80 percent of the funding (for other GEF Agencies. At present, only UNDP has 16 of 18 projects) has been channeled through projects under implementation; these are at both UNDP as a GEF Agency. All enabling activities the national and regional levels. as well as all regional projects implemented in Samoa or with Samoa's participation have been The Small Grants Programme, a GEF corporate implemented through UNDP. UNDP maintains a program administered by UNDP and the United regular support program to Samoa and the region Nations Office for Project Services, began imple- (outside the GEF context), as do the other GEF mentation in March 2005. Agencies. However, UNDP's actual presence in Samoa--with a national and regional office, and 4.3 Portfolio by Focal Area years of experience working with GEF projects in the region--is viewed by many stakeholders as a The GEF portfolio in Samoa is diverse and key comparative advantage of this Agency. includes support for at least one project in each of the GEF focal areas. The funding has been Despite numerous GEF identifiers in the context split roughly in thirds along the three main and of GEF projects (notably the SGP) and project oldest GEF focal areas: biodiversity (33 percent), documentation, the GEF is not always identified climate change (22 percent), and international by government or the general public as a donor waters (24 percent), with less support to the other in its own right, and its support is usually indis- focal areas ($480,000 for a land degradation proj- tinguishable by them from UNDP funding. For ect, $370,000 for the POPs enabling activity, and example, Samoa's Ministry of Finance records about $660,000 for multifocal projects such as national-level GEF funding as UNDP3 (see GoS/ SGP and national capacity self-assessment). See MOF 2006); similarly, SPREP records GEF fund- figure 4.2 and table 4.3 for delineation by focal ing at the regional level as UNDP (see SPREP area. 2006). The country has received support to fulfill all the In 1999, the GEF Chief Executive Officer endorsed reporting requirements from all of the conven- the first MSP for Samoa--designed to improve tions the GEF finances.5 All the enabling activi- the management of two protected areas on the ties except those involving land degradation and island of Upolu--which was to be implemented NCSA have been completed. through the World Bank. UNEP's participation in Samoa has been through UNEP's global proj- Samoa participated in the implementation of the ect on biosafety only, where, its role was to sup- two components of the Strategic Action Program port Samoa's preparation of its national biosafety for the Pacific SIDS. The component dealing framework. None of the other relevant GEF IA/ with oceanic fisheries management was jointly ExAs have implemented GEF projects in Samoa, executed by the Forum Fisheries Agency in the although FAO and ADB have extensive and long- Solomon Islands and the Secretariat of the Pacific running programs in the country. Furthermore, Community in New Caledonia; the integrated interviews with staff from the World Bank, FAO, coastal and watershed management component and ADB suggest there are no plans for involv- was executed by SPREP. 4. Activities Funded by the GEF in Samoa 29 Figure 4.2 GEF Support to Samoa by Focal Area and Project Status Million $ 2.50 Com pleted Active 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Biodiversity Climate International Land POPs Multifocal change waters degradation Table 4.3 Portfolio by Focal Area and Project Scope Climate International Land Project scope Biodiversity change waters degradation POPs Multifocal Total National 4 1 0 1 1 1 8 Regional 1 4 2 0 0 0 7 Global 1 1 0 0 0 1 3 Total 6 6 2 1 1 2 18 One-third of the GEF projects in which Samoa par- 4.4 Portfolio by Objective ticipates are currently active; the other two-thirds The objectives addressed in the activities sup- have been completed. All biodiversity activities as well as the POPs enabling activity are complete. ported by the GEF in Samoa are summarized in In terms of total funding by focal area, 40 per- table 4.4. (See chapter 5 for more details on each cent of climate change activities (Pacific Islands project's objectives and results.) As mentioned Greenhouse Gas Abatement through Renewable before, Samoa has completed (or is very close to Energy Project and the global Community-Based completing) all national reporting requirements Adaptation Programme) and 50 percent of inter- associated with the various conventions financed national waters activities (Pacific Islands Oceanic through the GEF. In biodiversity, Samoa has worked Fisheries Management Project) are still under primarily on conservation of marine and coastal implementation. ecosystems using such innovative approaches as 30 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) Table 4.4 Main Objectives of GEF-Supported Activities in Samoa by Focal Area and Modality Focal area FSP MSP EA SGP Biodiversity y Regional approach y National approach to y NBSAP Ecosystem conservation y Establishment and marine protected areas y Clearinghouse focusing on marine habitats management of con- (Aleipata and Safata mechanism servation areas districts) y National biosafety y Research, training y District-level approach framework of community-based management Climate y Regional and global y Regional approach y National Action Adaptation change approach y Improvement of enabling for Adaptation to y Reduction of GHG environment for renew- Climate Change emissions from fossil able energy y National Communi- fuels through renew- cation to UNFCCC able energy resources y Community-based adaptation International y Conservation and sus- Conservation and sustain- waters tainable management able management of coastal of coastal and ocean resources resources y New regional arrange- ment for conservation, management, and sustainability of migratory fish species y Demonstration site with watershed management Land Capacity development and y Improvement of agri- degradation mainstreaming cultural growth, organic farming, and community development y Women in business POPs POPs NIP Multifocal NCSA community-based management. In climate change, Given this context, GEF support will likely expand GEF support concentrated on mitigation of GHGs to cover more actual implementation of projects, through regional projects; over the last two years, with less emphasis on enabling activities. however, some activities (in the SGP and a global project) are beginning to be implemented on adap- 4.5 GEF Small Grants Programme tation. In international waters, objectives have focused on management of coastal and marine Projects and Funding resources, migratory fish species, and watersheds. The SGP was nationally launched in Samoa in The recently approved capacity-building project on March 2005, followed by the first meeting of land management will be the first GEF activity in the National Steering Committee to review and Samoa in the land degradation focal area. approve the first set of projects. The SGP in Samoa 4. Activities Funded by the GEF in Samoa 31 is administered through a subregional model, an en's Committee, 15 by the Council of Chiefs, and aspect unique to this program. The SGP national 18 by both groups. coordinator also coordinates SGP activities in It is expected that in the next two years (2007­09), Niue, Cook Islands, and Tokelau. Moreover, allo- the SGP in Samoa will focus on implementation of cations from the SGP global program are pro- a few full projects rather than planning projects. vided as a lump sum for the four countries. Coun- try allocations are then based on country work Program Governance and Administration programs, according to demand (the National The SGP National Steering Committee has nine Steering Committee handles approval of all SGP members: two government representatives (from projects included in the work programs). In the the MNRE and the Ministry of Finance), one con- program's first year of operation, Samoa was allo- sultant on climate change, one representative cated $185,000, of which $162,770 was commit- each from academia and the private sector, three ted and $81,739 was disbursed. For year 2 (March members from civil society, and a UNDP repre- 2006­February 2007), the four countries together sentative. The national coordinator reports to the were allocated $550,000, of which Samoa received central SGP management team in New York. The about $250,000. The maximum project size was United Nations Office for Project Services is the about $19,000 in the first two years; this was executing agency, authorizing the UNDP country related to the country's capacity to absorb funds office to disburse funds to the grantees. and was determined by the National Steering Committee. In the future, projects are expected to Cofinancing reach up to $50,000, which is the global maximum The NZAID Pacific Environment Fund is the funding allowed in the SGP. largest cofinancer of the SGP in the Pacific, providing $NZ 6 million to support 15 Pacific Although Samoa's program does not have a spe- island countries participating in the SGP for the cific geographic focus given the country's small next three years. Samoa is expected to receive size, many activities are located in the coastal low- $NZ 215,000 annually to match the GEF SGP land area. Most grants made to the island of Upolu funds. The NZAID support also includes 15 per- deal with ecosystem conservation, water quality, cent of its funds for capacity-building activities for and watershed and waste management; those the National Steering Committee and grantees. A to the island of Savaii are more focused on sus- technical adviser will be provided to support the tainable agriculture. During the inception phase partnership in the areas of project review, moni- (year 1), the main focus was on stakeholder capac- toring, and assessment. ity building (local communities and NGOs with limited capacity) to establish full understanding of Another partnership was recently established with the program and carry out small demonstration the global Community-Based Adaptation Pro- projects. Of the 43 projects approved in year 1, 33 gramme, which will implement its Samoa compo- were planning grants and 10 were actual projects. nent through the GEF SGP. This type of coordi- In the second year, 14 projects were approved, nation helps facilitate partnership opportunities 5 of which were planning grants and 9 of which among similar small grant initiatives operating were projects (8 of those were scaled-up projects). in the country, such as the World Bank's Cyclone Most projects in both years were implemented by Recovery Project and the planned AusAID Vul- community-based organizations: 22 by the Wom- nerability and Adaptation Small Grants Scheme. 32 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) 4.6 Activities over Time Another sequence of two regional projects has taken place in the area of renewable energy--the Samoa has received funding from the GEF in three Pacific Islands Renewable Energy Programme categories: approved in 2002 and the Pacific Islands Green- z A series of enabling activities supporting house Gas Abatement through Renewable Energy Samoa's requirements from conventions Project approved in 2005. z A series of regional projects on biodiversity, cli- After completing its NBSAP, Samoa began imple- mate change, and international waters menting in 1999 one of the few MSPs in the Pacific island countries, Marine Biodiversity Protection z A series of national projects, including an MSP and Management. Once Samoa ratified UNCCD, for marine protected areas, the SGP projects, another MSP was approved, Capacity Building and the Samoa component of the global Com- for Sustainable Land Management in Samoa, in munity-Based Adaptation Programme 2006. The first GEF funding for Samoa came in the form of two regional support programs, one for 4.7 GEF in the Context of Official biodiversity and one for climate change, in 1991 Development Assistance and 1995, respectively. The latter was a regional Samoa's official development assistance has approach to prepare climate change reporting increased since the initiation of GEF support, ris- to the UNFCCC. Support for fulfilling other UN ing from $17.5 million in 1991 to $53.5 million in convention reporting requirements continued 2005 (this includes both bilateral and multilateral with the support to NBSAP approved in 1998, donors in all sectors). Over this period, GEF sup- the clearinghouse in 2000, POPs in 2001, climate port increased from $0.67 million approved in change adaptation in 2002, and biosafety in 2004. 1991 to almost $1.7 million approved in 2005.6 Also in that year, the GEF started a new type of (See figure 4.3.) There is a similar parallel between enabling activity, NCSA, to assess national capac- total official development assistance and GEF ity and develop a program of action to support funding to Samoa throughout this period, but the countries in their implementation of all global relationship cannot be established. Chapter 5 dis- conventions. Samoa is in the process of complet- cusses the relevance of GEF support to national ing all enabling activities available for financing by priorities and may shed light on how important the GEF. GEF support is in the context of official develop- ment assistance, particularly for the environment In 1998, a regional project, Implementation of the sector. Strategic Action Programme for the Pacific Small Island Developing States, began implementation In Samoa's environment sector, the perception is through SPREP; this was completed at the end that the GEF is the largest donor (this perception of 2006. One component of this project focuses was confirmed by this evaluation; see chapter 6). on integrated water management; this effort is In the past, AusAID and NZAID played an impor- continuing through a second phase (approved in tant role in supporting the MNRE, but in the last 2005) and is also implemented through a regional year or so their direct support to the environment approach (this time by the Pacific Islands Applied sector has ceased.7 Staff from these agencies cited Geoscience Commission [SOPAC] based in Fiji). several reasons for this: 4. Activities Funded by the GEF in Samoa 33 Figure 4.3 GEF through 196 enabling activities, 63 FSPs, and GEF and Official Development Assistance to 38 MSPs.8 These 297 projects represent about Samoa, 1991­2005 16 percent of the total GEF portfolio across all eli- gible countries, 24 percent of all enabling activi- Total ODA (million $) GEF support (million $) ties, and 9 percent of all FSPs. The Caribbean SIDS 70 1.8 1.6 have participated in about 43 percent of projects, 60 1.4 and the Pacific SIDS in 21 percent. Samoa has 50 GEF 1.2 participated in about 6 percent of the SIDS proj- 40 1.0 Total ODA ects and in most Pacific SIDS projects. All focal 30 0.8 0.6 areas are represented in SIDS initiatives. In gen- 20 0.4 eral, GEF support to SIDS has been relatively con- 10 0.2 sistent with its non-SIDS support throughout all 0 0.0 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 GEF phases. Source: OECD. SIDS have received about $324 million from those Note: GEF funding is by year of approval. 297 projects.9 The largest allocation goes to Carib- bean SIDS, which received about $164 million z The absence of the environment as a priority (about 50 percent), compared to $86 million for sector in the SDS Pacific SIDS (including large allocations to Papua New Guinea). Samoa has received about 18 per- z The focus of support on regional approaches, cent of the funds, a higher percentage than most such as by SPREP and the GEF SGP Pacific island countries. On average, GEF alloca- z Harmonization of support increasingly directed tions to SIDS FSPs and MSPs is $1.1 million-- to programs rather than projects much lower than the average for the entire GEF portfolio ($4.13 million for FSPs and $0.58 mil- A newcomer to the environment sector in Samoa lion for MSPs). The average allocation to enabling is the Japan International Cooperation Agency activities is $0.23 million. Cofinancing for SIDS (although it has been a major donor for Samoa projects is much lower than for the GEF as a in other sectors). The agency will provide up to whole, $0.17 versus $2.45 per GEF dollar. $3.7 million in the next three years to support three projects in waste management, protected About half of SIDS projects are implemented areas, and environmental awareness, respectively. through UNDP, about 30 percent through the World Bank, and about 7 percent through UNEP; Both the World Bank and ADB have extensive the GEF ExAs have implemented about 7 percent active portfolios of loans in Samoa, totaling a com- combined. GEF support to Samoa is therefore bined $70.2 million in investments and $10 mil- somewhat atypical compared to the rest of the lion for technical assistance. SIDS, since it is predominated by UNDP. Project annual reports and final evaluations sug- 4.8 GEF Support to Samoa in the gest that the performance of SIDS projects is Context of SIDS and the Pacific worse than for the entire GEF portfolio; this anal- Samoa is one of 38 SIDS eligible for GEF support. ysis, however, is based on a limited number of These countries have received support from the projects. 