ACRONYMS - UNDP - United Nations Development … · Web viewThe droughts in 1993 and 1998 brought extreme dryness to the already dry parts of the country, west region of Savaii and

Government of SAMOA

United Nations Development Programme

Title of Project:

MEDIUM-SIZED PROJECTSAMOA’S CAPACITY BUILDING AND MAINSTREAMING OF

SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT

MNREM PROJECT DOCUMENT PROPOSAL 1

Addressing land degradation is a priority issue for Samoa. The country’s First National Report to the UNCCD and the GEF Capacity Development Initiative Report both identified unsustainable agricultural practices and deforestation as the two main contributing factors to land degradation. Land degradation in Samoa has not been studied in detail to ascertain the extent of the problem. In recognition of national and global environmental benefits the overall expected goal of this project is the promotion of effective sustainable land management in Samoa so as to promote ecosystem heath, integrity, stability, functions and services. This project is submitted under the LDC-Small Islands Developing States (LDC-SIDS) Portfolio Project and will help achieve the objectives of Operational Programme 15 and Strategic Priority 1 relating to Targeted Capacity Building for sustainable land management. Its objective is to strengthen local and national capacity for Sustainable Land Management (SLM), including mainstreaming into national development strategies and policies, improving the quality of project design and implementation, and ensuring that all relevant stakeholder views are reflected and integrated into the process. Key activities will include completion of a National Action Plan (NAP) under the UNCCD, capacity building, strengthening legislative and policy frameworks and the development of a Medium Term Investment Plan and its Resource Mobilization. The management of the project will involve the existing National Steering Committee established initially under UNCCD, Technical Advisory Group, Project Manager and possibly a Project Assistant. The operational phase of the project is 3 years after which SLM issues and focus will be mainstreamed into the national development planning and policy framework.

Error: Reference source not foundExpedited Medium Size Project Proposal Under the

LDC-SIDS Portfolio Project for Sustainable Land ManagementMr. Mose Pouvi SuaChief Executive OfficerMinistry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Date: OFP Endorsement PDF A: March 5, 2005OFP Endorsement: LDC-SIDS Umbrella Project: January 20, 2005

GEF Operational Focal Point Endorsement CCD FP Endorsement: March 5, 2005CCD national Focal Point and date of approvalThis proposal has been prepared in accordance with GEF policies and procedures and meets the standards of the GEF Project Review Criteria for a Medium-sized Project under the LDC-SIDS Targeted Portfolio Project for Sustainable Land Management.Name & SignatureFrank PintoIA Executive Coordinator

Easter Galuvao (or Meapelo Maiai)UNDP ARR Energy and Environment Apia, Samoa

Date: (Month, Day, Year) Tel.: (685) 23670Fax: (685) 23555Email: [email protected] [email protected]

REQUEST FOR GEF FUNDING

SIGNATURE PAGECountry: Samoa

UNDAF Outcome(s)/Indicator(s):(Link to UNDAF outcome. If no UNDAF, leave blank) N/A

Expected Outcome(s)/Indicator (s): Capacity Building for Sustainable Land Management in Niue.

(CP outcomes linked to the SRF/MYFF goal and service line)


RECORD OF ENDORSEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT:

AGENCY’S PROJECT ID: 00043651GEFSEC PROJECT ID: 3403COUNTRY: SAMOAPROJECT TITLE: Capacity Building for Sustainable Land Management in SAMOAGEF AGENCY: UNDPOTHER EXECUTING AGENCY(IES): DURATION: Three yearsGEF FOCAL AREA: Land DegradationGEF OPERATIONAL PROGRAM: OP 15GEF STRATEGIC PRIORITY: SP 1ESTIMATED STARTING DATE: August 31st 2006

FINANCING PLAN (US$)GEF PROJECT/COMPONENT

Project $475,000.00Total GEF 475,000.00

Co-FinancingGovernment of Samoa (GoS) 300,000.00MNREM (GoS) 110,000.00MAF (GoS) 70,000.00Others (UNDP) 48,000.00Sub-Total Co-financing: 528,000.00 Total Project Financing: 1,003,000.00FINANCING FOR ASSOCIATED ACTIVITY IF ANY:

COUNTRY ELIGIBILITY: Samoa ratified the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification on 20 August 1998 and is eligible for funding under paragraph 9(b) of the GEF Instrument.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Expected Output(s)/Indicator(s): Sustainable Land Management mainstreamed into national development policies, strategies, programmes and projects.

(CP outcomes linked to the SRF/MYFF goal and service line)

Implementing partner: Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

Other Partners: UNDP, Government of Samoa

Agreed by Executing Partner (Ministry of Finance- Aid Coordination Unit):

________________________________________________________________date:_____________

Agreed by Implementing Partner (Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment and Meteorology):

_______________________________________________________________date______________

Agreed by GEF Implementing Agency (UNDP): ________________________________________________________________date______________

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT……………………………………………………………………..6LETTER OF CO-FINANCE…………………………………………………………………………7

ACRONYMS........................................................................................................................................11

PART I: SITUATION ANALYSIS....................................................................................................12

BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................................12


Budget US$ 475,000.00General Management Support FeePreparation Phase US$25,000Total budget: US$ 500,000.00Allocated resources: Government (in kind) US$

410,000 UNDP

US$48,000 Other: US $70,000

Programme Period: 2006-2009Programme Component: Energy and Environment for Sustainable DevelopmentProject Title: LDC-SIDS Portfolio Project for Sustainable Land Management.Project ID: 00043651Project Duration: 3 yearsManagement Arrangement: NEX

I. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT..........................................................................................................13II. Socio-economic Context................................................................................................................16III. Policy, Institutional and Legal Context.........................................................................................17IV. Causes of Land Degradation....................................................................................................19-22

PART II: PROJECT STRATEGY – PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................22-31

V. BASELINE COURSE OF ACTION.................................................................................................22-23VI. Capacity and Mainstreaming Needs for SLM..........................................................................23-24VII. Project rationale and objective.................................................................................................24-25VIII. Expected project outcomes, and outputs.................................................................................25-26IX. Global and Local Benefits........................................................................................................26-27X. Linkages to IA activities and programs...................................................................................27-29XI. Stakeholder Involvement Plan.................................................................................................29-31

FINANCIAL PLAN OF THE MSP-SLM PROJECT......................................................................31

XII. STREAMLINED INCREMENTAL COSTS ASSESSMENT.....................................................................31XIII. Project Budget..............................................................................................................................32Co-Financing Letters of Commitment...................................................................................................33

PART III: MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS.......36

XV. Project Implementation Arrangements.........................................................................................36

PART IV. MONITORING AND EVALUATION............................................................................38

XVI. MONITORING AND EVALUATION PLAN...................................................................................38-42XVII. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan Budget...............................................................................42-43

LIST OF ALL ANNEXES BY MAIN COMPONENT....................................................................45

ANNEX A: SAMOA’S BASELINE DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC DATA.....................46

TABLE 1: POPULATION OF SAMOA.........................................................................................................46

ANNEX B: LANDUSE DATA IN SAMOA......................................................................................47

TABLE 2: LAND CLASSIFICATION BY NATURAL SOIL FERTILITY AND ESTIMATED AREA1 FOR SAVAII AND UPOLU............................................................................................................................................47Table 3: Estimates of Land Ownership in Samoa in 1991...................................................................47Table 4: Estimates of Land Uses in Samoa in 1993..............................................................................48Table 5: Land use in Upolu and Savai’i - Percentage of Total Land.....................................................48Table 6: Samoa Forest Cover Types and Actual Areas (Ha)1...............................................................49Table 8: Percentage of Households/Holdings by Category of Activity.................................................49Table 9: Percentage of Agricultural Households/Holdings by Land Use or Activity...........................49

ANNEX C: SAMOA’S MEAS AND ELABORATIONS.................................................................50

ANNEX D: INFORMATION NEEDS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BPOA..................51

ANNEX E: FINDINGS FROM NCSA STOCKTAKING WORKSHOP ON UNCCD CAPACITY ASSESSMENT NEEDS AND ROOT CAUSES.........................................................52

TABLE 10: PROBLEM TREE FINDINGS ON ROOT CAUSES OF LAND DEGRADATION.........................52-32Table 11: UNCCD Capacity Assessment Needs..............................................................................54-55

ANNEX F: LOGICAL FRAMEWORK ON SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT.......55-66


ANNEX G: STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PLAN MATRIX...............................................67

ANNEX H: F I N A N C I A L P L A N..........................................................................................68

TABLE 14: DETAILED ACTIVITY BUDGET.........................................................................................68-72Table 15: Allocation of GEF and Co-Financing Funds per Output.................................................73-78Table 16: Analysis of GEF and Co-Financing Funds by Output per Individual Donor........................78Table 17. Summary of Co-Financiers’ Contribution by Outcome and Sources....................................79

ANNEX I: CO-FINANCING LETTERS OF COMMITMENT.....................................................81

ANNEX J: TERMS OF REFERENCE……………………………………………………………..82

ANNEX K: AUDIT CLAUSE.............................................................................................................86

ANNEX L: LPAC MINUTES………………………………………………………………………87

ANNEX M: NEX GUIDELINES……………………………………………………………………92

ANNEX N: ATLAS ANNUAL WORKPLAN……………………………………………………...96

LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................................................100


LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT


LETTERS OF CO-FINANCE




ACRONYMS

AWP: Annual WorkplanBPoA: Barbados Programme of ActionsCBD: Convention on Biological DiversityCBDAMPIC: Capacity Building for the Development of Adaptation Measures in the Pacific

IslandsCEIS: Coastal Environmental and Institutional ServicesCEHZ: Coastal Erosion Hazard ZoneCFHZ: Coastal Flooding Hazard ZoneCHZ: Coastal Hazard ZoneCIM: Coastal Infrastructure ManagementCLHZ: Coastal Landslip Hazard ZoneCO: Country Office (UNDP)COEP’s: Codes of Environmental PracticeCOP: Conference of the PartiesDEC: Division of Environment and ConservationDLM: Division of Land ManagementDLSE: Department of Lands, Surveys and EnvironmentEIA: Environment Impact AssessmentEPC: Electric Power CorporationFAO: Food & Agriculture OrganizationGEF: Global Environment FacilityGHG: Greenhouse GasesGOS: Government of SamoaGPS: Global Positioning SystemIA: Implementing AgencyIAM: Infrastructure Asset ManagementICBP: International Council for Bird PreservationICZM: Integrated Coastal Zone ManagementIRETA: Institute for Research, Extension and Training in AgricultureIRP: Institutional Reform PolicyIW: Implementing WorkshopLD: Land Development (Section)MAF Ministry of Agriculture and FisheriesMAFFM: Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries and MeteorologyMCIL: Ministry of Commerce, Industry and LabourM&E: Monitoring and EvaluationMEA’s: Multilateral Environment AgreementsMESC: Ministry of Education, Sports and CultureMAF: Ministry of Agriculture and FisheriesMFAT: Ministry of Foreign Affairs and TradeMNRE: Ministry of Natural Resources and EnvironmentMNREM: Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment and MeteorologyMoH: Ministry of HealthMOU: Memorandum of UnderstandingMWTI: Ministry of Works, Transport and InfrastructureNAP: National Action Plan


NAPA: National Adaptation Programme of ActionNBSAP: National Biodiversity Strategy Action PlanNCSA: National Capacity Self-AssessmentNDS: National Development StrategyNEMS: National Environment Management and Development StrategiesNEX: National Execution (UNDP)NGO: Non-Government OrganizationsNLP: National Land use PolicyNOU: National Ozone UnitNPPSD: National Population Policy for Sustainable DevelopmentNWMP: National Waste Management PolicyNWRP: National Water Resource PolicyODS: Ozone Depleting SubstancesPEAR: Preliminary Environment Assessment ReportPEG: Project Executive GroupPICCAP: Pacific Islands Climate Change ProgrammePIR: Project Implementation ReviewPM: Project ManagerPMU: Project Management UnitPOP’s: Persistent Organic PollutantsPUMA: Planning and Urban Management AgencyPSC: Public Service CommissionRCU: Regional Coordination UnitRS: Remote SensingSBAA: Standard Basic Assistance AgreementSDS: Samoa’s Development StrategySES: Statement of Economic StrategySGP: Small Grants Programme (UNDP/GEF)SIAMP : Samoa’s Infrastructure Asset Management ProjectSIDS: Small Island Developing StatesSLM: Sustainable Land ManagementSOA: School of Agriculture (USP, Alafua)SOE: State of Environment ReportSPREP: Secretariat for the Pacific Regional Environment ProgrammeSST: Sea Surface TemperatureSTEC: Samoa Trust Estates CorporationSWA: Samoa Water AuthorityTAG: Technical Advisory GroupTEC’s: Target Environment ComponentsTOR: Terms of ReferenceTPR: Tripartite Project ReviewTRAC: Technical Resources Allocated from CoreTTR: Terminal Tripartite ReviewUNCBD: United Nations Convention on BiodiversityUNFCCC: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUNCCD: United Nations Convention on Combating DesertificationUNCED: United Nation Convention for Environment and DevelopmentUNDP: United Nations Development ProgrammeUNEP: United Nations Environment ProgrammeUSP: University of the South PacificWSSD: World Summit on Sustainable Development


Part I: Situation Analysis

Background

1. Samoa (formerly Western Samoa) is a small island country in the South West Pacific and was the first to become independent in 1962. Located in the northern part of the South Pacific Ocean, it lies between latitudes 130 25’ and 140 05’ S and borders the international dateline at 171 0 23’ and 1720 48’ W longitudes. Samoa consists of two main islands, two other inhabited smaller islands and several uninhabited small islands and islets. The capital Apia is located on the second largest island of which is Upolu and has a population of about 40,000 people. Samoa has a total land area of 2,935 km2. The islands are of volcanic origin clearly visible in the form of several dormant volcanoes and lava fields. Beyond the narrow coastal plains, the mountain ranges rise steeply to 1900 meters on Savai’i and 1100 meters on Upolu intersected by fertile valleys. Lush vegetation and rainforest cover the greater part of the country.

2. The two main islands are well served by tar sealed ring and cross-island roads. The geographically compact nature of the country and its road and shipping network make transport between and within islands relatively easy, thus facilitating access to centralized government services. There is only one international port with an inter-island ferry service operating between the two main islands and between Samoa and its nearest neighbor, American Samoa, to the east. Apia Port is currently being upgraded to cater for more berthing space. A regular inter-island air service serves both main islands and American Samoa as well. Samoa has the smallest Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ = 98,500 sq. km) of all Pacific Island Countries (PIC’s). The Samoan island group is approximately 2,600 miles southeast of Hawaii and 1,800 miles northwest of New Zealand. Samoa’s nearest neighbor is American Samoa with its capital city Pago Pago only 80 miles away.

3. The people of Samoa are Polynesian, living in 330 villages along the coast and more recently inland with the development of cross-island roads. Samoan society is based on the social unit, the aiga or extended family. Each extended family is headed by a matai who is appointed by consensus of the aiga. The matai assumes responsibility for the welfare of his/her aiga including directing the use of family assets and lands. The collective institution of matais constitute the village council or fono which controls the affairs of the village, keep order and provides direction with regard to village development.

4. The climate is tropical and marked by distinct wet (November–April) and dry (May-October) seasons. The average monthly temperature ranges between 22o and 30o with little seasonal variation due to Samoa’s equatorial location. The average annual rainfall is about 3000mm with about 75% of precipitation occurring during the wet season.

5. Samoa’s population in 1991 was 161,296. The 2001 population census preliminary results recorded a population of 174,140. This indicates that after a period of ten years, the population has increased by only 8%. Table 1 (Annex A) presents the preliminary results of the 2001 census which shows a male to female ratio of 100:92 in 2001 compared to 100:90 in 1991. The population of Apia Urban Area, also the capital and only major town with any commercial significance, has increased by 8% with the Rest of Upolu essentially unchanged. The dramatic increase in the population of North-west Upolu is explained by the significant occupation of newly settled areas such as Vaitele located just outside the boundary of Apia Urban Area. The drop in the population of Savaii, suggests that there has been a significant resettlement of Savaii people in search of improved education and health facilities and better employment opportunities.

6. Samoa’s economy has been stable over the last decade since the government diversifies its support and economic focus, from traditional mainstays such as agriculture and remittances, to tourism and fishery industry. The mid-1990’s, after the devastating wrath of cyclones Ofa & Val and the taro leaf blight


which impacted adversely on agricultural production, saw the government according high priority to the development of these two sectors.

I. Environmental Context

7. The Samoan islands are volcanic in origin, geologically young, and consisting mainly of basaltic rock. The topography of Samoa is rugged and mountainous with approximately 40% of Upolu and 50% of Savai’i characterized by steep slopes descending from volcanic crests. Beyond the narrow coastal plains and the lush fertile valleys, mountain ranges rise steeply to a maximum of 1,859 m (Mt. Silisili) on Savai’i and 1,113 m (Mt. Fito) on Upolu. Soils are derived from olivine or andesite basalt and the majority belong to the Soil Taxonomy Order Inceptisol. Soils are strongly leached, low in available K (< 1me /100g), have pH values that generally range between 5 to 7, and fix high amounts of applied P (50-100%). Due to the relatively small amounts of fertilizers used in Samoan agriculture, soil fertility is said to be directly related to its organic matter content (Ashgar, 1988).

8. There is approximately 285,000 ha, equivalent to about 2,935km2, of total land area with some 112,000 ha considered unsuitable for cultivation because of steep slopes. Large areas of these steep lands on the contrary are still cultivated with crops such as taro and banana though the outbreak of taro leaf blight (Phytophthera colocasia) in the 1990s did reduce growing of the former for a time. The development of resistant varieties of taro and new taro leaf blight control measures and the demands of an increasing population for food and cash crops are likely to cause the pressure on Samoa’s sloping lands to increase again. The development of technologies promoting SLM will become increasingly important and will include sound soil, water and nutrient management. Table 2 in Annex B illustrates general land classification in Samoa (Savaii and Upolu only) in relation to natural soil fertility.

Land Tenure & Land Use Trends9. Samoa has three main types of land ownership of which a greater deal of the land are under customary

ownership (81%). Customary lands primarily are managed by a ‘matai’ being the head of an extended family ‘aiga’. These lands are by customs and tradition entrusted to the titled head of an extended family as the trustee responsible for the management and allocation of the land for various uses by his/her aiga. Table 3 (Annex B) provides the 3 types of land tenure. Government-owned lands (15%) are regarded as public land and it constituted both STEC and SLC lands as well as all the land lying below the line of the high water mark which is made reserved for public purposes. Freehold lands are estates in fee simple which make up 4% of the remaining land. The three primary types of land tenure are also present in the urban vicinity of Apia. Land tenure in rural areas is predominantly customary either owned communally or by individual families. Leased land is emerging as one popular form of land ownership which can be taken as the fourth type of land tenure. However ownership remains with the original owner of land though such land can be made collateral by the lessee if it is government-owned or freehold for a period of time and to be guaranteed under a registered leased agreement. Land that can be leased includes government land, freehold and customary land, which must be registered upon application under the Land Registration Act 1992/93. One of the prerequisites for land development is that title to the land is secured as this enables long-term use of the land and provides the possibility for security (ADB/GoS, 2001 b).

10. Land is central to the economic and cultural fabric of Samoa with land of productive potential in ample supply (Statistics Dept/MAFFM, Agricultural Census 1999). However in areas of heavy population concentration, shortages of land under customary land tenure are becoming evidently stressed and land of marginal value are increasingly under pressure to be developed for village sector production. Within central Apia, settlement has been replaced with commercial and other non-residential uses such as the produce market by the conversion of government leasehold lands to freehold. Other land has come from reclamation and informal land filling.

11. The proper utilization of land resources according to their appropriate capabilities, as well as vulnerabilities holds the key to sustainable land use management. There have been numerous changes in


the way land is used in Samoa in the last decade particularly in Apia for an urban area, and land under agricultural development or use in rural areas. In the rural communities, land remains primarily under customary ownership and a large proportion of it is under cultivation.

12. A study conducted in 1990 (ANZDEC) produced land use capability maps of the whole country. The maps categorized Samoa’s land into four main classes: Land with few limitations to agricultural use (39,600 ha); Land with moderate limitations to agricultural use and few limitations to forestry (121,700 ha); Land with severe limitations to agricultural use and moderate to severe limitations to forestry

(59,400 ha); Land unsuitable for agriculture or forestry (69,000 ha).

13. There is increased pressure for land today particularly in the urban areas due to population growth as rural-urban migration continues. The demand for land is seeing an estimated 900ha (Hooper 1998) of forest lost annually to land clearance for gardens and for creation of commercialized plantations, which leads to consequences such as the degradation of water sheds and increased run-offs. To improve access to land, the government has subdivided huge tracts of lands that were under its trust estates to be sold as freehold sections or leased out for investment and development purposes.

14. Land use estimates for Samoa in the 90’s are described in Tables 4 & 5 (see Annex B). More recent trends for land use have shown a reduction in native Samoan Forest Cover types with an increase in secondary and open forest types throughout the country (Sam FRIS 2004). These trends are illustrated in Table 6 (see Annex B).

15. Summary of Samoan Land Use from both the 1989 & 1999 Agricultural Census: Total land area @ 285, 000 ha. inclusive of all smaller islands/islets Samoa’s Exclusive Economic Zone = 98,500 square kilometers Land with productive potential is not in short supply except in areas of high population Arable Land + Permanent Crops = 122,000ha. [FAO, 1997] Forests and Woodland = 134,000 ha; 1,000 ha. of permanent pasture. [FAO, 1997] Total land area /person = 1.7 ha. Average size of land holding = 6 ha.; Average no. of parcels/holding = 3

Forest Resources16. Land resources extend from the coastal lowlands to the highest upland peak. Apart from sand and

aggregate materials for construction and landfill, the most valuable land resource is forest and its ecological biodiversity. About a third of Samoa’s native forest trees are used commercially for timber, mainly as building materials for houses and general construction works. Certain hardwoods are used for carving traditional handicrafts such as Samoan war weapons and tools. Almost all are used as firewood. Several of these native tree species are of highest quality timbers by international standards. A national grading rule and a guide for specifying timber and wood-based products that were prepared by the Government in the ‘80 still remained un-enforced let alone promoted.

17. Since most of the country’s native flora and fauna species are found in the rainforests, the depletion of the latter decreases the viability of continued existence of such species. Several endemic birds’ species are now believed to be near extinction. Moreover, native rainforests cover the country’s major water catchments and their destruction have dramatically reduced water supply and river flows throughout the country. Consequently this is the most common cause of severe flooding and soil erosion during the last two decades of the century.

18. Clearance of the original forest cover for many areas, particularly the lowlands, has typically started the process of land degradation in Samoa. Changes from traditional agricultural


practices to more intensive cultivation have since contributed to the problem. Intensive cultivation in Samoa is defined as applying pressure on lands via short fallow periods, increased farming of cash crops in one particular land that often lead to degraded soil fertility and erosion; all to meet market demands for supply. Traditional farming in Samoa is basic and more manageable as it is only for subsistence living so a shift from the traditional farming practices into a more market influenced farming type of system called intensive cultivation. In addition, climate conditions such as high temperatures, severe rainfall deficit and droughts contribute to soil infertility and land degradation of drought prone areas, particularly on North/South West of both Savaii and Upolu.

Biodiversity Resources19. Samoa is a country whose biodiversity is significant globally. Its biodiversity is particularly important in

the context of the South Pacific. A review of the conservation value of a total of 226 South Pacific Islands (Dahl 1986) ranked three (3) of the islands of Samoa highly, Savai’i at current standing at number 23, the Aleipata islands at 30 and Upolu at 46. The flora is one of the most diverse in Polynesia with about a quarter of the plants endemic. The importance of the country’s birdlife, particularly the proportion of endemic species (23%), and the threat to it have been recognized by the International Council for Bird Preservation (ICBP) who have listed the Samoan Islands as one of the world’s ‘Endemic Bird Areas’ that is in need of urgent conservation attention (ICBP, 1992). Significant declines have been documented among most groups of animals and plants and, unsustainable levels of forest clearance for agricultural or logging have been and continue to be key threats. Like all island countries Samoa is ecologically fragile and vulnerable to environmental degradation through human-induced and natural factors (e.g. cyclones).

