PACIFIC ISLANDSENVIRONMENT

OUTLOOK

Copyright © 1999, United Nations Environment ProgrammeISBN: 92-807-1792-8

This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in anyform for educational or non-profit purposes without specialpermission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement ofthe source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving a copy of anypublication that uses this publication as a source.

No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any othercommercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writingfrom the United Nations Environment Programme.

DISCLAIMERThe contents of this volume do not necessarily reflect the views orpolicies of UNEP, the European Community or the contributoryorganizations. The designations employed and the presentations donot imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part ofUNEP or contributory organizations concerning the legal status ofany country, territory, city or area or its authority, or concerning thedelimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

This study was produced with the financial contribution of theEuropean Community from Budget line B7-6200 Environment inDeveloping Countries, Project No. B7-6200/97-06/VIII/ENV, Global Environmental Outlooks for Lomé countries of the Caribbean,Indian Ocean and South Pacific.

For further information on this project contact:

Kaveh ZahediUnited Nations Environment ProgrammeRegional Office for Latin America and the CaribbeanBoulevard de los Virreyes #155Colonia Lomas Virreyes11000 México D.F.MEXICO

e-mail: kzahedi@rolac.unep.mxTel: +525 2024841Fax: +525 2020950

Compiled by: Gerald MilesSPREP, Samoae-mail: GeraldM@sprep.org.ws

Produced by: Chapman Bounford & Associates, LondonAnagram Editorial Service, GuildfordKay Hyman, London

Printed on chlorine-free paper produced from sustainable resources.

Pacific IslandsEnvironment Outlook

Preface vii

Acknowledgements ix

Introduction xi

Chapter One: State of the Environment 1

Chapter Two: Policy Responses 27

Chapter Three: Alternative Policy Options 49

Chapter Four: Emerging Issues 55

References 60

Acronyms 62

Participants in the Regional Consultation 63

Contents

Text boxes

Box 0.1: The GEO process viiiBox 1.1: Logging in Solomon Islands 8Box 2.1: National case study: PNG 30Box 2.2: Climate change and sea level rise – a capacity-building response 31Box 2.3: National case study: the Niue Treaty 32Box 2.4: Members of the Council of Regional Organizations (CROP) 39Box 2.5: Participation in the Convention on Biological Diversity 42Box 2.6: Campaigning to raise awareness and change behaviour 43Box 2.7: Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and the Lomé Convention 44Box 2.8: Case study in collective policy-making – the South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation

Programme (SPBCP) 45Box 2.9: Lomé and the Pacific Region 46

Tables

Table 1.1: Geographical data on PICs 3Table 1.2: Solomon Islands – estimated species loss 10Table 1.3: Tuna catch by major species in the Secretariat of the Pacific Community statistical area 17Table 1.4: Estimated levels of vulnerability to specific natural hazards in selected PICs 19Table 1.5: Summary of waste loads discharged from industrial wastewater in selected PICs 25Table 1.6: Contamination by persistent organic pollutants in PICs 26Table 2.1: Global Multilateral Environmental Agreements 29Table 2.2: Progress to implement the Barbados Programme of Action 34Table 2.3: Regional Multilateral Environmental Agreements 35Table 2.4: Institutional arrangements at national level in PICs 37Table 4.1: Indicative list of potential impacts of climate change and sea-level rise requiring

adaptive responses in PICs 56

Figures

Figure 0.1: Countries and territories covered by the Pacific Islands Environment Outlook xiiFigure 1.1: Growth in total population for PICs, 1950–98 2Figure 1.2: Forest cover (per cent of total land area) in some PICs 7Figure 1.3: Percentage of Pacific populations with access to safe water 12Figure 1.4: Reefs at risk by region and country 15Figure 1.5: Coastal fisheries production in PICs 16Figure 1.6: CO2 emissions per capita for selected countries, 1975–95 18Figure 1.7: Projected sea-level rise with adherence to Kyoto Protocol 20Figure 1.8: Trends in urban population as a percentage of total population across PICs 21Figure 1.9: Characteristics of municipal solid waste in PICs 24Figure 2.1: Change in staffing levels of environment units in selected PICs 36Figure 2.2: SPREP expenditure on regional environmental programmes 42

Preface

It is now over seven years since the Pacificregion drew up a comprehensive SOE reportand statement of policy for the 1992 EarthSummit in Rio. That document was based onan exhaustive regional and national process,culminating in the best available catalogue ofdevelopment and environment issues affectingall countries and territories in the region. The1992 reports have been used as a baseline inorder to arrive at some reasonable assessmentof the principal trends currently affecting theregion, and to identify where those trendsrequire special attention and analysis, eitherbecause of their adverse effect on theenvironment or because of the progress thathas been achieved in the intervening years.

The Pacific Islands Environment Outlook(PIEO) report is part of a UNEP project toproduce state of the environment assessmentsfor the countries of the Caribbean, WesternIndian Ocean and Pacific Islands. The reportwas co-ordinated by the South Pacific RegionalEnvironment Programme (SPREP) on behalfof UNEP and with the financial assistance ofthe European Community (budget line B7-6200 Environment in Developing Countries,Project No. B7-6200/97-06/VIII/ENV.).

The objective of the PIEO is to provideinformation on the state of the environment inthe Pacific Islands, help identify regionalenvironmental concerns, and highlight policypriorities. The three reports will alsocontribute to the improvement of regionalagenda-setting, sustainable developmentplanning and resource allocation. Theproduction of the Caribbean, Western IndianOcean and Pacific Islands EnvironmentOutlooks closely followed the process set upfor the production of UNEP’s GlobalEnvironment Outlook (GEO) publication. GEOuses a regional and global participatory

assessment and reporting process, the maincomponents of which are the CollaboratingCentres, regional policy consultations,international working groups and the UNSystem-wide Earthwatch (see Box 0.1).

As part of the ongoing Global EnvironmentOutlook (GEO) process, the Pacific IslandsEnvironment Outlook provides a policy-relevantassessment of this region’s environment. Itdraws on published reports, expert opinionand interviews with a number of regionalagencies working in the resource managementfield. National input has been providedthrough a regional workshop and circulation ofthe final draft for comment.

This report comes at a critical time for thisregion, and for island countries globally, as theinternational community reviews agreementsreached in Barbados in 1994 concerning theSustainable Development of Small IslandDeveloping States (SIDS). The trends andemerging issues will also contribute to theongoing negotiations between the EuropeanCommunity and the African, Caribbean andPacific (ACP) States concerning the LoméConvention.