34 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) Almost half (45 percent) of the GEF support to except for the SGP, which is listed as "GEF-Small SIDS is executed by government agencies. More Grants Scheme." of these GEF-supported projects are executed by 4. This situation may change. The GEF proposed to multilateral donor organizations (such as SPREP, the GEF Council at its June 2007 meeting a pro- the Organization of American States, countries of grammatic approach for the Pacific SIDS in which all Agencies are invited to participate, although it the Caribbean Community, and the International is not clear if this will happen in Samoa. Fund for Agricultural Development) and NGOs (such as the Nature Conservancy and the Inter- 5. UNDP has also provided financial support from its own regular programs for Samoa's development of national Union for Conservation of Nature) than a national action program for land degradation. throughout the entire GEF portfolio. 6. Since country allocations in regional projects are not readily available, it is assumed that each coun- Notes try receives the same amount. 1. Some of these activities are add-ons (for example, 7. The Ministry of Finance's "Partnerships for Devel- there were two adds-on to the enabling activities opment" report does not list any environmentally for climate change and biodiversity). related assistance to Samoa by Australia or New Zealand; however, both countries offer scholar- 2. Because the GEF is developing a new program- ship awards that could include studies in the envi- matic approach for the Pacific island countries ronment if selected as a priority by the Samoan which will not be ready until later in 2007 and will government. drive the GEF-4 projects in the region, the evalua- tion does not present or discuss projects that could 8. Some of these projects are regional and global initia- be considered in a pipeline. tives that include at least one SIDS as a participant. 3. The Ministry of Finance's "Partnerships for Devel- 9. To simplify the calculations, as with the Samoa opment 2004­2005" report lists UNDP and the portfolio, the evaluation team made an equal pro- GEF together as a single donor. It does not distin- portional adjustment to the allocation per partici- guish between UNDP- and GEF-funded projects pating country for regional and global projects. 4. Activities Funded by the GEF in Samoa 35 5. Results of GEF Support to Samoa This chapter reviews the results, in terms of out- generate information on outcomes rather than comes and impacts, of the various projects under- impacts. Additionally, evaluations are often con- taken in Samoa with GEF support. To assess ducted before intended project impacts can be whether the projects have helped advance policy detected or have had time to emerge. Some believe development in the country, the origins of these that project impacts cannot be detected until well projects are also reviewed. The chapter identi- after a project has ended (many GEF-funded proj- fies GEF contributions toward solving global and ects in Samoa were completed only over the last national environmental issues as well as improv- two or three years). In addition, all completed ing capacities; however, because the GEF works national projects in Samoa (with the exception of with many partners, including donors, it would be the Marine Biodiversity Protection and Manage- inappropriate to attribute any results solely to the ment MSP) were enabling activities, which are not GEF. expected to produce impacts at the environmen- tal level. For instance, the Pacific Islands Renew- Results were measured using the following able Energy Project succeeded in identifying bar- parameters: riers to the development of renewable energy, but z Impacts: changes in environmental status, this outcome could only have a direct impact on especially those of global significance this type of energy and the environment when follow-up activities (that is, the Pacific Islands z Outcomes: Greenhouse Gas Abatement through Renewable ­ Advances in policies and strategies Energy Project) removed the barriers and put in ­ Catalytic and replication effects place renewable energy technology that reduces ­ Institutional sustainability and capacity build- GHG emissions. This latter project is now under ing implementation. Information on results was compiled from inter- GEF support in the biodiversity area enabled vil- views, reviews of existing project documentation, lage communities on the island of Upolo to con- and a few field visits to selected projects. serve critical forest and mangrove ecosystems and practice sustainable management. More than 5.1 Global Environmental Impacts 20 village communities participated in resource Evaluating the impacts of GEF-funded initiatives conservation and management efforts, and the is not straightforward. Often, project evaluations support helped build local capacity for the effec- 36 tive planning and management of Samoa's envi- 5.2 Outcomes: Advances in Policies ronment. The Marine Biodiversity Protection and Strategies and Management project initiated bans on com- mercial scuba fishing within the MPAs, which As might be expected, given the type of GEF sup- the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries subse- port to Samoa, GEF support achieved its greatest quently expanded by placing a national ban on results in the area of policy and strategy devel- this fishing practice. The project also imposed opment. With GEF support, Samoa has com- bans on the commercial harvesting of sea turtles pleted the necessary national plans, policies, and within the MPA, thereby supporting regional and legislation related to the environment such as international efforts to protect these endangered the NBSAP, NAPA, land degradation NAP, and marine animals. POPs NIP. These plans have helped the country identify priority ecosystems and species for con- The species conservation component of the servation actions, national adaptation actions on South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Proj- the impacts of climate change, capacity needs ect initiated conservation practices for marine for implementation of environmental work, and mammals and turtles in the region, which in appropriate legislative frameworks and policies. Samoa led to a ban on commercial harvesting of All of these actions were necessary to create the sea turtles at the national level. Since 1995, when conditions for impacts to be able to emerge. the first Pacific Year of the Sea Turtle campaign was launched, populations of sea turtles have Implementation of some priority actions iden- increased in Samoa as evidenced both at the tified by the plans has begun, using funds from nesting beaches and by sightings by fishermen other official development assistance or organiza- and divers. tions such as the Japan International Cooperation Agency (national parks and waste management), There is some anecdotal information on impacts NZAID (invasive species), AusAID (community related to marine ecosystems and interventions reforestation), Canadian International Develop- through the Marine Biodiversity Protection and ment Agency (community adaptation), European Management project and even some recent SGP Union (water conservation), and the World Bank activities. In the first case, some baselines were (coastal vulnerability and adaptation, and ecosys- collected in the two MPAs, and analysis has tem recovery). shown that the fish population has increased in the last few years. Evaluation staff visited two To address its environmental issues systemati- marine communities and found improvements cally, Samoa--through the MNRE--has focused to coral health and fish populations. One of GEF support over the last 15 years on building its the communities reported that fishermen from capacity at the institutional and systemic levels by neighboring villages are coming to their no-take developing the necessary strategies, building the zone, illegally, because the fish population is capacity of the ministry and other relevant stake- better. holders through planning processes, and consoli- dating the MNRE so it is able to adequately imple- At the national level, the lack of baseline data ment the plans developed. and information makes it difficult to measure and quantify the global impacts of GEF-funded The climate change­enabling activities have con- projects. tributed enormously to increased public awareness 5. Results of GEF Support to Samoa 37 about GHGs and ozone-depleting substances, and the SPBCP and the Implementation of the Strate- about natural disasters and their potential impacts gic Action Programme of the Pacific Small Island on people and the environment. Priorities iden- Developing States have been accepted as best tified in the NAPA are beginning to be imple- practices for all other environment initiatives in mented and mainstreamed into investments such Samoa, especially given the customary nature of as the Coastal Infrastructure Management Plans land and natural resource ownership that exists and Coastal Emergency Recovery Project which in the country. The latter project also contributed are funded by the World Bank. to the development of Samoa's Water Resources Policy and Watershed Management Policy and Through its first international waters project, was a catalyst for setting up the Water Resources Samoa, along with the 13 other countries involved, Division within the MNRE; the division now actively participated in the IW:LEARN (Interna- replicates the project's participatory approach tional Waters Learning Exchange and Resource in establishing new watershed areas around the Network) initiative. In this context, Samoa shared country. its experience and lessons--especially ones related to the use of communication tools to address root GEF enabling activities played a key catalytic role causes of key environmental problems in the in securing funding and other support for national Pacific--with other GEF-funded international projects to such degree that some GEF-supported waters projects around the world. activities have been mainstreamed and are now supported by other donors and government Samoa's draft national energy plan has made nota- programs. The NBSAP, NAPA, and NIP have all ble progress in promoting the use of renewable received funding from AusAID and NZAID for energy with pilots on solar energy and coconut assistance in implementing priority actions. Vil- oil under way, and planning for more hydropower lage bans on the use of certain types of fishing schemes in Savaii is well advanced. gear and practices in MPAs have been adopted GEF support has helped establish all of the above by some 50 other communities in Samoa, and the policies, strategies, and framework, which have in ban on commercial harvesting of sea turtles under turn helped build a strong foundation for Samoa the MPA project complemented the government's to contribute to international efforts to protect the own efforts to protect migratory species and global environment. marine mammals in Samoan waters. The NBSAP was a catalyst in identifying prior- 5.3 Outcomes: Catalytic and ity ecosystems for action, including the proposed Replication Effects MSP for the highest priority terrestrial area in Samoa. The threatened species and alien invasive Lessons learned from a number of GEF-funded species programs ongoing in the country have projects have advanced the development of new also used information and lessons learned from GEF initiatives as well as those of other develop- GEF projects; thus, the current NZAID-funded ment assistance programs in Samoa. The commu- invasive species program utilizes one of the sites nity-based conservation approach of the SPBCP from the MPA program. was replicated--albeit on a larger scale--by the Samoa MPA MSP. The consultative processes that The SGP and the Community-Based Adaptation were important features of such GEF initiatives as Programme now primarily focus on funding proj- 38 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) ects related to the priority actions identified in the and increase public awareness of environmental NBSAP, NAP, NIP, and NAPA. issues so that capacity building can continue to improve. The SGP has provided good opportunities for a number of communities and NGO groups to As mentioned before, limited baseline data do not learn from each other's experience and replicate permit a meaningful, quantifiable assessment of the results of GEF-funded projects. Several com- the GEF's contribution toward building Samoan munities are engaged in nature-based conserva- capacity to protect its environment and subse- tion projects with support from the GEF. These quently meet its obligations under international projects have enormous potential for collabora- treaties. However, project documents and evalu- tion and information sharing, thereby avoiding the ation reports clearly show that the GEF has con- repetition of past mistakes and promoting efforts tributed significantly to the building of national to achieve desired results on time. capacity for environmental management in the country. All GEF-funded projects (including SGP 5.4 Outcomes: Institutional projects) had capacity development built into their Sustainability and Capacity Building design and implementation, and the nature of the projects undertaken allowed for capacity building The national plans developed through the GEF at various levels of government and within com- have been an invaluable resource for building munity groups. the capacity of the MNRE and other stakehold- ers in Samoa; in fact, the MNRE is now one of the best trained ministries in Samoa. Environmental 5.5 Results of Completed Projects issues are also well understood in other govern- The results of completed projects are summarized ment agencies, the private sector, and civil society as follows: through the work of GEF enabling activities. z Critical forest and mangrove ecosystems The MNRE, which in 1992 had a staff of 5 dedi- afforded conservation status cated to environmental work, now has more than 100 staff members dealing with environmental z Alternative sources of follow-up support secured issues such as climate change, biodiversity, land for invasive and bird conservation work management, capacity building, environmental z Strong community support and ownership of awareness, toxins, forestry, water resources, and conservation initiatives waste management. Staff members who had pre- z Improved knowledge and information base for viously managed now-completed GEF projects environment management have been retained by the ministry to ensure sus- tainability of results of these projects with gov- z Development of frameworks, policies, and ernment or other donor funding support. The action plans as a basis for progressing in envi- infrastructure to support these projects--includ- ronmental initiatives ing geographic information systems, legal assis- z Increased capacity of the MNRE to access GEF tance, and surveying--has also been increased to funding and effectively manage projects accommodate the increasing demand for service in these areas. GEF support has been invested z Certain endangered marine species afforded in a long-term process to build MNRE capacity national protection 5. Results of GEF Support to Samoa 39 On the basis of the interviews and project docu- have either achieved, or are well on their way to ment reviews carried out as part of this evalua- achieving, their objectives. Table 5.1 describes the tion, all GEF-funded projects in Samoa appear to major achievements of each completed project. Table 5.1 Project Achievements for Regionally and Nationally Executed FSPs and MSPs Project Description and major achievements SPBCP (regional) y 17 community-owned