20. Marine resource base in Samoa is also very fragile. The mangrove, lagoon and coral reefs house an enormous diversity of marine invertebrates, many of which are harvested as food. The palolo reef worm, which rises once or twice a year, also holds a great cultural significance to Samoans. Fourteen (14) threatened species have been identified and these include numerous corals and clams, and the coconut crab (Schuster 2000).

Soil & Water Resources

21. The most extensive soil order in Samoa is that derived from volcanic ash called andisols and most are found in upland areas under isothermic temperature regimes. Most soils of Samoa have good structure and sub soils are not compact. Most soils are friable, and when moistened, are non-sticky and non-plastic, free draining with low water-holding capacity. There are marked differences between the soils of the lowlands and the uplands and between these soils and those of the highlands. There tends to be an increase in thickness of mineral soil with increasing altitude, due largely to heavier ash deposition in the uplands and the highlands. Upland soils are not generally used for cultivation. In general, soils are relatively shallow, stony, and unsuitable for most types of mechanization, and have coarse textural properties resulting in high infiltration rates. Despite a relatively high rainfall, soil moisture deficits can occur especially when considering prevalent soil types and evapo-transpiration rates. This is particularly true for the northwestern parts of both main islands.

22. Fresh water is a fundamental resource for any small island nation and Samoa is no exception. More than three-quarter of Samoan population has access to piped water. However, there is a high rate of water loss through leakage because of weak infrastructure and wastage as a result of poor conservation measures. The volcanic origin of Samoa has resulted in terrains that have abundant streams and waterfalls. Despite this, the western part of Upolu and the larger parts of Savaii lack any surface water because of the highly permeable nature of soils and the Mulifanua volcanic rocks. Thus, groundwater and rainwater catchments are the common sources of water in these areas.


23. River flows provide the main source of water supply although on Savaii there are many coastal springs. During much of the annual dry season, rivers dried up except during occasional heavy precipitation. In many areas, water supplies are insufficient to meet local demands for drinking water and domestic cleaning.

II. Socio-economic Context

24. Samoa’s vision for the future, as stated in the 2005-2007 SDS, is ‘For every Samoan to achieve a better quality of life’. Achieving this national vision will result in the attainment of Samoa’s MDG targets. In support of this vision, the theme for the 2005-07 SDS is ‘enhancing people’s choices’. External economic shocks and natural disasters will always threaten our development efforts and it is the Government’s hope that the implementation of the strategies outlined in the SDS will cushion the adverse impact of these shocks against the achievement of the national vision.

25. Samoa is classified as a Small Island Developing State (SIDs) mainly because of its vulnerability to natural disasters and to external economic and trade developments over which it has no control. These natural disasters include cyclones, storm tides, drought and flooding, and invasive alien species (pest and diseases). In addition, there is the added risk of sea level rise. Climate change and sea level rise are a serious concern given that 70% of its population and infrastructure are located on low-lying coastal areas (SPREP, 1994). Samoa’s economy largely depends on its natural resources, which rely on good stable climatic conditions for growth and sustenance.

26. The vulnerability to “absolute” or “relative” poverty (thus food insecurity) at the human or household level is identified here as: Wide variations in household income. Lack of access to land for food production (mostly in urban areas). A shrinking pool of family labour. A lack of incentive for increasing production (and thus surplus food) due to insufficient food

storage and food processing facilities, limited access to local and overseas markets, and insufficient and costly transportation.

Relatively high tariffs on imported foodstuffs particularly on foods of high nutritional value (e.g. fruits and vegetables).

Changing attitudes toward agriculture as an occupation and/or livelihood although this may be changing.

Very few of the people economically active in agriculture have had formal trainings in agricultural science and sustainable agriculture.

A general attitude that poverty is not a serious threat in Samoa due to traditional security nets and cultural “entitlements” (other than income). These however, are now changing due to an increased monetization of the economy.

27. The economy of Samoa is relatively small with aggregate GDP in current prices of SAT 720 million (approx. US$200 million) in 1999 implying a per capita income of US 1,390.00 (WSSD 2002). As a SIDs, Samoa’s economic performance is constrained by distance to markets, a small local market, and a skill base that cannot compete with Asian countries in labor intensive production and vulnerability to natural disasters particularly cyclone. Table 7 (Annex A) illustrates Samoa’s GDP at market prices by the various industry sectors.

28. In 1989, more than 70% of the economically active population of 55,967 was employed in the agriculture, fishery, and forestry sectors. An estimated 72% of 15,474 rural households are active to some degree in agriculture, with 19% producing for home use only and 47% producing mainly for home consumption. Tables 8 & 9 (Annex B) illustrates these figures to be reflective of home consumption of agricultural produces in the last decade of the previous century.


29. With agriculture and fishing being the main activities for the vast majority of Samoa’s population, it follows that commercial agricultural production, including coconut products, cocoa and taro accounted for 14% of Samoa’s GDP in 1994, 17% (including fisheries) in 1998, and rising another 4% in the year 2000, driven mainly by the fishing, construction, commerce, transport and communication sectors.

30. Samoa’s economy was devastated by the two cyclones and the taro leaf blight in the early nineties. As a result real gross domestic product in the early nineties declined by 9.4% in 1990 2.1% in 1991 and 0.9% in 1992. This situation was reversed in 1995 when a positive growth of 6.2% was recorded. Strong growth continued into 1996 but weakened again in 1997 as a result of the Asian financial crisis. Economic activity rebounded in 1998 and continued into 2000 registering a 7% growth.

31. Again, vulnerabilities at household or human level may be alleviated by stronger government and private sector development activities particularly in the rural areas where households appear to be at greater risk of food insecurity. Through sound economic policies, educational programmes in health, hygiene, and nutrition, and enhanced facilities for food storage and processing in the rural setting food security can be achieved.

III. Policy, Institutional and Legal Context

32. Samoa has had a long history of concern for the environment. It established the South Pacific’s first National Park at O Le Pupu Pue in 1978 and one of its first marine reserves at Palolo Deep in 1979. In 1989 the Lands, Surveys and Environment Act was enacted which set up the Division of Environment and Conservation (DEC) within the Department of Lands Surveys and Environment (DLSE). This establishment was a milestone achievement which highlights GoS’ commitment to addressing issues concerning the sustainable management of Samoa’s environmental resources.

33. Involvement in the UNCED in 1992 saw the support of the GoS increase which highlights even further its commitment to the global goal of sustainable development. A National Environmental Management Strategy (NEMS) was formulated and launched in 1993 providing a national framework for Samoa to adopt sustainable approaches in addressing 12 key targeted environmental components (TECs) which poses pressing threats to the local environment. It adopted a holistic approach in creating cooperation between government agencies to work together towards managing the 12 priority environment issues. Political commitment was necessary through the development of these policies which focused on the following areas in order to promote sustainable economic growth; Management of population dynamics and trends Protection of the quality and supply of fresh water Protection of the sea and marine resources Management of waste Combating deforestation Development of appropriate land use practices Conservation of biological diversity Protection of the atmosphere Planning for climate change Preservation of traditional arts, culture and history Development of human resources

34. While individual NEMS policies have all been formulated, only four have been approved by Cabinet in 2001 and others still in the approval process. The approved ones are listed as follow: National Waste Management Policy (NWMP) presents national guidelines for the minimization, control and management of wastes and pollution; National Land use Policy (NLP) focuses more on promotion of sustainable utilization of Samoa’s land resources so they can best meet the needs of both present and future generation; National Water Resource Policy (NWRP provides the framework for the conservation,


sustainable use and management of Samoa’s water resources. National Policy on Population and Sustainable Development (NPPSD) prioritizes the integration of population issues into development planning and assessment in order to ensure that the effects of population changes on the environment are well understood and any adverse impacts is addressed during programme planning and implementation. The four NEMS policies that have been approved by government are now working documents for the implementation of any environment programmes related to issues on land use, population, waste and water. These policies have strategies, which are to be implemented accordingly with programmes highlighted in the Statement of Economic Strategy 2000 that are directly pertaining to environment related issues and concerns.

35. Following the NEMS, Samoa began a series of accession and/or ratification of Multilateral Environment Conventions (MEAs). Annex C records most, if not all, MEAs that Samoa has so far either acceded or ratified. Some of the significant ones and cross-cutting to land degradation concerns under the UNCCD are the CBD and UNFCCC and others such as those addressing toxic wastes and pollutant substances in general. The significance of NEMs policies and membership to MEAs lies in paving the way for global recognition of environmental threats at the local scale for Samoa. Such significance for instance is exemplified following ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1994, which developed the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) in 2001. This took into proper account environmental issues outlined in the NEMS and developed detailed activities to address them from the viewpoint of protecting biodiversity. Protection of biodiversity is also concerned with ecological sustainability which is an ecosystem approach for addressing sustainable land management concerns. Progress on NBSAP priority actions was reviewed in 2004. In 2002, Samoa reviewed and assesses its obligation and commitment to UNCED and the Barbados Program of Action in its submission to the Johannesburg World Summit in 2002.

36. There was ongoing strengthening of the Division of Environment and Conservation between 1989 and 2001. Then following the PSC Institutional Reform and Functional Review in 2002, greater emphasis was placed on the environment with the DLSE mandate fundamentally altered and by which resulted in its name changed to Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE). This too eventuated in a change of its focus and core functions which were realigned to reflect greater efforts to address environmental concerns and the sustainable use of natural resources. This change further created expansion to its mandate to cover resolutions to land use problems in recognition of prevailing unsustainable uses of land resources and inappropriate practices on the land cover. This recognition paralleled the establishment of a planning mechanism of which is the Planning and Urban Management Agency thus newly enacted under the PUMA Act 2004 to address as well as promote proper land use. The establishment of PUMA was a response by Government to the growing concern for urban planning given the need to put in place an integrated planning system to address the growing expansion of public good operations and services and to meet demands of a fast growing urban population. The PUMA provides the mandate for the approval and consent on all development activities in Samoa.

37. The realignment of ministries as part of public sector reform programme by GoS in 2002 also resulted in the transfer of the Watershed section and Disaster Management from MAFFM and the Prime Minister’s Office respectively. Again, this year also saw another transfer of the Forestry and Meteorology Divisions from MAFFM to MNRE while PUMA consequently annexed to the Ministry of Works. These latest institutional changes occurred paralleled to the renamed of the MNRE to MNREM to reflect additional core and support functions and services provided for by the two divisions. The restructuring process went parallel with a legislative review amending the LSE Act 1989 to MNRE Draft Bill 2003, now with cabinet for endorsement.

38. As is appropriate in the context of SLM, other major establishments and policies include:

The Government approved the DLSE Institutional Reform Policy (IRP) in 2000. Its long-term objective is for MNREM (previously DLSE) to become an efficient and effective organization that is well placed to manage and address global and national environmental concerns.


The CIM strategy sets the scene for promoting better management of coastal infrastructure at a national, district and local level to develop greater hazard resilience for the Samoan community. CIMS is part of the government’s national level policy planning and management.

Establishment of the Samoa Water Authority in 1994 in order to address the need for improved quality, efficient services and allocation of water resources of the country, was a response to the growing need for water and the related services.

There is widespread awareness of, and support for, the concept of EIA among the line departments and agencies of the Samoan Government. The draft EIA regulation only allows DLSE, to issue guidelines indicating which development proposals, or types of environmental impact, are permitted without further consideration under the regulations.

The Interim Codes of Environmental Practice (COEPs) focus on road planning, design, construction and maintenance, and associated coastal protection works.

DLSE’s (now MNREM) Corporate Plan for 2003-2005, aims at achieving sustainable management of Samoa’s environmental resources through a closer partnership with the private sector.

39. Samoa’s participation to negotiations and signatory of MEAs is coordinated by the MFAT while MNREM coordinates the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of MEAs. The role of the MNREM in relation to the UNCCD to which this MSP applies shall include:

(a) Provide technical support and policy advice to the project as well as administrative functions and provisions of office space, equipment etc.

(b) Liaising with relevant government departments and agencies, and securing necessary approvals, to ensure Samoa’s effective representation at meetings of the Parties of the UNCCD and other relevant meetings;

(c) Liaising with relevant regional and international bodies to ensure that the representation of Samoa at any meeting concerning the UNCCD is informed and effective;

(d) Managing or participating in any project, or part of a project, aimed at implementing any aspect of the UNCCD;

(e) Disseminating information to local stakeholders and creating public awareness on the provisions of the UNCCD;

(f) Coordinate Samoa’s reporting requirements and obligations under the UNCCD including the preparation and implementation of the NAP;

(g) Preparing any necessary Report, and reporting on a regular basis to the Minister and Cabinet in relation to the implementation of the UNCCD;

(h) Sharing information and otherwise providing such cooperation as is required by the UNCCD;(i) Recommending that any law be amended or enacted in order to effectively implement any

requirement of the UNCCD; and(j) Doing any other act or thing (in conjunction with any other relevant government department or

agency) to implement any obligation under the UNCCD.

IV. Causes of Land Degradation

40. The extent of the land degradation problem in Samoa has not been ascertained in any detailed study. However, unsustainable agricultural practices and deforestation are identified in the Samoa’s First National Report to UNCCD and the GEF-funded report under the Capacity Development Initiative (CDI) programme for Samoa. The CDI report is an initial attempt by Samoa to conduct a preliminary assessment of land degradation and to identify potential causes.

41. Deforestation in the form of forest clearance to allow for agricultural expansion and logging has been identified as one of the two main forces behind the spread of degraded land areas. In addition, increased development of infrastructure and the strive for improved socio-economic statuses of individual families


have lead to increased exploitation of land-based aggregate materials and/or mining activities of scoria materials for construction purposes.

42. At the beginning of the decade deforestation was identified as one of the key environment and development issues in the country (NEMS, 1993). Timber production and agriculture remained the main consideration for the utilization of the remaining indigenous rainforest and the development of exotic forest plantations at the beginning of the last decade. However, with the impact of cyclones and the rising public concern with the degrading consequences of forest clearance, this development focus was challenged and the direction of the Government’s forest development programme was refined in order to reflect the dominating environmental considerations of the times. Towards the end of the decade, the focus of forest development shifted from reafforestation to watershed management, community forestry and sustainable indigenous forest utilization. The Government’s reafforestation activities were closed down in all leased village lands (customary owned lands) except for the maintenance of established plantations on Government lands in Savaii and vegetative replanting on two of the country’s major water catchments. At which time, a proposal was under consideration for a re-organisation of the Government’s agencies with major responsibilities in forestry conservation and development in order to improve their coordination and optimize their use of available resources.

43. The rate of forest and woodland clearance for agricultural purposes including firewood collection and infrastructural development is alarming, with an estimated 4,000 ha per year of forest been cleared primarily for agriculture. The loss of indigenous forest has diverse impacts on the cultural, natural resource ecosystems and endemic species. Deforestation also has notable severe impacts on water catchment areas, soil stability and sustainable livelihoods of rural communities. The main challenge in addressing forest clearance was dealing with the village communities, which controlled the remaining merchantable forest areas of the country.

44. Unsustainable agriculture is found on both main islands and the root causes are found primarily in the land tenure system and the marginal financial viability of agriculture. Eighty one (81%) percent of the landholdings are customarily owned and the uses of which cannot by law be brought under any significant control. The landholder naturally has the freedom by right and discretion to whatever type of uses and practices on his/her land. Almost all agricultural activities for sustenance are done on customary lands and by small farmers. Large tracts of customary lands are also leased to business locals for large scale commercial farms either livestock or crops (or mix). Lack of collateral security for customary lands leaves little incentive to invest in sustainable practices, especially major investments such as terracing and soil rehabilitation through structural mitigation of upland areas and steep lands. Socio-economic factors are also identified as having consequently inhibited the sustainable management of land in Samoa

45. Many of the root causes of land degradation were identified during a problem analysis exercise undertaken during a national NCSA stocktaking workshop held 21-23 September 2005. It was found that traditional methods of agriculture are highlighted as the key to sustainable agriculture over mechanical means and are therefore greatly encouraged. Annex H as attached provides detailed findings of the UNCCD technical working group discussions with regards to limited capacity as to the root causes of land degradation.

46. Natural factors are also largely involved in exacerbating the problem of land degradation. Climate variations in the form of constant changes in prevailing climatic conditions such as increased temperature and chronic rainfall deficit and droughts as well as to a minor extent key invasive species have all the same added severity to land degradation. Often this leads to the loss of soil fertility and the subsequent limits to land productivity. Long droughts make the land more susceptible to incidents of bush fires, which often destroyed forest areas particularly in Savai’i. Also increased frequency of intense weather incidents (e.g. cyclones, tropical storms, and intense rainfall) have caused erosion of coastal and flood prone areas throughout the country.


Vulnerability to Climate Change and Variability Factors47. The islands can be extremely defenseless against the devastating onset of natural disasters, including

cyclones, tidal waves, sea level rise and volcanic eruptions. Generating huge waves, torrential rains, and winds of up to 200km an hour, a big cyclone can wipe out an entire ecosystem in a few hours. The results of cyclone from the aftermath assessments show that many native trees underwent massive defoliation by strong winds, a significant number of forest trees uprooted and many forest birds have declined in number to the extent that some bird species have decimated.

48. The Agricultural and Forestry sectors are especially vulnerable to climate variability factors. Agriculture in Samoa had been subjected to seasonal climate variation that had been so unpredictable. Experience from the past decades, the key noticeable climate hazards that would impose greater impact on Samoa’s agricultural development are floods, drought, pest and diseases and tropical cyclones. There is little doubt that drought and tropical cyclones have had the largest impact at the grassroots level as evidenced by the reduced supply in local markets of the main produce during drought, and an overall shortage caused by widespread indiscriminant cyclone damages. Whereas cyclones often occur during the wet season, drought conditions generally come about during the dry season of the year, May to October, with the normally drier areas of the northwest of coasts of Savaii and Upolu moving to a heightened state of vulnerability at the onset of an event.

49. The Forest sector on the other hand also experience significant vulnerability to climate factors. Being that forests are natural regulators of amounts of carbon-dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere and acts as sinks as is they function to absorb CO2 from the air, a complete sweep of a forest ecosystem can be considered a great loss to reduction of emissions at the local scale and/or overall global warming. Droughts are also phenomenal in their role primarily as forest extinguishers by incidents of fire spread. The droughts in 1993 and 1998 brought extreme dryness to the already dry parts of the country, west region of Savaii and forest fires at the time in Asau, Savaii in both years. The recent forest fire of 2000 in Aopo Savaii cleared an area exceeding 100sq.km (MNRE 2003).

Barriers to SLM50. There are numerous barriers documented and revealed through lessons learnt from previous

environmental programmes; most common is the lack of existing or up-to-date information on the sectors mentioned to enable better decision making on an integrated approach towards sustainable land management and the management of natural resources that takes into account a cross-sectoral approach to all environmental thematic areas highlighted thus in the Barbados Programme of Action (BPoA) for Samoa. Information needs are mainly to fill in the gaps that have become evidence in Samoa’s progress on implementation of environmental programmes; such information ranging from surveys, assessment of issues affecting each sectors, management plans, geographic information system (GIS) mapping and digitizing all land use patterns and areas of Samoa, soil and geology information, updated information with land tenure transformation, scientific research studies on climate variability in Samoa, database information on land and marine resources, and information gathered from community on best practices that they have adopted in addressing environmental concerns. All information gathered, collated and updated needs to be synthesized, in such a way that priority areas can be determined and appropriate approaches are taken to implement the Programme of Action for the next 10 years in Samoa. Annex D encapsulates the information needs for each thematic area and the necessary actions that Samoa should take; the intention therefore is to drive the SLM project to address these relevant needs and gaps.

51. Hence promoting SLM in Samoa as a vehicle to address land degradation will undoubtedly encounter a number of these barriers that will influence the progress and direction of the project. In addition, the sharing of a common resource(s) often gives rise to disputes among its users. For example, landowners of customary lands and that of private freehold lands within a watershed area may challenge the use of resources among themselves at the expense of sustainable management of these resources.


52. As customary lands are often difficult to monitor and manage by Government, it has been extremely problematic to regulate land-use practices as landowners often work independent from Government and thus any proper guidelines for SLM.

53. However, Samoa has come a long way with its implementation of a number of enabling activities funded through the GEF to meet some of its obligations under the UNCBD, UNFCCC and recently with the UNCCD. GEF’s involvement would significantly assist Samoa to address some of the pertinent and newly emerging land degradation issues within the context of the UNCCD and most importantly to strengthen the linkages between land degradation as a cross cutting issue and other key thematic areas relating to climate change, biodiversity and others.

Part II: Project Strategy – Project Description

54. Samoa fully endorsed the LDC-SIDs Portfolio project as illustrated in a letter of support dated 7 th May 2004. In this regard, Samoa is eligible to access funds under the Portfolio project to implement an MSP on Capacity Building for Sustainable Land Management (SLM). This MSP will amongst other things, enable Samoa to address SLM issues in an integrated manner and to support efforts to mainstream SLM into national development planning processes.

V. Baseline course of action55. The Baseline is a description of the programs, initiatives and projects that are related to sustainable land

use and that would take place even in the absence of this proposed, GEF-funded capacity building project for sustainable land management (SLM). After the Baseline is presented, it is then analyzed to identify gaps and capacity building needs in relation to what is needed to overcome the root causes of land degradation. Baseline activities are grouped here under the headings of mainstreaming, human resource capacity building, knowledge management and preparation of the UNCCD National Action Plan (NAP)

56. Work on the NAP began in mid-2004 with the appointment of the NAP Task team sourced mainly from technical members of the UNCCD NSC. The task team commenced preparatory stages with data collection from all sectors and a series of meetings were held to discuss, synthesize the information collected and to spearhead the process of formulation. The task team is to report back to the UNCCD NSC with progress of the NAP development. A workshop with key stakeholders was held in late 2004 to consult the NAP draft mainly on strategies and actions proposed to be undertaken as well as to cage in as much information as possible. Consultation of the NAP through this workshop was possible through integration into the NCSA process which funded it. Delays in the transfer of funds from UNCCD Secretariat and the GM to complete the formulation process have consistently stalled further progress with its development. This has led to current changes in funding arrangement of the NAP which is now made possible through co-financing from UNDP

57. SLM issues are addressed in the First National Report to UNCCD which has detailed information on land use patterns in Samoa. The report provides an analysis of land use trends and being the initial effort to record officially a baseline data on land use and the general biophysical characteristics of the environment. It can also be taken as an initial attempt by Samoa to address and promote SLM issues and significance as a major tool for implementing the baseline actions in the NAP to combating land degradation problems.

58. MNREM (through SOPAC) has conducted a few training courses and awareness raising programs on GIS and remote sensing for relevant stakeholders. The skills and knowledge acquired from these trainings with additional training specific to addressing land degradation is expected to complement efforts to promote SLM. The EU has funded a regional program that is being implemented through the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) called the Development of Sustainable Agriculture in the


Pacific (DSAP) and the MAF through the Crops Division is participating in the implementation of this programme known also as the Future Farmers project focusing on promoting organic farming.

59. Another SLM related project under preparatory phase by the PUMA Division of the MWTI is the design and formulation of a sustainable land management plan for Vaitele are, which is a newly settled residential area as well as the only significant designated industrial zone for the country. This sustainable management plan is intended as a land use planning tool for the newly settled residential area and established zone for construction and manufacturing industries with intention for expansion of the plan in the near future.

60. The NAPA and NBSAP were formulated as part of strategy action plans under the CC and CBD respectively and have identified inter-linkages to UNCCD-NAP. Both have adopted integrated approach through synergies and to encourage collaborative efforts of the three conventions. The NSC for Climate Change also prepared a synthesis report, which highlighted Samoa’s main areas of vulnerability and greatest needs for adaptations. Samoa is quite susceptible to global warming.

VI. Capacity and Mainstreaming Needs for SLM

61. The NCSA produced a Stocktaking Report in which identifies capacity needs and gaps of the three Conventions (UNCBD, UNFCCC and UNCCD) of which also are GEF focal areas. This report was consulted in the NCSA Stakeholder workshop conducted in September 2005 to validate the information by the three respective working (Taskforce) groups specific to each Convention. Analysis of root causes for the lack of capacity to address land degradation are presented in the problem tree analysis matrix (refer Table 10 in Annex E) under various thematic areas. Throughout the workshop a number of crosscutting issues had surfaced and were discussed in detail. These crosscutting issues are further illustrated in the list in Table 11 Annex E categorized under individual, institutional and systemic levels.