The Pacific Islands Environment Outlook isan important step towards the betterunderstanding and management of the islandsand ocean resources of this region. Itrepresents attempts by this region toimplement Chapter 40 of Agenda 21, to reporton the implementation of the BarbadosProgramme of Action and to fulfil ourobligations to assess the state of the region’senvironment (Agreement Establishing SPREP).Most important of all, this Outlook representsthe first in a series of regular reviews, linkedto the GEO process, that will help guidedecision-making in this region and ensure asustainable future for Pacific island peoples.

vii

viii

The production of the Caribbean, Western Indian Ocean and Pacific Islands environment outlooks closely followed the

process set up for the production of UNEP’s Global Environment Outlook (GEO) publication. Both GEO-1 (published in

1997) and GEO-2000 (published in 1999) were produced using a regional and participatory process. This process was of

crucial importance in ensuring that the assessment involved stakeholders and experts from all over the world and from

every discipline relating to environmental and development issues. As with GEO, the Caribbean, Western Indian Ocean

and Pacific Islands environment outlooks aim to incorporate regional views and perspectives and to build consensus on

priority issues and actions through dialogue among policy-makers and scientists at both regional and global levels. The

main components of the GEO process are:

● GEO Collaborating Centres

● Regional policy consultations

● International working groups

● UN System-wide Earthwatch

GEO Collaborating Centres are multi-disciplinary centres of excellence from all the regions which form a co-ordinated

network for making policy-relevant assessments. The GEO-2000 network consists of some 25 such Collaborating

Centres. The three Collaborating Centres chosen to help implement the UNEP/EC project were:

● the University of the West Indies, Centre for Environment and Development (UWI-CED), Kingston, Jamaica;

● the Indian Ocean Commission, Regional Environment Programme (IOC-REP), Quatre-Bornes, Mauritius, and

● the South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP), Apia, Western Samoa.

Regional policy consultations were held in each of the subregions to ensure the participation of all the stakeholders,

especially policy-makers, regional organizations and NGOs. Regional consultations not only provide a forum in which

governments are able to provide inputs into the GEO process, but also stimulate dialogue between scientists and policy-

makers – a crucial step in ensuring that assessments are geared towards policy formulation and action planning.

The regional consultations provided advice and feedback from governments and scientists on the early drafts of the

reports. As with the regional consultations for the GEO reports, the consultations for the Caribbean, Western Indian Ocean

and Pacific Islands environment outlooks provided inputs that resulted in substantial improvement to the respective

documents.

International working groups on modelling, scenarios, data and policy provided technical support to the GEO process

by developing and recommending methodologies for achieving harmonized and integrated assessments.

United Nations System-wide Earthwatch ensures the participation of UN agencies in the GEO process.

Box 0.1: The GEO process

Acknowledgements

The Pacific Islands Environment Outlook couldnot have been compiled without significantinput and guidance from national focal pointsof SPREP member governments and expertsthat participated in the regional consultationprocess. Special thanks go to the followingconsultants and SPREP staff closely engagedin the compilation of the initial drafts, namelyKen Piddington, Neale Farmer, SarahMcCartney, Gerald Miles, Andrea Volentras,Andrew Munro, Suresh Raj, Iosefatu Reti,James Aston, Bismark Crawley and Seema Deo.

Invaluable input on a range of sectoral andeconomic issues was provided by staff of theForum Secretariat, Forum Fisheries Agency(Barbara Henchard), UNDP (Jenny Bryant) andSOPAC (Alf Simpson and Russell Howarth).

Independent comments were provided by anumber of reviewers, notably John Joseph(Swaminathan Research Foundation) and Peter Johnston (Consultant).

Essential guidance was provided by adedicated team of UNEP staff managing theGlobal Environment Outlook process. Specialthanks go to Kaveh Zahedi, Marion Cheatle,Choudhury Rudra Charan Mohanty, SurendraShrestha and Berna Bayindir. Thanks also goto Veerle Vendeweerd.

This project would not have been possiblewithout the generous financial support of theEuropean Community (European Commission,Directorate-General VIII, Development). Wewould particularly like to thank FranciscoGranell, Artur Runge Metzger, Amos Tincani,Maria Savvaides-Polyzou and our consultant inBrussels, Heli Tuononen, for their support.

Finally, we owe a special thanks to theparticipants of the Pacific Islands RegionalConsultation, whose guidance enabled us toimprove the document enormously. A full list ofparticipants is included at the end of this report.

ix

xi

The Pacific islands region is unique, not because itsgeographical, biological, sociological and economiccharacteristics are found exclusively here, but because ofthe combination of these characteristics within theregion. It occupies a vast 30 million km2 of the PacificOcean, which is an area more than three times largerthan the United States of America or China (SPREP1992). This region is characterized by: small land massesdispersed over 5.8 per cent of the Earth’s surface; a highdegree of ecosystem and species diversity; anextraordinary level of endemicity; a high degree ofeconomic and cultural dependence on the naturalenvironment; vulnerability to a wide range of natural andenvironmental disasters, and a diversity of cultures andlanguages, traditional practices and customs focused onthe marine and coastal environment.

The 22 countries and territories of the Pacific islandsregion consist of approximately 550 000 km2 of land with7.5 million inhabitants. If Papua New Guinea is excluded,the figures drop to 87 587 km2 of land and 2.7 millionpeople (SPC 1998). Geographically, the region extendsfrom Pitcairn in the east to Papua New Guinea in thewest. The region is home to a variety of peoples andcultures, with three commonly recognized subregionalconstituents – Micronesia, Polynesia and Melanesia.More than 2 000 different languages are spoken acrossthe region (Thistlethwaite and Votaw 1992).

The countries and territories that make up thePacific islands region are listed in Figure 0.1 on thefollowing page.

Whilst the region is diverse in terms of the size andfeatures of its member countries and territories, thereare some common characteristic features (SPREP 1992;Thistlethwaite and Votaw 1992; SPREP/ESCAP 1996).

● Geographical isolation: The large volumes of waterand small areas of land create an environment that isrelatively isolated on a global scale. Whilst in thepast this has had benefits from an ecologicalperspective, it also provides challenges; for example,travel both within member countries and on aregional level can be difficult.