conservation areas established and supported in 12 countries y Improved capacity of Pacific communities to manage biodiversity y Critical ecosystems (mangroves, wetlands, coral reefs, forests) and species (birds, turtles, whales) protected y Alternative sources of income from honey production and ecotourism ventures established for local communities Marine Biodiversity As of the project's end in April 2004: Protection and Manage- y Two district-owned MPAs established involving 20 villages; these are managed by a steering com- ment (national) mittee comprising one representative from each of the villages y MPA bylaws developed by the steering committee and given formal recognition by government y District ban established on commercial harvesting of sea turtles in both districts y District ban established on commercial mining of sand and use of spear guns for fishing Implementation of the y Contributed to the establishment of the new Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission in Strategic Action Pro- 2004 , in which Samoa is a member gramme of the Pacific y Supported country's participation in developing the Convention for the Conservation and Man- Small Island Developing agement of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific in 2001 States (regional) y Established two pilot sites for conservation of watershed areas in Samoa y Improved water quality for Lepa and Apolima-tai villages y Integrated watershed conservation and management into the work of the MNRE through its newly established Water Division y Increased support of and participation by local communities in watershed management activities Pacific Islands Climate y First National Communication to the UNFCCC prepared Change Assistance y Vulnerability and adaptation assessment completed Project (national components) NBSAP and Clearing y NBPSAP developed with five-year priorities identified House Mechanism y Proposals for implementation of NBSAP prepared and implementation initiated y Web site established as main clearing-house mechanism y Biodiversity policy completed NAPA NAPA developed and implemented through a variety of funding sources, including SGP Biosafety Framework Biosafety framework developed and implementation initiated for some activities POPs NIP y National Implementation Plan developed y POPs clean-up initiated with AusAID assistance Pacific Islands Renew- National assessment of renewable energy completed able Energy Programme 40 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) 6. Relevance of GEF Support to Samoa This chapter reviews the relevance of GEF sup- and climate change and to other global indica- port in Samoa in the context of both the country's tors for POPs, land degradation, and interna- own and GEF's goals and priorities. The evalua- tional waters? tion asked, and this chapter summarizes its find- z What is GEF support's relevance to Implement- ings about, the following: ing and Executing Agencies and institutions, z Is GEF support in line with Samoa's Sustainable including SPREP? Development Strategy, legal framework, and environmental priorities? 6.1 Relevance to Samoa's z Are the different GEF modalities and project Sustainable Development Strategy components and instruments (FSPs, MSPs, and Environmental Priorities enabling activities, small grants, and so on) per- tinent to Samoa's needs and challenges? Support of Key SDS Outcomes z Does GEF support help development needs In the 2002­04 Strategy for the Development of (technology transfer, income generation, and Samoa, the government pledged to ensure mutu- capacity building) and reduce challenges (gaps ally beneficial partnerships with the private sector in capacity building)? for sustainable management and development in z Does GEF support have country ownership, the areas of environmental planning and policy, and is it country driven? climate change, oceanic/coastal resources, waste management, biodiversity, and capacity build- z What is the level of GEF funding compared ing. Under key outcome VII of the SDS (improve to other official development assistance in the infrastructure and services), the government also environment sector? pledged a greater focus on protection of the envi- z Is GEF support linked to Samoa's National Bio- ronment through passage of the Lands and Envi- diversity Strategy and Action Plan, national ronment Act, which would reinforce key policy communication to the UNFCCC, national statements and regulatory requirements including implementation plan on POPs, and national environmental impact assessment, biodiversity, capacity self-assessment for global environ- climate change, and protection of the atmosphere. mental management? Economic valuation of environmental resources z Are project outcomes and impacts related to was to be undertaken, along with a continuation the RAF global benefits indexes for biodiversity of environmental awareness programs. Protection 41 of water catchment areas was a top priority during in the country. These priorities were identified the SDS period. through multi-stakeholder consultative processes and have guided the government's own efforts and GEF support for initiatives in the climate change support to the environment in recent years. This and international waters focal areas in Samoa are consistency of GEF support with national pri- directly linked to key outcome VII. Initiatives in the orities has fostered a sense of local ownership of climate change area resulted in increased aware- GEF-supported initiatives. ness of the potential impacts of climate change on the nation's health, environment, and economy; and Support of Local and National a complete ban on the import of ozone-depleting Development substances has been legislated. Under the Imple- Support from the SGP is helping increase GEF mentation of the Strategic Action Programme of visibility throughout Samoa. The SGP's flexibility the Pacific Small Island Developing States initiative, and transparent access by village communities and the pilot project for Samoa focused on protecting NGOs enables the program to respond effectively watershed areas in Lepa and Apolima-tai on the to country priorities at the local/community level. islands of Upolu and Apolima, respectively. The small amounts of funding involved are easily absorbed to the limited capacity of local commu- Support of Environmental Strategies nities, and the small community-based projects The GEF-funded Marine Biodiversity Protection the SGP supports are more manageable, and their and Management project focused on the protec- outcomes more easily sustainable, by local groups. tion and sustainable use of marine biodiversity-- These features are often lacking in medium- or an important environmental priority for Samoa. full-size projects, which are usually more difficult It created for the first time a physical and institu- to sustain after donor funding has ended. tional model for larger, district-level MPAs in the country to complement the small, single-village- All GEF projects have capacity-building and based MPA model initiated through an AusAID- technology transfer (when necessary) compo- funded fisheries project in the early 1990s. nents built in. Much of the capacity building that occurred in Samoa's environmental sector over GEF enabling activities dovetailed with the devel- the past decade or so can be directly attributed to opment of national policies related to Samoa's GEF-funded projects. National Environment Management Strategy. For example, the country's Biodiversity Policy The Samoa MPA project had an income-gen- was developed alongside its National Biodiversity eration component, even though there was not Strategy and Action Plan. Similarly, the Watershed enough time to fully develop and explore oppor- Management Policy and Water Resources Policy tunities in this area. Similarly, the Uafato and leveraged the experience of Samoa's international Saanapu/Sataoa Conservation Area projects, with waters project to advance their implementation. support from the GEF-funded South Pacific Bio- diversity Conservation Programme, established The GEF has targeted national priorities estab- ecotourism activities that helped generate alterna- lished under Samoa's environmental strategies tive income for the communities involved. (that is, the National Environment Management Strategy, NBSAP, NAPA, NIP, NAP for land deg- On the negative side, some criticism was expressed radation, and others) for its support initiatives about the role of outside consultants in local com- 42 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) munities. Although it is recognized that the use more than once. This reflects well on the capac- of consultants can help expedite compliance with ity of Samoa's institutions and organizations, the requirements, this methodology fails to build local stability of its civil service, and its commitment to capacities. exploring and using available options to build on and advance its environmental agenda. Country Ownership The availability of PDF funding (blocks A and B) In examining the origins and results of projects is highly valued, because this funding frees the supported by the GEF in Samoa, the evaluation time and resources needed to achieve a thor- found that about 80 percent of these projects have ough understanding of the issues and modalities originated within the country--that is, they were of intervention. PDF funding enables countries developed by the MNRE in consultation with to undertake stakeholder consultations and-- other government and NGO stakeholders based where there is a lack of capacity to develop and on previously identified national priorities. They design projects--hire expertise to help prepare are thus fully locally owned, and they implement project documents in accordance with GEF and national priorities that align with GEF priorities. UNDP guidelines. Without this funding, it would GEF-supported projects in Samoa have been fully have been extremely difficult for Samoa and other integrated into the work of the MNRE, and they Pacific island countries to prepare GEF proposals. have been supported by the ministry's own bud- However, the amount of time required for proposal get since the end of GEF funding. Regional proj- preparation and approval needs to be reduced; ects such as SPBCP and Implementation of the this is especially true for PDF-B proposals, which Strategic Action Programme of the Pacific Small on average take 18 to 24 months for regional proj- Island Developing States may have originated with ects and 6 to 12 months for MSP proposals. SPREP, but they have focused on priority issues by the Pacific island countries, and demonstration When the Marine Biodiversity Protection and sites and topics within regional projects have been Management project was first implemented, it responsive to national priorities. was suggested that a five-year implementation period was inadequate given the substantial learn- In all cases, GEF projects have provided an oppor- ing curve for understanding the related complex tunity to implement or build on preexisting ini- ecology, sociology, and economics as well incul- tiatives originating in-country as national ideas cating the significant requisite changes in com- and experiences evolve. Although GEF Agencies munity social behavior and resource manage- have helped improve certain operational aspects ment. However, through capacity development and assisted in making adjustments whenever and awareness/understanding of the country's necessary, leadership has remained in local hands environmental issues and concerns through the GEF and other donor-funded projects during the 6.2 Relevance of GEF Modalities to past several years, it is believed that Samoa now Country Needs and Challenges has the capacity to implement MSPs within five years or less. The consistency of GEF modalities of support with country needs is best evidenced by the extent Like other SIDS in the Pacific, Samoa could access of their use. In Samoa, all existing GEF modali- the GEF either directly or through regional orga- ties except PDF-C grants have been used, often nizations such as SPREP. For enabling activi- 6. Relevance of GEF Support to Samoa 43 ties, the government submits proposals through The role played by the Small Grants Programme UNDP and implements the projects on its own. should be noted. The SGP provides local NGOs For regional projects, proposals are developed and and community groups with transparent access submitted to UNDP by SPREP, which then acts as to GEF support, based on processes and require- the executing agency. Evaluations of the regional ments specifically targeted to them. Local activi- projects have shown that it is difficult to man- ties can thus become part of larger, more compre- age multiple projects involving multiple coun- hensive undertakings aimed at achieving global tries spread over vast ocean areas. The inherent environmental benefits. logistical problems create unnecessary delays in project implementation (Hunnam 2002). SPREP 6.3 Relevance of Project Outcomes pinpoints the real problem as the limited capac- and Impacts ity of many Pacific island countries to implement All GEF-funded projects have contributed to GEF-funded projects which often have set time increased public awareness about environmental frames and complex additional requirements and concerns (biodiversity, climate change, land use procedures as compared to other donor-funded management, waste management, and persis- activities. In addition, local arrangements estab- tent organic pollutants) and to building national lished for in-country project implementation are capacity (of individuals, institutions, and systems) ineffective. to address environmental issues at various levels Despite these limitations, the regional approach ranging from government to local communities. is considered appropriate for dealing with trans- Both the MPA project and SPBCP established boundary issues (climate change, migratory spe- community-based, locally managed conservation areas that expanded the small number of existing cies, invasive species, movement of hazardous protected areas in the country. These areas have waste, and so on) and for the sharing of knowl- suffered, however, from dwindling support since edge and lessons learned. However, establishing GEF funding ended. stand-alone units within the executing agencies to manage these projects may create problems with GEF-funded projects enabled the development of sustainability as well as confusion because manag- comprehensive frameworks (policies and legisla- ers often have a poorly defined relationship with tion) and strategic actions (NBSAP, NAPA, NIP, the executing agency and/or government agency NAP for land degradation, NCSA, national reports responsible for project implementation. to the various conventions, and management plans for community conservation areas), which com- Samoa, through its MNRE, has far more capac- prise the current charter for effective management ity to manage its own environment compared to of Samoa's natural resources. many other Pacific island countries. Although the GEF may have decided to use national proj- Obviously, increased capacity will enable Samoa ects only for enabling activities in the past, there to respond effectively to the challenges facing its is reason to believe that Samoa is ready to move fragile environment through the loss of biodiver- on to implementing MSPs and FSPs (although sity, climate change, land degradation, and pollu- some GEF objectives--for example, interna- tion. The GEF is thus helping Samoa meet its obli- tional waters--may be better achieved through a gations under the United Nations Convention on regional approach). Biological Diversity, UNFCCC, and UNCCD. 