62. A number of community-based projects focusing on environmental protection of resources or having conservation significance have instigated capacity development of communities as well as stimulating tremendous awareness and understanding through trainings and demonstration pilot projects. Use of the media for awareness raisings has largely contributed to impartation of knowledge and skills and has quite well reached all levels of Samoan society. However SLM is a recent emergence and greater need lies in building the capacities of key stakeholders, landowners and farmers in particular; building appreciation and understanding of same through coherent effort and shall be a community-driven process.

63. While SLM issues have here and there been streamlined into some existing national plans, policies and programmes but there still needs to be a definitive platform through which mainstreaming specific to SLM stands alone in order to drive the SLM process for recognition at the national level towards effectiveness with its implementation. This would mean finding its way through mainstreaming first and foremost into existing legal and policy frameworks towards protection, conservation and sustainability of land and the environment with regards in particular on the sustainable management of its natural resources. There is a need for the project to integrate gender issues as part of its mainstreaming process and to be in line with international and national gender related policies.

64. The MSP project will therefore endeavor to link strongly with Samoa’s centralized government agency, the Ministry of Finance, inorder to mainstream SLM into the national planning and strategy framework. At the completion of the MSP, SLM will be incorporated into Samoa’s leading planning document, Samoa’s Development Strategy which will clearly outline strategic goals and policies for integrating SLM into key sectors such as education, agriculture, health, fisheries, tourism development, energy, community development initiatives. To achieve this, the MSP will pilot demonstration projects to showcase the benefits of SLM practice in communities. The intention is for communities to witness and experience


these benefits and will allow them to drive advocacy campaign for integrating SLM at the national level. To support this initiative, the MSP will commission a legislative review (refer to Annex F outcome 3) to strengthen the inclusion of SLM principles and actions into relevant statutes. This will set the platform for establishing a transparent mechanism within Government to manage SLM in Samoa, in particular defining a clearing house mechanism for disseminating SLM information and data that will support better planning at the national and community level. At the same token, the MSP will setup monitoring and evaluation systems to supervise actions in the agricultural, forestry and watershed sectors and their use of SLM practices.

VII. Project rationale and objective

65. The project will contribute towards the achievement of the following long-term aspirations towards its success; Long-term Goal: That the project is contributing to the mitigation of land degradation and

promotion of ecosystem integrity and stability, with enhanced ecological functions and services through capacity development and mainstreaming of sustainable land management.

Overall Objective: To strengthen the enabling environment for sustainable land management while ensuring broad-based political and participatory support for the process, in four key areas.

66. The project will build capacity for sustainable land management in Samoa. The target beneficiaries for the project include community groups (women, youth/young farmers), landowners, government agencies and NGOs. The project outcomes are stated as follows; Completion of UNCCD National Action Plan (NAP) through Co-financing Capacities developed for Sustainable Land management Mainstreaming of Sustainable Land Management Mobilization of Medium Term Investment Plan and its Resources

67. This project is part of the UNDP/GEF LDC and SIDS Targeted Portfolio Approach for Capacity Development and Mainstreaming of Sustainable Land Management. This project addresses all three of the outcomes under Immediate Objective 1 of this umbrella project: Cost-effective and timely delivery of GEF resources to target countries – Hopefully Samoa will be

one of the first countries in the Pacific Region to be funded under the Portfolio Approach. Individual and institutional capacities for SLM will be enhanced – a large part of this project is

directed towards these types of capacity building. Systemic capacity building and mainstreaming of SLM principles – this project also addresses

policy development and mainstreaming of SLM.

68. The principal direct global benefit is the enhanced capacity for ecologically sustainable land management in Samoa which is expected to have national transboundary effects whereas indirect global benefits include; Coordination of SLM at the national, regional, sub-regional and international levels all have one

common goal of a clean and healthy global society through individual SLM actions at in-country local levels.

Cross-sectoral integration of sustainable land management into plans, policies, strategies, programs, funding mechanisms and multi-sectoral stakeholder groups.

Maintenance of the structure and functions of soil and ecological systems Enhanced biodiversity conservation due to reduced deforestation and reduced sedimentation in

lagoons and improved health of coral reefs and; Enhanced carbon sequestration through improved capacities for sustainable forest management,

sustainable agriculture and reduced deforestation.


69. The principal national benefits are the enhanced capacities for economic and financial sustainability of the agricultural, pasture and forest use systems of the country. Indirect national benefits include the following:Enhanced productivity and livestock production from improved pastures.Enhanced crop production through improved soil fertility maintenance;Identification of new commercial uses of forest plantations;Identification of alternative species for reforestation purposes;SLM contributes to the health of lagoons and coral reefs that are in turn critical for the tourism

industry, for fishing and, in the mid to long-term, for avoiding catastrophic beach erosion.Greater empowerment and self-sufficiency of resource users and stakeholders to participate directly in

the conception, monitoring and adaptive management of lands and resources.Improved technical human capacity and early warning systems for droughtReduced risks of natural disasters.

Future Scenario without GEF Fundings70. Sustainable land management through ecosystem approach by GEF OP 15 will undeniably address most

of the identified land management threats in Samoa. Although there are baseline activities that addresses sustainable land management, without GEF’s support and commitment to mobilize financial resources to complement the implementation of the baseline activities, Samoa would not be in a position to fully address the threats of unsustainable land management and practices and mainstream SLM policies into the national development framework.

VIII. Expected project outcomes, and outputs

71. The project will have four outcomes and thirteen outputs, as detailed below, excluding project management costs which provided for in the Project Budget presented in this Proposal. Details of the Project Outcomes and Outputs are provided in the Logical Framework Matrix (Annex F).

OUTCOME 1 : COMPLETION OF THE NATIONAL ACTION PLAN.Output 1.1 Preparation of NAPOutput 1.2 Adoption of NAPThe Total Cost of this Outcome is $US8,000.00 and is fully funded through Co financing from UNDP.

OUTCOME 2 : CAPACITIES DEVELOPED FOR SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENTOutput 2.1 Enhanced capacities for the effective administration and sustainable management of

land and land-based resources.Output 2.2 Strengthened capacity for sustainable agriculture particularly in drought prone areasOutput 2.3 Enhanced capacities for the rehabilitation of degraded coastal areas.Output 2.4 Enhanced governance to promote proper land use of degraded watershed areas.Output 2.5 Assessments of appropriate uses of landOutput 2.6 Enhanced SLM through improvements of individual, systemic and institutional

capacities including relevant national plans and policies.Output 2.7 Development of monitoring and evaluation systems on the effectiveness of the

implementation phases of the SLM ProjectThe Total Cost of Outcome 2 amounts to $US749,000.00. Co-financing sourced from the GoS totals $US290,000.00, FAO-MAF $US70,000.00, MNREM of $US40,000.00 and UNDP $US23,000.00.. GEF funds allocation for this Output comes to the total of $US326,000.00.

OUTCOME 3 : MAINSTREAMING OF SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENTOutput 3.1 Mainstreaming of SLMOutput 3.2 Sharing of knowledge on SLM


The Total Cost of Outcome 3 is $US36,000.00. GEF will fund $US26,000.00 and GoS Co-financing at the value of $US10,000.00. Output 3.1 to be co-financed by the Govt. and Output 3.2 by GEF.

OUTCOME 4 : MEDIUM TERM INVESTMENT PLANOutput 4.1 Development of a Medium Term Investment Plan with associated resource

mobilization plan that incorporates SLM.Total Cost of this Outcome is $US9,000.00 to be solely financed by GEF.

72. Key assumptions underpinning project design include the following; The various institutions will be willing to collaborate on integrated approaches to sustainable land

management and on sharing access to land information systems; Government authorities will remain committed to reviewing and strengthening SLM issues into

government legislation, policy and national plans; Government and the key institutions involved will commit the resources needed to maintaining beyond

the life of the project, That the SLM monitoring and evaluation systems are developed with project assistance; Government commits the resources necessary for digitizing the land survey/ownership records, as well

as would require making the land information systems the most useful for SLM monitoring and planning.

That all stakeholders remain committed to SLM principles and practices.

73. Climate conditions such as high temperatures, severe deficit with rainfall and droughts contribute to soil infertility and land degradation of drought prone areas, particularly on North/South West of the two main islands Savaii and Upolu. These areas have been supported by the CEO for the Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment and Meteorology for the SLM project to provide technical assistance in-order to improve agricultural practices in highly degraded lands. Consequently, the project will also address sustainable livelihood issues and food security among land vulnerable to extreme drought, heat and erosion. The two islands will provide pilot studies for demonstrating the impacts and benefits of sustainable land management practices among communities that are vulnerable to climate change and anthropogenic hazards.

IX. Global and Local Benefits

74. Samoa is situated in the heart of the Polynesian Critical Ecosystem Hotspot and therefore, has unique marine and terrestrial biodiversity of global significance. Samoa’s biodiversity harbors some of the animal and plant species as well as ecosystems of greater regional and global conservation value on earth. Samoa’s isolation from other land masses means that many of the species found here occur nowhere else in the world of which a significant proportion are endemic (Government of Samoa, 2001 – NBSAP), and their conservation is of particular importance. Habitat and species loss associated with the demands of an increasing population with modern resources at their disposal, and the arrival of new species, have combined to give us the biodiversity of Samoa today. It remains a biodiversity as distinctive as the culture of its people, a key backbone of Samoa as a nation and at the heart of its sustainable future. Land area protected to maintain biodiversity of environmental resources is re-enforced by the creation of a policy environment and emphasis is placed upon the need to enhance biodiversity conservation by broadening activities through projects that capture the value and security of biodiversity. In this way, the idea of sustainable development is being complemented by sustainable conservation.

75. The replication of marine protected areas under the IUCN/World Bank project which demonstrates the concept of bio-regional planning is a step towards ensuring a good balance between conservation and development. Moreover, due to the potential danger of losing our heritage, there continues to be concentrated effort to ensure that Samoa sustains its wealth of biodiversity for socio-economic and ecological development. Policies and legislations have been developed and amended such as the


National Biodiversity Policy (NBP), National Deforestation Policy (NDP), National Land use Policy (NLP) and the National Heritage Policy (NHP). These attempts are driven by desires to accommodate the many transformations to Samoa’s environmental fabric attributing to tremendous land use changes and the inappropriate use of natural resources affecting sustainability of land productivity and the cultural significance of its landscape. Approval of these policies is anticipated before the end of 2005.

76. The MSP-SLM project in this context shall be seen as fostering cooperation at the local, sectoral and national as well as beyond, all aspiring to optimize beneficial gains through collaborative coordination and effective systems of land use monitoring and evaluation. Its utmost significance lies in reversing land management situations at the local level which notably are manifested through the loss of ecosystem integrity often directly linked to changes in how the land is managed at the community or higher level.

77. Unsustainable practices in the forms of intense cultivation of marginal lands such as steep slopes, higher elevations or in drought prone environments; persistent cultivation of certain crops or applying chemicals that lead to land degradation in the medium to long-term; cutting trees for firewood sale and household domestics; forest clearance for agricultural expansion; cultivations or grazing of land along rivers and streams to the extent that vegetation is reduced and soil erosion is common as seen to be drained out to coastal seas of Samoa during heavy rains. It is these key features of land management situations in Samoa that this project through implementation of its identified baseline activities wish to reverse at the local level to the benefits of communities, farmers and landowners to ensure long-term productivity of land through improved soil fertility and sustainable use of resources. At the same time, uniqueness and richness of ecological biodiversity is maintained and having not only national heritage significance but contributing also at the global scale through reduction of GHG emissions but moreover lessen the level of vulnerability to natural disasters induced by climate variations at all levels.

78. While poverty is far from endemic in Samoa, there is a growing number of vulnerable groups facing hardship which together with a paucity of opportunities, can lead to vulnerability to poverty and this situation is given emphasis in the current Strategy for the Development of Samoa (SDS) which has as its theme the creation of opportunities for all. The poverty situation is further indicated by UNDP Standard Index that Samoa is under the Poverty Line and evidenced by a survey that shows low income standard of living for most Samoans. It indicated that one in three households for Samoa could not properly meet their basic needs and were poor relative to the estimated Basic Need Poverty Line (BPoA 2002). The project most certainly works at alleviating some of the poverty stricken elements of our society through promoting sustainable agriculture on both fertile and drought-prone areas with a subsequent intention for improved land productivity and sustainability of water resources of catchment areas. Thus SLM project will most definitely add value to economic performance of the country and assist policy decision-makers at the higher level as well as political on sustainable land matters.

X. Linkages to IA activities and programs79. Under the framework of the Country Program (CP) of 2005-2007, UNDP’s support for Samoa in the

energy and environment sector focuses mainly on the provision of upstream policy advice, technical backstopping, partnership building and resource mobilization for the formulation and implementation of a number of strategic demonstration initiatives. The UNDP program in Samoa emphasizes meeting the MDG targets and the protection of the environment. In addition, the UNDP is actively supporting the UN process for the 10-year review of the Barbados Plan of Action regarding sustainable human development of Small Island Developing States (SIDS). Samoa participated in the Barbados +10 SIDS Conference which was hosted by the Government of Mauritius in January 2005. In this context, coordination and synergies shall be fostered with other initiatives, which are funded, by the GEF Implementing Agencies and other key donors such as the European Union (EU), Australian and New Zealand Aid. Emphasis


shall be laid upon crosscutting initiatives as well as those that involve capacity assessment and capacity building activities.

80. UNDP is co-financing through cash contribution the completion of the UNCCD-NAP formulation and partly the SLM baseline activity implementation, each component at worth of $US8,000.00 and $US40,000.00 respectively, together comes in total of $US48,000.00. The co-financing of the latter component is sourced from the UNDP-CP for Samoa which is reflective of UNDP’s commitment and unconditional support to seeing through to the end the successful implementation of this project. The commitment from UNDP as Co-financier has helped added value to the project especially in view of its direct complementary link to UNDP-CP goals and objectives.

81. With the GEF support Samoa will be able to strengthen its institutional and human resource capacity to improve sustainable land management planning and implementation. It will also enable Samoa to strengthen policy, regulatory and economic incentive frameworks to facilitate wider adoption of sustainable land management practices across sectors. Therefore, MSP-SLM project for Samoa will most certainly contribute to achieving UNDP-CP goals and objectives at the country level which are inspired by environmental threats and which similarly aspire to complement achievement of Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) such as in poverty reduction, access to benefit sharing and accessibility to improved quality of life for the less fortunate through improved infrastructure, sustainable livelihoods and health sanitation at the household level. The project is encouraged by a holistic approach therefore adopts similar approaches to UND-CP which is sectoral and community-driven in order to foster greater appreciation, ownership and to lead by example particularly at the community level. This particular aspiration would be enabled through intense levels of pilot demonstration, educational awareness and understanding of a sustainable environment by key stakeholders within the framework of sustainable development which accounts for economic growth and social benefits while ensuring continuity with ecological sustainability of environment integrity at all levels of society. It is the latter component of sustainable development drive to which SLM project will certainly comes in handy and very crucial in promoting and unconditional in its support if in the end tells a very successful story.

Synergies and Linkages to other relevant GEF projects.

82. Samoa, under the same CP framework, has implemented a number of enabling activities funded by GEF through UNDP as its IA to meet some of its obligations under the CBD, UNFCCC and recently with the UNCCD. GEF’s involvement would significantly assist Samoa to address some of the pertinent and newly emerging issues of land degradation within the context of the UNCCD and most importantly to strengthen the linkages between land degradation as a cross cutting issue and other key thematic issues relating to climate change, biodiversity and others. Samoa’s membership to a variety of other MEAs in particular the mentioned focal areas under GEF have been very useful for Samoa to access both financial and technical support for the implementation of various activities to achieve sustainable development and at the same time enhance the awareness of our people and the local communities of common concerns and issues and elicit appropriate responses.

83. A National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) was completed in 2001 and now serves as the guiding blueprint for the protection and conservation of our environment. The NBSAP was the culmination of extensive research and multi-sectoral consultative activities. The strategy outlines the state of Samoa’s biological resources and identifies actions to curb their degradation and achieve sustainable development. The National Project for the formulation of the National Biosafety Framework was initiated in 2001 and work is progressing towards finalizing the framework for the consideration of the National Coordination Committee (NCC) before Cabinet approval, hopefully before the end of 2004. The MSP SLM project ties in closely with the existing National Biodiversity Strategic Action Plan (NBSAP) as well as the newly formed National Invasive Alien Species Implementation Action Plan (NIASIAP) addressing “Theme 6 – Biosecurity” of the NBSAP.

84. The National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) formulated under obligation of the UNFCCC for Samoa has been the outcome of a collective efforts of the NAPA-Task team and it provides opportunities for synergies with other MEAs such as CBD and UNCCD for collaborative and integrated actions in


adaptation responses. It contains a nationally driven set of criteria for prioritization of adaptation actions in the national programme. By adopting an integrated approach, all the relevant stakeholders would be able to work under concerted effort to ensure that those whose livelihoods are most vulnerable to adverse impacts of climate change impart the urgency and immediacy of adaptation needs.

85. The National Capacity Needs Self Assessment (NCSA) Project funded by UNEP/GEF shall be complementary to the UNDP/GEF MSP on SLM. The NCSA provides a platform for synergies of the three mentioned conventions of which is CBD, CC and CCD especially in areas of cross-cutting issues and common goals and aspirations. NCSC’s focus on assessment of capacity needs and gaps of UNCCD is largely complementary to preliminary assessment and prioritization of capacity development of key stakeholders the roles of whom are quite crucial in achieving SLM objectives.

86. Synergies shall be fostered with the “UNDP/GEF Enabling Activities for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs): National Implementation Plan (NIP)”. This shall be particularly important on lands where the use of pesticides and dumping of municipal solid wastes have further exacerbated the degradation of soil. In connection with this, attention shall be paid to agricultural lands now used for intensive agricultural purposes.

87. Other in-country projects external to GEF-funded ones yet very useful in their complementary roles include a Medium Sized Project (MSP) for the conservation and monitoring of the upland and lowland forests of Savai’i which is believed to be the last remaining native forest areas in Samoa, is near completion. The Government of Australia and the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) have been helping Samoa in the conservation of mangrove areas, establishing pilot projects in the conservation of native forests in Savaii and Upolu, and the development and formulation of the National Invasive Species Strategy and Action Plan (ISAP), which was highly recommended by the NBSAP as a priority issue for Samoa. This document is now in its final stages of preparations and consultation, and should be ready before the end of 2004. This shall increase the likelihood of a synergetic and coherent formulation and implementation of sustainable land management activities within the context of a sub-national strategic policy framework.

88. The EU-funded project under formulation by the PUMA division of the Ministry of Works, Transport and Infrastructure (MWTI) will address proper land use by designing a proper sustainable management plan for the Vaitele industrial zone. The World Bank SIAMP project instigated developed CIM plans for the whole of Samoa to determine the level of their vulnerability to coastal hazards, mainly identifying and mapping projected erosion and flood-prone zones along the coasts of Samoa.

XI. Stakeholder Involvement Plan

89. The key Stakeholders identified in this project include government ministries, private sector groups, NGOs, civil society bodies and resource users. A detailed Stakeholder Involvement list for the UNCCD MSP SLM is provided in ANNEX G. with justification for inclusion of stakeholder and the expected role of the stakeholder in the project.

90. The Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment and Meteorology is the key implementing stakeholder and basically all of its divisions (Land Management, Forestry Service, Meteorology Services, Environment and Conservation and, Technical and Corporate Services) have mandates and responsibilities that are directly or indirectly useful to sustainable land management. The MNREM through the Division of Land Management (DLM) will be the lead Executing Agency for the project as is currently with the UNCCD as its lead coordination focal point. Likewise, due to its relevance and significant role as the watchdog for the allocation of land for various uses and responsible also for the full development of land-based resources, DLM as is most appropriate will house the SLM Project Management Unit (PMU) attached in like manner to the Land Development (LD) section of the mentioned division.


91. The LD of the DLM would be serving as its counterpart for coordination and implementation of the project in order to ensure overall success of its operational phase and continuity after life of the project. The DLM of the MNREM through its LD section has a major impact on land use sustainability through the granting of land conversion permits which are dictated by the employment of various environment developmental tools such as PEA, EIA, land use planning and sustainable management plans. The LD section of the named division in particular plays a crucial and significant role, which mostly geared towards sustainable development of land via the use of the mentioned tools to assess and evaluate potential impacts of a project or use thereof of a land prior to a grant of approval or rejection to the effect of ensuring sustainability of land resources and/or land productivity and the like. Therefore officers of the LD section requires building their capacity in these areas which in this respect will certainly receive trainings in the various respective thematic areas of SLM such as application of SLM guidelines and criteria to the permitting process and state land leasing systems as well as in the integration of SLM clauses into national policies, action plans and programmes. All other sections of DLM (Land Administration, Land Registry and Land Valuation) play complementary roles to this project.

92. The MNREM Division of Environment and Conservation (DEC) plays a crucial role in collaborating with the DLM in promoting the mainstreaming of SLM at the higher and community level plans and provide technical advice and expertise in SLM matters and issues. The Forestry division through its existing reafforestation programmes and management of watershed catchment areas plays a crucial role in providing technical advice, trainings and demonstrations in promoting SLM techniques to forest resource users. The Meteorology division in its supporting role in early warning forecasts of weather events and early prediction of pro-longed drought periods due to unusual incidents such as El-Nino events. The MNREM Technical division through its Mapping section will have an important role in the project in providing satellite imagery for mapping and monitoring and in providing assistance to resource managers, NGOs, other Ministries and regulatory bodies who use remote sensing imagery. Their officers will also be resource persons for training courses on GIS and remote sensing especially in relation to SLM. The role of the Land Survey section of the same Division is envisaged as having a complementary role to the project as well. The Corporate Services Division in their complementary role of administrative functions for the project and in financial mobilization of the project resources as well as through the Capacity Building section for awareness purposes and dissemination of information.

93. The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries plays a major role in the achievement of various outputs of the Project through its Crops Division. It is already working on aspects of sustainable agriculture for crops in conjunction with the EU funded regional project DSAP being implemented by SPC. Some of its senior officers will act as resource persons. The agricultural extension package will be modified to incorporate SLM best practices and extension officers will receive additional training for this.

94. The MWTI-PUMA division constitutes another complementary arm of the project in its role as urban planner for land use and development purposes. The PUMA regulates the use of land through development consents prior to establishment or implementation of a development on land.

95. The University of the South Pacific, School of Agriculture (USP/SOA) and the National University of Samoa (NUS) through its Faculties of Agriculture and Biological Sciences will have a central role in capacity building for SLM. The Faculty of Agriculture will provide training, research and consultancies based on required inputs, as specified in project activities in Sustainable Agriculture and also provide technical expertise in soil analysis activities related specifically to the project. Resource persons will be contracted as necessary. Both Faculties are already running courses related to SLM, and will be actively involved in SLM knowledge sharing through training workshops, short courses, preparation of modules, preparation of booklets, flyers etc.

96. The Ministry of Education Sports and Culture Samoa (MESC) and its teacher education programs will work in close association with the Universities and MNREM to include SLM components into their


curricula for training of primary and secondary school teachers. The MOE will help in awareness raising on SLM in its various environmental workshops.

97. The various civil society groups in Samoa (e.g. Samoa Organic Farmers Association [SOFA], Samoa Umbrella Non-government Organization [SUNGO], Women in Business Development Inc. [WIBD], Siosiomaga Society [Environmental NGO], Bee Keepers Association, Samoa Farmers Association, Young Farmers and youth groups etc.) will be integrated into the project as beneficiaries and also used as resource persons where appropriate. They will be actively involved in the drafting of the MSP, NAP, NCSA, etc. to incorporate SLM related issues specific to their respective disciplines. They will contribute to traditional knowledge sharing in reviews, workshops and meetings. They will have part ownership of all the new policies, plans, and regulations relating to SLM in Samoa. It is envisaged that the members of those civil societies will become good stewards for land in Samoa. These same civil society stakeholders will be closely associated with the other funded SLM related projects mentioned earlier.

98. The MNREM Samoa is responsible for the creation of synergies between various ministries, institutions and civil society groups and will tap specialist resources people from these institutions for the various training courses and workshops. It will also identify and integrate traditional knowledge of SLM into SLM guidelines. It will identify international and national specialists in the various areas of SLM (e.g. management of extensive pastures, forest lands, information system development, etc). Some University environmental economists may be asked to carry out economic and financial analyses of the different land use systems in Samoa and provide training to MNREM staff and they will in turn be able to impart their knowledge to other stakeholders, students, etc.