● Fragility of the environment: Geographical andecological isolation has led to the evolution ofunique species and communities of plants andanimals, many of which are indigenous to only oneisland or island group within the region. Changes toland use, population, consumption and otherdeterminants of environmental well-being make thePacific island habitats particularly vulnerable todestruction or damage.

● Rapid population growth: In the past century mostPacific island countries (PICs) have experiencedrapid population growth. This population growth,along with the increasing commercialization ofsubsistence-based economies, has been associatedwith rapid increases in rates of natural resourceexploitation, especially of land, forests and fisheries.While population growth throughout the region isbeginning to slow, there is concern that populations

Introduction

I N T R O D U C T I O Nxii

American SamoaCook IslandsFederated States of Micronesia (FSM)FijiFrench PolynesiaGuamKiribatiMarshall IslandsNauruNew CaledoniaNiue

Northern Mariana IslandsPalauPapua New Guinea (PNG)PitcairnSamoaSolomon IslandsTokelauTongaTuvaluVanuatuWallis and Futuna

S O U T H P A C I F I C

O C E A N

T a s m a nS e a

C o r a l S e a

Tropic of Capricorn

140° W180°140° E

40°

Equator

Tropic of Cancer

Tropic of Capricorn

40°

Equator

Tropic of Cancer

Hawaiian Islands

MARSHALL ISLANDS

Gilbert Islands

Caroline IslandsFEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA

GUAM

NORTHERN MARIANAISLANDS

PALAU

PAPUA NEW GUINEA SOLOMON ISLANDS

NAURU

VANUATU

NEW CALEDONIA

AUSTRALIA

NEW ZEALAND

P A C I F I C O C E A N

8000 kilometres70001000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

1000 2000 3000 40005000 miles

Kiritimati

TUVALU

KIRIBATIPhoenix Is.

TOKELAU

FIJI

WALLIS ANDFUTUNA

AMERICANSAMOA

SAMOA

TONGA NIUE

COOK IS.

ÎS MARQUISES

FRENCH POLYNESIA

TahitiÎs.de la Société

Îs.Tuamotu

Îs.GambierÎs.Tubuai

PITCAIRN

L i n eI s l a

nd

s

Northern Cook Is.

Southern Cook Is.

Figure 0.1: Countries and territories covered by the Pacific Islands Environment Outlook

I N T R O D U C T I O N xiii

on many islands have exceeded the level that localresources can sustain.

● Limited land resources: Many Pacific islands arecharacterized by extremely limited land resourcessuch as soil and forest. Limited land makes manyterrestrial and nearshore resources very vulnerableto overexploitation and to pollution from poorlyplanned waste disposal.

● Dependence on marine resources: There is a traditionaldependence on marine resources for daily needs,foods, tools, transport and waste disposal. Thisdependence remains in spite of new technologies andlifestyles (see National Environment ManagementStrategies 1992–94). The region’s ocean resourcescontain the highest marine diversity in the world andrepresent almost the sole opportunity for substantialeconomic development for nations such as theMarshall Islands, Kiribati and Tuvalu.

● Vulnerability: The Pacific is often exposed toextremely damaging natural disasters and to externaland global changes (for instance in climate, trade andcapital markets), and has a heavy reliance on certaineconomic sectors (Thistlethwaite and Votaw 1992).

The priority environmental problems that are placingpressure on the natural resources, lifestyles andeconomic development of this region have beenidentified progressively over the last eight years as:

● loss of biological diversity;● threats to freshwater resources;● degradation of coastal environments;● climate change and sea level rise;● land and sea based pollution.

These priorities have been drawn from national state ofthe environment reports prepared between 1991 and1994 for National Environmental Management Strategies,regional reviews of state of the environment reporting(Thistlethwaite 1996), the Strategic Action Programmefor International Waters in the Pacific Island Region(1997) and the SPREP Action Plan (1997–2000). Theyare reflected in international agreements reachedconcerning the sustainable development of islands,notably the Global Programme of Action for theSustainable Development of Small Island DevelopingStates and related preparatory meetings (SPREP 1993c).

The priority problems are explored in Chapter One.They also provide the focus of attention for the range ofnational, regional and global policy initiatives that are

being implemented in the region. A review of the currentpolicy responses is provided in Chapter Two, whilstalternative policy options for the future are addressed inChapter Three. Chapter Four provides an analysis ofemerging issues in the region.

1

BackgroundThis chapter summarizes the state of the Pacificenvironment. It indicates trends over the past hundredand previous ten years, as well as highlighting concernsfor the next ten years. In general it notes trends thathave continued since 1992 – the last comprehensivereview. Where possible, patterns of improvement ordeterioration since that date are described.

The 1992 review (SPREP 1992; Thistlethwaite andVotaw 1992) was based in part on completed countryreviews and state of the environment reports that werebeing used at the time to develop NationalEnvironmental Management Strategies (NEMS). A totalof 12 NEMS were produced between 1990 and 1994 andthese publications form part of the baseline material.Two factors stand out. One is that the rapidly expandingdemands on limited human resources throughout theregion have meant that few attempts have been made toupdate these documents. This may have been influencedin part by a sense of disappointment on the part ofgovernments over the lack of new funding post Rio, sothat some activities that were listed as priorities nearly adecade ago remain to be funded.

The second factor is associated with the first, but isof a more technical nature. There is a general paucity ofdata sets at both the regional and country level. In mostof the sectors reviewed, the pattern is one of ‘spot’research and survey activity, which produces areasonable quality of data at a given point in time, but

which is not followed up over a longer period. It followsthat the quantity and quality of data sets available toreveal major trends at the local or regional levelrepresent a major limitation.

Most experts in the region acknowledge that this is aproblem they have to live with. The gaps in knowledge areto a significant degree offset by intimate local knowledgeand a store of anecdotal evidence, for example on inshorefisheries and traditional sustainable sources of sand andgravel from beach and reef areas. Given the small relativesize of communities throughout the Pacific (even in themain urban centres), this information is in most situationsan adequate proxy for policy development and decision-making needs. In purely practical terms, the work requiredto maintain consistent data sets on the mainenvironmental problems is unlikely to rate as a highpriority for funding; nevertheless, improved data are animperative for the region. As a start, some reinforcementof ‘local knowledge’ will be needed, and steps to initiatemore systematic state of the environment (SOE) reportingwould be justified. This is particularly the case in areaswhere local knowledge is not practicable as a proxy forinformation on resource assessment for policy formulation(e.g. oceanic fisheries).