44 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) While all GEF-funded projects in Samoa are highly 6.4 Relevance to GEF Agencies and relevant to the GEF mandate and focal areas, their SPREP impacts have not been fully realized for various reasons, including lack of follow-up support. For GEF Agencies instance, the Marine Biodiversity Protection and UNDP has been the main Implementing Agency Management project and SPBCP met their objec- for GEF-funded projects in Samoa. GEF support is tives by establishing four community-based and particularly relevant to UNDP's country program -managed protected areas in Samoa; all of these and mandate in the areas of the environment and have received inadequate follow-up support since energy. The GEF is the main source of funding GEF funding ceased. This suggests that the GEF- for implementation of UNDP's country program funded projects, at least in the biodiversity area, environmental priorities in Samoa. Moreover, may have been of a scale too complex for the gov- an in-country UNDP representative notes that ernment to sustain. the Agency spends up to $300,000 each year of The Samoa NBSAP identified littoral vegetation, its own funds in administering GEF-supported wetland vegetation, rainforest, and volcanic scrub national and regional projects. UNDP recently as threatened ecosystems with global significance. established a UNDP-GEF adviser based in its Yet limited GEF support has been available to Samoa office to support GEF activities in the protect these ecosystems since the NBSAP was Pacific and to work closely with UNDP offices, completed. Samoa has prepared a project concept Pacific island countries, regional organizations, on threatened forests in Savaii but so far has not and stakeholders. Together with the GEF adviser received support from the GEF Secretariat (after in SPREP (see below and box 6.1) and the GEF more than two years of project concept prepara- consultant within the MNRE, this UNDP adviser tion). In the POPs area, no follow-up GEF funding should provide support in the implementation of has been provided to implement the NIP which the proposed programmatic approach for Pacific identified priorities for action in this area. The SIDS. same is true for climate change: no GEF follow- The new regional United Nations Pacific Frame- up support has been received explicitly for NAPA work for Action 2008­2012 identifies the GEF as priorities; the global Community-Based Adapta- a key partner in supporting environmental activi- tion Programme which is now starting up only ties of the United Nations in the Pacific. The SGP provides rather small-scale support, limited to the already is proving to be a model for community- transport sector's GHG emissions. based interventions which UNDP and other UN Overall, although the GEF invested heavily in the agencies could support and replicate. development of plans and strategies in Samoa, In future GEF support, it should be considered support for the implementation of these plans and how to include the small island biogeographic strategies has been rather slow in coming. The regions and their unique biodiversity as an immi- lack of follow-up funding for the implementation nent and urgent priority. of plans and strategies created through the GEF enabling activities suggests a possible mismatch Both the World Bank and ADB have extensive between global environmental priorities in Samoa portfolios of currently active loans, accounting and GEF support. for a combined $70.2 million in investments and 6. Relevance of GEF Support to Samoa 45 Box 6.1 Main Duties and Responsibilities of the SPREP GEF Adviser Key tasks include (but are not be limited to): z Assisting SPREP members in identifying environmental priorities for GEF funding z Facilitating networking and information sharing among the GEF, convention secretariats, GEF Agency officials, SPREP, and GEF national focal points and stakeholders z Providing briefings to those coordinating Pacific participation in the various conventions' conference of the parties, particularly on issues likely to influence or affect the GEF and future allocation of funding z Liaising closely with GEF Agencies to facilitate relationships with Pacific island countries and improve information flow regarding opportunities and criteria for GEF projects z Working together with the Pacific island countries and relevant partners, including regional agencies, to rationalize and prioritize regional projects for GEF funding according to prevailing and emerging GEF funding policies and strategies z Collaborating with the GEF Secretariat, GEF Agencies, and Council of Regional Organizations in the Pacific agencies to assist with capacity building of national operational focal points, committees, and other stakeholders to improve access to, and effective and responsible management of, GEF resources z Backstopping Pacific SIDS with the development of nationally driven projects, from concept phase to project develop- ment and implementation to monitoring and evaluation z Developing the capacity of SPREP program officers (and other Council of Regional Organizations in the Pacific agencies where requested) responsible for coordinating the implementation of projects contributing to the major multilateral environmental agreements in understanding the relevant machinery and Activity Cycle of the GEF z Encouraging stronger links between ongoing national and regional projects and those GEF initiatives that are devel- oped at the regional and global levels $10 million in technical assistance. Even though z High transaction costs of developing stand- both banks are working in areas relevant to the alone GEF activities in the Pacific GEF--including cyclone recovery, infrastructure z Lack of awareness of and knowledge about improvement, power sector improvement, sani- the GEF, including not fully understanding the tation and drainage, and small business devel- potential of GEF objectives and how they com- opment--none of their loans have included GEF plement the Agencies' own regular activities cofinancing, although they do cover such areas as marine biodiversity and adaptation to climate z Lack of internal communications within Agen- change. cies about the possibilities of GEF Government officials indicated that they have z Complexity of accessing GEF funds and lengthy contacted other GEF Agencies, particularly the project preparation cycle, which is out of phase World Bank and ADB,1 but that representatives with the Agencies' own project cycles of these Agencies said they were not interested in participating with GEF activities in Samoa. When SPREP evaluation team members contacted these Agen- SPREP has been the main executing agency for cies (as well as FAO), they were given the follow- GEF-funded regional projects in the Pacific, ing reasons why the Agencies did not work with although other regional organizations such as the GEF in the Pacific: SOPAC and the Forum Fisheries Agency will soon 46 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) be executing other GEF-funded projects in the in 2002--SPREP, with financial support from the region. governments of Australia and New Zealand, cre- ated a GEF adviser staff position. The adviser was GEF support has been relevant in meeting the sus- selected through an international competition in tainable development agenda and environmental early 2007 and began work in March 2007. Box 6.1 priorities of SPREP member countries and the summarizes the duties and responsibilities of this SPREP mandate. Many countries have incorpo- position. rated sustainable development and the environ- ment into their national sustainable development strategies and national planning frameworks; oth- 6.5 GEF Funding and Other ers have recognized the importance of so doing Development Assistance and are working toward mainstreaming the envi- The GEF is the main source of external financial ronment into their national sustainable develop- assistance to Samoa's environmental protection ment policy agenda. and conservation needs. It contributes about 60 percent of total external funding to the coun- SPREP's mandate is to promote cooperation in the try's environment sector. Samoa thus is highly Pacific islands region and to provide assistance in dependent on GEF financing to meet its needs; order to protect and improve the environment this dependency is expected to continue, and per- and ensure sustainable development for present haps increase, in the future. New Zealand and and future generations. SPREP addresses climate Australia have been Samoa's other major contrib- change, biodiversity, land degradation, interna- utors in this regard, either through direct bilateral tional waters, POPs, and ozone depletion, topics arrangements with the government of Samoa, with pertinent to the GEF mandate and focal areas. NGOs, or through regional assistance programs In developing regional projects and programs, to Pacific island countries executed by SPREP and SPREP procedures require that country objectives other regional organizations. and priorities be incorporated into the project design. Considerable consultation takes place with It is unrealistic to expect Samoa to be solely countries as they develop regional project propos- responsible for the financing of its global environ- als to ensure they are country-driven and reflect mental obligations now or in the future because national development objectives and priorities. (1) part of the country's environmental problems are due to globalization forces that are beyond its The relevance of the GEF to the region is thus per- control,2 and (2) the country faces development vasive; it is exemplified by the community-based problems inherent to small developing countries. approach to adaptation initiated through the Therefore, the GEF and other development assis- Pacific Islands Climate Change Assistance Project tance programs should continue to play a signifi- and promulgated by the Pacific Adaptation to Cli- cant role in supporting Samoa and other Pacific mate Change project as the most relevant mode island nations in their efforts to address national for adaptation in the region. and global environmental concerns. In response to several recommendations--includ- On average, ongoing technical assistance will cost ing from the Third Overall Performance Study of about SAT 56.67 million annually (approximately the GEF (GEF 2005) and a review of GEF support to $21.8 million) over the next three years. Approxi- the Pacific island countries conducted for NZAID mately SAT 5.08 million will be required in coun- 6. Relevance of GEF Support to Samoa 47 terpart funding; on average, an additional SAT 0.79 to GEF-4 at SDR 4, while Australia's contribution million will be needed for recurring annual costs was SDR 9.68 in the GEF pilot phase, SDR 20.84 in over the same period. It is not clear at this point GEF-1, SDR 23.47 in GEF-2, SDR 27.60 in GEF-3, how much will be required for the environment and SDR 24.42 in GEF-4.3 sector during this time period (GoS/MOF 2006). Notes An interesting question arises regarding the incre- mentality and additionality of the GEF. The GEF 1. Government officials were not aware that FAO was now a GEF Agency with direct access (FAO was created under the condition that its funding staff in the Samoa office were recently made aware be new and additional to already existing bilat- of this fact). eral and multilateral support. According to New 2. These include the impacts of climate change, Zealand's and Australia's programs of assistance transboundary movement of wastes and hazard- for Samoa, their bilateral financial support to the ous materials, the impacts of new global pandem- environmental sector is reduced because they ics, and other global threats that are destructive channel their funding through regional activi- to the country's biophysical and socioeconomic environments. ties, which decreases the additionality of the GEF. There have been no major increases in support 3. These figures are expressed in terms of special from these two countries to SPREP or the GEF in drawing rights (SDRs), a unit of currency used by certain international organizations whose valua- the last few years. The New Zealand contribution tion is (currently) based on the U.S. dollar, euro, to the GEF has remained constant from GEF-1 Japanese yen, and pound sterling. 48 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) 7. Efficiency of GEF-Supported Activities in Samoa This chapter reviews the efficiency of GEF-sup- 7.1 Resources Needed for Project ported activities in Samoa in accordance with the Development and Implementation following indicators: The Joint Evaluation of the GEF Activity Cycle z Time, effort, and money needed to develop and and Modalities conducted by the GEF Evalua- implement a project, by type of GEF support tion Office and its counterpart entities in the GEF modality Agencies presented the first comprehensive anal- z Roles and responsibilities among different ysis of how GEF projects are prepared, approved, stakeholders in project implementation and implemented. This evaluation is used as the main reference for this section. Given the small z The GEF focal point mechanism in Samoa number of projects (and limited available data) in z Lessons learned across GEF projects the Samoa GEF portfolio, not many generaliza- z Synergies among GEF stakeholders and projects tions may be derived. Consistent with the findings of other GEF Evalua- The GEF Activity Cycle tion Office evaluations, the foremost issue facing Different project cycles pertain depending on the this type of analysis was the absence of project type of GEF modality involved. Samoa has three information. The recently completed Joint Evalua- possible cycles, one for each project category: tion of the GEF Activity Cycle and Modalities (GEF EO 2007) provided the most accurate information, z Regular GEF projects such as enabling activi- but it is not fully applicable because it did not collect ties, MSPs, and FSPs information for enabling activities, which represent z Projects approved under umbrella global proj- half of the GEF support activities in Samoa. In gen- ects, including implementation of national eral, the GEF still does not properly and systemati- projects or components cally compile, or conduct quality control of, proj- ect data, including project cycle dates, status, and z SGP projects finances. Uncertainties about where projects are Regular Project Cycle within the Activity Cycle remain common among national proponents. The implementation of the The GEF Activity Cycle in place at the time of Resource Allocation Framework has created addi- the Samoa evaluation for regular projects had tional uncertainties, particularly about the fate of six steps, as shown in figure 7.1. In addition, all projects in previous pipelines. of the GEF proponents and Agencies have their 49 Figure 7.1 GEF Activity Cycle B D 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Predesign/ Approval by Design/ Council/work Approval by IAs/ concept executing Implementation Completion development preparation program inclusion agencies A C E Entry into GEF GEF CEO Project start-up pipeline endorsement own cycles, which overlap the GEF's. For example, 10. MSP or FSP is approved by Council. UNDP's cycle includes the following overlapping 11. UNDP-GEF in New York authorizes country and additional steps to the GEF process: office to sign project document with project 1. Concept is prepared by project proponents proponent and begin implementation. such as government, SPREP, and NGOs. 12. Project is implemented by proponent and 2. Concept is submitted to UNDP country office monitored by country office, which provides in Samoa. reports to GEF Secretariat and UNDP-GEF in Bangkok and New York. 3. Country office sends the concept to UNDP- GEF regional technical advisers in UNDP 13. When project is completed, terminal evalu- regional office in Bangkok to check for eligi- ation is prepared by independent consultant bility. and sent to GEF Evaluation Office. 4. If concept is eligible, country office begins The SPREP project cycle is as follows: preparation of PDF application with project proponent. 1. SPREP initiates the project concept and devel- ops it in consultation with the participating 5. PDF application is submitted to UNDP-GEF countries. in New York for approval. 2. Once the countries agree on the concept, 6. If approved, PDF begins implementation SPREP hires a consultant to design and pre- with goal being to design project and prepare pare the project document, with countries' full UNDP project document. participation. (The preparation of the concept 7. UNDP project document is sent to UNDP- paper is sometimes done with support from GEF in Bangkok and New York for technical PDF funds.) review and clearance. 