99. The Ministry of Finance plays a key role in channeling the funds from UNDP-GEF and responsible for review of audited accounts of the Project. The MoF on the behalf of the GoF chairs the Cabinet Development Committee (CDC) for high-level endorsement of Project Proposal and in committing government in-kind resources as co-financing for this project. Therefore responsible for both signatory and submission of ‘Letter of Commitment’ to MNREM with the stated value of the GoS co-financing contribution at $US300,000.00. Other stakeholders who will form part of the Project include the Samoa Water Authority [SWA], the Institute for Research Extension and Training in Agriculture located at USP/SOA. These institutions already have some experience in SLM, but this will be further strengthened through their participation in the activities related to this Project.

100. The Ministry of Women, Community and Social Development plays a vital role in all activities engaging stakeholders in the community and in particular, women and youth groups. The Talavou Project under the Youth Division of this Ministry has also been identified to work in collaboration with this SLM Project mainly in the execution of programs and targeting youth in communities. Similarly, the Women Division will also assist in the implementation of relevant activities requiring the involvement of women.

101. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trades (MFAT) is the national focal point of all MEAs including the UNCCD and so would be for the this project being the implementing mechanism of some of the baseline activities of the UNCCD-NAP. The MFAT is responsible mainly for mediating external communications for the project between the Implementing Agency (IA) of which is UNDP-GEF and the Execution Agency, MNREM, in accordance with solicited International Codes of communication for MEAs and UNDP standard procedures. It ensures that transparency and accountability for the overall implementation of the project is maintained at the highest level.


FINANCIAL PLAN OF THE MSP-SLM PROJECT

XII. Streamlined Incremental Costs Assessment

102. Global Environmental Objectives: The Global Environmental Objectives of the project are to build capacity for sustainable use of the country’s land and resources. The project will secure GEF incremental funding to complement other financing sourced from the Gov Samoa, EU, Australian Aid, FAO and UNDP to undertake a program for mainstreaming SLM into national plans and strategies, for human resource development in key sectors, for developing knowledge management capacities for integrated SLM and for completing the NAP.

103. Systems Boundary: The project will develop a comprehensive range of interventions designed to build capacity for developing sustainable land management systems that address the root causes of land degradation and that overcome barriers to SLM. The project will address identified problems of unsustainable agriculture, deforestation and land degradation caused by municipal waste pollution and invasive species. It will not deal with land degradation associated with beach erosion or with urban developments.

Baseline activities that qualify as Co-financing:104. The costing of activities has been spread over the period 2006-2009 as detailed in Table 14 Annex H and

accounted for in PART II under section (viii) Expected Project Outcomes and Outputs. The project will ensure the integration of SLM best practices and lessons learned into relevant NEMS policies and existing Action Programmes at the national level. This also means revising the existing legislative framework of MNREM to incorporate SLM concerns.

105. Another critical baseline activity is the establishment of a land information system (LIS) for Samoa. The digitizing of all survey boundaries, and of land parcels by ownership is a critical input for making the different LIS usable for SLM planning and monitoring. This is especially true of State-owned lands and the GoS will give priority to the digitizing of State lands including forestlands. Field verification of digital data will be emphasized as there are significant problems with existing data that has not been field checked. This will cover the maintenance and updating of GISCANE and the broadening of its applications in spatial data analysis. GEF funding will be and from other Co-financiers will be used to cover maintenance and to establish protocols for LIS information sharing, conditions of access and the use of LIS for SLM monitoring, use of LIS in land use planning and zoning.

106. One of the greatest global benefits on the proposed GEF investments is the highly integrated approach to SLM capacity development of this project. Aspects of particular importance for this multi-sectoral integrated approach include; a) the emphasis on the development of land information systems with agreed protocols for data access and sharing; b) the emphasis on participatory, multi-stakeholder approaches; c) emphasis on mainstreaming SLM and on integrating best practices and lessons learned into land use planning; d) the use of environmental economics for analyzing and prioritizing SLM options and; e) all the emphasis on SLM knowledge generation and knowledge sharing.

XIII. Project Budget

107. A budget summary by outcome and by source of financing is presented below in Tables 12 & 13. A full, detailed project activity budget is presented in Table 14 Annex H. Note that the project management costs are listed under the same Annex with GEF funding $US114, 000.00 and $US87,000.00 funded through co-financing by UNDP ($US17,000.00) and MNREM ($US70,000.00). All activities in Outcome 2 on Capacity Development for SLM are co-financed by UNDP, MNREM, FAO, GoS/EU and GoS/WB respectively as demonstrated in the matrix under the mentioned annex.


Table 15 Annex H shows the allocation of the uses of GEF and Co-financing funds per Output activity. Table 16 of same annex is a housekeeping statement of how funds from GEF and Co-financiers are allocated for spent per output. It clearly individualizes the amounts for spending from under each Co-financier’s contribution either cash or in-kind. Table 17 keeps a record of all individual donor-funded projects of which their relevance is most crucial in complementing the achievement of goals and objectives of the SLM project, together with co-financing breakdown by component.

Co-Financing Letters of Commitment

108. The following letters of commitment are attached in Annex I for further reference:

(a) Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF); Source: Future Farmers Project – Technical

Assistance, Status: submitted as attached. Value: $US20,000.00 Source: Future Farmers

Project-Capacity Building & Technical Support, Status: submitted as attached. Value:

$US50,000.00

(b) Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment and Meteorology (MNREM); Source: In-Kind

contribution and Technical Assistance, Status: submitted as attached. Value:

$US110,000.00.

(c) Government of Samoa (GoS); Source: EU-Water Resource Division & WB-CIMS Plans –

Capacity Building and Technical Support Services, Status: submitted as attached. Value:

$US300,000.00

(d) UNDP; Source: UNCCD NAP & UNDP Country Programme for Samoa, Status: submitted

as attached Value: $US48,000.00


Table 12: Project Budget Summary by Outcome

OUTCOME COMPONENT GEF

CO-FINANCE

TOTALGovt. Co-finance Other Co-finance

Adaptive Management and Lessons Learnt 114,000.00 0.00 87,000.00 201,000.00

Completion of NAP 0.00 0.00 8,000.00 8,000.00

Capacities Developed for SLM 326,000.00 290,000.00 133,000.00 749,000.00

Mainstreaming of SLM 26,000.00 10,000.00 0.00 36,000.00

SLM Medium Term Investment Plan 9,000.00 0.00 0.00 9,000.00

GRAND TOTAL 475,000.00 300,000.00 228,000.00 $1,003,000.00


Table 13 : Project Budget Summary by Output

OUTCOME: GEFCo-Finance (US$)

TotalGovt. Co-Finance Other Co-

Finance

1 Completion of NAP

Output 1.1 Preparation of NAP 0.00 0.00 5,500.00 5,500.00

Output 1.2 NAP Adoption 0.00 0.00 2,500.00 2,500.00Total Outcome 1: 0.00 0.00 8,000.00 8,000.00

2 Capacities developed for Sustainable Land Management

Output 2.1 Enhanced capacities for the effective administration and sustainable management of lands and land-based resources

35,000.00 0.00 15,000.00 50,000.00

Output 2.2 Strengthened capacity for sustainable agriculture particularly in drought prone areas

73,000.00 0.00 70,000.00 143,000.00

Output 2.3 Enhanced capacities for the rehabilitation of degraded coastal areas

80,000.00 140,000.00 0.00 220,000.00

Output 2.4 Enhanced governance to promote proper land use of degraded watershed areas

60,000.00 150,000.00 20,000.00 230,000.00

Output 2.5 Assessments of the appropriate uses of land 53,000.00 0.00 23,000.00 76,000.00Output 2.6 Enhanced SLM through improvements of individual, systemic

and institutional capacities including relevant national plans and policies

15,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 20,000.00

Output 2.7 Development of monitoring and evaluation systems on the effectiveness of the implementation phase of the SLM Project

10,000.00 0.00 0.00 10,000.00

Total Outcome 2: 326,000.00 290,000.00 133,000.00 749,000.00

3 Mainstreaming of Sustainable Land Management

Output 3.1 Mainstreaming of SLM 0.00 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00

Output 3.2 Sharing of Knowledge on SLM 26,000.00 0.00 0.00 26,000.00

Total Outcome 3 26,000.00 10,000.00 0.00 36,000.00

4 Sustainable Land Management Medium Term Investment Plan

Output 4.1 Development of a Medium Term Investment Plan with associated resource mobilization plan that incorporates SLM

9,000.00 0.00 0.00 9,000.00

Total Outcome 4 9,000.00 0.00 0.00 9,000.00

5 Adaptive Management and Lessons Learnt

Output 5.1 Personnel Costs 46,000.00 0.00 40,000.00 86,000.00

Output 5.2 Office Equipment 13,000.00 0.00 24,000.00 37,000.00

Output 5.3 Travel Costs 27,000.00 0.00 13,000.00 40,000.00

Output 5.4 Committee Operational Costs 5,000.00 0.00 8,000.00 13,000.00

Output 5.5 Monitoring and Evaluation Costs 23,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 25,000.00

Total Outcome 5: 114,000.00 0.00 87,000.00 201,000.00

TOTAL MSP 475,000.00 300,000.00 228,000.00 1,003,000.00

GRAND TOTAL $475,000.00 $300,000.00 $228,000.00 $1,003,000.00


PART III: MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS AND IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS

X1V. Institutional framework and project implementation arrangementsGeneral Framework

109. The GEF implementation agency for the project will be the UNDP Country Office based in Apia Samoa. The project will be executed under UNDP National Execution (NEX) modality and procedures and in accordance to the appropriate GEF guidelines for SLM Medium Sized Projects.

Project Executive Group (PEG) 110. The PEG is the group responsible for making executive management decisions for a project when

guidance is required by the Project Manager, including approval of project revisions. Members of the PEG consists of the Executive role, which is held by Ministry of Finance, UNDP, Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment and Meteorology (MNREM), a representative from the beneficiaries.

Ministry of Finance 111. The MoF is the executing agency for this project being the designated government agency which

assumes primary accountability to UNDP and Government in ensuring that outcomes, outputs and activities are delivered in line with signed project document and following accepted rules and regulations. It endorses the project and its execution modality, ensures coherence with national policy and objectives through participation in the appraisal process, and participates in monitoring and evaluation. MoF is also responsible for the coordination of all the reporting requirements (Financial Reports, Quarterly Progress Reports, and Audit Reports) and their subsequent submission to UNDP.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT)

112. MFAT is the GEF National Operational Focal Point for Samoa . Its role is to endorse all GEF funded projects and to ensure that the GEF requirements are duly met and adhered to.

Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment and Meteorology

113. (MNREM)MNREM is the national implementing agency for this project. Its role is to coordinate the implementation of the project and ensures the timely delivery of all outcomes and outputs. MNREM is responsible for providing administrative and technical support as part of the Ministry’s contribution to the project1.

XV. Project Implementation Arrangements

MNREM Project Management Unit and Relevant Responsible Committees114. The UNCCD coordinating unit has already been established under the Land Development section of the

Division of Land Management of MNREM. The SLM project management will be established as an entity of the Land Development Section. This means that the UNCCD Coordinating Unit2 will provide technical and administrative support to the SLM project.

SLM Project Manager115. A Project Manager will be recruited to manage the SLM project in accordance with UNDP GEF

requirements and procedures. The recruitment of the Project Manager shall be in accordance with UNDP recruitment guidelines through a competitive and transparent process. The PEG will make the final decision of the most appropriate candidate for Project Manager. The PM (TORs attached as Annex J)

1 Refer to Letter of Co-Finance2 UNCCD Coordinating Unit comprises of the Assistant CEO for Land Management and Land Development Staff.


shall be a national professional and highly-skilled and academically qualified based on background credentials. He/she shall be highly equipped with technical know-how for the purpose of fostering policy advice across implementing sectors and at the higher level on sustainable land management needs and demands. The PM will report to the PEG on all substantive matters pertaining to the project. For daily operations of the project, the PM is expected to report to the CEO through the ACEO of Land Management and will work under the direction of the ACEO of the DLM, MNREM. He/she will be responsible for the application of all UNDP technical and administrative functions and accountable for financial reporting and procedures for the use of UNDP/GEF funds.

Technical Advisory Group (TAG)116. The existing UNCCD technical advisory group will provide technical support to the project (refer TOR

Annex J). It will be composed of individuals from MNREM and other government ministries3 and civil society who are selected on the basis of their competence in their respective fields. This group shall meet at least once a month to ensure progress and provide policy and technical advice for the implementation of the project. To ensure close collaboration and coherence within the SLM project, the Co-financiers and key collaborators UNDP will sit on the Project Executive Group for the entire project. Annex J further provides details of the core responsibilities and functions of each designated management committee to the project.

UNDP117. In addition to the NEX Guidelines (Annex K), the project is required to comply with the following

agreed policies;

Travel : All travel must be inline with the project objectives and are duly prescribed in the project document and within the approved allocated budget. Reference is made to the Government’s circular regarding project travel and expenses (annex).

Support Costs : GEF guidelines only allows up to 25 percent of the total amount for administrative support.

Committee Meeting Costs : All meeting costs should not exceed 3 percent of the total administrative costs.

In line with UN policy, no sitting allowances are allowed for all public servants except for representatives from NGO and civil society.

Direct Services118. UNDP may provide direct services to the project when the need arises. Given that the project is based on

the NEX modality, any requests for direct payments, procurement of goods and services to be conducted by UNDP on behalf of the project, the costs associated with these direct services will be charged to the project according to the UN Universal Price List.

Audit Requirements119. The project will be audited on a yearly basis for financial year January to December as per Gov. Samoa

and NEX procedures and Global Environment Facility requirements. The project is required to undertake an audit if the annual project expenditure is US$100,000 and above. The Government will provide the Resident Representative with certified periodic financial statements, and with an annual audit of the financial statements relating to the status of UNDP (including GEF) funds according to the established procedures set out in the Programming and Finance manuals. The Audit will be conducted by the legally recognized auditor of the Government, or by a commercial auditor engaged by the Government. Refer to Annex L for Audit Clause.

3 Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Samoa Land Corporation, National University of Samoa, University of the South Pacific, Planning and Urban Management Agency, Ministry of Finance (Planning Division), Ministry of Women, Community, and Social Development , Samoa’s Umbrella Non Government Organization, Women in Business, Samoa Organic Farmer’s Association.


GEF LOGO120. In order to accord proper acknowledgement to GEF for providing a GEF logo should appear alongside

the UNDP logo on all relevant GEF project publications including among others, project hardware and vehicles purchased with GEF funds. Any citation on publications regarding projects funded by GEF, should also accord proper acknowledgement to the GEF.

PART IV. MONITORING AND EVALUATION

XVI. Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

121. Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established UNDP and GEF procedures and will be provided by the Project Management Unit (PMU) and the UNDP Country Office (UNDP-CO) with support from UNDP/GEF. The Logical Framework Matrix in Annex F provides performance and impact indicators for project implementation along with their corresponding means of verification.

122. In-line with the Monitoring and Evaluation Tool Kit provided by the Global Support Unit, the project management unit will endeavor to complete and supply UNDP CO with a National MSP Annual Project Review Form and submitted to UNDP CO by 1st July annually for review and subsequent transmission to the GSU by the 15th July. The APR Form will outline project identifiers, monitoring impact and performance, including monitoring project processes, adaptive management and lessons learnt. The APR form is attached.

123. The project identifiers cover the basic background data of the project. Questions in this section have to be completed by the Project Manager.

124. The Monitoring Impact and Performance section will report on whether the impacts and performance of the project so far have resulted in an increased or strengthen capacity for sustainable land management. The project impact will report on the progress of achieving the national MSP project objective while the project performance measures the progress towards achieving the four (4) outcomes that are common to the MSP project. Furthermore, this section will elaborate on how the project activities are meeting GEF requirements and principles.

125. Overall, there are twenty-eight (28) compulsory questions in the APR form that must be completed by the Project Manager. There are ninety three (93) optional indicators to which national MSP teams shall select the most appropriate indicators for their project. In some cases, the optional indicators may require modifying/adapting to the in-country situation. Otherwise, the Project Manager in consultation with the Project Executive Group may be inspired by the optional indicator, but may choose to design a superior, related indicator. Data related to optional indicators shall be submitted to the UNDP CO. There is a very long list of optional indicators that the project manager should select to setup a small inventory appropriate for Samoa.

126. Lastly, the Monitoring Project Processes, Adaptive Management and Lessons Learnt section will provide data and process related to how key decisions are made including reporting on challenges and factors limiting the success of the project. This will provide the basis for identifying lessons learnt.

Project Inception Phase


127. A Project Inception Workshop will be conducted with the full project team, relevant government counterparts, co-financing partners, the UNDP-CO and representation from the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit as appropriate. A fundamental objective of this Inception Workshop will be to assist the project team to understand and take ownership of the project’s goals and objectives, as well as finalize preparation of the project's first annual work plan on the basis of the project's log frame matrix. This will include reviewing the log frame (indicators, means of verification, assumptions), imparting additional detail as needed, and on the basis of this exercise finalize the Annual Work Plan (AWP) with precise and measurable performance indicators, and in a manner consistent with the expected outcomes for the project.

128. Additionally, the purpose and objective of the Inception Workshop (IW) will be to: (i) introduce project staff with the UNDP-GEF expanded team which will support the project during its implementation, namely the CO and responsible Regional Coordinating Unit staff; (ii) detail the roles, support services and complementary responsibilities of UNDP-CO and RCU staff vis à vis the project team; (iii) provide a detailed overview of UNDP-GEF reporting and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) requirements, with particular emphasis on the Annual Project Implementation Reviews (PIRs) and related documentation, the Annual Project Report (APR), Tripartite Review Meetings, as well as the Mid-Term Review. Equally, the IW will provide an opportunity to inform the project team on UNDP project related budgetary planning, budget reviews, and mandatory budget rephasings.

129. The IW will also provide an opportunity for all parties to understand their roles, functions, and responsibilities within the project's decision-making structures, including reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution mechanisms. The Terms of Reference for project staff and decision-making structures will be discussed again, as needed in order to clarify for all, each party’s responsibilities during the project's implementation phase.

Monitoring Responsibilities and Events130. A detailed schedule of project reviews meetings will be developed by the project management, in

consultation with UNDP CO and other implementation partners to be incorporated in the Project Inception Report. Such a schedule will include: (i) tentative time frames for Tripartite Reviews, Project Executive Group Meetings, Technical Advisory Group (TAG) meetings and (ii) project related Monitoring and Evaluation activities.

Daily Monitoring131. Day to day monitoring of implementation progress will be the responsibility of the Project Manager

(depending on the established project structure) based on the project's Annual Work Plan and its indicators. The Project Manager will inform the UNDP-CO of any delays or difficulties faced during implementation so that the adaptive management is applied through appropriate support and/or corrective measures is adopted in a timely and remedial fashion to ensure that the success and progress of the project is not hindered unnecessarily or delay furthered.

132. The Project Manager will fine-tune the progress and performance/impact indicators of the project in consultation with the Project Executive Group and the full project team at the Inception Workshop with support from UNDP-CO and assisted by the UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit. Specific targets for the first year implementation progress indicators together with their means of verification will be developed at this Workshop. These will be used to assess whether implementation is proceeding at the intended pace and in the right direction and will form part of the Annual Work Plan. The local implementing agencies will also take part in the Inception Workshop in which a common vision of overall project goals will be established. Targets and indicators for subsequent years would be defined annually as part of the internal evaluation and planning processes undertaken by the project team.

133. Measurement of impact indicators related to global benefits will occur according to the schedules defined in the Inception Workshop and tentatively outlined in the indicative Impact Measurement Template at the


end of this Annex. The measurement, of these will be undertaken through subcontracts or retainers with relevant institutions (e.g. vegetation cover via analysis of satellite imagery, or populations of key species through inventories) or through specific studies that are to form part of the projects activities (e.g. measurement carbon benefits from improved efficiency of ovens or through surveys for capacity building efforts) or periodic sampling such as with sedimentation.

134. Annual Monitoring will occur through the Tripartite Review (TPR). This is the highest policy-level meeting of the parties directly involved in the implementation of a project. The project will be subject to Tripartite Review (TPR) at least once every year. The first such meeting will be held within the first twelve months of the start of full implementation. The project proponent will prepare an Annual Project Report (APR) based on findings of Quarterly Progress Reports throughout the year and submit it to UNDP-CO and the UNDP-GEF regional office at least two weeks prior to the TPR for review and comments.

135. The Annual Project Report will be used as one of the basic documents for discussions in the TPR meeting. The project proponent will present the APR to the TPR, highlighting policy issues and recommendations for the decision of the TPR participants. The project proponent also informs the participants of any agreement reached by stakeholders during the APR preparation on how to resolve operational issues. Separate reviews of each project component may also be conducted if necessary.

136. Terminal Tripartite Review (TPR) The terminal tripartite review is held in the last month of project operations. The project proponent is responsible for preparing the Terminal Report and submitting it to UNDP-CO and LAC-GEF's Regional Coordinating Unit. It shall be prepared in draft at least two months in advance of the TTR in order to allow review, and will serve as the basis for discussions in the TTR. The terminal tripartite review considers the implementation of the project as a whole, paying particular attention to whether the project has achieved its stated objectives and contributed to the broader environmental objective. It decides whether any actions are still necessary, particularly in relation to sustainability of project results, and acts as a vehicle through which lessons learnt can be captured to feed into other projects under implementation of formulation.

137. The TPR has the authority to suspend disbursement if project performance benchmarks are not met. Benchmarks will be developed at the Inception Workshop, based on delivery rates, and qualitative assessments of achievements of outputs.

Project Monitoring Reporting138. The Project Manager in conjunction with the UNDP-GEF extended team will be responsible for the

preparation and submission of the following reports that form part of the monitoring process. Items (a) through (f) are mandatory and strictly related to monitoring, while (g) through (h) have a broader function and the frequency and nature is project specific to be defined throughout implementation.

Inception Report (IR)139. A Project Inception Report will be prepared immediately following the Inception Workshop. It will

include a detailed First Year/ Annual Work Plan divided in quarterly time-frames detailing the activities and progress indicators that will guide implementation during the first year of the project. This Work Plan would include the dates of specific field visits, support missions from the UNDP-CO or the Regional Coordinating Unit (RCU) or consultants, as well as time frames for meetings of the project's decision-making structures. The Report will also include the detailed project budget for the first full year of implementation, prepared on the basis of the Annual Work Plan, and including any monitoring and evaluation requirements to effectively measure project performance during the targeted 12 months time frame.


140. The Inception Report will include a more detailed narrative on the institutional roles, responsibilities, coordinating actions and feedback mechanisms of project related partners. In addition, a section will be included on progress to date on project establishment and start-up activities and an update of any changed external conditions that may effect project implementation.

141. When finalized the report will be circulated to project counterparts who will be given a period of one calendar month in which to respond with comments or queries. Prior to this circulation of the IR, the UNDP Country Office and UNDP-GEF’s Regional Coordinating Unit will review the document.

Quarterly Progress Reports .142. Quarter Progress Reports outlining main updates in project progress will be provided quarterly to the

local UNDP Country Office and the UNDP-GEF regional office by the project team. See format attached.

Project Terminal Report .143. During the last three months of the project the project team will prepare the Project Terminal Report.

This comprehensive report will summarize all activities, achievements and outputs of the Project as reported in all National MSP Annual Project Review Forms, lessons learnt; objectives met, or not achieved structures and systems implemented, etc. and will be the definitive statement of the Project’s activities during its lifetime. It will also lay out recommendations for any further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the Project’s activities.

Technical Reports ( project specific- optional ) .144. Technical Reports are detailed documents covering specific areas of analysis or scientific

specializations within the overall project. As part of the Inception Report, the project team will prepare a draft Reports List, detailing the technical reports that are expected to be prepared on key areas of activity during the course of the Project, and tentative due dates. Where necessary this Reports List will be revised and updated, and included in subsequent APRs. Technical Reports may also be prepared by external consultants and should be comprehensive, specialized analyses of clearly defined areas of research within the framework of the project and its sites. These technical reports will represent, as appropriate, the project's substantive contribution to specific areas, and will be used in efforts to disseminate relevant information and best practices at local, national and international levels.

Project Publications (project specific- optional).