Social and economic backgroundOver the past 100 years, the Pacific has experienced far-reaching economic changes, which have led toenvironmental change and degradation. Lifestyles have

State of theEnvironmentC

hapt

er O

ne

changed from subsistence to cash-driven societiesreliant on budgetary assistance and remittances,although a traditional dependence on natural resourcesfor daily needs, food, tools, transport and waste disposalremains in spite of new technologies and lifestyles.

During the past century, PICs have striven for thegoal of improved standards of living. Accompanying thisthey have also experienced rapid rates of Westernization,urbanization and population increase and have graduallymoved towards a consumer society. This transition hasnot been without adverse impacts, including landdegradation, loss of biodiversity, loss and degradation ofmarine and forest resources, plus an increase inproblems associated with environmental health and asudden confrontation with the realities of waste andtoxic/hazardous substances management.

In mid-1997, the region’s total population stood atabout 6.3 million. Its distribution ranges from PapuaNew Guinea’s (PNG’s) 3.6 million people to Pitcairn’s47 inhabitants. Over the past decade, the population ofthe Pacific island region has been growing steadily ataround 2.2 per cent each year. Although populationgrowth throughout most of the region has been muchhigher in urban than in rural areas, Pacific life is stillprimarily rural, with only about 25 per cent of peopleliving in urban areas. The rapid population growth isreadily apparent in countries’ population structures, andall countries demonstrate youthful populations: about40 per cent of the region’s population is under 15 years

of age. Variations in population growth and compositionillustrate the complex nature of population dynamics inthe region: a result of distinct demographic processessuch as fertility, mortality and migration, they will giverise to different developments in the future (SPCrevised 1998).

Should the current trends continue (Figure 1.1), thePacific islands’ population will reach the 10 million markin about 15 years’ time, with the fastest growth occurringin towns and cities. Given the magnitude of populationdevelopments in the region and their social, economicand political implications, joint consideration ofpopulation and development will have to become anurgent area of public policy reform for Pacific islandgovernments (SPC, revised 1998).

Rapid urban population growth reflects the nature ofeconomic development across the region during the pastdecade. World market prices for agricultural commoditiesare declining, new investments are more visible in urbanthan in rural areas, and towns are perceived as importantconduits for socio-economic, cultural and politicalinnovation and change. The standard of living for theregion’s urban dwellers is relatively high when comparedwith those in other developing countries, largely theresult of the continued support from traditional networksfor and among people living in urban environments.However, there are some worrying trends. Althoughempirical data are usually sketchy, there are indicationsof: rising unemployment, particularly among youngpeople; high drop-out rates from primary schools; lowhousehold cash incomes; and a growing incidence ofsubstance abuse and crime (SPC 1998).

As discussed above, rapid growth in bothurbanization and population contributes toenvironmental problems in many PICs. Table 1.1provides data on both population growth rates anddensities, illustrating the extent of these problems andthe wide variation between PICs.

Most developing countries in the Pacific region have atwo-tiered economic structure. While much of thepopulation is employed in the subsistence sector, a lesstraditional commercial economy is growing rapidly. Thesubsistence economy, which includes important elementsof trading, is expected to be a primary source ofemployment and income for many years. At the sametime, much developmental attention is focused on neweractivities, which promise a higher level of the materialbenefits to which people now aspire. PICs are becomingincreasingly industrialized, with PNG, New Caledonia andFiji having a medium industrial capacity based on mining,

S T A T E O F T H E E N V I R O N M E N T2

1998

million

7.5201997 7.5301996 7.3831995 7.236

1990 6.496

1985 5.831

1980 5.239

1975 4.665

1970 4.145

1965 3.660

1960 3.225

1955 2.878

1950 2.608

= 200 000 inhabitants

Source: United Nations Population Division (1996)

Figure 1.1: Growth in total population for PICs, 1950–98

S O C I A L A N D E C O N O M I C B A C K G R O U N D 3

forestry and fishing-related activities and a variety ofmanufacturing industries ranging from small family-ownedoperations to large exporting facilities. Tokelau and Wallisand Futuna have essentially no industry at all. Othercountries in the region have small industries related tofood or beverage processing, clothing, and minormachinery assembly or repair.

The close connection between economic andenvironmental well-being is reflected in the continuedimportance of agriculture in all Pacific island developingcountries (PIDCs). Agriculture remains the principalsource of employment, and with rare exceptions is amajor source of income and of earnings from exports(Thistlethwaite and Votaw 1992). Many crops are grown,and variety is the hallmark of both traditional and morecommercially oriented systems of smallholder gardening.Tourism is one of the fastest-growing sectors of theeconomy in the Pacific, in particular for Fiji and Vanuatu.Guam reports a tripling of tourist numbers in 1986–96 to1.3 million a year (Gawel 1998). This growth has led tothe creation of additional employment, increased flow offoreign exchange and improvement of infrastructure in

resort areas. This increase in the service sector reflectsthe growth in government employment, trading activitiesand tourism.

Opportunities for economic development inevitablyvary, partly reflecting differences in resource endowment,but some common themes emerge. All PICs commandextensive ocean areas in their exclusive economic zones:over 500 000 km2 in all but six cases and over 3 millionkm2 in four instances. These vast areas are rich in fishingpotential, which is not yet fully exploited but requiresappropriate management and monitoring. Economicallyexploitable offshore petroleum deposits have been foundin at least two cases, and other seabed minerals mayprove valuable. Tourism has proved to be a viable way toprovide employment, earn foreign exchange and preserveenvironmental values in several countries, andopportunities appear promising for further, sustainableexploitation of beaches, reefs, culture, climate, historyand similar assets. Light industry (PNG, New Caledonia,Fiji, Samoa, Vanuatu) is also a growing source ofemployment in a few of the larger countries that havechosen to encourage it, despite the initial handicaps of

Country Land area Total Annual growth Density Urban population(km2) population rate (%) (people/km2) (%)