3. Once SPREP and its member countries 8. When cleared, project document is sent to approve the project proposal, it is submitted to GEF Secretariat for review and clearance. one of the GEF Agencies (for example, UNDP) 9. When cleared, project document is sent to for inclusion in the GEF Activity Cycle. (In the GEF Council for approval. case of UNDP, the proposal enters the UNDP 50 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) project cycle at either step 1 or step 6, depend- Enabling activities take three to six months to ing on whether PDF funds are used.) prepare (from PDF approval to project approval), and then take three to four years for implemen- Project Cycle for Umbrella Global Projects tation; this is longer than the GEF expectation of In the case of umbrella global projects, the GEF 18 months. No information is available on how Council approves the large global project and long it took to prepare the World Bank MSP, but delegates the approval of country activities to the its implementation took about five years, which appropriate GEF Agency. This was the process is also much longer than for MSPs in other parts followed for the Biosafety/Framework and Clear- of the world. The final evaluation for the Samoan ing House project and the Community-Based MSP indicated that five years was too short given Adaptation Programme. The projects' national the project objectives and the situation in Samoa components did not have to go through the GEF (in terms of capacity to absorb the large amount of Activity Cycle because they were approved by funding [$920,000] and widespread implementa- UNEP and UNDP, respectively, under global proj- tion of an innovative approach to district-level con- ect procedures. servation involving several villages). The regional FSPs, most of which involved 14 countries, have SGP Project Cycle taken between 6 months and 2 years to prepare and The processing of SGP grants is also different up to 10 years for implementation. For example, from the method used to process larger GEF proj- although the South Pacific Biodiversity Conserva- tion Project took less than 8 months to design, it ects. Project proposals are approved on a quarterly took almost 16 months for UNDP and the GEF to basis by the SGP National Steering Committee, approve the project design and ensure that it was after an initial screening by the national coordi- acceptable to the GEF. This "wait-and-see" period nator for their relevance to the GEF. A technical generated negative feedback, reduced the readi- review committee is then convened to conduct ness of the project for start-up, and dampened a full appraisal and site visit. The committee's participant willingness and enthusiasm. Based on report is sent to the National Steering Commit- this information, the implementation of projects tee for approval. Because funding for the national in Samoa, and in the Pacific in general, appears to SGP comes from the global SGP, project approval take longer than the GEF global average. is delegated to the national organization. Preparation of the national document for the bio- Once grants are approved, the UNDP country safety project (approved within the global Bio- office is authorized by the United Nations Office safety/Framework and Clearing House project for Project Services to sign memorandums of implemented and executed by UNEP) took about understanding and begin disbursements. five months, not including preparation of the global project. The project's implementation took GEF Activity Cycle Duration in Samoa 2.25 years, which is shorter than the average for There are some variations in the time it takes to other enabling activities in Samoa. prepare and implement GEF projects in Samoa. Because most projects were prepared and imple- There are not enough examples in Samoa to com- mented by UNDP, this discussion is based on pare the efficiency of enabling activities approved UNDP projects. nationally to those approved through global proj- 7. Efficiency of GEF-Supported Activities in Samoa 51 ects (such as the ones for land degradation and nents. The funding for the responsible Agency biosafety). From the viewpoint of the recipient comes from its fee (since 2006, 10 percent; pre- country, global projects may seem more efficient, viously it was 9 percent additional to the proj- but the overall time it takes for an enabling activity ect cost1) and covers management of the project to go through the entire GEF Activity Cycle from (included in the project cost and provided to the concept to approval is similar. agency or institution executing the project). It can be argued that the cost of preparing and imple- In the case of the SGP, small planning projects (up menting national projects in Samoa is lower than to $1,500) take about two weeks to get approved in other Pacific island countries because UNDP and three months to implement. For full grants and SPREP (and now UNEP) are located in the ($20,000 to $50,000), it takes about three weeks to country, thus mitigating the region's high travel refine the proposal for approval and one to three costs, which represent the lion's share of project years to implement; disbursements begin less than preparation and supervision costs. six months after approval. UNDP indicated that the 3 percent received by its Barriers to Project Preparation Samoa office from the 10 percent project fee is not The perception by national stakeholders is that GEF sufficient to develop and manage GEF projects in projects take longer to prepare than those of other the three countries it oversees (plus the 14 Pacific donors (there are no data from other donors in the island countries included in the regional proj- case of Samoa). Extensive information require- ects executed by SPREP). UNDP's Samoa office ments and the need for multiple reviews during explained that it spends about $300,000 per year, the preparation phase are considered to be the from its own resources, to fulfill its obligations main reasons for the lengthy process. In particular, toward GEF projects. Processing a GEF project the GEF requirement to justify that a project will for UNDP involves 14 staff members in the coun- generate global environmental benefits requires try office, 3 technical advisers in UNDP GEF in additional time and resources in project prepara- Bangkok, and at least 2 personnel in UNDP GEF tion than is needed for other donors (which require in New York. only that projects fit with already defined national UNEP has executed the global biosafety project strategies). Most GEF projects take a multidisci- with a 2 percent management cost (in addition to plinary approach; this also requires more time the 10 percent implementing fee given to UNEP for preparation. Finally, because local capacity is GEF for its supervision of the global project). limited for preparing projects, outside consul- tants are needed. These consultants may not fully Project proponents and executing agencies concur understand local circumstances, such as the fact that the requirements to implement and super- that projects are required to meet the government's vise GEF projects are usually very bureaucratic. SDS, or the intricacies of the economic planning The various systems (those of GEF, its Agencies, processes coordinated by the Ministry of Finance. and the government) have different requirements for project preparation, monitoring, and report- Costs of Project Preparation and ing. For example, a regional project implemented Implementation through SPREP would have reporting require- The GEF provides funding for project preparation ments for the GEF (annual project implementa- via PDFs to the GEF Agency and project propo- tion report), UNDP (financial reporting, tripartite 52 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) agreement, and so on), SPREP (financial reporting Are Roles and Responsibilities Clear? in compliance with SPREP's accounting system For the most part, the roles and responsibilities for and to the governing body), other donors cofi- each project are clearly established in the memo- nancing the project (various financial reports), randums of understanding signed between the and national governments (progress reports). GEF Agency and the executing agency, and then There is a consensus that the various types of between the executing agency and its relevant requirements should be harmonized, follow- partners in the project. ing the Paris Declaration for Harmonization, to reduce the burden to project proponents and However, some regional projects were constrained executing agencies. during implementation because of unclear roles assigned to the host country lead agency (SPREP and UNDP). This lack of clarity regarding report- 7.2 Stakeholder Roles and ing requirements also affected country ownership Responsibilities of national activities under these projects. For the Who Implements and Executes Projects? Samoa component of the international waters project, there were concerns that the MNRE took The lead GEF Agency in Samoa is UNDP. The a different approach for determining its priority national executing agency has been the MNRE, areas for national-level action than the approach with SPREP executing the regional projects. To advocated by the project coordination unit. Simi- date, NGOs and community-based organizations larly, the lines of communication and reporting participate only in SGP projects due to their lack were not properly defined for the project officer, of capacity to implement MSPs and FSPs. regional project team leader, and national lead The main reason for UNDP's predominance in agency. The extra layers of responsibilities and the GEF's Samoan activities is its presence in reporting requirements imposed by the GEF, the country. Nevertheless, the local office does SPREP, the lead national agency, and the commu- not have lead decision-making authority in GEF nities were identified in the South Pacific Biodi- matters, but must instead consult with UNDP versity Conservation Project and the international in Bangkok and New York, which has transac- waters project as part of the reason for delays in tion cost implications, especially as it relates to implementation. Most of these challenges were additional time in the process and additional staff ironed out during the life of the projects. involvement. Other IA/ExAs have had limited GEF activities 7.3 Lessons Learned across GEF in Samoa, for various reasons as discussed in Projects chapter 5. Sharing lessons from GEF projects at both the In all GEF projects implemented by the MNRE, regional and national levels has had some success. other stakeholders (NGOs, research institutes, Some well-documented lessons learned origi- the private sector, and other government minis- nated from GEF regional projects (see box 7.1). tries) participate as members of steering commit- Most lessons have been disseminated and used in tees and/or are engaged in implementing some of other projects at the regional and national levels. the project activities. In some cases, lessons were not shared. For exam- 7. Efficiency of GEF-Supported Activities in Samoa 53 Box 7.1 Lessons Learned from Selected GEF Projects in Which Samoa Has Participated Marine Biodiversity Protection and Management (Biodiversity, MSP, World Bank, National) z Five years is too short for an MSP that requires major increases in understanding of ecology, sociology, and economics as well as the development of significant social behavior and resource management. z Project resources, including personnel, should be allocated across those sectoral agencies deemed vital for participa- tion, for example, those for tourism and fisheries. If this is not done, the project will be viewed as a single-agency project, and other agencies will not see it as a priority and may not have the capacity or resources to participate in it. South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Program (Biodiversity, FSPs, UNDP, Regional) z Establish and sustain a process of management planning that involves communities and generates local ownership as opposed to detailed, fixed project documents and management plans that are difficult for communities to understand and implement. z Income-generating activities such as ecotourism can help promote local participation in biodiversity conservation. Defining ecotourism potential should include market prospects and not be based on biodiversity values alone. z For community-based projects, start small and expand as capacity and experience develops. Implementation of the Strategic Action Programme for Pacific Small Island Developing States (International Waters, FSP, UNDP, Regional) z Develop clear, easy-to-follow reporting formats for progress and financial reports. z Unless there are prospects for follow-up funding, terminal evaluations should be carried out at least six months after the end of the project to allow for better assessment of project results and impacts. ple, the lessons on community approaches learned Samoa whether by the GEF or other donors. This from the South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation coordination was possible because (1) most of the Project--although well documented--were not steering committees shared the same representa- fully utilized in Samoa's international waters proj- tives of the various stakeholders, and (2) all GEF ect. If applied, these lessons might have reduced projects to date are implemented through the the level of confusion that occurred during the lat- MNRE. ter's implementation. Because the Samoa SGP has only been in opera- In the case of national projects, evidence indicates tion for a little more than two years, not many les- that the expected duration of GEF project imple- sons have emerged from these projects. On the mentation projects is too short in Samoa. other hand, lessons learned from national GEF- related projects, such as the effective use of steer- For the nationally executed enabling activities, ing committees and the national plans developed, lessons learned were fully integrated into MNRE have been incorporated into the coordination and systems and utilized by other projects. Examples management of the Samoa SGP. of these include harmonization of some of the steering committees' work and sharing of tasks 7.4 Synergies among GEF required among the different enabling activities. Also, enabling activities adopted a consultative Stakeholders and Projects approach (an enabling activities initiative) for As the primary Agency working in Samoa, UNDP implementing most environmental activities in has a very good understanding of all GEF projects 54 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) in the country, and most of its project support The SGP is currently using information (on the falls within UNDP's country program strategy. prioritization of activities, key players, and so The World Bank and UNEP have only one project on) that has emerged from the NAPA, NBSAP, each in Samoa. The evaluation thus did not see NIP, NCSA, and World Bank­funded coastal much evidence of synergy as it relates to the coor- infrastructure management plans as guidance dination among the GEF Agencies for projects in for review and approval of its community-based Samoa. projects. This input has helped the SGP become more efficient and relevant, since its projects Because all GEF projects in Samoa have been are linked to or originate from existing planning executed within the MNRE, several opportuni- instruments. ties for maximizing efficiencies and synergies are expected to emerge. As presented in box 7.1, some Note of the lessons were incorporated across projects within the MNRE such as close coordination 1. A rough estimate indicates that UNDP has received about $300,000 in fees related to Samoa's partici- among steering committees and sharing of infor- pation in GEF projects (this is an estimate because mation and resources; this suggests that these it includes regional projects, which receive a fee for types of opportunities were exploited. the entire project, not per country). 