145. Project Publications will form a key method of crystallizing and disseminating the results and achievements of the Project. These publications may be scientific or informational texts on the activities and achievements of the Project, in the form of journal articles, multimedia publications, etc. These publications can be based on Technical Reports, depending upon the relevance, scientific worth, etc. of these Reports, or may be summaries or compilations of a series of Technical Reports and other research. The project team will determine if any of the Technical Reports merit formal publication, and will also (in consultation with UNDP, the government and other relevant stakeholder groups) plan and produce these Publications in a consistent and recognizable format. Project resources will need to be defined and allocated for these activities as appropriate and in a manner commensurate with the project's budget.

Independent Evaluation146. The MSP project is to be evaluated at least once by an independent, external evaluation team. In most

cases there will be one ‘end-of-project’ evaluation. This should take place in the three-month period before the project is operationally closed. However, the Project Executive Group and UNDP CO may


request for a mid-term evaluation to be carried out by an independent evaluator and to be paid for by the project.

Mid-term Evaluation.147. An independent Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) could be undertaken at the end of the second year of

implementation or when deemed necessary by the Project Executive Group and UNDP CO. The Mid-Term Evaluation may be necessary if the project duration exceeds four years; if the project encounters difficulties or when it is necessary to significantly redesign the project. Specifically, the MTE will determine progress being made towards the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed. It will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned about project design, implementation and management. Findings of this review will be incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of the project’s term. The organization, terms of reference and timing of the mid-term evaluation will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project document. The Terms of Reference for this Mid-term evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF. In the event that a decision can not be made, the UNDP Resident Representative will make the final decision on the selection of an independent evaluator inter alia.

Final Evaluation.148. An independent Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the terminal tripartite review

meeting, and will focus on the same issues as the mid-term evaluation. The final evaluation will also look at impact and sustainability of results, including the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental goals. The Final Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up activities. The Terms of Reference for this evaluation will be prepared by the UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating Unit and UNDP-GEF.

XVII. Monitoring and Evaluation Budget

Table 18: Indicative Monitoring and Evaluation Work plan and corresponding Budget

Type of M&E activity Responsible Parties Budget US$Excluding project team Staff time

Time frame

Inception Workshop Project Manager UNDP CO UNDP GEF

1,000Within first two months of project start up

Inception Report Project Team UNDP CO None Immediately following IW

APR and PIR Project Team UNDP-CO UNDP-GEF

None Annually

TPR and TPR report Government Counterparts UNDP CO Project team UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit

None

Every year, upon receipt of APR

Project Executive Group Meetings

Project Coordinator UNDP CO

None Following Project IW and subsequently at least once a year

Periodic status reports Project team None To be determined by Project team and UNDP CO

Mid-term External Evaluation (if necessary)

MNREM PMU Project team UNDP- CO UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team)

At the mid-point of project implementation.


7,000Final Evaluation MNREM PMU

Project team UNDP- CO UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit External Consultants (i.e. evaluation team)

10,000 During the last three months of the project.

Terminal Report Project team MNREM PMU UNDP-CO External Consultant

None

At least one month before the end of the project

Lessons learned MNREM PMU Project team UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit

(suggested formats for documenting best practices, etc)

1,000 Yearly

Audit UNDP-CO Project team 7,000 Yearly

SUBTOTAL26,000

OTHER RELEVANT M&E COSTS4

Technical reports Project team Hired consultants as needed 41,0005

To be determined by Project Team and UNDP-CO

Measurement of Means of Verification for Project Purpose Indicators

Project Manager will oversee the hiring of specific studies and institutions, and delegate responsibilities to relevant team members

To be finalized in Inception Phase and Workshop.

Start, mid and end of project

Measurement of Means of Verification for Project Progress and Performance (measured on an annual basis)

Oversight by Project GEF Technical Advisor and Project Manager

Measurements by regional field officers and local IAs

To be determined as part of the Annual Work Plan's preparation.

Annually prior to APR/PIR and to the definition of annual work plans

Visits to field sites (UNDP staff travel costs to be charged to IA fees)

UNDP Country Office UNDP-GEF Regional Coordinating Unit

(as appropriate) MNREM PMU Government representatives

2,0006 Yearly

SUBTOTAL43,000

GRAND TOTAL OF INDICATIVE COST

Excluding project team staff time and UNDP staff and travel expenses US$ 69,000 For the 3 year period

149. The UNDP Resident Representative in Samoa is authorized to effect in writing the following types of revisions to this project document, provided s/he has verified the agreement thereto by the UNDP GEF unit and is assured that the other signatories of the project document have no objections to the proposed changes:

(a) Revisions of, or addition to, any of the annexes to the Project Document;(b) Revisions which do not involve significant changes in the immediate objectives, outputs or

activities of the project, but are caused by the rearrangement of inputs already agreed to or by the cost increases due to inflation;

(c) Mandatory annual revisions which re-phase the delivery of agreed project inputs, or reflect increased expert or other costs due to inflation, or take into account agency expenditure flexibility, and;

(d) Inclusion of additional annexes and attachments relevant to the Project Document

4 These costs are incorporated/budgeted under various Outputs as reflected in the Project Budget5 Costs are incorporated into Outputs 2.1;2.2;2.4;2.5 and 2.76 Field Visit costs are incorporated into Output 0.3 Travel Costs as per Project Budget


Intellectual property Rights on data, study results, reports, etc.150. All data, study results, information, reports, and the like, generated with UNDP/GEF project funds

remains the property of the UNDP until after the life of the project, ownership will then be transferred to the GoS.

151. The workplan is integrated into the activity budget as presented in Table 18. The MNREM Forest Division, PMU and MOA will ensure that project execution complies with UNDP’s monitoring, evaluation, auditing and reporting requirements, as spelled out in the UNDP Programme Manual. In accordance with the UNDP’s Programme Manual, progress and other reports will be submitted by the Project Manager to the UNDP CO. They will provide a brief summary of the status of activities and output delivery, explaining any variances from the pre-agreed work plan and presenting work plan for each successive quarter for review and endorsement. MNREM will prepare and request quarterly advances and will also include the disbursement status in their financial report.

152. The Project Manager will complete an annual review of the project following the current UNDP/GEF format for Annual Project Review (APR)/Project Implementation Review (PIR). A project Terminal Report will be prepared by the Project Manager and submitted through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) to the UNDP CO assessing the delivery of inputs, the achievement of the project objectives and the project’s impact/results.

153. One external mid-term review (MTR) if necessary will be performed after 18 months and a final evaluation will be conducted during the last three months of the project. Each review will consist of a three-week evaluation and will be conducted by an independent evaluator. The focus of the MTR will be to make mid-term corrections to better achieve the project objective and outcomes during the remaining life of the project.


Annex A: Samoa’s Baseline Demographic and Economic Data

Table 1: Population of Samoa .

APIA URBAN AREA(AUA)

NORTH WEST UPOLU (NWU)

REST OF UPOLU (ROU)

SAVAII

1991Male Female Total

2001Male Female Total

18,396

20,498

21,991

23,714

17.093

18,548

19,722

21,334

35,489

39,046

41,713

45,048

19,724

27,374

21,652

21,863

18,833

25,038

19,693

19,963

38,557

52,412

41,345

41,826

SAMOA 84,599 76,697 161,296 90,613 83,527 174,140

Source: Population Census Report 2001

Table 7: Samoa’s GDP Performance

Table 7. Sectoral Contribution to GDP (millions of tala)

Sector1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing 148.1 143.5 143.6 138.1 129.4 124.9 118.8

Subsistence 134.8 133.5 134.3 128.9 124.2 125.3123.4

Total Primary Sector 148.1 143.5 143.6 138.1 129.4 124.9118.8

Total Secondary Sector 178.6 182.6 206.3 231.4 231.7 243.9255.8

Total Tertiary Sector 371.7 385.4 404.7 437.4 452.9 470.9494.7

Government 56.8 60.7 64.5 67.6 71.0 75.078.9

Real GDP at market 2002 prices 755.3 772.2 819.1 874.4 885.0 914.6948.2

Source: MOF Agriculture Census 1999 personal communication


Annex B: LANDUSE DATA IN S AMOA

Table 2: Land Classification by Natural Soil Fertility and Estimated Area 1 for Savaii and Upolu

Class DescriptionSavai’iha.

Upoluha.

Total Areaha.

% of Total Area

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10a

10b

Soils of high natural fertility

Soils of moderate to high fertility

Soils of moderate fertility

Soils of moderate to low fertility

Soils of low fertility

Soils of low to very low fertility

Mineral soils of moderate to low fertility

Peaty soils of low fertility

Coastal sands of moderate fertility

Steep land soils of moderate, moderate to low, low to very low fertility

Barren lava fields

1,222

19,688

13,796

25,556

26,094

56,802

959

32

567

14,783

11,428

1,206

1,777

21,687

19,664

13,294

24,747

2,031

20

1,728

28,543

------

2,428

21,465

35,483

45,220

39,388

81,549

2,990

52

2,295

43,326

11,428

0.8

7.5

12.4

15.8

13.7

28.6

1.1

(a)

0.8

15.5

4.0

Total 170,927 114,697 285, 624

(a) Insignificant1 = Area estimates have been converted to hectares from original data set in acres.[Original Source: Wright, 1963]

Table 3: Estimates of Land Ownership in Samoa in 1991.

Type Upolu Savaii Total

(ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%)

Customary 76,166 17 153,490 54 229,656 81

Government

(incl. WESTEC/SLC)

19,758

9,499

7

3

10,626

4,476

4

2

30,384

13,975

11

4

Freehold 7,800 3 1,037 * 8,837 3

TOTAL 113,223 40 169,629 60 282,852 100Source: National Report of the Government of Samoa’s Forestry Division, Department of Agriculture, Forests, Fisheries & Meteorology to the FAO/SPRIG/AUSAID/SPREP & SPC/PIFTSP Pacific Sub-Regional Workshop on Forest and Tree Genetic Resources, April 1999, Apia, Samoa


Table 4: Estimates of Land Uses in Samoa in 1993.

Land Use Type Area (ha) (%)

Merchantable Forest 13,574 4.6

Forest Protected/Village Conservation Areas 3,089 1.1

Watershed Areas 31,992 11.3

National Parks/Reserves 2,880 1.0

Land Available for Reforestation 10,000 3.6

Agriculture / Cropland 98,000 34.7

Recent Lava Fields 11,433 4.1

Unproductive Forest Areas 111,112 39.4

TOTALS 282,000 100

Source: National Report of the Government of Samoa’s Forestry Division, Department of Agriculture, Forests, Fisheries & Meteorology to the FAO/SPRIG/AUSAID/SPREP & SPC/PIFTSP Pacific Sub-Regional Workshop on Forest and Tree Genetic Resources, April 1999, Apia, Samoa.

Table 5: Land use in Upolu and Savai’i - Percentage of Total Land

Use TypeUpolu Savai’i Total

Ha % ha % ha %

Indigenous Forest 49,407 17 109,304 39 158,711 56

Plantation Forest 34 (a) 5,345 2 5,379 2

Livestock (cattle) 7,267 3 2,644 1 9,911 3

Cropping (b) 56,515 20 53,173 19 109,688 39

Total 113,223 40 170,446 60 283, 689 100

(a) Insignificant(b) Includes cultivated, fallow, and overgrown land, and Apia district/residential areasSource: Original GWS, 1991 adapted from SPREP, 1993


Table 6: Samoa Forest Cover Types and Actual Areas (Ha)1

Main Vegetation TypeUpolu Savai’i Total Area

Percent of Total Area

Mangrove Forests 353.15 16.4 369.55 0.13

Forest Plantation 1304.86 3797.68 5102.54 1.8

Closed Forest

Medium Dense Forest 402.45 72150.98 72562.7 25.53

Open Forest 33049.35 22268.04 55344.13 19.48

Secondary Forest 17295.96 19799.6 37173.25 13.08

TOTAL AREAS 52,405.8 118,032.7 170,634.65 293,908.15

% of TOTAL 46.47 69.08 60.05 175.60

1= Based on 1999 aerial photo interpretation with 2004 ground truthing using Modified Forest Classification System (May 2004).Source: SamFRIS 2004. Forestry Division of MNREM

Table 8: Percentage of Households/Holdings by Category of Activity

Agriculturally Active Households

Households Producing Mainly for Home Use

Households Producing Only for Home Use

Households with Minor Agricultural Activity

72.4% 46.6% 18.6% 2%

Source: Agricultural Census, 1989

Table 9: Percentage of Agricultural Households/Holdings by Land Use or Activity Households Holdings in Agricultural

Households Holdings Under Tree Crops

Households Holdings Under Other Crops

Households Holdings Under Mixed Crops

Households Holdings Under Bush Fallow

Households Holdings Keeping Livestock

77% 30% 13% 34% 5% 91%

Source: Agricultural Census, 1989


ANNEX C: SAMOA’S MEAs AND ELABORATIONS

Conventions and Agreement Status Date

UN Vienna Convention on the Protection of Ozone Layer Acceded

21 December 1992

Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone layer Ratified 21 December 1992

RAMSAR-Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Ratified 29 December 1994

UN Convention on Biological Diversity Ratified June 1994

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Ratified 14 August 1995

Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention On the Law of the Sea relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks

Ratified 23 October 1996

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification Acceded

21 August 1998

Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCC Ratified 15 November 2000

Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean on 02 January 2001

Ratified 2 January 2001

Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage Acceded

27 August 2001

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Ratified 4 February 2002

Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, on 13 March 2002 Acceded

13 March 2002

Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal Acceded

22 March 2002

Other significant MEA’s include: On February 7 2002, Samoa deposited with the International Maritime Organization in London, its

Instrument of Accession to the International Convention for the Protection of Pollution from Ships 1973 and its Protocol, 1978.

Likewise Samoa has also deposited with IMO its Instrument of Accession to the following Protocols .1992 Protocol of the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969 and the 1992 Protocol to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1971 on 1 February 2002. Advice received by the Government of Samoa from the IMO Secretariat is that Samoa need not accede to the Conventions proper but only to the protocols as they regulate the current international regime on the protection of the marine environment from marine pollution.

Regional Environmental Agreements & Instruments of significance include: Convention on the Conservation of Nature in the South Pacific

Status: Ratified Date: 20 July 1990 Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region

Status: Ratified Date: 23 July 1990 Convention for the Prohibition of Driftnet Fishing in the South Pacific on 09

Status: Acceded Date: September 1996


Convention to Ban the importation into Forum Island Countries of Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes and to control the Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within the South Pacific Region (Waigani Convention) : (bans importation of hazardous and radioactive wastes generated outside the region in Forum Island Countries and controls the movement of such wastes within the region)Status: Ratified Date: 16 May 2001

The Government passed an Act that bans the practice of Driftnet fishing in all waters which Samoa claims jurisdiction over; Fisheries (Ban of Driftnet Fishing) Act 1999 as well as the Maritime Zones Act 1999.

ANNEX D: INFORMATION NEEDS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE BPoA

Summary on Information Needs for implementation of Samoa’s BPoA+10AREA ACTIONS

Climate Change: Information from other sectors, such as health, agriculture, forestry, and water is essential in determining the implications that climate change and climate variability can have on these sectors.Scientific research needs to be developed for Samoa, on areas of climate variability, so that accurate or appropriate information are obtained to enable better planning and implementation of programmes for climate change.Development and application of information systems (data indicators etc) to support assessments (such as PEAR and EIAs) and decision-making on settlements and planning.

Natural & Environmental Disasters Early warning information needs to be developed for Samoa on national actions for preparedness and responds to when disaster strikes.Review of existing national disaster plans, requires the incorporation of more information about mitigation and readiness strategies for disaster management in Samoa.Strengthened enforcement of early warning/disaster preparedness information, through development of a disaster management legislation.

Management of Waste: Review existing information on waste issues and associated health problems, to update data and fill in the gaps from previous programmes to further enhance on-going waste management programmes.Inventory of waste management information pertaining to methodologies used in development of resources from waste materials.

Coastal and Marine Resources Strengthened scientific research in the areas of coastal andmarine resources to improve productivity and biodiversity of coastal areas in Samoa.

Freshwater Resources: Development and application of appropriate legislative and institutional arrangements for the sustainable management of watershed areas and water resources.Application of specific information technology for designing maps and databases of watershed areas and water resource.

Land Resources: Development of information systems on technical databases, for soil types and geology of the Samoa landscape.National inventory of customary land and ownerships.Gathering of existing information to develop land use capability plans. Application of GIS to map out land use areas of Samoa including areas of land degradation.

Energy Resources: Promote scientific research studies on the use of renewable energy in Samoa.Collect data on sustainable energy needs and potential in Samoa, identifying different types of renewable energy found in-country.

Tourism Resources Conduct a national cost-benefit analysis to assess the true cost or impact of tourism on the environment.

Transport & Communication Assess existing information on the country’s accessibility to improved infrastructures

Biodiversity Resources Develop an information database on traditional knowledge and the application of traditional conservation methodologies used by Samoan’s to protect and conserve biological diversity resources.

National institutional capacity: National assessment of existing institutional capacity needs to be strengthened for a more define and collaborated work between relevant stakeholders on environment programmes.


Science & Technology Established agencies to conduct scientific research and assessment needs, providing backstopping information to all relevant stakeholders on the application of appropriate technology for sustainable development.Develop a national policy on science, technology and sustainable development

Human Resource Development Gather information to develop strategies on sustainable employment creation.Develop a national policy on human resources and Sustainable Development.

Note: The text highlighted under section ‘Actions’ are some of the capacity information needs relevant to SLM


ANNEX E: FINDINGS FROM NCSA STOCKTAKING WORKSHOP ON UNCCD CAPACITY ASSESSMENT NEEDS AND ROOT CAUSES

Table 10: Problem Tree Findings on Root Causes of Land Degradation

Convention Obligations Land Degradation Themes

Direct Causes Root Causes

(a) Give due priority to combating land degradation and mitigating the effects of drought, and allocate adequate resources in accordance with their circumstances and capabilities

Insufficient institutional capacity for combating land degradation and drought

Limited capacity of the coordination focal point for the implementation of the activities

Limited Resources

Limited Capacity of other relevant implementing sectors

(b) Establish strategies and priorities, within the framework of sustainable development plans and/or policies, to combat land degradation and mitigate the effects of drought;

Insufficient Mainstreaming of UNCCD Objectives into National Development Plans and Strategies

Limited capacity to develop and integrate UNCCD SLM and NAPs into long term socio-economic strategies

Development Planners UnawareNAP and NCSA not yet completed

Inadequate capacity for land management planning through streamlining of UNCCD Programs and Strategies

(c) address the underlying causes of desertification and pay special attention to the socio-economic factors contributing to desertification processes

Unsustainable Forest Management and Deforestation

Limited capacity of communities and land owners to sustainable manage their forest resources

Lack of fundsNot a priorityEconomical Benefits OverridesLimited ability of Forestry personnel to plan, conduct and

evaluate awareness activities for stakeholdersLimited capacity of communities to implement Forest Management Plans

Unsustainable Agriculture Practices

Insufficient capacity to coordinate, monitor and evaluate ongoing projects amongst stakeholders (farmers and other user groups)

Lack of cooperationLack of commitmentsUnclear Benefits

Insufficient capacity of farmers to adopt appropriate technology to combat land degradation

Lack of specialized trainingLack of fundsLack of commitmentLack of understanding of long term impacts of Land DegradationLack of incentivesLack of priority considerationMisuse of funds

Insufficient capacity of MOA staff to develop awareness campaigns and effective trainings for farmers, landowners and other user groupsInsufficient technical expertise

Gradual loss of traditional knowledge in sustainable agricultural practices/systems

Adoption of new technologies (note the lack of research etc.)Economical Benefits overridesFinancial Hardship


Convention Obligations Land Degradation Themes

Direct Causes Root Causes

Poor Management of Degraded Lands and Drought-Flood Prone Areas

Inability of local farmers and landowners to conserve soil and water resources on arable, forested and steep lands

Lack of understanding of complex factors (including all stakeholders)Lack of sustainable alternatives (not to encourage cash incentives) but secure commitment through that.

Insufficient technical know-how of staff on watershed management

Lack of specialized trainings

Inadequate capacity of climate staff to collect, analyze and exchange information to ensure accurate warning forecasts

Lack of priorities/interestLack of resources (equipment, financial etc)Research is a low priority for national level (higher level)Limited access to communal lands

Poor early warning systems in relation to periods of drought and floodingInsufficient/Outdated information

Negative Impacts of Invasive Species

Insufficient capacity to address invasive species mitigation and effective control

Lack of programs to address invasive species issues (includes research programs)Lack of funding and human resourcesUnclear ownership of roles and responsibilitiesInsufficient prioritization at the National Level

Insufficient public awareness on environmental threats of invasive species (include lack of knowledge)Insufficient baseline data on the extent and distribution of key invasive species

(d) promote awareness and facilitate the participation of local populations, particularly women and youth, with the support of non-governmental organizations, in efforts to combat land degradation and mitigate the effects of drought;

Insufficient Education, Training and Public Awareness

Insufficient resources for information preparation and effective dissemination

Lack of fundingLack of data addressing Land DegradationNot a priorityWomen not recognized

Insufficient emphasis on sustainable land management in educational curricula including pre-service and in-service educatorsInsufficient awareness and participation of local communities (particularly women and youth) on land degradation and drought issuesInappropriate design of programs targeting women and youth

Weak Legal and Policy Framework

Weak legal provisions in place to combat land degradation Weak policy Development ProcessNot recognized as a priorityLack of commitment

Ineffective/Inefficient enforcementLand Ownership (including land tenure issues, social and cultural issues)


Table 11: UNCCD Capacity Assessment Needs

CAPACITY NEEDS RELATED TO:

CAPACITY LEVELSIndividual Institutional Systemic

1. MAINSTREAMING Promote and support research of sustainable livelihood options

Adopt and implement NIASIAP Develop awareness programs/campaigns at all

levels of society

Develop awareness programs/campaigns at all levels of society Provide effective public awareness campaigns regarding Land

Degradation Develop public awareness campaigns on relationships of land

ownership/tenure and land degradation

Promote UNCCD objective at the highest level of government

Strengthen existing management plans at both national and community levels

Strengthen existing policies, plans, strategies to include all land degradation issues

Efficient allocation of funds Establish/Develop transparent/accountable and

effective system to channel funds at national and community levels

Strengthen cooperation and collaboration of all responsible institutions

Adopt and implement NIASIAP2. HUMAN

RESOURCES CAPACITY NEEDS

Develop training materials and programs in Land Degradation to target women and youth

Conduct assessment of training needs Provide specialized trainings for staff and

communities involved

Conduct assessment of training needs Provide effective trainings and awareness programs to all relevant

stakeholders Provide specialized trainings for staff and communities involved Implement demonstration plot projects to address sustainable

land management in water catchments and drought prone areas Develop training materials and programs in Land Degradation to

target women and youth

Strengthen enforcement capabilities to include community forest operations on customary lands

Develop effective systems/programs for collaboration and cooperation amongst stakeholders/interest groups as well as implementing sectors

Develop and revise existing monitoring indicators and evaluation systems

Incorporate land degradation issues into core curriculum development

Implement demonstration plot projects to address sustainable land management in water catchments and drought prone areas

3. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT

Collect and compile definitive information on the national impacts of unsustainable forest uses and deforestation

Conduct general survey on degraded area of Samoa for purposes of proper Land Use Capability System

Research, document and promote benefits of sustainable traditional knowledge and practices and sustainable new technology

Promote/support research on sustainable alternatives

Resurrect sustainable traditional methods and knowledge of agriculture

Upgrading of existing resources to enable effective collection of data for effective early warning systems/forecasts

Update research information Develop national public awareness campaigns Develop baseline data on the extent and

Collect and compile definitive information on the national impacts of unsustainable forest uses and deforestation

Collect, analyze an appropriate data for early warning systems Develop value-added end products Research, document and promote benefits of sustainable

traditional knowledge and practices and sustainable new technology

Promote early warning systems as priority concern at higher level Promote/support research on sustainable alternatives Conduct general survey on degraded area of Samoa for purposes

of proper Land Use Capability System Develop baseline data on the extent and distribution of key

invasive species Upgrading of existing resources to enable effective collection of

data for effective early warning systems/forecasts Update research information Develop national public awareness campaigns

Strengthen recognition of community involvement in revamping/revival of traditional knowledge

Provide effective systems of continuity to ensure ongoing sustainable traditional knowledge and practices

Promote early warning systems as priority concern at higher level


CAPACITY NEEDS RELATED TO:

CAPACITY LEVELSIndividual Institutional Systemic

distribution of key invasive species

ANNEX F: LOGICAL FRAMEWORK ON SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT

LONG-TERM GOAL: That the project is contributing to the mitigation of land degradation, through capacity development and mainstreaming of sustainable land management.