American Samoa 200 46 773 3.7 233 48

Cook Islands 197 19 000 0.4 237 59

Federated States of Micronesia 710 105 506 1.9 149 27

Fiji 18 333 772 655 0.8 39 46

French Polynesia 3 521 219 521 1.9 62 54

Guam 541 133 152 2.3 246 38

Kiribati 811 77 658 1.4 96 37

Marshall Islands 181 43 380 4.2 240 65

Nauru 21 9 919 2.9 472 100

New Caledonia 19 103 196 836 2.6 10 71

Niue 259 2 082 –1.3 8 32

Northern Mariana Islands 471 58 846 5.6 125 90

Palau 488 17 225 2.4 35 71

Papua New Guinea 462 243 3 607 954 2.3 8 15

Pitcairn 39 47 – 1 88

Samoa 2 935 161 298 0.5 55 21

Solomon Islands 28 370 285 176 3.4 10 13

Tokelau 12 1 507 –0.9 125 0

Tonga1 747 97 784 0.3 131 36

Tuvalu 26 9 043 1.7 348 42

Vanuatu 12 190 142 419 2.8 12 18

Wallis and Futuna 255 14 166 0.6 56 0

Source: SPC (1998 revised)

Notes: 1. Updated from Population Census, Government of Tonga

Table 1.1: Geographical data on PICs

S T A T E O F T H E E N V I R O N M E N T4

distance, poor transport services and small local markets.For the period 1981–88 (World Bank 1995b), the

average annual rate of growth of gross domestic product(GDP) was: Fiji 0.9 per cent; Kiribati 1.3 per cent;Solomon Islands 1.8 per cent; Tonga 1.4 per cent;Vanuatu 3.0 per cent; and Samoa 0.4 per cent. Theannual rates of GDP growth in the Pacific are generallywell below the average population growth rate of PICs(2.2 per cent), which indicates that GDP per capita hastended to decline during this period, suggestingincreased poverty levels in the region. This is consistentwith recent studies which point to a general decline inthe standard of living (ESCAP 1999).

Poverty is an emerging issue in a number of PICs.Urbanization and the shift to a monetary economy arepart of the problem, particularly in the resource-poorcountries, accompanied by the threat to viablesubsistence lifestyles and the rapid depletion of naturalresources through over-exploitation. This should beunderstood and addressed against the background oftraditional lifestyles and economic change. Whileconventional economic and social indicators demonstratethat a significant percentage of Pacific island populationsare at poverty level, many communities still enjoy a highdegree of subsistence affluence obtained from traditionalresource management systems. For many of the people,health and general social indicators, not purely economicones, tell the real story.

LandDevelopments over the past 100 yearsMost islands in the region have not been associatedhistorically with the type of land degradationexperienced in more populous areas of the world and inmore marginal habitats. However, there is evidence thatlocal land degradation problems did occur on someislands when population densities exceeded localresource carrying capacities, or where destructive land-clearing activities were used. Examples include thefernlands of Viti Levu in Fiji, and Wallis and Futuna,where excessive burning of land for agriculture hasdenuded soils to the extent that only ferns will grow(Nunn 1994). Population densities in the past, however,rarely reached the level at which widespread landdegradation resulted.

Activities in the latter part of the last century havealso led to the radioactive and chemical contamination ofland. Notably, the Solomon Islands and Guam haveexpressed concern over the military materials (especially

from World War Two) remaining in their respectivecountries, and the risk of hazardous, polluting andexplosive chemicals to people and the environment.Similarly, military nuclear testing has made some islandsin the Marshalls permanently uninhabitable.

Developments over the past 10 yearsIn recent years, land degradation has emerged as aserious problem in many PICs. In 1992, land degradationwas listed as a problem by some 75 per cent of thecountries in the region (ADB 1992). The responsessuggested that rural land away from the coast was less ofa problem than coastal land, which is everywhere undermounting pressures. Issues relating to land use overall,such as lack of clarity over title and customary rights,were also reported. Although some countries haveintroduced procedures to ensure that environmentalconstraints are considered when land-use decisions aretaken, the problem is now affecting more countries, andalso extending further into rural areas than at thebeginning of the decade.

Few data are available at the national and regionallevel on the extent of land degradation, although recentstudies on sedimentation and coastal erosion have beenundertaken by the South Pacific Applied GeoscienceCommission (SOPAC) (1998). According to the GlobalAssessment of Soil Degradation (GLASOD), the totalarea of degraded soil in the Pacific (including Australiaand New Zealand) is around 103 million ha(UNEP/ISRIC 1991). Causes of land degradation in thePacific have been estimated as: 80 per cent byovergrazing, 12 per cent by deforestation and 8 per centby agriculture (ESCAP 1995). For small island countriesthe impacts of overgrazing are expected to be lesssignificant. Most degraded land has resulted from waterand wind erosion. The costs of erosion are hard toquantify in monetary terms although calculations havebeen attempted. For example, Fiji has estimated that theon-site cost from ginger farming was US$0.4–1.2 millioneach year due to the loss of 27 000–81 000 tonnes ofsoil (ESCAP 1995).

For most Pacific societies, land resources are thebasis for the majority of subsistence and commercialproduction. High population growth rates and thedisplacement of traditional land management systems byintroduced agricultural systems, mining and forestutilization have placed serious stress on land resourcesand the communities that depend on them. Such trendsare particularly serious on smaller islands, especiallyatolls with limited land, poor soils and few other land

L A N D 5

resources. Land degradation is most evident wherepopulations and economic activity are concentratedtogether, particularly around towns, and where resourcessuch as timber and minerals are being overexploited.Demand on resources has risen not simply because thereare more people, but also because their individualrequirements have increased. In the agricultural sector,deforestation, accelerated soil erosion and the use ofmarginal lands for farming are the result not only of agrowing population but also of inappropriate land use.

Traditional farming practices (swidden, forest-fallow)do not appear as yet to add to land requirements but themove to cash cropping has posed some problems. Villagecash cropping is carried out in the same land use andtenure context as subsistence production but the landrequirements for larger plantation ventures competewith those currently or potentially required for theexpansion of food production. Land pressure is greatestwhere there is little or no room for expansion andpopulation continues to increase rapidly. The effect ofland pressure on such islands is to force development ofsome of the land traditionally retained for otherpurposes or to require crop production to expand intomarginal land, which is more susceptible to soil erosionor has lower natural fertility levels. Soil erosion is aproblem in some areas under both agroforestry andtillage systems, but is sometimes overestimated.