7. Efficiency of GEF-Supported Activities in Samoa 55 Annex A. Terms of Reference A.1 Background and Introduction Resource Allocation Framework which allocates funds to countries, the GEF will need to further The GEF Council has requested the GEF Evalu- research and assess how the GEF is implemented ation Office to conduct evaluations of the GEF at the country level. Finally, these evaluations portfolio at the country level: GEF country portfo- will provide additional opportunities for the GEF lio evaluations. The Office conducted its first such Evaluation Office to collect evaluative evidence evaluation in 2006 in Costa Rica on a pilot basis to be incorporated into other evaluations con- with the objective of assessing the feasibility and ducted by the Office or reviews conducted by the cost effectiveness of this type of evaluation and to GEF Secretariat and for the Office to collaborate develop, based on the experience, methodologies with the evaluation offices of GEF partners that to fully implement this type of evaluation in sub- are conducting country evaluations of their own sequent years. programs and/or strategies. The objective of these evaluations, as requested by Based on the experience in Costa Rica, the GEF the Council, is twofold: (1) to provide the Council Evaluation Office prepared standard terms of refer- with additional information on the results of GEF- ence for country portfolio evaluations; these were supported activities and how these activities are approved by the Director of the Office on October implemented, and (2) to evaluate how GEF-sup- 27, 2006. This document presented the objectives, ported activities fit into the national strategies and main questions, scope, and methodology of the priorities as well as within the global environmen- country portfolio evaluations. It is proposed that tal mandate of the GEF. The Council is thus inter- these evaluations be conducted fully and indepen- ested in using this type of evaluation primarily to dently by the GEF Evaluation Office and, when assess and report on experiences across different possible, in partnership with other Implement- types of countries. ing Agency/Executing Agency (IA/ExA) evalua- There are several other reasons to conduct tion offices, governments, or NGOs. Even though country portfolio evaluations in the GEF. First, every country portfolio evaluation during GEF-4 although the GEF has been in existence for more will be conducted following these standard terms than a decade, no assessments have ever been of reference, particular terms of reference will be conducted of a GEF portfolio using a country as developed for each selected country. In addition a basis for analysis, regardless of GEF focal area to the key issues, these specific terms of reference or Implementing Agency. Second, given the new will include particular questions relevant to the 57 selected country and other relevant evaluations mandate and achievement of global environmen- under implementation by the Office at the time of tal benefits, and GEF policies and procedures. the evaluation. z Assess the effectiveness and results of completed There are about 160 GEF-eligible countries. The projects aggregated by focal area.2 GEF Evaluation Office cannot evaluate all their z Provide additional evaluative evidence to other portfolios. Straightforward and transparent cri- evaluations conducted or sponsored by the teria have thus been developed by the Evalua- GEF Evaluation Office. tion Office to conduct the selection of countries for each year. The criteria ensure that all of the z Provide feedback and knowledge sharing to (1) 160 countries have a fair chance of being chosen. the GEF Council in its decision-making process The GEF Evaluation Office will attempt to con- to allocate resources and to develop policies duct at least two such evaluations per year. Where and strategies, (2) the country on its participa- possible, cost efficiencies will be applied, such as tion in the GEF, and (3) the different agencies combining two countries in one region or com- and organizations involved in the preparation bining a large portfolio with a small one. In addi- and implementation of GEF-funded projects tion, the Evaluation Office will take into account and activities. the fact that many GEF recipient countries are Furthermore, these evaluations are conducted to presently (at the beginning of GEF-4) conduct- bring to the Council's attention different experi- ing self-assessment exercises so as to be ready for ences and lessons on how the GEF is implemented implementation of GEF-4 and the RAF. For fiscal at the national level in a wide variety of countries. year 2007 (July 2006­June 2007), two countries Country portfolio evaluations do not have the were selected for evaluation: the Philippines and objective of evaluating the performance of Imple- Samoa. menting Agencies, Executing Agencies, national governments, or individual projects. A.2 Objectives of GEF Country Portfolio Evaluations A.3 Key Evaluation Questions The purpose of GEF country portfolio evaluations GEF country portfolio evaluations are guided by a is to provide the GEF Council with an assessment set of key questions that should be answered based of how the GEF is implemented at the country on analysis of the evaluative information and per- level, report on results from projects, and assess ceptions collected during the evaluation exercise. how these projects are linked to national envi- These questions are as follows: ronmental and sustainable development agen- das as well as to the GEF mandate of generating z Relevance of GEF support and activities global environmental benefits within its focal ­ Is GEF support relevant to the national sus- areas. These evaluations thus have the following tainability development agenda and envi- objectives: ronmental priorities, national development z Independently evaluate the relevance and effi- needs and challenges, and action plans for ciency of GEF support in a country from several the GEF's national focal areas? points of view:1 national environmental frame- ­ Are the GEF and its Agencies supporting the works and decision-making processes, the GEF environmental and sustainable development 58 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) prioritization and decision-making pro- ents a table of evaluation guidelines with these cesses of the country? indicative aspects and sources of information. ­ Is GEF support in the country relevant to the objectives of the different global environ- A.4 Focus and Limitations mental benefits (biodiversity, greenhouse The country portfolio evaluations will focus on all gases, international waters, POPs, land deg- types of GEF-supported activities in a country at all radation, ozone)? stages of the Activity Cycle (pipeline, ongoing, and ­ Is the country supporting the GEF mandate completed) and implemented by all IA/ExAs in all and focal area programs and strategies with focal areas, including applicable GEF corporate its own resources and/or support from other activities such as the Small Grants Programme. donors? The aggregate of these activities constitutes the z Efficiency of GEF support GEF portfolio. Project status will determine the evaluation's expected focus (see table A.1). ­ How much time, effort, and money are needed to develop and implement projects, Table A.1 by GEF support modality? Focus of Evaluation by Project Status ­ What are the roles, types of engagement, and Project Rele- Effective- coordination mechanisms among different status vance Efficiency ness Results stakeholders in project implementation? Completed Full Full Full Full ­ How successful is dissemination of GEF Ongoing Full Partially Likelihood Likelihood project lessons and results? In pipeline Expected Processes NA NA ­ What synergies exist between GEF project Note: NA = not applicable. The main focus of the evaluation will be relevance and efficiency; it will explore possible methodologies on programming/implementation and GEF how to evaluate project effectiveness and results. Agencies, national institutions, GEF proj- ects, and the projects and activities of other The context in which these projects were devel- donors? oped and approved and are being implemented ­ What is the level of sustainability of GEF- constitutes another focus of the evaluation. This supported activities? includes a historical assessment of the national sustainable development and environmental poli- z Results and effectiveness cies, strategies, and priorities; the legal environ- ­ What are the results (outcomes and impacts) ment in which these policies are implemented of completed projects? and enforced; IA/ExA country strategies and pro- ­ What are the aggregated results at the focal grams; and GEF policies, principles, programs, area and country levels? and strategies. ­ What is the likelihood that objectives will The way the GEF operates imposes several dif- be achieved for those projects that are still ficulties in conducting this type of evaluation. under implementation? For example, the GEF does not have country Each of these questions is complemented by a programs, so there is no GEF framework against short list of indicative aspects to be explored and which to assess results or effectiveness. Further- potential sources of information. Annex B pres- more, GEF support rarely works in isolation but Annex A. Terms of Reference 59 instead through partnerships with many institu- A.5 Methodology tions. This makes the issue of attribution difficult GEF country portfolio evaluations will be con- to determine. On the positive side, an assessment ducted by staff of the GEF Evaluation Office and with the objectives as described above may pro- international and local consultants; this will con- vide important insights which may allow the GEF stitute the evaluation team. to become more effective at the country level and The methodology includes a series of components within the context of RAF operationalization. using a combination of qualitative and quantita- The GEF has not yet used (as of the beginning of tive methods and tools. The qualitative aspects 2007) country strategies or programs; therefore, of the evaluation will include a desk review of and in significant contrast with other agencies such existing documentation such as GEF project as the World Bank, UNDP, and the regional banks, documents; policy and strategy documents from there is no GEF program to be used as a reference. national, GEF, and convention levels; relevant sci- entific literature; IA/ExA national strategic frame- Similarly, the GEF focal areas do not have a clear works (particularly those related to the GEF focal set of indicators that can be used at the country areas); extensive interviews with GEF stakehold- level to assess country portfolio performance. ers; consultation workshops; and field visits to a The initiation of the RAF process is expected to few project sites. The quantitative analysis will lead the way toward more country programming use indicators to assess the relevance and effi- or at least prioritization of projects or areas in ciency of GEF support using projects as the unit which a government determines it would like to of analysis (linkages with national priorities, time focus GEF support. The GEF Evaluation Office and cost of preparing and implementing projects, and so on) and to measure GEF results (progress may encounter countries in which these exer- toward achieving global environmental impacts) cises have been completed, which will provide and project performance (implementation and an additional context in which to assess the GEF completion ratings). portfolio. The evaluation will develop different tools and The inclusion of regional and global projects protocols. For example, a project review protocol potentially increases the complexity of this type will be prepared to conduct the desk and field of evaluation, since these projects are developed reviews of GEF projects, and questionnaires will and approved in a different context (that is, in be developed to conduct interviews with different accordance with regional or global policies and stakeholders. Examples of both protocols have been strategies). Given the limited time and financial prepared but will need to be adapted to the particu- resources available to conduct country portfolio lar year of the country portfolio evaluation so as to evaluations, they will in principle not be included include particular issues related to the country or to unless the project implementation unit is located the GEF Evaluation Office work program. in the country under evaluation. In each specific Country portfolio evaluations will primarily be case, the feasibility of including regional and global based on the review of existing information and projects and their relevance for the national port- on additional information gathered for the pur- folio will be looked at when preparing the terms of pose of this evaluation. The expected sources of reference for the specific evaluation. information to be utilized include the following: 60 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) z At the project level, project documents, project z Conduct a first workshop to present the implementation reports, terminal evaluations, evaluation and receive comments to develop reports from field visits, scientific literature country-specific terms of reference. z At the country level, national sustainable devel- 2. Prepare country-specific terms of reference. opment agendas, environmental priorities and 3. Collect information and conduct literature strategies, GEF focal area strategies and action review to extract existing reliable evaluative plans, GEF-supported national capacity self- evidence. assessment, global and national environmental indicators, literature review 4. Prepare specific inputs to the country portfo- lio evaluation:3 z At the IA/ExA level, country assistance strate- gies and frameworks and their evaluations and z GEF portfolio database, which describes all reviews GEF-supported activities within the coun- try, including basic information (IA/ExA, z Evaluative evidence at the country level coming focal area), implementation status, project from GEF Evaluation Office evaluations, GEF cycle information, GEF and cofinancing Second and Third Overall Performance Stud- financial information, major objectives and ies, and national evaluation organizations expected (or actual) results, key partners z Interviews with GEF stakeholders and benefi- per project, and so on. ciaries z Country environmental framework, which z Information from national consultation work- provides the context in which GEF projects shops have been developed and implemented (this framework may already be available, The methodology for the Samoa country portfolio prepared by IA/ExAs or national govern- evaluation will include the following steps: ments). This document will be based on 1. Initial GEF Evaluation Office visit to do the information on environmental legislation, following: environmental policies of each govern- ment administration (plans, strategies, z Secure government support, in particu- and so on), and the international agree- lar from GEF focal points. The focal point ments signed by the country presented and will be requested to provide support to the analyzed through time so as to be able to evaluation, such as identification of key connect with particular GEF support. The people to be interviewed; support to orga- experience in Costa Rica showed that this nize interviews, field visits, and meetings; analysis should preferably be done by an and identification of main documents. environmental lawyer. z Identify a local consultant. The consultant z Global environmental benefits assessment, should qualify under the GEF Evaluation which provides an assessment of the coun- Office Ethical Guidelines. try's contribution to the GEF mandate and z Identify local evaluators/evaluation associa- its focal areas based on appropriate indi- tions as possible partners in the evaluation. cators, such as those used in the RAF (for Annex A. Terms of Reference 61 biodiversity and climate change) and oth- issues. The final report, a document from the GEF ers used in project documents. Evaluation Office, will be presented to the Council for its information. 5. The evaluation team conducts the evaluation, including at least one visit by GEF Evaluation The evaluation will be conducted between January Office representatives. and May 2007, with the final report to be presented 6. Prepare draft report. to Council at its June 2007 meeting. The key mile- stones of the evaluation are presented in table A.2. 7. The GEF Evaluation Office conducts a visit to present the draft report at a second consulta- tion workshop with major stakeholders. Notes 1. Relevance: the extent to which the objectives of 8. Prepare final report, which incorporates com- the GEF activity are consistent with beneficiaries' ments and is then presented to the GEF Coun- requirements, country needs, global priorities, and cil and the recipient government. partner and donor policies; efficiency: a measure of how economically resources/inputs (funds, exper- A.6 Output and Timetable tise, time, and so on) are converted to results. The main output of the evaluation will be a report, 2. Results: the output, outcome, or impact (intended or unintended, positive and/or negative) of a GEF the GEF country portfolio evaluation. Following activity; effectiveness: the extent to which the GEF GEF Evaluation Office practice, the report will be activity's objectives were achieved or are expected discussed with the government of the Philippines, to be achieved, taking into account their relative other national stakeholders (including project importance. staff), the GEF Secretariat, and the GEF Agencies. 