PROJECT OBJECTIVE: To strengthen the enabling environment for sustainable land management while ensuring broad-based political and participatory support for the process, in four key areas.

OUTCOMES: Key Performance Impact Indicators Means of Verification Critical Assumptions/Risks

Outcome 1: Completion of NAPS (through Co-financing)

NAP approved by Cabinet Best practices and guidelines for SLM are

broadly disseminated and used for development planning, zoning and agricultural extension.

Cabinet decisions are published

Published SLM and Organic Farming practices and guidelines

Number of certified organic farms increased

Continued political support for integrating SLM into national development planning

NAP approved by Cabinet National Steering Committee (NSC)

endorse final NAP National stakeholders consultation

finalized

Cabinet decisions are published

MNREM publish NAP on Website

Final consultative reviews compiled

Funds are mobilized Stakeholder commitment to SLM

maintained Continued political support from key

decision makers and planners. Key planners and policy makers will

continue to see the advantages of using SLM economics for planning and policy development

Outcome 2: Capacities Developed for Sustainable Land Management.

The staffs of MNREM and MOA both have the capacity to implement SLM practices and train others in SLM.

Community based capacities are enhanced through SLM pilots that are established in

MWTI (PUMA), MNREM, MOA, publish Action Strategies and Corporate Plans

SLM networks enhanced

Gov. Samoa remains committed to SLM success.

Sufficient communications infrastructure is available in order to successfully implement SLM





key sites throughout Samoa (both Upolu and Savai’i).

Best forestry management and reforestation guidelines are established by MNREM

SLM networks established at regional, national and local levels.

Sustainable agricultural practices and guidelines prepared by MOA

between regional organizations, Gov Samoa, NGO’s and civil society.

Forestry guidelines published.

Adequate funds are mobilized and continued for SLM support beyond the SLM MSP project

Outcome 3: Mainstreaming of SLM

SLM integrated into national education curricula

Appropriate legislation reviewed to strengthened the inclusion of SLM issues

SLM public awareness campaign completed

SLM strategies are integrated into SDS, National Plans and Policies

A clearly defined, transparent mechanism will be in place for other government and civil society institutions to gain access to information from the SLM-related land information systems.

SLM M&E systems are operational for agricultural, forest lands and watershed areas and operational costs are covered by non-project sourcesBaseline: No M&E systems exist for these sectors.

MNREM relevant project reports according to M&E project plan.

MWTI (PUMA), MNREM, MOA, Strategy and Corporate Action Plans

SLM materials and documents are produced

SLM integrated into SDS and other key national plans

The various institutions will be willing to collaborate on integrated approaches to sustainable land management and to sharing access to land information systems developed;

Government and the key institutions involved will commit the resources needed to maintain SLM beyond the life of the project.

The SLM monitoring and evaluation systems are being developed.

Outcome 4: Medium Term Investment Plan and its Resource Mobilization.

Mid Term Investment Plan is developed Necessary resources are mobilized

MNREM, Finance Department

Government and the key institutions involved will commit the resources needed to maintain SLM beyond the life of the project based on monitoring and





evaluation systems that are developed.


OUTCOME 1: COMPLETION OF NAP THROUGH CO-FINANCING

Outputs Output Indicator Activities and Sub-Activities Responsibility Annual Targets

1.1 Preparation of NAP

Final draft of NAP completed 1.1.1 Develop a draft NAP including problem and root cause analysis and prioritization of actions

MNREM and national consultant

Draft NAP prepared within 6 months

1.1.2 Complete the modification and validation of the NAP through stakeholder workshop


1 National Stakeholder Workshop

1.1.3 SLM National Steering Committee endorsement/validation of the NAP


1 National SLM Steering Committee meeting

Baseline: The NAP is developed based on existing baseline information from the First National Report to UNCCD 2003, Capacity Development Initiative 2001, Agricultural censuses and other key literature such as NEMS, State of Environment Reports, WSSD 2002, Barbados Programme of Action. The NAP is already underway with its formulation while awaiting receipt of funds for its completion.

1.2 Adoption of NAP

NAP officially submitted to Samoa’s Cabinet Development Committee (CDC) for final approval

1.2.1 Final Compilation of the NAP and submission to CDC

MNREM 1 – 3 months waiting period

NAP submitted to UNCCD Secretariat and GM for approval

1.2.2 Official Submission of the NAP MNREM 1 - 3 months waiting period

Formal adoption of NAP by Samoan Government and stakeholders

1.2.3 Official Launch of the NAP Document MNREM 1 day Launch of the NAP

1.2.4 Formal publication and dissemination of NAP through awareness campaign and media programs.

MNREM Ongoing

OUTCOME 2: CAPACITIES DEVELOPED FOR SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT


2.1. Enhanced capacities for the effective administration and sustainable management of lands and land-based resources

Officers trained and certified to be able to conduct effective assessments

2.1.1 Conduct trainings on the assessments and appropriate uses of land and land-based resources

MNREM/International Consultant

1x2 weeks trainings to be conducted within Y1

Government staff and communities can better manage degraded land areas

2.1.2 Conduct trainings to enhance capacity on minimizing and management of land degradation

Workshops to be conducted in Y1




Updated data for land-use and land tenure distribution in Samoa

2.1.2 Update through technical and information survey of Land Tenure distribution of Samoa lands

2 reports by the end of Y2

Baseline: Some junior officers have had trainings on LIS/GIS at the MNREM yet very little capacity specific to SLM applications. Samoa has undergone tremendous changes to its land cover due to increased development and forestry/agricultural activities hence existing land use data and maps are largely outdated

2.2. Strengthened capacity for sustainable agriculture, particularly in drought prone areas

20 farmers and 10 extension officers understand best practices for soil management in terms of fertility and productivity, minimizing erosion on cultivated fields and application of a wide range of sustainable methods of agriculture

2.2.1. Conduct trainings through demonstration plots and workshops on sustainable agriculture and organic farming practices

MNREMMAFNGO

1week training workshop for farmers and resource users for Savaii & Upolu.

1 week demonstration trainings for farmers and resource users for both Savaii & Upolu

A significant number of farmers & staff trained in sustainable methods of farming in drought prone area

Development of effective training modules to be disseminated to farmers

2.2.2 Establish a pilot site for sustainable farming in a drought prone area

2.2.3 Develop and apply training modules on sustainable farming for Samoa

MNREM/Local Consultant

1 two-days training course for total of 25 participants of which one is for Savaii and one for Upolu

A training module to be produced in Yr 1

Baseline: A few organic farm projects have been implemented on Upolu and Savaii by Non-government Organizations and MAF




2.3 Enhanced Capacities for the rehabilitation of degraded coastal areas

1 pilot project for demonstration of coastal slope rehabilitation

2.3.1 Conduct demonstration of soil protection measures through terracing and application of structural mitigation measures on eroded steep lands/slopes in Upolu and Savaii

MNREMMAF

To be initiated in mid-Y2

1 workshop for coastal communities in Upolu

1 workshop for coastal communities in Savaii

2.3.2 Conduct extensive workshops for coastal communities for Upolu and Savaii

MNREMInternational Expert

To be initiated in early Y3

Baseline: No application of soil protection measures on farmed steep lands and forest agents have little training and no equipment to do controlled burns as land management tools.

2.4 Enhanced governance to promote proper land use of degraded watershed areas

1 pilot project on a watershed area (one supply one district).

2.4.1 Implement single village watershed management pilot with differing land ownership and governance issues through reafforestation and replanting

2.4.2 Consultation with all landowners with differing types of land tenureship at the pilot site.

2.4.3 Prepare a governance report on piloted areas

MNREM/IWP Focal Point

Initiation phase in Y1 at Letogo village

Baseline: There has been limited emphasis on governance issues at the local level management of resources especially when the use of a resource is common to a number of villages involving differing types of landownership. Local governance is a delicate and sensitive issue which requires a holistic management approach and a system with clear provisions to resolve land and ownership disputes, incentives and a sense of ownership of the end product.




2.5 Assessments of the appropriate use of land

The causes and the severity of soil loss and fertility loss have been identified for each of the major types of agriculture on the two islands and best practices/lessons learned for each agricultural system have been summarized.

2.5.1 Develop a framework for the technical assessment of soil classifications in Samoa using the new Millennium Ecosystem Approach promoted by the GEF

3 reports in Y2

The ability of all forest plantation species to retain soil/prevent erosion has been analyzed and ranked and management practices for improving soil holding capacity of each species have been identified/proposed

2.5.2 Conduct a technical survey assessment in relation to soil type, fertility and other bio-physical characteristics and on all degraded land areas in Samoa and training of stakeholders in new concepts and techniques for SLM including understanding of ecosystem functions and services, and the landscape approach.

2.5.3 Prepare a technical report on the status with the biophysical environment and a report on land degradation in Samoa

MNREMNUSUSP

At least 3 analyses reports for the 2 systems through student theses

2 reports, one each for Upolu and Savai’i

Updated soil maps for areas surveyed

2.5.4 Produce soil maps based on technical survey of soil classification (in 2.5.2)

MNREMNUSUSP

1 report in Y2




Baseline: There has never been a detailed study on ecological sustainability, on extent of land degradation problem as well as on the biophysical environment in relation to soil fertility and productivity

2.6 Enhance SLM through improvements of individual, systemic and institutional capacities including relevant national plans and policies.

Consultations in Savaii and Upolu 2.6.1 Extensive community consultation of existing land policies for the review and development of effective policies

MNREMMAF

M & E framework in Y2

A National Land Administration Policy is developed

2.6.2 Develop a land administration policy which functions to regulate the development and use of land(settlement, survey, valuation, and assessment, land control and management, infrastructure utilities), collection of revenue from land (sale, leasing, taxation, etc) and resolving conflicts concerning ownership and use of land.

MNREMMAF

To be developed in Y2

Baseline: There is no systems of monitoring SLM best practices

2.7 Development of monitoring and evaluation systems on the effectiveness of the implementation phase of the SLM Project

A system for monitoring the use of best practices that minimize soil loss and that maintain soil fertility is operational on both islands

2.7.1 Develop a system for monitoring the effectiveness of the uses of land-based resources and the sustainable use of land for forest/woodland and agricultural purposes

MNREM M & E framework in Y2




Progress Report 2.7.2 Produce a report on the effectiveness of the monitoring and evaluation systems in pace and potential for sustainability after the life of the project

Report to be completed before the end of Y3

Baseline: No recent review of lease arrangements for government and customary lands. No land administration policy except for National Land use Policy addressing primarily unsustainable land use practices.

OUTCOME 3: MAINSTREAMING OF SLMOutputs Output Indicator Activities and Sub-Activities Responsibility Annual Targets

3.1 Mainstreaming of SLM

SLM is already mainstreamed into Millennium Development Goals processes.

SLM is mainstreamed into SDS for Samoa.

SLM is mainstreamed into NEMS, NAPA, NBSAP, POPs NIP, Corporate Plans for MNREM and MOA.

SLM is mainstreamed into relevant national plans (e.g. Education, Health, Public Works, etc.)

3.1.1. Review and integrate SLM into SDS and other appropriate national plans and policies.

3.1.2. Increase and strengthen SLM in Government Planning and Development processes.

3.1.3 Review MNRE Bill 2003 to include SLM issues and strengthened provisions under which to enforce implementation of illegal activities.

MNREM, MAFMOFMFATAttorney General Office

Initiation begins in Y1

Baseline: UNDP is assisting with MDG processes, but nothing is being done to integrate SLM into other major policy platforms.


MNREM

3.2 Sharing of Knowledge on SLM

98% of all farmers and resource users on two islands receive booklets on ecologically sound and financially profitable SLM practices

3.2.1 Formal publication and dissemination of NAP through awareness campaign and media programs

3.2.2 Implement public awareness campaigns through the media

3.2.3 Prepare SLM materials and documents for distribution to general public.

3.2.4 Prepare video and radio shorts for general public

MNREMMAFNGOFarmers/Resource Users

Ongoing within the period of 3 years

Agricultural extension materials are modified to enhance SLM techniques

3.2.5 Incorporate new techniques into existing materials

MNREMInternational Consultant

1 training course for extension officers

Baseline: There is no general awareness on SLM issues and techniques


OUTCOME 4: MEDIUM TERM INVESTMENT PLAN FOR SLM AND IT’S RESOURCES MOBILIZATIONOutputs Output Indicator Activities and Sub-Activities Responsibility Annual Targets

4.1. Development of a Medium Term Investment Plan with associated resource mobilization plan that incorporates SLM.

The UNCCD Unit, UNCCD Focal Point and the Ministry of Finance use the Investment Plan to mobilize, coordinate and direct investments needed for sustainable land management in Samoa.

The investment plan integrates priorities identified in the NAP (Outcome 4) and investments are made in conformity with the investment plan.

Work on the investment plan has been initiated

4.1.1. Identify priority SLM investment needs and opportunities

4.1.2. Develop a costed Mid-Term Investment Plan including brief concept papers for priority investments

MNREMConsultant

1 report of a two-day workshop to prioritize needs and opportunities

1 SLM Investment Plan

Baseline: There are existing investments in sustainable development of lands and in the use of land-based resources which indirectly address SLM issues but none specific to SLM in the context of this project. The SLM investment plan has not yet been initiated.


ANNEX G: STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT PLAN MATRIX

Stakeholder Stakeholder’s Interest in SLM Justification for inclusion of the stakeholder Expected role of the stakeholder

Division of Land Management – MNREM

Project Management Counterpart for the Project

Mandate; Implementing Unit for UNCCD; Responsible for policy development on issues pertaining to sustainable development of land and land-based resources; Land Registry Section contains all records of land ownership in Samoa; Administration of govt. and customary land leases; responsible for issuing of sandmining and reclamation permits and utilization of govt. lands in the central urban area.

Preparation of NAP; Will house the UNCCD focal point and PMU of the Project for the co-ordination and overall management of the Project

Land Development Section - MNREM

Project Coordinating and Implementing Counterpart

Mandate: Core functions is development of all land-related polices and in regulating the development and use of land-based resources

Coordinating and facilitating the implementing the UNCCD Obligations and NAP and assist the PMU for the SLM project in coordination and implementation.

Forestry Division – MNREM

Responsible for sustainable management of forest resources in Samoa;

Mandate; Currently implementing various activities related to this Project; Database on Forest Resources in Samoa with GIS Data; Reforestation and Watershed Management activities

Implementing Partner for Activities requiring their knowledge and skills

Corporate Services - Capacity Building Section & Accounts Section - MNREM.

Dealing with capacity building and awareness activities / workshops / consultations

Responsible for complementary role in channeling funds and processing financial documentation backups.

Mandate: Both sections provide services in these areas for the Ministry. Their roles serve as centralized system for information dissemination and financial records of various projects’ use of funds. Works closely with Ministry of Finance to ensure accuracy of audited accounts.

Assist in all awareness programs, consultations, workshops and dissemination of information to resource users

Assist wherever with funds mobilization under the operational phase of the project.

Meteorology Division - MNREM

Meteorological data Focal point for UNFCCC; Synergy with UNCCD; Has valuable and relevant meteorological data

Provide input on climatological data related to land degradation; Resource persons in SLM trainings for early warning systems for pro-longed drought periods due to unusual incidents of El-Nino events

Mapping Section – MNREM

Update of mapping information Provided of satellite images; Training Provide satellite imagery for mapping and monitoring; Provide assistance to resource persons in remote sensing imagery.

DEC - MNREM Biodiversity Conservation Focal point for CBD; Synergy with UNCCD Resource persons in SLM Workshops, public awareness forums and consultations

Crops Division – MAF Sustainable Agricultural Practices Currently implementing aspects of sustainable agriculture through projects; Technical expertise

Coordinating and funding body for agricultural research; Co-financier of the Project; Trainers and resource people in workshops and consultations

PUMA Division – MWTI Land use Planning and Development matters

Mandate (PUMA Act 2004); granting of development consents Implementing partner in development of land-use management plans etc.

MESC Training of primary and secondary school teachers in SLM issues; Public awareness

Set education curricula in Samoa Assist in public awareness activities and effective dissemination of information

MOF Financial co-ordination of the Project

Channel all financial resources for GEF projects Facilitation of funds for Govt. commitments

NUSUSP

Research; Training Both tertiary institutions are running programs/courses related to SLM Provide technical expertise in various assessments related to SLM; Knowledge sharing through training workshops etc.

MWCSD Community Awareness (Youth and Women Groups)

Vital link between Govt. and communities; Already established networks in communities

Assist in all awareness programs aimed towards communities

WIBDI Samoa Organic Farmers Association

Organic Farming; Community Projects

Implementing various related projects; Already established networks with communities;


ANNEX H: F I N A N C I A L P L A N

Table 14: Detailed Activity Budget

Year Responsibility Donor Budget Description GEF Co-Finance TOTAL (US$)

1 2 3

OUTCOME 1: COMPLETION OF NAP

Output 1.1 Preparation of NAP1.1.1 Develop a draft NAP including problem and root cause analysis and

prioritization of actionsx

MNREM National Consultant UNDP

Consultancy fees 0.00 3,000.00 3,000.00


x National Stakeholder Workshop

0.00 2,000.00 2,000.00

1.1.3 UNCCD National Steering Committee (NSC) endorsement/validation of the NAP

Meetings of the UNCCD NSC

0.00 500.00 500.00

Output 1.1 Sub Total 0.00 5,500.00 5,500.00

Output 1.2 Adoption of NAP

1.2.1 Final compilation of the NAP and submissions to CDC x

MNREM UNDP

Materials, Printing Costs etc. 0.00 500.00 500.00

1.2.2 Official submission of the NAP x 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.2.3 Official launch of the NAP Document x Official National Launch 0.00 2,000.00 2,000.00

Output 1.2 Sub Total 0.00 2,500.00 2,500.00

Total Outcome 1: $0.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00

OUTCOME 2: CAPACITIES DEVELOPED FOR SLM

Output 2.1 Enhanced capacities for the effective administration and sustainable management of lands and land-based resources2.1.1 Conduct trainings on the assessments and appropriate uses of land

and land-based natural resourcesx MNREM

MWTI GEFMNREM

Consultant/Stationery/softwares/venue/Site Visits etc

15,000.00 10,000.00 25,000.00

2.1.2 Update through technical and information survey of Land Tenure Distribution of Samoa’s Lands

x x MNREM GEFMNREM

20,000.00 5,000.00 25,000.00

Output 2.1 Sub Total 35,000.00 15,000.00 50,000.00



1 2 3

Output 2.2 Enhanced capacities for sustainable agriculture particularly in drought prone areas2.2.1 Establish a pilot site for sustainable farming in a drought prone area x MNREM

MAFGEFMAF/FAO

Contracted to MAF/NGO 51,000.00 40,000.00 91,000.00

2.2.2Conduct trainings through demonstration plots and workshops on sustainable agriculture and organic farming practices

x MNREMMAFNGO

GEFMAF/FAO

Contracted to MAF/NGO 12,000.00 20,000.00 32,000.00

2.2.3 Develop and apply training modules on sustainable farming for Samoa x MNREMMAF/Consultant

GEFMAF/FAO

MNREM and/or Contracted 10,000.00 10,000.00 20,000.00

Output 2.2 Sub Total 73,000.00 70,000.00 143,000.00

Output 2.3 Enhanced capacities for the rehabilitation of degraded coastal areas2.3.1 Conduct trials of soil protection measures through the rehabilitation of

2 pilot sites on eroded coastal areasx x MNREM

International ExpertGEFGoS

Contracted to NUS/USP 60,000.00 90,000.00 150,000.00

2..3.2 Conduct extensive workshop for coastal communities in Upolu and Savaii

x MNREMConsultant

GEFGoS

Consultant 20,000.00 50,000.00 70,000.00

Output 2.3 Sub Total 80,000.00 140,000.00 220,000.00

Output 2.4 Enhanced governance to promote proper land use of degraded watershed areas2.4.1 Undertake necessary preparatory studies and implement single village

watershed management pilot with differing land ownership and governance issues through reafforestation and replanting

x MNREMIWP Focal Point

GEFGoS

Reforestation/Monitoring/Management plans, etc.

50,000.00 105,000.00 155,000.00

2.4.2 Consultation with all landowners with differing types of land tenureship at the pilot site

x x MNREM GEFGoS

Wider consultation of governance issues

7,000.00 55,000.00 62,000.00

2.4.3 Prepare a governance report on piloted areas x MNREMConsultant

GEFGoS

Printing Materials/workshop 3,000.00 10,000.00 13,000.00

Output 2.4 Sub Total60,000.00 170,000.00 230,000.00

Output 2.5 Assessments of appropriate uses of land2.5.1 Develop a framework for the technical assessment of soil

classifications in Samoa using the new Millennium Ecosystem Approach promoted by the GEF.

x MNREMUSPNUS

UNDP-cash Contracted to NUS/USP

0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00

2.5.2 Conduct a technical survey assessment in relation to soil type, fertility and other bio-physical characteristics and on all degraded land areas and training of stakeholders in new concepts and techniques for SLM including understanding of ecosystem functions and services, and the landscape approach.

x x MNREMUSPNUS

GEFUNDP-cash

Contracted to NUS/USP30,000.00 10,000.00 40,000.00

2.5.3 Prepare a technical report on status with the bio-physical environment and on land degradation in Samoa

x Consultant GEFUNDP

Cost of 1 report 3,000.00 3,000.00 6,000.00

2.5.4 Produce soil maps based on technical of soil classification survey in 2.5.2

MNREMConsultant

GEFMNREM

20,000.00 5,000.00 25,000.00



1 2 3

Output 2.5 Sub Total53,000.00

23,000.00 76,000.00

Output 2.6 Enhanced SLM through improvements of individual, systemic and institutional capacities including relevant national plans and policies

2.6.1 Extensive community consultations of existing land policies for the review and development of effective policies

x x x MNREM GEFUNDP

Consultation costs, Materials for surveys and etc.

10,000.00 5,000.00 15,000.00

2.6.2 Develop a land administration policy which functions to regulate the development and use of land

x MNREM GEF Consultation costs, Materials for surveys and etc.