In countries such as Fiji and Samoa, where theavailability of good arable land is already constrained, theagricultural systems have already passed to theexpansion phase and subsistence gardening is beingmoved to increasingly marginal soil types and slopes. Inother countries, such as PNG and Solomon Islands,where only a small proportion of land is currently usedfor agriculture, increased production comes mostly fromintensively cropping within areas already in production.Such intensification results in land degradation undercurrent farming systems, representing a major long-termenvironmental issue in the region.

Land resource development has focused on market-oriented cash cropping. Transnational corporations havebeen involved in capital-intensive developments such aslogging, mining and plantation development. Urbaninfrastructure also contributes to land degradation, asexperienced in Guam, where major road building onsteep slopes has caused erosion and resultingsedimentation has killed coral colonies on fringing reefs(GEPA 1998). The clearance and constructionassociated with such activities results largely inlocalized environmental damage. Increased soil erosion

and compaction, loss of ecosystems and food security,and sedimentation of water systems are just some ofthe impacts of current land resource development inthe region.

Onshore activities such as mining or deforestationcan increase the sediment load of rivers, and in somecountries the effects on the reef system have beenextensive (for example, Smith 1993). On Upolu Island inSamoa, for instance, recorded declines in inshore fishcatches have been linked to sedimentation of reefs as aresult of deforestation and agricultural activities inwatersheds (Zann 1992).

Trends forecast to 2010Agencies in the region have given a great deal ofattention in recent years to the potential future threatsrelated to global climate change and sea-level rise.Threats include the possible impacts on land stability,again with special emphasis on the coastal zone(SPREP 1993a, 1997a; SOPAC 1997). The effect ofextreme events such as cyclones and storm surges canbe devastating, and many human activities (such asbeach mining) increase the threat. This will be animportant future issue in all countries of the region –even without sea level rise.

Increased frequency of droughts may exacerbate landdegradation in the future. PNG, Federated States ofMicronesia (FSM), Marshall Islands and Fiji, inparticular, suffered from the intensity of the 1997–98 ElNiño event. Prolonged drought led to severe depletion ofcrop yields and, in some cases, famine. A recurrence ofsuch events would bring the additional threat of seriouserosion and loss of cultivable land. Recently establishedland-use patterns, including the production of crops suchas sugar on an industrial scale, will have to be reviewedso that the impacts of recurrent drought can bemitigated. The influence of economic reform anddevelopment initiatives, specifically trade liberalization,is also expected to influence the type of land use.

As women are significant users of land and coastalresources and tend to take major responsibility for familyhealth, their input should be sought specifically on landdegradation issues and they will need to be equallyinvolved in decision-making and training (as trainers andrecipients) regarding waste management and land use(SPREP 1992; Forum Secretariat 1999a). The resolutionof sustainable land management must deal withcommunal tenure systems, traditional land use practicesand cultural values, and the integration of environmentaland development decision-making. The importance of

local knowledge and management systems has beenstrongly stated by PIDCs and research that focuses onindigenous knowledge and natural resourcemanagement practices is received with growingenthusiasm in the Pacific.

ConclusionThe extremely limited and vulnerable land resourcebase of most PICs means that the sustainablemanagement of land will become an increasinglyimportant issue in the region. In a 1992 survey, some75 per cent of the region’s countries mentioneddegradation of land, in particular coastal land, as amajor environmental concern.

High population growth rates, increased individualrequirements for land, the displacement of traditionalland management systems by new agricultural systems,mining and forest utilization have all placed seriousstress on land resources and the communities thatdepend on them. Where good arable land is in shortsupply, as in Fiji and Samoa, subsistence gardening hasbeen forced into increasingly marginal areas. Where onlya small proportion of land is used for farming, as in PNGand Solomon Islands, there is intensive production withinexisting farmed areas.

The potential threat to the productivity of landresources posed by global climate change is expected toheighten further the need for sustainable landmanagement in the years to come.

The fact that very few PICs have developed land-usepolicies and that even fewer countries are effectivelyimplementing such policies is of considerable concern. Itis essential that efforts to develop and implementsustainable land management policies are given thepriority that the issue deserves.

ForestsDevelopments over the past 100 yearsForests are of ecological, social, cultural andcommercial importance. In most PICs deforestation wasnot a serious issue until relatively recently. It isbelieved that prior to European contact, inhabitants onmost islands did not cause substantial deforestation orforest degradation since populations were relativelysmall, commercial activities were absent and steel toolswere unknown. However, following Europeancolonization in the mid- to late 1800s, deforestation andforest degradation accelerated rapidly on most islands.Coastal and lowland forests were converted to large-

scale commercial coconut, cocoa and banana plantationson many islands, and this process was facilitated by theintroduction of new technologies such as steel tools andmechanized transport. Forest conversion hasaccelerated in recent decades as populations haveincreased, as more efficient methods and tools forremoving forest, such as chain saws, have become morewidely available, and as commercial imperatives, such astimber logging and the development of commercialagriculture, have become more important.

Although some countries have increasingly effectivesystems of forestry reserves, conservation areas and/ornational parks to protect their forests for science andhumanity, few, if any, have legislation or institutionalizedprogrammes prohibiting the cutting or promoting thereplanting, on a significant scale, of endangered treespecies. This is threatening the local and regionalbiodiversity which constitutes the economic and culturalbackbone of many Pacific peoples.

Developments over the past 10 yearsFew data are available to show exactly how serious theloss of intact forest has been since the AsianDevelopment Bank (ADB) report in 1992. However, insome countries of the region, such as Samoa, rates ofdeforestation in recent years have approached 2 per centper annum (GOWS 1994; Martel in prep.), faster than theestimated rate at which tropical forests are being clearedin the world (0.8 per cent per annum 1980–90) and intropical Asia (1.2 per cent per annum (FAO 1998)). Inthe FSM, aerial photography of Pohnpei taken inNovember 1995 showed that only 15 per cent of the landwas under undisturbed forest, compared to 42 per cent in1976 (FSM Country Report 1996).

The percentage of forest cover in some Pacific islandcountries is shown in Figure 1.2.

The development of non-wood forest products(NWFPs) as an alternative income-generating activity (totimber) is being given more attention, especially throughthe initiatives of a number of Non-GovernmentalOrganizations (NGOs). Among the NWFPs and activitiesbeing promoted are forest tree nuts (e.g. Ngali nuts),traditional medicinal plants, bee-keeping, Morindacitrifolia juice and leaves and butterfly farming.