3. These inputs are working documents and are not Comments will be requested from them on factual expected to be published as separate documents. Table A.2 Evaluation's Key Milestones Milestone Deadline 1. Desk review of country and IA/ExA information January 8, 2007 2. GEF Evaluation Office field mission to launch evaluation, present terms of reference to January 21­26, 2007 government and other GEF stakeholders, and conduct a few field visits 3. Project review protocol and questionnaires January 31, 2007 4. Global environmental benefits assessment for Samoa February 28, 2007 5. Desk review of all national GEF projects February 1­March 15, 2007 6. Interviews with stakeholders January 31­February 28, 2007 7. Draft report March 12­20, 2007 8. First draft March 22, 2007 9. National workshop to present preliminary conclusions and results March 29, 2007 10. Prepare final country portfolio evaluation report, which incorporates comments from April 27, 2007 stakeholders 11. Presentation to GEF Council June 12, 2007 62 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) Annex B. Evaluation Matrix Key question Indicators/basic data Sources of information Methodology component Is GEF support relevant to... Samoa's Sustainable y GEF support is consistent with SDS and y Interviews with gov- y Desk reviews Development Strat- environment priorities ernment officials y Interviews egy and environmen- y GEF support has country ownership and is y Review of country y National consultation tal priorities? country based (in terms of project origin, reports workshop design, and implementation) y Level of GEF funding compared to other official development assistance in the environment sector Country's develop- y The GEF supports development needs y IA/ExA strategies y Desk review of relevant ment needs and (such as technology transfer, income y Interviews with gov- country-level information challenges? generation, capacity building) and reduces ernment officials y Desk review of IA/ExA challenges (for example, gaps in capacity y Project reviews strategies building) y Interviews y The GEF's various modalities, project com- ponents, and instruments (including FSPs, MSPs, enabling activities, small grants, IA/ ExA blended projects, technical assis- tance, microcredits) are applied according to the country's needs and challenges National GEF focal GEF support is linked to the National Biodi- y GEF-supported y Desk review of country area action plans versity Strategy and Action Plan, National enabling activities information (enabling activities)? Communication to the UNFCCC, National y Interviews with y National consultation Implementation Plan on POPs, NCSA IA/ExAs, government workshop officials y Interviews y Project review y Desk review of IA/ExA strategies Global environmen- Project outcomes and impacts are related y Country-level Desk review of country- and tal indicators and to the GEF Benefits Indexes for biodiversity information project-level information vice versa (biodi- and climate change and to other global y Project reviews versity, greenhouse indicators for POPs, land degradation, and gases, international international waters waters, POPs, land degradation)? GEF mandate and GEF activities, country commitment, and y Project reviews Desk review of project-level focal area programs project counterparts support GEF mandate y Interviews with GEF information and strategies? and focal area programs and strategies Secretariat staff and (catalytic and replication) IA/ExA technical staff 63 Key question Indicators/basic data Sources of information Methodology component Is the GEF support efficient? Time, effort, and y Process indicators: project processing tim- y Project reviews y Desk review of project-level money required to ing (according to Activity Cycle phases), y Interviews with gov- information and project develop and imple- preparation and implementation cost by ernment, IA/ExAs field visits ment a project, by modality y Field visits y Consultation workshops type of GEF support y Preparation time considered too long; modality implementation time considered too short Roles, engagement, y Full participation at project preparation and coordination phase among different y Roles and responsibilities not always clear y Project reviews stakeholders in proj- y Some coordination among projects ect implementation y Interviews with proj- ect staff Lessons learned Project design, preparation and implemen- y Field visits between GEF tation have incorporated some relevant projects lessons from previous projects within and outside the GEF Synergies among IA/ y Project reviews y Desk review of project-level ExAs for GEF support y Interviews with IA/ information programming and ExAs y Extensive interviews implementation y Consultation workshops Synergies among y Project reviews national institutions y Acknowledgment of each others' projects y Interviews with proj- for GEF support y Communication ect staff programming and y Technical support y Field visits implementation Synergies between y Project reviews GEF projects and y Interviews with NGOs other donors' support and bilateral donors y Field visits What are the methodologies to measure the results and effectiveness of the GEF support? Project level y Project outcomes and impacts according to GEF programs y Project outcomes and impacts according to national priorities y Attribution to the GEF y Project reviews y Desk review of projects and Aggregate level y Aggregated indicators from above field visits y Field visits (portfolio) by focal y Catalytic and replication effects y Interviews with govern- y Evaluative evidence ment officials area and IA/ExA y Attribution to the GEF Country level y Aggregated indicators from above y Overall outcomes and impacts of the GEF y Catalytic and replication effects 64 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) Annex C. Literature Reviewed C.1 Samoa Government of Samoa, Ministry of Finance, Aid Coor- dination­Management Division. 2005. "Partner- Beca International Consultants Ltd and the Govern- ships for Development 2004­2005." ment of Samoa. 2001. "Coastal Infrastructure Management Project." Apia. Hay, J., and T. Suaesi. 2007: Samoa: Country Environ- mental Analysis. ADB Report. Government of Samoa. 1993. "National Environ- ment Management Strategy." Apia: South Pacific Law Consult. 2007. "Mainstreaming Environment Regional Environment Programme. Issues into Development Frameworks in Samoa." Apia. --. 1999. "Agriculture Census." Apia: Department of Statistics and Ministry of Agriculture, Forests River, M., and C. Schuster. 2004. "Views and Lessons: and Fisheries. Effectiveness of GEF in the Pacific Region: A NZAID Study." --. 2002. "National Assessment Report for World Summit on Sustainable Development." Apia. Taule'alo, I.T. 1993. "Western Samoa, State of the Envi- ronment Report." Apia: South Pacific Regional --. 2004. "National Assessment Report for Small Environment Programme. Island Developing States." Mauritius. World Bank and Global Environment Facility. 2006. --. 2006. "Samoa National Development Report." "Sustainable Energy Finance Report: Country --. 2007. "Approved Estimates of the Receipts and Report." Washington, DC: World Bank. Payments of the Government of Samoa for the Financial Year Ending 30th June 2007." Parliamen- C.2 The Pacific Region tary Paper 2006/2007 No. 10. Apia. Pacific Environment Consultants Ltd. 2005. "An Ana- --. 2007. "Samoa's State of the Environment Report lytical Assessment of Regional Environment 2007." Draft. Governance in the Pacific Islands: An Interface of Traditional and Contemporary Resource Man- Government of Samoa, Ministry of Finance. 1998 agement Mechanisms in the Cook Islands, Niue, "A Statement of Economic Strategy 1998­1999." Samoa and Tokelau." Apia. Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. 2006. "The Pacific --. 2000. "A Statement of Economic Strategy Plan for Strengthening Regional Cooperation and 2000­2001." Apia. Integration." --. 2002. "Strategy for the Development of Samoa Pacific Regional Environment and Vulnerability Pro- 2002­2004." Apia. gramme. In Current Magazine 2 (Summer 2007). --. 2005. "Strategy for the Development of Samoa NZAID. 2005­2007." Apia. South Pacific Regional Environment Programme. 2000. --. 2006. "Public Sector Investment Programme Action Plan for Managing the Environment of the 2005/2006­2007/2008." Pacific Islands Region: 2001­2004. Apia. 65 --. 2002. Action Strategy for Nature Conservation --. 2005. "Medium Sized Project: Samoa's Capac- in the Pacific Islands Region: 2003­2007. Apia. ity Building and Mainstreaming of Sustainable --. 2005. "Annual Report of the Secretariat of the Land Management." Project Document Proposal. Pacific Regional Environment Programme." Apia. MNRE. South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, --. 2005. "Pacific Islands Greenhouse Gas Abate- Global Environment Facility, and United Nations ment through Renewable Energy Project (PIG- Development Programme. 2006. "Rubbish Is a GAREP)." Concept Paper. SPREP. Resource: A Waste Resource Kit for the Pacific --. 2005. "Pacific Islands Greenhouse Gas Abate- Islands." ment through Renewable Energy (PIGGAREP)." Tortell, Phillip. 2006. "The Roundtable and the Action Project Executive Summary. SPREP. Strategy: Issues and Options." A discussion paper Government of Samoa. 2001. "Samoa's National Capac- for Roundtable 10, Suva, Fiji, July 2006. ity Self-Assessment for Global Environment Man- United Nations Development Programme, Global agement." PDF-A Proposal. Environment Facility, South Pacific Regional Envi- --. 2003. "National Capacity Needs Self-Assess- ronment Programme, and United Nations Institute ment for Global Environment Management." Pro- for Training and Research. 2000. "Pacific Islands posal for GEF funding. Regional Statement" [on the likely impacts of cli- mate change and sea level rise in the region]. Government of Samoa, Department of Conservation. 1999. Government of Samoa First National Com- C. 3 The GEF munication to the UNFCCC. Apia. Delta Networks and Pacific Environment Consultants Government of Samoa, Ministry of Natural Resources Ltd. 2004. "Views and Lessons: Effectiveness of the and Environment. 2001. "National Biodiversity Global Environment Facility in the Pacific." Strategy and Action Plan." Apia. Global Environment Facility. 1996. Operational Strat- --. 2002. "First National Report to the CBD." Apia. egy of the Global Environment Facility. Washing- ton, DC: GEF Secretariat. --. 2003. "Annual Report for the NBSAP Add-on Project for the Period 1 July 2002 ­ 30 June." --. 2005. OPS3: Progressing Towards Environmen- tal Results. Third Overall Performance Study of the --. 2004. "Report of the First NBSAP Monitoring Global Environment Facility. Executive Version. Workshop." Washington, DC. --. 2005. "National Adaptation Program of Action." Global Environment Facility Evaluation Office. 2007. Apia. GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Costa Rica (1992­2005). Evaluation Report No. 32. Washing- --. 2005. "National Implementation Plan for ton, DC. POPs." Apia. --. 2007. Joint Evaluation of the GEF Activity Cycle --. 2005 "Second National Report to the CBD." and Modalities. Evaluation Report No. 33. Wash- Apia. ington, DC. Hunnam, Peter. 2002. Lessons in Conservation for Peo- Global Environment Facility Secretariat. Undated. ple and Projects in the Pacific Islands Region. New "Multi-focal GEF Program for Pacific SIDs York: United Nations Development Programme. (draft 1)." Labbate, Gabriel. 2003. "Evaluation of the NBSAP Proj- ect and Add-on Phase." Government of Samoa. C.4 GEF Projects Pacific Environment Consultants Ltd. 2004. "Samoa's Global Environment Facility/United Nations Develop- National Implementation Plan (NIP) for POPs." ment Programme. 2004. "Promotion of Sustain- able Transportation in the Pacific Islands." UNDP Read, Tory. 2002. "Navigating a New Course: Stories Project Initiation Document. Request for PDF in Community-Based Conservation in the Pacific Block A for MSP. SOPAC. Islands." UNDP. 66 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) South Pacific Regional Environment Programme. 2001. --. 2001. "Enabling Activity Proposal on POPs." "Project Summary: Medium Sized Project, Pacific Project Summary. Islands Renewable Energy Project." United Nations Development Programme and United Suaesi, Tepa. 2004. "National Biodiversity Strategy and Nations Environment Programme. 2004. "Imple- Action Plan ­ Add-on Phase. Annual Report 1 July menting Sustainable Integrated Water Resources 2003 ­ 30 June." and Wastewater Management in the Pacific Islands Region." Request for Pipeline and PDF Block B United Nations Development Programme. 2002. Approval. Forum Fisheries Agency. "South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Pro- gramme (SPBCP)." Report of the Terminal Evalu- World Bank and IUCN. 2004. "GEF Medium Sized ation Mission. Project. Implementation Completion Report. Samoa Marine Biodiversity Protection and Man- United Nations Development Programme and Forum agement Project." TF022674. Fisheries Agency. 2005. "Pacific Islands Oce- anic Fisheries Management Project." Project --. 2004. "Samoa Marine Biodiversity Protection Document. and Management Project. Final Supervision and United Nations Development Programme and Global Evaluation Mission." Aide Memoir. Environment Facility. 1999. "Proposal for Review- Expedited Financing for (Interim) Measures for C.5 Web Sites Capacity Building in Priority Areas Part II." South Ministry of Finance. www.mof.gov.ws. Pacific Regional Environment Programme. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment. --. 2007. "International Waters Project: Report of www.mnre.gov.ws. the Terminal Evaluation." South Pacific Regional Environment Programme. www. --. 2003. "Proposal for Funding for the Prepara- sprep.org. tion of a National Adaptation Program of Action (NAPA)." United Nations Development Programme. www.undp.org. Annex C. Literature Reviewed 67 Annex D. Workshop Participants The following people participated in the consultation Kate Brown-Vitolio, ASA, SPREP workshop held March 29, 2007. Leilani Duffy, GEF-SGP Samoa Anne Rasmussen, Climate Change Officer, MNRE Malama Momoemausu, CERP Adviser, MNRE Asenati Lesa-Tuiletufuga, AusAID Manager, AusAID Meapelo Maiai, UNDP Samoa Bismarck Crawley, Consultant, FAO Natasha Doherty, PTCO, MNRE Cedric Schuster, Consultant, Pacific Environment Paul Tomane, A/FAO Representative, FAO Consultants Ltd Suluimalo Amataga Penaia, ACEO-WRD, MNRE Chris Derrick, Australia Department of the Environ- ment and Water Resources Sam Sesega, Director, Pacific Environment Consul- tants Ltd Claudio Volonté, Chief Evaluation Officer, GEF Susan Sano, STCO, MNRE Dominique Benzaken, CNA, SPREP Tepa Suaesi, Principal Terrestrial Conservation Offi- Easter Chu Shing Galuvao, Assistant Resident Repre- cer, MNRE sentative, UNDP Samoa Tilafaga Imo, NPC-NCSA, MNRE Elisaia Talouli, ACEO, CS, MNRE Tuiolo Schuster, PCBO, MNRE Faumuina V.S. Pati Liu, ACEO, DEC/MNRE Tolusina Pouli, PRDO, MNRE Fiona Sapatu, PUMA/MNRE Tu'u'u Dr. Ieti Taule'alo, CEO, MNRE F. Vitolio Lui, Deputy Director, SPREP Uaine Loleni Silailai, ACEO, MNRE Joe Reti, Consultant, Pacific Environment Consultants Ltd Vitaoa Peleiupu Fuatai, MNRE Joe Stanley, GEF Adviser, SPREP Will McGoldrick, CCTO, MNRE 68 Annex E. People Interviewed Potoa'e Roberts Aiafi, Consultant Specialist, HRM, Malcolm Millar, Deputy High Commissioner, New Public Service Commission Zealand High Commission, Samoa Luigi Bodda, Senior Project Economist, Pacific Hinauri Petana, CEO, Ministry of Finance Department, ADB Prasad, Indra, Senior Policy Officer, Ministry of For- Robin Broadfield, Regional Coordinator, Asia, World eign Affairs and Trade, New Zealand Bank T. Matairangi Purea, Pland Protection Officer, FAO Eddie Brotoisworo, Senior Safeguards Specialist, Pacific Department, ADB Idah Z. Pswarayi Riddihough, Lead Natural Resources Specialist, East Asia Rural Development, World Bank Stuart Chape, Programme Manager, Island Ecosys- tems, SPREP Espen Ronneberg, Climate Change Adviser, SPREP Bruce Chapman, Programme Manager, Pacific Noumea Simi, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Futures, SPREP Joe Stanley, GEF Adviser, SPREP Sara Carley, Team Leader, Pacific Group, NZAID Tepa