5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00

Output 2.6 Sub Total 15,000.00 5,000.00 20,000.00

Output 2.7 Development of monitoring and evaluation systems on the effectiveness of the implementation phase of the SLM Project2.7.1 Develop a system for monitoring the effectiveness of the uses of land

based resources and the sustainable use of land for forest/woodland and agricultural purposes

x MNREMConsultant

GEF Consultancy Costs 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00

2.7.2 Produce a report on the effectiveness of the monitoring and evaluation systems in place and potential for sustainability after the life of the project

x MNREMConsultant

GEF Consultancy Costs 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00

Output 2.7 Sub Total 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00

Total Outcome 2: 326,000.00 423,000.00 $749,000.00

OUTCOME 3: MAINSTREAMING OF SLM

Output 3.1 Mainstreaming of SLM

3.1.1 Review and integrate SLM into SDS and other appropriate national plans and policies

x x xMNREMMAFMOFMFATAG’s Office

GoS Review of SDS 0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00

3.1.2 Increase and strengthen SLM in Government Planning and Development processes

x x x GoS 0.00 2,000.00 2,000.00

3.1.3 Review MNRE Bill 2003 to include SLM issues and strengthened provisions under which to enforce implementation of illegal activities

x X GoS Review provisions of MNRE Bill 2003

0.00 3,000.00 3,000.00

Output 3.1 Sub Total 0.00 10,000.00 10,000.00

Output 3.2 Sharing of knowledge on SLM


x x x MNREM GEF Materials, Media Costs 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00

3.2.2 Implement public awareness campaigns through the media on SLM issues

x x x MNREM GEF Cover Costs for Newspapers, TV programs etc

10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00



1 2 3


x x x MNREM GEF Printing, materials and time 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00

3.2.4 Prepare video and radio shorts for general public x x x MNREM GEF Materials and Radio 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00

3.2.5 Incorporate new techniques into existing materials x x MNREM GEF Materials 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00

Output 3.2 Sub Total 26,000.00 0.00 26,000.00

Total Outcome 3: $26,000.00 $10,000.00 $36,000.00

OUTCOME 4: MEDIUM TERM INVESTMENT PLAN

Output 4.1 Development of a Medium term Investment Plan with associated resource mobilization plan that incorporates SLM4.1.1. Identify priority SLM investment needs and opportunities x MNREM

Local ConsultantsMOF

GEF4,000.00 0.00 4,000.00

4.1.2. Develop a costed SLM Investment Plan including brief concept papers for priority investments

x5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00

Output 4.1 Sub Total 9,000.00 0.00 9,000.00

Total Outcome 4: $9,000.00 $0.00 $9,000.00

OUTCOME 5: ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND LESSONS LEARNT Output 5.1 Personnel Costs5.1.1 Recruitment of Project Manager (PM) x x x MNREM Salary for 3 years 46,000.00 0.00 46,000.005.1.2 Technical Assistant (LD as Counterpart) x x x MNREM-DLM MNREM Salary for 3 years 0.00 30,000.00 30,000.005.1.3 Administrative Assistant/Driver x x x MNREM-DCS MNREM Salary for 3 years 0.00 10,000.00 10,000.00

Output 5.1 Sub Total 46,000.00 40,000.00 86,000..00Output 5.2 Office Equipment5..2.1 Office Space MNREM MNREM PMU 0.00 10,000.00 10,000.005..2.2 Laptop x MNREM UNDP -

cashPM office use 0.00 4,000.00 4,000.00

5..2.3 Stationary x x x MNREM GEF PM office use 3,000.00 0.00 3,000.005..2.4 Printer x MNREM GEF Office use 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.005..2.5 Digital Camera x MNREM GEF Media and reporting

purposes2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00

5..2.6 Maintenance Costs x x x MNREM UNDP - cash

Equipment maintenance 0.00 10,000.00 10,000.00

Output 5.2 Sub Total 10,000.00 24,000.00 34,000.00

Output 5.3 Travel Costs5.3.1 Overseas/Local travel fares7 X x x MNREM GEF/UNDP PM travel expenses 17,000.00 0.00 17,000.005.3.2 Accommodation/DSA X x x MNREM GEF/UNDP PM accommodation/DSA 10,000.00 3,000.00 13,000.00



1 2 3

5.3.2 Vehicle Transport/Running Costs X x x MNREM MNREM Use of Govt. vehicle 0.00 10,000.00 10,000.00

Output 5.3 Sub Total 27,000.00 13,000.00 40,000.00Output 5.4 Committee Operational Costs5.4.1 MNREM PMU Meetings x x x MNREM MNREM Meetings of the PMU 0.00 5,000.00 5,000.005.4.2 NSC & TAG x x x MNREM GEF Meetings of committees 5,000.00 3,000.00 8,000.00

Output 5.4 Sub Total 5,000.00 8,000.00 13,000.00Output 5.5 Monitoring & Evaluation Costs5.5.1 Mid-Term Review x MNREM-PMU GEF

Monitoring and Evaluation Reviews of the project’s progress

7,000 0.00 7,000.005.5.2 Final Evaluation x MNREM-PMU GEF 10,000 0.00 10,000.005.5.3 Annual Audits x x x MNREM-PMU GEF 7,000 0.00 7,000.005.5.4 Inception workshop x PM GEF/

MNREM1,000 1,000.00 2,000.00

5.5.5 Lessons Learned x x x PM GEF/MNREM

1,000 1,000.00 2,000.00

5.5.6 Field Visits x x x PM GEF/MNREM

0.00 0.00 0.00

Output 5 Sub Total 26,000.00 2,000.00 28,000.00

Total Outcome 5: 114,000.00 87,000.00 201,000.00

Grand Total 475,000.00 528,000.00 1,003,000.00

Table 15: Allocation of GEF and Co-Financing Funds per Output

7 Include field visits


DONOR GEFCo-Financing

TOTAL (US$)

US$ SUMMARY

GEF$475,000.00

Co-Financiers

TOTALUNDP$48,000

FAO-MAF$70,000

MNREM$110,000

GoS$300,000

Donor GEF Co-Finance TOTAL (US$) US$ SUMMARY

GEF$475,000

Co-FinanciersTOTALUNDP

$48,000FAO/MAF$70,000

MNREM$110,000

GoS$300,000

Output 1.1 Preparation of NAP1.1.1 Develop a draft NAP including

problem and root cause analysis and prioritization of actions

UNDP0.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 0 3,000 0 0 0


UNDP 0.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000

1.1.3 UNCCD National Steering Committee (NSC) endorsement/validation of the NAP

UNDP 0.00 500.00 500.00 500

Output 1.1 Sub Total 0.00 5,500.00 5,500.00 0 5,500 0 0 0 5,500

Output 1.2 Adoption of NAP

1.2.1 Final compilation of the NAP and submissions to CDC UNDP 0.00 500.00 500.00 500

1.2.2 Official submission of the NAP 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.2.3 Official launch of the NAP Document UNDP 0.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000

Output 1.2 Sub Total 0.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 0 2,500 0 0 0 2,500

Total Outcome 1: $0.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 8,000 0 0 0 $8,000

Output 2.1 Enhanced capacities for the effective administration and sustainable management of land and land-based resources2.1.1. Conduct trainings on the

assessments and appropriate uses of land and land-based resources

GEF/GoS 15,000.00 10,000.00 25,000.00 15,000 10,000

2.1.2. Update through technical and information survey of Land Tenure Distribution of Samoa Lands

GEF/GoS 20,000.00 5,000.00 25,000.00 20,000 5,000

Sub-Output 2.1 35,000.00 15,000.00 50,000.00 35,000 15,000 50,000



GEF$475,000


$48,000FAO/MAF$70,000

MNREM$110,000

GoS$300,000

Output 2.2 Strengthened capacity for sustainable agriculture particularly in drought prone areas2.2.1 Establish a pilot site for sustainable

farming in a drought prone area51,000.00 40,000.00 91,000.00 51,000 40,000

2.2.2 Conduct trainings through demonstration plots and workshops on sustainable agriculture and organic farming practices

GEFFAO/MAF

12,000.00 20,000.00 32,000.00 12,000 20,000

2.2.3 Develop and apply training modules on sustainable farming for Samoa

10,000.00 10,000.00 20,000.00 10,000 10,000

Output 2.2 Sub Total 73,000.00 70,000.00 143,000.00 73,000 70,000 143,000

Output 2.3 Enhanced capacities for the rehabilitation of degraded coastal areas

2.3.1 Conduct trials of soil protection measures through the rehabilitation of 2 pilot sites on eroded coastal areas

GEFFAO/MAF

60,000.00 90,000.00 150,000.00 60,000 90,000

2.3.2 Conduct extensive workshop for coastal communities for Upolu & Savaii

20,000.00 50,000.00 70,000.00 20,000 50,000

Output 2.3 Sub Total 80,000.00 140,000.00 220,000.00 80,000 140,000 220,000

Output 2.4 Enhanced governance of degraded watershed areas2.4.1 Undertake necessary preparatory

studies and implement single village watershed management pilot with differing land ownership and governance issues through reafforestation and replanting

GEF/GoS50,000.00 105,000.00 155,000.00 50,000 20,000 85,000

2.4.2 Consultation with all landowners with differing types of land tenureship at the pilot site

GEF/GoS7,000.00 55,000.00 62,000.00 7,000 55,000

2.4.3 Prepare a governance report on piloted areas

GEF/GoS 3,000.00 10,000.00 13,000.00 3,000 10,000

Output 2.4 Sub Total 60,000.00 170,000.00 230,000.00 60,000 20,000 150,000 230,000

Output 2.5 Assessments of the appropriate use of land



GEF$475,000


$48,000FAO/MAF$70,000

MNREM$110,000

GoS$300,000

2.5.1 Develop a framework for the technical assessment of soil classifications in Samoa using the new Millennium Ecosystem Approach promoted by the GEF.

GEFUNDP

0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000

2.5.2 Conduct a technical survey assessment in relation to soil type, fertility and other bio-physical characteristics and on all degraded land areas and training of stakeholders in new concepts and techniques for SLM including understanding of ecosystem functions and services, and the landscape approach.

GEFUNDP

30,000.00 10,000.00 40,000.00 30,000 10,000

2.5.3 Prepare a technical report on status with the bio-physical environment and on land degradation in Samoa based on data 2.5.2

GEFUNDP

3,000.00 3,000.00 6,000.00 3,000 3,000

2.5.4 Produce soil maps based on technical of soil classification survey in 2.5.2

20,000.00 5,000.00 25,000.00 20,000 5,000

Output 2.5 Sub Total 53,000.00 23,000.00 76,000.00 53,000 18,000 5,000 76,000

Output 2.6 Enhanced SLM through improvements of government plans and policies2.6.1 Extensive community consultation of

existing land policies for the purpose of the review and development of effective policies

GEF/UNDP 10,000.00 5,000.00 15,000.00 10,000 5,000

2.6.2 Develop a land administration policy which functions to regulate the development and use of land

5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 5,000

Output 2.6 Sub Total 15,000.00 5,000.00 20,000.00 15,000 5,000 20,000Output 2.7 Development o f monitoring and evaluation systems on the effectiveness of the implementation phase of the SLM Project2.7.1 Develop a system for monitoring the

effectiveness of the uses of land-based resources and the sustainable use of land for forest/woodland and agricultural purposes

5,000.00 0.00

5,000.00

5,000



GEF$475,000


$48,000FAO/MAF$70,000

MNREM$110,000

GoS$300,000

2.7.2 Produce a report on the effectiveness of the monitoring and evaluation systems in place and potential for sustainability after the life of the project

5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 5,000

Output 2.7 Sub Total 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 10,000 10,000

Total Outcome 2: $326,000.00 423,000.00 749,000.00 326,000 23,000 70,000 40,000 290,000 749,000

Output 3.1 Mainstreaming of SLM3.1.1 Review and integrate SLM into SDS

and other appropriate national plans and policies

GoS0.00 5,000.00 5,.000.00 5,000

3.1.2 Increase and strengthen SLM in Government Planning and Development processes

GoS0.00 2000.00 2000.00

2,000

3.1.3 Review MNRE Bill 2003 to include SLM issues and strengthened provisions under which to enforce implementation of illegal activities

GoS

0.00 3,000.00 3,000.00

3,000

Output 3.1 Sub Total 0.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 0 0 0 10,000 10,000

Output 3.2 Sharing of knowledge on SLM


GEF5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00

3.2.2 Implement public awareness campaigns through the media on SLM issues

GEF 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 10,000.00


GEF 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00

3.2.4 Prepare video and radio shorts for general public

GEF 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00

3.2.5 Incorporate new techniques into existing materials

GEF 1,000.00 0.00 1,000.00 1,000.00

Output 3.2 Sub Total 26,000.00 0.00 26,000.00 26,000.00 0 0 0 0 26,000

Total Outcome 3: $26,000.00 $10,000.00 $36,000.00 26,000.00 0 0 10,000 $36,000

Output 4.1 Development of an SLM Investment Plan4.1.3. Identify priority SLM investment 4,000 0.00 4,000.00 4,000



GEF$475,000


$48,000FAO/MAF$70,000

MNREM$110,000

GoS$300,000

needs and opportunities GEF4.1.4. Develop a costed SLM

Investment Plan including brief concept papers for priority investments GEF 5,000 0.00 5,000.00 5,000

Output 4.1 Sub Total 9,000.00 0.00 9,000.00 9,000

Total Outcome 4: 9,000.00 $0.00 $9,000.00 9,000 0 0 0 0 9,000Output 5.1 Personnel Costs

5.1.1 Recruitment of Project Manager (PM) GEF 46,000.00 0.00 46,000.00 46,0005.1.2 Technical Assistant (LD as Counterpart) MNREM 0.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 30,0005.1.3 Administrative Assistant/ Driver MNREM 0.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000

Output 5.1 Sub Total 46,000.00 40,000.00 86,000.00 46,000 40,000 86,000Output 5.2 Office Equipment5.2.1 Office Space MNREM 0.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,0005.2.2 Laptop UNDP 0.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 4,0005.2.3 Stationary GEF 3,000.00 0.00 3,000.00 3,0005.2.4 Printer GEF 5,000.00 0.00 5,000.00 5,0005.2.5 Digital Camera GEF 2,000.00 0.00 2,000.00 2,0005.2.6 Maintenance Costs UNDP 0.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000

Output 5.2 Sub Total 10,000.00 24,000.00 34,000.00 10,000 14,000 10,000 34,000Output 5.3 Travel Costs5.3.1 Overseas/Local travel fares8 GEF 17,000.00 0.00 17,000.00 17,0005.3.2 Accommodation/DSA GEF/UNDP 10,000.00 3,000.00 13,000.00 10,000 30005.3.2 Vehicle Transport/Running Costs MNREM 0.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000

Output 5.3 Sub Total 27,000.00 13,000.00 40,000.00 27,000 3,000 10,000 40,000Output 5.4 Committee Operational Costs5.4.1 MNREM PMU Meetings MNREM 0.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,0005.4.2 NSC & TAG GEF/MNREM 5,000.00 3,000.00 8,000.00 5,000 3,000

Output 5.4 Sub Total 5,000.00 8,000.00 13,000.00 5,000 8,000 13,000Output 5.5 Monitoring & Evaluation Costs5.5.1 Mid-Term Review GEF 7,000.00 0.00 7,000.00 7,0005.5.2 Final Evaluation GEF 10,000.00 0.00 10,000.00 10,0005.5.3 Annual Audits GEF 7,000.00 0.00 7,000.00 7,0005.5.4 Inception workshop GEF/MNREM 1,000.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 1,000 1,0005.5.5 Lessons Learned GEF/MNREM 1,000.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 1,000 1,0005.5.6 Field Visits GEF/MNREM 0.00 0.00 0.00

Output 5.5 Sub Total 26,000.00 2,000.00 28,000.00 26,000 2,000 25,000

8 Include Field Visits


Total Outcome 5: 114,000.00 87,000.00 201,000.00 114,000 17,000 70,000 201,000

GRAND TOTAL 475,000.00 528,000.00 1,003,000.00 475,000.00 48,000 70,000 110,000 300,000 1,003,000.00

Table 16: Analysis of GEF and Co-Financing Funds by Output per Individual Donor

OUTPUTS GEF UNDP FAO/MAF MNREM GoS TOTALOutcome 1: Completion of the NAPOutput 1.1 Preparation of the NAP

0 5,500 0 0 0 5,500Output 1.2 Adoption of the NAP

0 2,500 0 0 0 2,500Sub Total Outcome 1 0 8,000 0 0 0 8,000Outcome 2: Capacities Developed for SLMOutput 2.1 Enhanced capacities for the effective administration and

sustainable management of lands and land-based resources

35,000 0 0 15,000 0 50,000

Output 2.2 Strengthened capacity for sustainable agriculture particularly in drought prone areas

73,000 0 70,000 0 0 143,000Output 2.3 Enhanced capacities for the rehabilitation of degraded

coastal areas80,000 0 140,000 220,000

Output 2.4 Enhanced governance to proper land use of degraded watershed areas 60,000 0

0 20,000 150,000230,000

Output 2.5 Assessments of the appropriate use of land53,000 18,000 0 5,000 0 76,000

Output 2.6 Enhanced SLM through improvements of individual, systemic and institutional capacities including relevant national plans and policies

15,000 5,000 0 0 0 20,000Output 2.7 Development of monitoring and evaluation systems on

the effectiveness of the implementation phase of the SLM Project

10,000 0 0 0 0 10,000Sub Total Outcome 2 326,000 23,000 70,000 40,000 290,000 749,000Outcome 3: Mainstreaming SLMOutput 3.1 SLM mainstreamed 0 0 0 0 10,000 10,000Output 3.2 Sharing of knowledge on SLM 26,000 0 0 0 0 26,000


Sub Total Outcome 3 26,000 0 0 0 10,000 36,000Outcome 4: SLM Investment PlanOutput 4.1 Development of Medium Term Investment Plan with

associated resource mobilization plan that incorporates SLM 9,000 0 0 0 0 0

Sub Total Outcome 49,000 0 0 0 0 9,000

Outcome 5: Project ManagementOutput 5.1 Personnel Costs

46,000 0 0 40,000 0 86,000Output 5.2 Office Equipment

10,000 14,000 0 10,000 0 34,000Output 5.3 Travel Costs

27,000 3,000 10,000 0 40,000Output 5.4 Committee Operational Costs

5,000 0 0 8,000 0 13,000Output 5.5 Monitoring & Evaluation

26,000 0 0 2,000 0 28,000Sub Total Outcome 5 114,000 17,000 0 70,000 0 $201,000

Table 17. Summary of Co-Financiers’ Contribution by Outcome and Sources

COMPONENT SOURCE/ BREAKDOWN OUTCOME 1

OUTCOME2

OUTCOME 3

OUTCOME 4

OUTCOME 5

105TOTALS

GEF FUNDS Grant 8,0000.00 423,000.00 10,000.00 0.00 87,000.00 $528,000.00

UNDP – Cash NAP Formulation 8,000.00 8,000.00 8,000.00UNDP Country Programme 40,000.00 23,000.00 17,000.00 40,000.00Sub Total 8,000.00 23,000.00 17,000.00 $48,000.00

FAO – MAF Capacity Building 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00MAF Technical Assistance 20,000.00 20,000.00 20,000.00Sub Total 70,000.00 $70,000.00

MNREM In-Kind Contribution 70,000.00 70,000.00 70,000.00Technical Support 40,000.00 40,000.00 40,000.00Sub Total 40,000.00 70,000.00 $110,000.00

GoS – in-kind EU-Water Resources 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00WB – CIMS Plans 150,000.00 140,000.00 10,000.00 150,000.00


Sub-Total 290,000.00 10,000.00 $300,000.00


ANNEX I:

Co-Financing Letters of Commitment

(a) Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF); Source: Future Farmers Project – Technical

Assistance, Status: submitted as attached. Value: $US70,000.00

(b) Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment and Meteorology (MNREM); Source: In-Kind

contribution and Technical Assistance, Status: submitted as attached. Value: $US110,000.00.

(c) Government of Samoa (GoS); Source: EU-Water Resource Division & WB-CIMS Plans –

Capacity Building and Technical Support Services, Status: submitted as attached.

Value: $US 300,000.00

(d) UNDP; Source: UNCCD NAP & UNDP Country Programme for Samoa, Status: submitted as

attached. Value: $US48,000.00


ANNEX J:

Terms of Reference for Steering Committee, Project Manager, Project Executive Group, Technical Advisory Group, and MNREM Project Management Unit.

1. NATIONAL STEERING COMMITTEE (NSC)

The Sustainable Land Management Medium Size Project shall establish a national steering committee to provide overall policy advice guidance to the project and ensures the smooth progress of the project towards achieving its outcomes and outputs. In addition, the NSC shall

1. Provide support and advice to the project team on implementation of the project activities;2. Provide advice on stakeholder identification and participation and endorse the defined roles for each of the participating

agency;3. Ensure participation of stakeholders through liaison with relevant stakeholder groups; 4. Review and endorse the project work plan in line with the project document;5. Participate in the inception workshop as part of the capacity building activities for the project;6. Monitor the performance of the project through evaluation of three monthly reports produced by the project coordinator

and project team;7. Facilitate effective inter-agency sharing of information relevant to the project;8. Quality control of technical reports prepared by the national consultants and the project coordinator;9. Evaluate and approve all draft reports/policy papers etc produced as outputs of the project;10. Liaise with government to ensure government commitment to the project and approval of all produced Reports by

Cabinet;11. Facilitate discussions on possible funding sources for the National Capacity Development Strategy and Action Plan.12. Lay down policies defining the functions, responsibilities and delegation of powers for the local implementing agency

and the Project Management Office and the NCSA Team.13. Coordinate and manage the overall project activities and the budget.14. Facilitate coordination of project activities across institutions.15. Review the project activities, and their adherence to the work plan set forth in the project document.16. Review and comment on each year’s proposed work plan and budget17. Take decisions on the issues brought to its notice by UNDP and other cooperating institutions, and advise regarding

efficient and timely execution of the project.18. Initiate remedial action to remove impediments in the progress of project activities that were not envisaged earlier.

NCSA National Steering Committee NSC) composition:

Meeting proceedings:The CEO for the MNREM shall chair the NSC meetings. The NSC shall meet at least once a quarter and any other time when the need arises.

2. PROJECT MANAGER (PM) BackgroundThe PM will be responsible for the implementation of the project, including the mobilization of all project inputs, supervision over project staff, consultants and sub-contractors. The PM will manage the Capacity Building for SLM MSP, will be fully accountable to the CEO of MNREM and to the Project Executive Group for satisfactory execution of the entire project and will be responsible for meeting government obligations under the Project, under the national execution modality. The PM will be the head of the Project Management Unit (PMU). The PMU will have operational and financial autonomy, including the authority to select and sub-contract specific project activities or components to local consultants and local institutions. The PM shall perform a liaison role with government, UNDP and all stakeholders involved with the project.

Duties and Responsibilities1. Overall management of the project;2. Supervise and coordinate the production of project outputs as per the project document;3. Ensure the technical coordination of the project;4. Mobilize all project inputs in accordance with UNDP procedures for nationally executed projects;5. Finalize the ToR for the consultants and subcontractors;6. Coordinate and recruitment and selection of project personnel;


7. Supervise and coordinate the work of all project staff; consultants and sub-contractors;8. Work closely with project partners to closely coordinate all the actors involved with achieving Project Outcomes;

Outputs and Activities;9. Supervise the work of all PMU staff, including national staff;10. Prepare and revise project work and financial plans, as required to Government and UNDP;11. Manage procurement of goods and services under UNDP guidelines and oversight of contracts;12. Ensure proper management of funds consistent with UNDP requirements, and budget planning and control;13. Establish project monitoring and reporting;14. Arrange for audit of all project accounts for each fiscal year;15. Prepare and ensure timely submission of quarterly financial consolidated reports, quarterly consolidated progress

reports, PPER, mid-term reports, and other reports as may be required by UNDP;16. Disseminate project reports to and respond to queries from concerned stakeholders;17. Report progress of project to the Project Executive Group;18. Oversee the exchange and sharing of experiences and lessons learned with relevant conservation and development

projects nationally and internationally;19. Prepare a detailed annual workplan for the project; and20. Undertake any other activities that may be assigned by the Project Executive Group.

Selection Criteria1. Postgraduate degree in natural resources management or other relevant academic and profession qualifications with

at least 10 years professional experience;2. Proven extensive experience and technical ability to manage a large project and a good technical knowledge in the

fields related to SLM, participatory approaches and/or environmental economics;3. Proven ability to communicate with various levels of project stakeholder groups, including senior government

officials, business executives, farmers and communities;4. Ability to effectively coordinate a complex, multi-stakeholder project;5. Ability to lead, manage and motivate teams of international and local consultants to achieve results;6. Good capacities for strategic thinking and planning7. Excellent communication skills;8. Knowledge of UNDP project implementation procedures, including procurement, disbursements, and reporting and

monitoring highly preferable.

Duration of the assignment:Project implementation is for a period of three years and continuity of staff during this time will be crucial for effective implementation.

3. PROJECT EXECUTIVE GROUP (PEG) Overall responsibilities9:

The Project Executive Group is the group responsible for making executive management decisions for a project when guidance is required by the Project Manager, including approval of project plans and revisions. This group is consulted by the Project Manager for decisions when project manager tolerances have been exceeded.

Based on the approved annual work plan (AWP), the Project Executive Group reviews and approves project stage plans and authorizes any major deviation from these agreed stage plans. It is the authority that signs off the completion of each stage plan as well as authorizes the start of the next stage plan. It ensures that required resources are committed and arbitrates on any conflicts within the project or negotiates a solution to any problems between the project and external bodies. In addition, it approves the appointment and responsibilities of the Project Manager and any delegation of its Project Assurance responsibilities.

Composition and organization:

This group contains three roles, including:

9 Source: Guidelines on UNDP Implementation of UNDAF Annual Review Process


1) An Executive representing the project ownership to chair the group,2) A Senior Supplier to provide guidance regarding the technical feasibility of the project, and3) A Senior Beneficiary to ensure the realization of project benefits from the perspective of project beneficiaries.