Forest and tree cover is diminishing in PICs due to acombination of population pressures, loss of traditionalcontrols, shifting cultivation under population pressure,pasture development, mining and logging activities. Muchpublicity has been given to the increasing impact oflogging operations in recent years, particularly in PNG

S T A T E O F T H E E N V I R O N M E N T6

F O R E S T S 7

and Solomon Islands. Pressure on forests from loggingoperations is also an issue in Vanuatu, Fiji, Niue, Samoaand Tonga.

The loss of forest as a result of agro-deforestationis also an issue in those countries with substantialpopulation densities, e.g. Cook Islands, FederatedStates of Micronesia (FSM), Kiribati, Marshall Islands,Niue, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu and Samoa. Significantareas of forest are lost annually to fire, caused eitherby natural events or by humans, in several countries,e.g. Fiji, Cook Islands, Guam. The use of fire to clearland for agriculture is thought to have been responsiblefor the destruction of large tracts of forest andagricultural plantations during a severe drought inSamoa in 1998. Similarly, FSM has in recent yearsexperienced increased human-caused wildfires,destroying more forest areas than either land clearingor timber extraction.

The main direct cause of forest loss world-wide isclearing for permanent or shifting agriculture (FAO1997). Studies (e.g. GOWS 1994) have shown that mostdeforestation in Samoa is a result of agricultural activityrather than commercial timber extraction. However, itshould be borne in mind that logging operationsfrequently have severe adverse impacts on soilconservation and productivity, as well as water flow andquality. The effective implementation of the Codes ofLogging Practice developed in Fiji, PNG, Vanuatu andSolomon Islands should go a long way in reducing theseadverse impacts.

Although it is known that the Pacific is facing rapiddeforestation and forest degradation, data on the actualrate and extent of loss and degradation at the nationallevel are limited. In the early to mid-1990s, nationalforest inventories were taken in Fiji, Solomon Islands andVanuatu, while PNG carried out a rapid resourceappraisal, and Samoa made an assessment of its forestresources. In PNG, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu theforest resource information has been combined withother information systems (e.g. PNG ResourceInformation System, or PNGRIS) to improve thecapability of land-use planning. In Vanuatu a review offorest types using satellite imagery was completed in1988 by the Land Use Planning Office, which is currentlyin the process of calculating land-use changes since the1990 forest resource inventory. As part of their effortstowards sustainable forest use and management, all thefour larger countries, i.e. Fiji, PNG, Solomon Islands andVanuatu, have developed national codes of loggingpractice and are in varying stages of implementing them.

Fiji and PNG have prepared and implemented nationalforestry action programmes, whilst Vanuatu, SolomonIslands and Tonga’s efforts in this direction have beenhampered by financial and other considerations. Sincethe 1950s and 1960s, Fiji has been systematicallydeveloping over 50 000 ha of hardwood, mostly mahogany(Swietenia spp.), and another 50 000 ha of Pinus caribaeaplantations, whilst at the same time keeping its annuallogging rate below the calculated allowable annual cut. In1997, about 152 000 m3 of saw logs were produced fromnatural forests, whilst another 112 500 m3 were producedfrom pine plantations. When log production from themahogany plantations begins, in the near future,plantations will be the major source of Fiji’s timber, andthe pressure on natural forests for timber production willbe significantly reduced. Much greater efforts are nowbeing made to rely on natural regeneration to renew theforests after logging.

Forests and cleared land are used by both men andwomen for: crop gardens; fuel wood collection; gathering

Fiji 50%

Papua New Guinea 86%

Samoa 65%

Niue 64%

Solomon Islands 85%

Vanuatu 74%

Source: Country reports at 1998 Heads of Forestry Meeting (PIF and TSP Field Document, in preparation)

Figure 1.2: Forest cover (per cent of total land area) in some PICs

medicinal and food plants; capturing animals for food, andsometimes for textile production. Loss of forest habitatreduces the availability of medicinal plants and gatheredfoodstuff, negatively affects wildlife, and can have anegative impact on family nutrition, with the result thatwomen are faced with more health care responsibilities.When forests are logged and land is allowed to degrade,subsistence gardens must be moved further from villages,and fuel wood must be carried longer distances. Thissignificantly increases women’s work loads and can have anegative impact on women’s health and their ability tomeet family and community responsibilities. Additionalsocial problems can result from medium- and large-scaleforest development, including breakdowns of traditionalsystems of social sanctions and, as men gain income, anincrease in alcohol consumption (which is often linked toan increase in violence against women). Deforestation andforest degradation are also known to be associated withincreased flash floods and low flows of rivers and streams.

Trends forecast to 2010Since the commercial extraction of logs has beenlargely driven by offshore demand, particularly in theexpanding Asian economies, it is of some interest to seehow the economic downturn in that region will affectthe rate of timber extraction. Anecdotal evidencesuggests that in PNG some operators have faded fromthe scene, whilst (legal) operations were assisted in

that country and in the Solomon Islands when theircurrency was devalued to offset the impact of theeconomic difficulties in south-east Asia.

In the larger island countries, particularly in PNG,Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, efforts to reduce therate of logging to more sustainable levels, to implementthe codes of logging practice, and to develop andimplement other sustainable forest managementmeasures (e.g. criteria and indicators, forestcertification) are expected to continue. The success ofthese measures will be affected by continuing pressureon these governments to maintain a relatively high(and unsustainable) rate of logging in order to generaterevenues needed for development and otherprogrammes. Fiji will soon be ready to begin harvestingits mahogany plantations, and also to play a role in theon-going global efforts to demonstrate that sustainableforest management policies and practices can bedeveloped and implemented.

In the smaller island countries, it is likely thatpeople’s awareness of the role of forests and trees insustaining, and improving, the livelihoods ofcommunities will increase, and greater efforts will bemade to protect and enhance the remaining forest andtree resources.