Suaesi, Principal Terrestrial Conservation Offi- Roger Cornforth, Deputy Director, Strategy, Advisory cer, MNRE and Evaluation Group, NZAID Suzanne Tai, Marine Program Manager, Pacific Chris Derrick, Strategic Programmes Advisor, Austra- lian Government Islands Program, Conservation International Leilani Duffy, GEF-SGP, Samoa, Manager Tu'u'u Dr. Ieti Taule'alo, CEO, MNRE Keneti Faulalo, Regional Coordinator for Pacific Ceri Teather, AusAID, Australian High Commission, Islands, UNEP Samoa Easter Chu Shing Galuvao, Assistant Resident Repre- Takayuki Tomihara, Program Formulation Advisor, sentative, UNDP Japan International Cooperation Agency, Samoa Office Naheed Atiq Haque, United Nations Resident Coordi- Terry Toomata, Acting CEO, Ministry of Foreign nator, Samoa Affairs Hon. Faumuina Tiatia Liuga, Minister, MNRE Roina Faatauvaa Vavatau, CEO, Samoa Umbrella for Thomas Lynge Jensen, Associate Programme Special- Non-Governmental Organisations, Inc. ist, UNDP Andrea Vounteras, Regional Technical Officer, UNDP F. Vitolio Lui, Deputy Director, SPREP GEF Meapelo Maiai, Programme Officer, UNDP Antonie de Wilde, Coordinator, Asia Sustainable and Alternative Energy, World Bank Francois Martel, Director, Pacific Islands Program, Conservation International Sarah Wong, Programme Manager, Samoa, NZAID 69 Annex F. All GEF-Funded Activities in Samoa, as of December 31, 2006 GEF Co- Total project financ- project Execut- allocation ing cost GEF Focal Modal- ing ID Country/region Project name area ity IA agency (million $) Completed 336 Regional (Cook Islands, Pacific Islands Climate CC EA UNDP SPREP 2.44 None 2.44 Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Change Assistance Project Marshall Islands, Nauru, Samoa, Solo- mon Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu) 403 Regional (Palau, South Pacific Biodiversity BD FSP UNDP SPREP 10.00 4.30 14.30 Micronesia, Nauru, Conservation Programme Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Fiji, Tonga, Niue, Cook Islands, Samoa, Tokelau, Papua New Guinea) 476 Samoa Preparation of National Bio- BD EA UNDP MNRE 0.17 0.01 0.18 diversity Strategy and Action Plan, and First National Report to the COP of the CBD 530 Regional (Cook Islands, Implementation of the IW FSP UNDP SPREP 12.29 8.06 20.35 Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Strategic Action Programme Marshall Islands, Nauru, of the Pacific Small Island Niue, Papua New Developing States Guinea, Samoa, Solo- mon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu) 656 Samoa Marine Biodiversity Protec- BD MSP World MNRE 0.90 0.68 1.58 tion and Management Bank 850 Regional (Cook Islands, Expedited Financing of CC EA UNDP SPREP 1.00 None 1.00 Federated States of Climate Change Enabling Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Activities (Phase II) Marshall Islands, Nauru, Samoa, Solo- mon Islands, Tuvalu, Vanuatu) 861 Samoa Clearing House Mechanism BD EA UNDP MNRE 0.01 None 0.01 Enabling Activity 875 Global Biosafety/Framework and BD FSP UNEP MNRE 0.15 0.08 0.22 Clearinghouse 70 GEF Co- Total project financ- project Execut- allocation ing cost GEF Focal Modal- ing ID Country/region Project name area ity IA agency (million $) 1058 Regional (Cook Islands, Pacific Islands Renewable CC MSP UNDP SPREP 0.70 0.11 0.81 Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Energy Programme Marshall Islands, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solo- mon Islands, Tonga, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Nauru) 1379 Samoa Additional Funding of Biodi- BD EA UNDP MNRE 0.22 0.03 0.25 versity Enabling Activity 1457 Samoa Initial Assistance to Samoa to POPs EA UNDP MNRE 0.37 None 0.37 Meet Its Obligations under the Stockholm Convention on POPs 1868 Samoa Programme of Action for CC EA UNDP MNRE 0.20 0.02 0.22 Adaptation to Climate Change Under implementation 1766 Samoa National Capacity Self-Assess- MF EA UNDP MNRE 0.23 0.03 0.26 ment for Global Environmen- tal Management 2131 Regional (Cook Islands, Pacific Islands Oceanic Fisher- IW FSP UNDP SPF 11.64 79.09 90.73 Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, ies Management Project Marshall Islands, Nauru, (South Pacific Forum/Fiji) Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tokelau, Tuvalu, Vanuatu) Global Small Grants Programme MF FSP UNDP SGP 0.43 2699 Regional (Cook Islands, Pacific Islands Greenhouse CC FSP UNDP SPREP 5.23 20.80 26.03 Fiji, Kiribati, Niue, Papua Gas Abatement through New Guinea, Samoa, Renewable Energy Project Solomon Islands, (2nd phase 1058) Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu) 2774 Global (Bangladesh, Community-based Adapta- CC FSP UNDP SGP 5.01 4.53 9.54 Bolivia, Niger, Samoa, tion Programme Guatemala, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Namibia, Vietnam) 3196 Samoa LDC/SIDS Portfolio Project: LD MSP UNDP MNRE 0.48 1.03 1.51 Capacity Building for Sustain- able Land Management in Samoa 299 Global Climate Change Training CC EA UNDP UNITAR 2.7 0.5 3.2 Phase II ­ Training Pro- gramme to Support the Implementation of the UNFCCC Annex F. All GEF-Funded Activities in Samoa, as of December 31, 2006 71 GEF Co- Total project financ- project Execut- allocation ing cost GEF Focal Modal- ing ID Country/region Project name area ity IA agency (million $) Pipeline a 1593 Samoa Conservation and Manage- BD MSP UNDP MNRE PDF-A: None ment of Threatened Lowland 0.025 expected and Upland Forests of Savaii Expected GEF sup- port: 0.75 2586 Regional (Cook Islands, Implementing Sustainable IW FSP UNDP/ SOPAC PDF-A: 1.11b Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Integrated Water Resource UNEP 0.025 Islands, Micronesia, and Wastewater Manage- PDF-B: Nauru, Niue, Samoa, ment in the Pacific Island 0.698 Solomon Islands, Palau, Countries Expected Papua New Guinea, GEF sup- Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu) port: 12.00 2734 Regional (Fiji, Samoa, Promotion of Environmen- CC MSP UNDP TBD PDF-A: No data Vanuatu) tally Sustainable Transporta- 0.025 tion in the Pacific Islands 3101 Regional (Cook Islands, Pacific Islands Adaptation CC FSP UNDP SPREP PDF-B: 70.80b Micronesia, Fiji, Nauru, to Climate Change Project/ 0.35 Papua New Guinea, UNDP Regional Office in Expected Samoa, Solomon Samoa GEF sup- Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, port: 11.25 Vanuatu) Note: BD = biodiversity; CC = climate change; IW = international waters; LD = land degradation: TBD = to be determined; UNITAR = United Nations Institute for Training and Research. a. Projects in the pipeline were not included in this evaluation. b. Expected cofinancing. 72 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) Annex G. Management Response This is the management response to the GEF z What are the results of completed projects, Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007), aggregated at the focal area and country levels? prepared by the GEF Evaluation Office. The man- We generally agree with the overall recommenda- agement response has been prepared by the GEF tions provided by the GEF Evaluation Office and Secretariat in consultation with the GEF Imple- are pleased with many of the conclusions of the menting and Executing Agencies. report. The objective of the evaluation is to provide the GEF Council with an assessment of how the GEF G.1 Evaluation Conclusions is implemented in Samoa. It reports on results We welcome work carried out to evaluate the from projects and assesses how these projects are portfolio of 19 projects funded by the GEF in linked to national environmental and sustainable 1992­2006. We are encouraged by the conclu- development strategies as well as the GEF man- sions reached on the relevance and results of the date of generating global environmental benefits GEF support to Samoa and take note of the con- within its focal areas. In line with these objectives, clusions on the need for improved efficiency of the evaluation explores three key questions for the carrying out projects in Samoa. GEF and Samoa: Conclusion 1: GEF support has been relevant to z Is GEF support relevant to the Strategy for the the Samoa Development Strategy and national Development of Samoa 2005­2007, national environmental policies. development needs and challenges, as well as action plans for the GEF focal areas and the We are pleased that GEF support has had direct GEF mandate, objectives, policies, and focal linkages to the key outcomes of the Samoa Devel- area programs and strategies? opment Strategy and that all modalities sup- ported thus far have been appropriate to the state z Is GEF support efficient as indicated by the of Samoa's development. We also take note of the time, effort, and money it takes to develop and finding that the availability of funding to prepare implement GEF projects; any particular issues projects has been highly valued by different GEF related to regional projects; and synergies stakeholders, as this funding makes it possible to and partnerships between GEF projects and devote the time and resources needed to achieve a between GEF and government agencies as well thorough understanding of the issues and modali- as other GEF stakeholders? ties of intervention in preparation for a project. 73 Conclusion 2: All GEF-funded projects are highly Conclusion 5: Samoa has improved its efficiency relevant to the GEF mandate and focal areas, in accessing GEF funding, but there are still some but slow follow-up support from government obstacles. sources could jeopardize the sustainability of We are pleased that Samoa has improved its effi- results. ciency in accessing GEF funding but acknowledge We are pleased with the finding that all GEF- that there are still some obstacles. We believe that funded projects were developed and approved on the introduction of the streamlined project cycle the basis of their relevance to the GEF mandate will help to alleviate some of these issues. and focal area strategies. We are, however, con- cerned that the sustainability of project results Conclusion 6: Most GEF Agencies have not been could be jeopardized by slow follow-up support engaged in Samoa, primarily because of the from the government. high transaction costs and limited understand- ing of GEF objectives and procedures. Conclusion 3: Enabling activities have supported We take note of the findings that the leading GEF Samoa in building the foundations for its envi- Agency in Samoa thus far has been UNDP and ronmental frameworks and strategies, which that most relevant GEF Agencies now have a pres- are necessary conditions for generating global ence in the Pacific region. environmental benefits. Since the majority of GEF projects carried out in G.2 Evaluation Recommendations Samoa are enabling activities, we are pleased that GEF support achieved its greatest results in the Recommendation 1: The proposed program- area of policy and strategy development. matic approach for the Pacific SIDS should take into account Samoa's experience. Conclusion 4: Completed projects have achieved We agree with the above recommendation that concrete on-the-ground results; however, actual the lessons from Samoa's experience with the GEF reporting on results has limitations because of should be taken into account when developing the the poor quality of final evaluations and limited proposed regional programmatic approach for baselines. Pacific SIDS for implementation in GEF-4. We are pleased with the finding that GEF support Samoa has long recognized that regional coopera- in the biodiversity focal area enabled the conser- tion is an excellent way to overcome the problems vation and sustainable management of forest and of small size and the resulting lack of economies of marine ecosystems. We do, however, recognize the scale and capacity. In the field of the environment, limitations of the findings due to the poor qual- the government has benefited from cooperation ity of final evaluations and limited baselines but in regional approaches to regulatory issues and believe that the highlighting of this issue in several reducing costs of governance by sharing skills and Evaluation Office reports and the issuance of The capacity. GEF Monitoring and Evaluation Policy (February 2006) will lead to more complete terminal evalua- Considering the shared and common environ- tions of GEF projects in the future. We also recog- mental problems faced by Samoa, the GEF pro- nize the complications associated with evaluating poses that in GEF-4 national projects are agreed the impacts of GEF-funded initiatives. to after considering the opportunities available 74 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) for regional synergies. Such a multifocal program- will help in reducing transaction costs, ease report- matic approach for the Pacific is meant to achieve ing to the GEF, and help in raising cofinancing. economies of scale in gathering expertise and mak- ing it available to Pacific countries, so that each Recommendation 2: Environmental concerns, government reduces its cost by avoiding duplica- which are seen as a cross-cutting issue, need tion of capacity that is best shared regionally. We to become visible in the Samoa Development believe a regional approach would allow countries Strategy. to better address common problems and those that are transboundary in nature. Recommendation 3: Increased participation by other stakeholders (ministries, civil society, and The GEF approach for the Pacific region will aim the private sector) in implementing GEF-sup- to strike a balance between efforts at the regional ported projects will increase national capacity. versus country levels. As a standard practice, GEF operations will be conducted at the country and We note that recommendations 2 and 3 are to subnational levels through national executing the government of Samoa, and we look forward agencies. Regional work will be undertaken in areas to helping the government implement these rec- where regional cooperation is needed to support ommendations in the context of developing and and complement these country-level efforts. implementing the programmatic approach for the The GEF Pacific program will therefore be an Pacific SIDS. Annex H provides feedback from the aggregation of nationally executed projects that government of Samoa. Annex G. Management Response 75 Annex H. Country Response 76 Annex H. Country Response 77 References The GEF Council documents cited here (indicated --. 2002. "National Assessment Report for World with the designation "GEF/C.xx") are available on the Summit on Sustainable Development." Apia. GEF Web site, www.thegef.org, under Documents/ Council Documents. GEF Evaluation Office docu- --. 2007. "Samoa's State of the Environment Report ments can be found on the GEF Evaluation Office Web 2007." Draft. site, www.gefeo.org, under Publications. GoS/MoF (Government of Samoa Ministry of Finance). 2002. "Strategy for the Development of Samoa Beca/GoS (Beca International Consultants Ltd and the 2002­2004." Apia. Government of Samoa). 2001. "Coastal Infrastruc- ture Management Project." Apia. --. 2006. "Public Sector Investment Programme GoS (Government of Samoa). 1999. "Agriculture Cen- 2005/2006­2007/2008." sus." Apia: Department of Statistics and Ministry of Agriculture, Forests and Fisheries. 78 GEF Evaluation Office Publications Number Title Year Evaluation Reports 39 Joint Evaluation of the GEF Small Grants Programme 2008 38 GEF Annual Performance Report 2006 2008 37 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992­2007) 2008 36 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: The Philippines (1992­2007) 2008 35 Evaluation of the Experience of Executing Agencies under Expanded Opportunities in the GEF 2007 34 Evaluation of Incremental Cost Assessment 2007 33 Joint Evaluation of the GEF Activity Cycle and Modalities 2007 32 GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Costa Rica (1992­2005) 2007 31 Annual Performance Report 2005 2006 30 The Role of Local Benefits in Global Environmental Programs 2006 29 Annual Performance Report 2004 2005 28 Evaluation of GEF Support for Biosafety 2006 Third Overall Performance Study 2005 GEF Integrated Ecosystem Management Program Study 2005 Biodiversity Program Study 2004 Climate Change Program Study 2004 International Waters Program Study 2004 Evaluation Documents ED-1 The GEF Evaluation and Monitoring Policy 2006 ED-2 GEF Evaluation Office Ethical Guidelines 2008 Evaluation Office G LOBAL ENVIRONMENT FACILITY Global Environment Facility Evaluation Office 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA www.gefeo.org