The LPAC10 reviews members of the Project Executive Group and recommends for Programme Manager’s approval. For example, the Executive role can be held by a representative from the Implementing Partner or UNDP, the Senior Supplier role is held by a representative of the Responsible Parties, and the Senior Beneficiary role is held by a representative of the government or civil society.

Specific responsibilities: To be responsible for the project, PEG should

For the processes of justifying, defining and initiating a project:

Agree on Project Manager’s and Project Management Team’s responsibilities; Appraise and approve stage plans submitted by Project Manager; Delegate any Project Assurance roles as appropriate; Commit project resources required by the next stage plan.

For the process of running a project:

Provide overall guidance and direction to the project, ensuring it remains within any specified constraints; Agree on Project Manager’s tolerances in the stage plan; Review each completed project stage plan and approve the next stage plan; Review and approve end project report, make recommendations for follow-on actions; Provide ad-hoc direction and advice for exception situations when project manager’s tolerances are exceeded; Assess and decide on project changes; Assure that all planned deliverables are delivered satisfactorily and programme management directives are

complied; Conduct annual review of AWP and pass on the results to Programme Component Review.

For the process of closing a project:

Assure that all products deliverables are delivered satisfactorily; Review and approve the end project report; Make recommendations for follow-on actions and post project review plan; Notify project closure to the Outcome Board.

The principal tasks of the PEG are the following:

1. Provide high level orientation and policy guidance for the project;2. Ensure that the project develops in accordance with national development objectives, goals and policies;3. Pay special attention to the assumptions and risks identified in the log frame, and seek measures to minimize these

threats to project success;4. Ensure collaboration between institutions and free access on the part of the project actors to key documents, land

information systems, remote sensing imagery, etc.;5. Pay special attention to the post-project sustainability of activities developed by the project;6. Ensure the integration and coordination of project activities with other related government and donor-funded

initiatives.

4. TECHNICAL ADVISORY GROUP (TAG)

The head of the lead Implementing Partner, the CEO of MNREM, will chair the TAG. The TAG will be composed of individuals from government, private sector, NGOs, and etc. TAG members will be composed of individuals who are widely recognized as being amongst the most technically knowledgeable and well equipped with relevant expertise in their component field.The TAG membership will be constituted of representatives from the following:

10 Where members of the Outcome Board and LPAC are the same, the Board can replace the LPAC.


Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment and Meteorology Ministry of Finance and Revenue Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries Ministry of Works, Transport and Infrastructure Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry of Women, Community and Social Development National University of Samoa University of the South Pacific United Nations Development Programme Samoa’s Umbrella for Non-governmental Organizations (SUNGO)

5. MNREM PROJECT MANAGEMENT UNIT (MNREM-PMU)

The MNREM-PMU management shall compose of the CEO, ACEO-DLM, PLDO, SLDO, Project Manager. The key rationale behind the formation of this sub-unit is to foster effective coordination and implementation of the project at the national, community and sectoral levels. This unit is directly responsible to the NSC and will feature as the key body through which clear decision-making processes are made to;

ensure transparency and accountability in the implementation process at the Ministry level support timely reporting and efficient delivery of project outputs advise on house-keeping matters for the project advise on the use and allocation of funds in cases of delays and/or changes to how funds are used as they are

differently stated in approved project budget advise on the use and allocation of technical resources directly responsible to NSC for reporting and major decisions advise and involve in the selection process for all local contracts and any recruits of local consultant overall success of the MSP-SLM project


ANNEX K: AUDIT CLAUSE

All UNDP funded and trust funded projects are eligible to be audited if annual expenditure exceeds US$100,000.00.

Auditors must certify, express an opinion, and quantify the financial impact on each of the following:

(i) Statement of Expenditure (CDR)(ii) Cash position reported by the project as at 31 December 2005(iii) Status of assets and equipment as at 31 December 2005

Auditors should also indicate the risks associated with their findings, categorize the findings by risk severity and classify possible causes of audit findings.

Follow-up action plans for prior year recommendations must be submitted to the NGO/NEX auditors during the audit of 2005 expenditures for their assessment and certification.

ANNEX L






ANNEX M


NATIONAL EXECUTION PROCEDURES TRANSITION ARRANGEMENTS FOR ONGOING PROGRAMMES/PROJECTS

The procedures are valid from 1 April 1998. All new programmes and projects approved after 1 April 1998 must follow the new procedures.

How will the procedures affect on-going programmes/projects?

UNDP country offices will be encouraged to review on-going programmes and projects to verify if the revised procedures may improve the functioning of the programme/project.

In order not to cause disruption to on-going programmes/projects, execution and implementation arrangements agreed for on-going or already approved programmes and projects will normally remain valid. All country offices must apply the procedures to on-going programmes/projects when tasks come up, for example audit, that are covered by the procedures.

The Resident Representative is accountable for ensuring that these transition measures are implemented. This will be monitored by audits, PMOC reviews, evaluations and periodic reporting.

The adjustments that are mandatory are presented below:

A. Financial reporting

The new Financial Report replaces the request for advances of funds, the government disbursement report (GDR), and the reconciliation of outstanding advance (ROA). Latest by the second quarter of 1998 (the report due by 30 June 1998), all reporting must be done through the new format.

B. Country office support to national execution

Legal framework and protection

In order to provide full legal coverage for country office support services to national execution, UNDP country offices are requested to negotiate and conclude an agreement with programme country Governments to cover the provision of all such services. As the full range of services currently provided by UNDP country offices were not foreseen at the time of the establishment of the UNDP standard basic assistance agreement with the Government (the “SBAA”), UNDP now requires protection through privileges and immunities, and protection against liability, in the context of our support to national execution. (See paragraph 6.1.5 of the Procedures for National Execution.)

For on-going programmes and projects, this agreement is established as follows :(a) An umbrella agreement for the whole programme country signed once to cover all UNDP support (on-

going and future).(b) A case-by-case agreement as an annex to the PSD or project document, on a project by project basis. In

this case, the content of the letter of agreement is included in the next budget revision provided that the revision is signed by the authority authorized to confer immunities and privileges to UNDP, in addition to the signature by the usual authorities.

The model umbrella letter of agreement is provided in Annex C : “Standard letter of agreement between UNDP and the Government for the provision of support services”. In both cases above the agreement must be signed by a governmental body or official authorized to confer full legal protection on UNDP.


UNDP country offices should negotiate and conclude this letter before 31 October 1998 (difficulties in doing so must be communicated to the Regional Bureaux, copied to OSG, prior to 31 October 1998).

Description of programme/project services

The procedures also envisage an annex to the PSD/project document describing the support by the UNDP country office to that specific programme or project, in order to ensure clear functions, responsibilities and accountability of the parties involved, and to improve monitoring and evaluation of such services (See paragraph 6.1.8 and Annex D : “Standard annex to the programme support document or project document on UNDP country office support” on page 32 of the Procedures for National Execution). Approved project documents/PSDs are supposed to contain a generic identification of support services by UNDP already. Where this description includes the elements in the annex on country office support, UNDP country offices need not prepare an annex to already approved PSDs or project documents. Where the PSDs/project documents do not contain a description of support services by UNDP in line with the annex, UNDP country offices should prepare the annex D together with the next budget revision (considered as a revision of the PSD/project document). This should be done before 31 October 1998.

Capacity building and exit strategy

In order to ensure that long-term capacity building objectives are not jeopardized, UNDP country offices must, together with governments, develop appropriate capacity building measures including an exit strategy to accompany the support. For on-going programmes/projects, this may for example be achieved through an exchange of letters with government, or through the preparation of a workplan/action plan which is discussed at programme reviews. The exit strategies must also cover situations where the UNDP country office is providing financial support to a management Support Unit (MSU). The measures and exit strategy must be documented, with an indicative implementation schedule, before year-end 1998.

PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL EXECUTIONHOW TO INCLUDE ELEMENTS IN THE PROJECT DOCUMENT OR PROGRAMME

SUPPORT DOCUMENT

The following arrangements for nationally executed programmes and projects must be reflected in the programme support documents (PSD) and project documents (according to current formats11):

ELEMENTS TO INCLUDE Where in PSD Where in PRODOC

EXECUTION AND IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTSArrangements for the overall management, including coordination mechanisms, the respective responsibilities of the UNDP country office and the government coordinating authority.

II. D "Execution modality" 12

B.4 "Project strategy and implementation arrangements"

11 For PSDs see “How to implement the Programme Approach : a User’s Guide”. For project documents see section 30200 of the Programme and Projects Manual (PPM).

12 The Section II.D “Execution modality” in the PSD should be renamed “Management and execution arrangements”


Activities to be performed by implementing agents, implementation arrangements activities in general terms, the nature of inputs to be provided and how these may be obtained, mechanisms by which the UNDP country office is kept informed of procurement, recruitment and utilization of inputs.

II. D "Execution modality"


The executing agent must be clearly identified. cover page cover pageSignature by UNDP and the Government coordinating authority (and where the executing agent is different from the Government coordinating authority, signature by the executing agent).

cover page cover page

CAPACITY ASSESSMENTReview of the capacity needs for the programme or project with regard to administrative capacity and accountability and need for UNDP support. The recommendations of the review must be documented for follow up action. (Note : Capacity building measures for execution should be addressed as part of the programme/project and may be reflected in the activities and outputs.)

I.C “Capacity requirements and assessment”, II.B “Strategy for optimal use of UNDP resources”II.C “Programme support objectives”II. D "Execution modality"

B1 “Problem to be addressed”B.4 "Project strategy and implementation arrangements"D. “Objectives, outputs and activities”

Clear responsibilities must be assigned to Management Support Units and other parties, including timeframe, limited time period and capacity building measures.



The use of rules and procedures, based on Capacity-building for execution: key considerations.



UNDP COUNTRY OFFICE SUPPORT (Where appropriate)A description of support services to be provided by UNDP. See “Standard annex to the programme support or project document on UNDP country office support”.

Annex II. D "Execution modality"III.B Workplan

AnnexB.4 "Project strategy and implementation arrangements"

The UNDP support will be accompanied by appropriate capacity building measures including an exit strategy.(Note : the exit strategy may also be provided in an annex to the PSD/Project document.)

II.B “Strategy for optimal use of UNDP resources”II.C “Programme support objectives”II. D "Execution modality"

D. Objectives, outputs and activities

UN AGENCY SUPPORT (Where appropriate)


Requirements for technical support by United Nations agencies.

II. D "Execution modality" III.B Workplan STS budget

B.4 "Project strategy and implementation arrangements"STS budget

A letter of agreement between the executing agent and the United Nations agency as implementing agent.

Annex Annex

MONITORING AND EVALUATIONThe mechanisms and specific responsibilities for monitoring and evaluating must be appropriately incorporated, including how United Nations agencies will assist with the monitoring, reporting and evaluation process.

II.E Monitoring and evaluation

H. “Review, reporting and evaluation”

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

The arrangements for substantive and financial reporting. See Capacity-building for execution: key considerations.

II.B “Strategy for optimal use of UNDP resources”II.C “Programme support objectives”II. D "Execution modality"II.E Monitoring and evaluation (as sub-section)

B.4 "Project strategy and implementation arrangements"H. “Review, reporting and evaluation” (as sub-section)

A schedule of expected advances of funds from UNDP to the executing agent.

AnnexIII.C “ Financial management tables” (as a separate table)

AnnexB.4 "Project strategy and implementation arrangements"

A workplan. III.B Workplan Annex I. WorkplanA budget. III.C “Financial

management tables”J. “Budgets”annex

The audit authority must be mentioned. II. D "Execution modality"

H. “Review, reporting and evaluation”


ANNEX N : Total Budget and Annual WorkPlan

Total Budget and Annual Work PlanAward ID:00039080 Award Title: SAM 3403 LD PDFA Sam Land Mngt Project ID: 00043651 / PIMS 3403Project Title: SAM 3403 LD PDFA Sam Land Mngt Executing Agency: NEX : Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment and Meteorology GEF Outcome/Atlas Activity

Responsible Party (Implementing Agent)

Source of Funds

Atlas Budgetary Account

Code

ERP/ATLAS Budget Description/Input

Amount (USD) 2006

Amount (USD) 2007

Amount (USD) 2008

Total (USD)

OUTCOME 1: Completion of NAP

Min. Natural Resources, Environment and Meteorology

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

OUTCOME 2: Capacities developed for Sustainable Land Management


GEF71400

Contractual Services - Companies 3,500.00 78,500.00 13,000.00 95,000.00

71300 Local Consultants 102,666.66 71,666.67 41,666.67 216,000.0074100 Professional Services 3,333.34 8,333.33 3,333.33 15,000.00

sub-total 109,500.00 158,500.00 58,000.00 326,000.00OUTCOME 3: Mainstreaming of Sustainable Land Management


GEF74200

Audio Visual and Print Prod. Costs 8,333.34 8,833.33 8,833.33 26,000.00

sub-total 8,333.34 8,833.33 8,833.33 26,000.00OUTCOME 4:Mid Term Investment Plan


GEF71400

Contractual Services - Companies 0.00 0.00 9,000.00 9,000.00

sub-total 0.00 0.00 9,000.00 9,000.00OUTCOME 5: Adaptive Management and Lessons Learnt


71400 Personnel Costs 15,333.34 15,333.33 15,333.33 46,000.0072200 Equipment and Furniture 8,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 10,000.0071600 Travel 9,000.00 9,000.00 9,000.00 27,000.0075100 Facilities and Administration 1,666.66 1,666.67 1,666.67 5,000.0074100 Professional Services 3,000.00 10,000.00 13,000.00 26,000.00

sub-total 37,000.00 37,000.00 40,000.00 114,000.00

TOTAL 154,833.34 204,333.33 115,833.33 475,000.00

Summary of Funds:GEF (MSP) USD $475,000.00GEF (PDF A) USD $25,000.00UNDP USD $48,000.00Government of Samoa (In Kind) USD$300,000.00Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (In Kind) USD $70,000.00

Ministry of Natural Resources Environment and Meteorology (In Kind)

USD $110,000.00

Total USD $1,028,,000.00

LITERATURE REVIEW

AusAID and International Board for Soil Research and Management (IBSRAM). March 2000. Project Completion Report Australia/IBSRAM Pacificland Project Phase 2: The Management of Sloping Lands for Sustainable Smallholder Agriculture in the South Pacific with activities in: Vanuatu, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Fiji and Papua New Guinea. 25pp.

Bonin, M.J., (tech. Ed.) 1999. Final Report of the Seminar on the Follow-Up to the World Food Summit: Sharing Information and Experiences Among Pacific Island Countries in Translating the World Food Summit Plan of Action into National Plans of Action. FAO Conference Room Apia, Samoa 6-9, April 1999. Women in Business Foundation and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. FAO/SAPA Apia, Samoa. 125 pp.


Bonin, M.J., 1999(b). Final Report on: World Food Summit Strategy Development for National Agricultural Development Horizon 2010. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.FAO/SAPA and MAFFM Samoa. Apia, Samoa. 63 pp.

Crawley, B. M. 2000. Information Tool for environmental conservation and sustainable development. In Samoan Environment Forum Proceedings of the National environment Forum 2001. Tu’u’u’ Ieti Tualealo and Violet Wulf (ed.s). Department of Lands, Surveys and Environment (DLSE) Apia, Samoa. pp 27-30.

Dunlop, F. 2000. Changing perception of land: Samoa 2000. In Samoan Environment Forum Proceedings of the National environment Forum 2001. Tu’u’u’ Ieti Tualealo and Violet Wulf (ed.s). Department of Lands, Surveys and Environment (DLSE) Apia, Samoa. pp 31-34.

Government of Samoa/UNCCD/Department of Lands Surveys and Environment, 2003. Samoa’s First National Report to the United Nations Convention to Combating Desertification. 33 pp.

Government of SAMOA Technical Groups of the Steering Committee of Samoa’s Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, 2001. Samoa’s Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL REPORTS, 20 pp.

Government of SAMOA/Division of Environment and Conservation/Department of Lands, Surveys and Environment Apia, Samoa 2001. Samoa’s First Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity. 48 pp.

Government of SAMOA/Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, 2005. Corporate Plan 2005-2008. “Growing a Healthy and Wealthy Samoa. 29 pp.

Government of SAMOA/Ministry of Agriculture, November 2004. Situation and Outlook for Samoa Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 2004. 84 pp.

Government of SAMOA, Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment (date?). Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) in Samoa. 12 pp.

Government of SAMOA, Ministry of Natural Resources & Environment, Planning and Urban Management Agency PUMA (June 2005?). Samoa Land-use Development Report. 10 pp.

Government of SAMOA, 2004. Millennium Development Goals: First progress report 2004. Government of Samoa. 32 pp.

Government of SAMOA, 2004. World Summit on Sustainable Development Assessment Report. Government of Samoa. 103 pp.

Government of SAMOA, 2005. 1st Draft Stocktaking Report National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) Project for the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) pp.

Government of SAMOA, 2005. 1st Draft Stocktaking Report National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) Project for the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) pp. 33.

Government of SAMOA, 2005. 1st Draft Stocktaking Report National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) Project for the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC) pp. 22.

Kerslake, M. T. 2002. Knowing your environment - a survey of how Samoans view their environment. In Samoan Environment Forum Proceedings of the National environment Forum 2001. Tu’u’u’ Ieti Tualealo and Violet Wulf (ed.s). Department of Lands, Surveys and Environment (DLSE) Apia, Samoa. pp 37-38.

MNREM, 2004. UNCCD PROJECT SAMOA INFORMATION PAPER, UNCCD CONVENTION and NAP Formulation Guidelines. 7 pp.

MNREM, April 2004, Samoa’s Biodiversity Strategy Report of the First monitoring Workshop. 17 pp.

MNREM, May 2005. Agriculture Sector and Food Security Pre-Synthesis Report. 20 pp.

MNREM, May 2005. Forestry Sector Pre-Synthesis Report. 21 pp.

Pati, M. A. 2000. Methods of assessing biodiversity in rainforests. In Samoan Environment Forum Proceedings of the National environment Forum 2000. Tu’u’u’ Ieti Tualealo and Violet Wulf (ed.s). Department of Lands, Surveys and Environment (DLSE) Apia, Samoa. pp 25-26.

Pouono, K. 2002. Quarantine’s non-compliance is a risk to Samoa’s sustainable biodiversity. In Samoan Environment Forum Proceedings of the National environment Forum 2001. Tu’u’u’ Ieti Tualealo and Violet Wulf (ed.s). Department of Lands, Surveys and Environment (DLSE) Apia, Samoa. pp. 20-22.


Reti, M. I. 2000. Managing Samoa’s environmental resources: a global obligation. In Samoan Environment Forum Proceedings of the National environment Forum 2000. Tu’u’u’ Ieti Tualealo and Violet Wulf (ed.s). Department of Lands, Surveys and Environment (DLSE) Apia, Samoa. pp. 16-22.

Solofa, E. 2002. Human resource Development in Samoa - we are what we culture. In Samoan Environment Forum Proceedings of the National Environment Forum 2001. Tu’u’u’ Ieti Tualealo and Violet Wulf (ed.s). Department of Lands, Surveys and Environment (DLSE) Apia, Samoa. pp 5-9.

Taule’ale’ausumai, La’avasa, Malua, 2000. Addressing population pressures on the environment of Samoa. In Samoan Environment Forum Proceedings of the National Environment Forum 1999. Tu’u’u’ Ieti Tualealo, Easter ChuShing-Galuvao, Taule’ale’aausumai La’avasa Malua, and Leilani Duffy (ed.s). Department of Lands, Surveys and Environment (DLSE) Apia, Samoa. pp 32-35.

Thaman, R.R., 1993(?). Land, Plants Animals and People Community –Based Biodiversity Conservation (CBBC) as a Basis for Ecological, Cultural and Economic Survival in the Pacific Islands. Pacific Science Association. Pp 25.

Tuivavalagi, N.S., Hunter, D.J., Amosa, F. 2002. Tackling Land Degradation and Unsustainable Land Use in Samoa-With Emphasis on the Agriculture Sector. In Samoan Environment Forum Proceedings of the National Environment Forum 2001. Tu’u’u’ Ieti Tualealo and Violet Wulf (ed.s). Department of Lands, Surveys and Environment (DLSE) Apia, Samoa. pp 32-36.

Tu’u’u Ieti Taule’alo 2000. Unsustainable village development: Reflections on changes at Lepa. In Samoan Environment Forum Proceedings of the National Environment Forum 1999. Tu’u’u’ Ieti Taule’alo, Easter ChuShing-Galuvao, Taule’ale’ausumai La’avasa Malua, and Leilani Duffy (ed.s). Department of Lands, Surveys and Environment (DLSE) Apia, Samoa. pp 4-8.

Tu’u’u Ieti Taule’alo 2000. Planning for sustainable resource management at Uafato. In Samoan Environment Forum Proceedings of the National Environment Forum 1999. Tu’u’u’ Ieti Tualealo, Easter ChuShing-Galuvao, Taule’ale’ausumai La’avasa Malua, and Leilani Duffy (ed.s). Department of Lands, Surveys and Environment (DLSE) Apia, Samoa. pp 21-26.

UNCCD Secretariat, May 2004. Consideration of the UNCCD National Action Programme Process. 31pp.

UNDP-GEF, February 17, 2005. Project Development Facility Request for Preparation of MSP under the LDC-SIDS Portfolio Project for Sustainable Land Management (UNDP PROJECT INITIATION DOCUMENT), 12 pp.

UNDP-GEF, MNREM, 2005. National Adaptation Programme of Action SAMOA Ministry of Natural Resources, Environment and Meteorology (MMREM), 66 pp.

UNDP, October, 1998. Samoa HIES Food and Basic Needs Expenditure. Report Based on the HIES Completion Project PRO 301 PSI/SAM. Statistics Programme of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community Noumea, New Caledonia. 27 pp.

UNDP, 2005. Human Development Report 2005 International Cooperation at a Crossroads: Aid, trade and security in an unequal world. United Nations Development Programme, 1 UN Plaza, New York, New York, 10017, USA. 372 pp.

United Nations, Apia, Samoa and Government of Samoa, November, 1998. Samoa A Situation Analysis of Human Development: O tagata ole lumana’i o se atunu’u….People are our Future. Apia, Samoa. 112 pp.

UNEP/IUC, October 2002. Convention on Climate Change. 30 pp.

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, 24 February 2005 Fact Sheet 1-15. 26pp.

Vermeulen, W. 2000. A rapid assessment of Land Degradation in Samoa. Capacity Development Initiative UNDP-GEF Strategic Partnership. July 21, 2000. 14 pp.

Wendt, T. F.S. 2002. Samoa’s development paradox: diversification away from the agriculture-based economy. In Samoan Environment Forum Proceedings of the National environment Forum 2001. Tu’u’u’ Ieti Tualealo and Violet Wulf (ed.s). Department of Lands, Surveys and Environment (DLSE) Apia, Samoa. pp 39-43.

Whistler, W. A., Isle Botanica, August 2003. Proposal for a Diversity Study Plan for Samoa. 4 pp.

Whistler, W. A. 2004. Rainforest Trees of Samoa A guide to the common lowland and foothill forest trees of the Samoan Archipelago. Isle Botanica, Honolulu. 210 pp.


Wright, A.C.S., 1963. Soils and Land Use in Western Samoa. New Zealand Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Soil Bulletin No. 22. Wellington , New Zealand.

WORKSHOPS/SEMINARS POWERPOINTS and MATERIALS

SPREP, UNDP, GEF: Pacific Regional Workshop on UNCCD Land Degradation-National Action Plans and “UNDP-GEF Sustainable Land Management Approach. 22-26 August, Suva, Fiji.

MNREM, SPREP, UNDP: National Capacity Self-Assessment STOCK-TAKE and THEMATIC ASSESSMENT WORKSHOP. 21-23 September, 2005. Customs Department Conference Room, Apia Samoa.

Asia Pacific Initiative (API): Advanced Seminar in International Environmental Studies: An International Multi-Institutional Pilot of the Asia Pacific Initiative. Collaborating Partners: AIT, Pathumthani, Thailand; UH, Honolulu, USA; UNU, Tokyo, Japan; UoR, Okinawa, Japan; KU, Tokyo, Japan; USP, Suva, Fiji; NUS Apia, Samoa; ADB, Manila, Phillipines; East-West Center Honolulu, USA.SESSIONS 1-9, 2005



Documents

ACRONYMS - UNDP - United Nations Development … · Web viewThe droughts in 1993 and 1998 brought extreme dryness to the already dry parts of the country, west region of Savaii and