ConclusionForests and trees throughout the Pacific region arebeing removed or degraded at an unsustainable rate. Insome countries (such as Samoa), merchantable timberresources are forecast to run out before the end of thisdecade (GOWS 1994). In most countries, the rate ofdeforestation and forest degradation far outstrips therate of reforestation, which has until recently focusedprimarily on plantation establishment. Greateremphasis should be placed on: reducing the rate oflogging or tree cover removal to sustainable levels; theeffective implementation of codes of logging practiceand reduced impact harvesting techniques to reduce theadverse impacts of logging on social, environmental andbiodiversity elements; and increased use of naturalregeneration to provide the next forest crop. Greateremphasis should also be placed on the sustainableharvesting and development of NWFPs (e.g. food,medicines, clean water, biodiversity of flora and fauna)and services (e.g. coastal protection, habitat for wildlife,reduction of soil erosion, regulation of water flow andquality). Given the critical importance of forests andtrees to the region – socially, economically andecologically – it is imperative that the effective

S T A T E O F T H E E N V I R O N M E N T8

Deforestation and forest degradation in Solomon Islands provide agood example of a failure adequately to consider the environmentaland social costs of logging. Logging for export started in 1961, andhas accelerated over the past few years. Half the viable (non-steep-sloped) resource has now been logged, with extraction rates havingalmost doubled between 1991 and 1992. At current rates, harvestingcannot be sustained for more than eight years and the cessation oflogging is likely to produce a significant drop in national income andoutput. A recent economic assessment by the ADB estimatessustainable annual yields at 270 000 m3, yet logging licences havebeen granted for up to 1.4 million m3 per annum. Reforestation orregeneration of the forests will take 30–40 years in those areas thathave been carefully logged. There has been widespread damage tothe residual forests and forest site productivity, with the result thatreforestation or regeneration may take anything from 45 to 200 years.Significant under-reporting of volumes and values has eroded thereturns to Solomon Islands in the form of royalties and export tax. Nosignificant environmental analysis has been used as an input intodecisions on logging in Solomon Islands, despite available evidencefrom other parts of the world which indicate that the costs, in similarcircumstances, can be substantial.Source: UNDP (1994)

Box 1.1: Logging in Solomon Islands

B I O D I V E R S I T Y 9

implementation of appropriate policies and practices forthe sustainable use, management and development offorest and tree resources be a high priority policy issuefor PICs.

BiodiversityDevelopments over the past 100 yearsThe Pacific region is one of the world’s centres ofbiological diversity, or species richness. The westernPacific has the highest marine diversity in the world. Upto 3 000 species may be found on a single reef (SPREP1993b). The region has the most extensive coral reefsystem in the world. The many thousands of islands aresurrounded by a rich complex of coastal ecosystems,including mangroves, seagrass beds and estuarinelagoons. The evolution of island biogeography has led toa high endemism in terrestrial species, particularly onlarger islands, which can also have a high biologicaldiversity. The estimated extent of biological diversityhowever, is not conclusive for either marine orterrestrial systems because detailed biologicalinventories are lacking. It has been estimated that only10 per cent of tropical species have been described(SPREP 1992).

The early human colonization of the Pacific islandsresulted in radical changes to the biodiversity of theregion. Pressure was put on native ecosystems andbiodiversity as a result of the conversion of forests tosettlements or agricultural land, the exploitation offorest and lagoon resources and the introduction of alienspecies. There is evidence that a number of bird andother animal species were hunted to extinction by theearly Pacific islanders (Steadman 1995). This workshows that the early settlers to the region had aprofound effect on biodiversity even with relatively lowpopulation densities and the lack of advanced resource-harvesting technologies. The threats to biodiversityhave, however, become a more serious issue sinceEuropean colonization and the introduction of new andefficient technologies and exploitative, commercialvalues. In the past century, as populations have grown,as resource extraction technologies have continued toadvance, and as commercial values have become morewidespread, the threats to native biodiversity haveincreased enormously (SPREP 1993b).

Developments over the past 10 yearsBetween 1982 and 1991, the proportion of countriesreporting biodiversity loss as a serious problem rose

from 67 to 75 per cent (ADB 1992). The reasons for thisincrease have been extensively documented in studiesprepared for the South Pacific Biodiversity ConservationProgramme (SPBCP; e.g. SPREP 1994). Despite havingthe world’s highest proportion of endemic species perunit of land area or number of human inhabitants, thebiological diversity of the Pacific islands is among themost critically threatened in the world. A review by theSPBCP cited birds as ‘an outstanding example ofdepletion resulting from the impact of human actions onPacific island environments’ (Given 1992). Eight speciesof native forest birds were lost in the 1980s due topredation by the brown tree snake, accidentallyintroduced to Guam from Solomon Islands. Captivebreeding programmes have prevented the extinction oftwo more (Savage 1987).

World-wide, the largest number of documentedextinctions (28 between 1600 and 1899) has occurred onthe islands of Oceania, which now have more threatenedspecies (110) than any other region (Given 1992). Dahl(1984) estimated that there are roughly seven timesmore endangered bird species per capita in the SouthPacific than in the Caribbean, fifty times more than inSouth America, and a hundred times more than in NorthAmerica or Africa.

An overall estimate of species loss in the regioncannot be provided due to inconclusive biologicalinventories. However, it is clear from the informationfrom Solomon Islands alone that earlier estimates arelikely to be conservative. As stated earlier in this report,there is a general paucity of data but ‘spot’research/survey activity produces a reasonable quality ofdata in a given time frame. For example, in SolomonIslands 102 forms of birds (mostly at subspecies level)have been considered rare (Leary 1993). Table 1.2provides an approximate idea of the biodiversity losses inSolomon Islands.

The PICs (especially the smaller islands) areecologically fragile. Effective conservation at any level isjeopardized by the introduction of exotic plant and animalspecies, unsustainable development and naturaldisasters, which can make large and rapid changes tobiodiversity in islands. It is widely believed that theuncontrolled introduction of exotic pests has beenresponsible for great loss of biological diversity, althoughthe extent is not known.

People living in the region rely heavily on biologicalresources for their economic, social and cultural well-being. This includes the use of natural resources forfood, artisanal and medicinal purposes, further

demonstrating affinity with the natural environment.The culture of all island societies is inextricably linked tothe diversity of living species that characterizes thedifferent island environments. The depletion of geneticvariety, particularly in native food plant species, isanother major concern in terms of biodiversity loss asthese are replaced with fewer varieties of high-yieldcrops. The Pacific countries have a rich genetic heritageof food plants. In PNG, for example, there are anestimated 5 000 kinds of sweet potato, more than 30root and staple crops, 21 legume bean species, 40 leafygreen vegetables, 102 fruits and 89 minor food andflavouring species. In the quest for commercial exportagriculture, many of these important genetic stocks arebeing neglected (ESCAP 1995).

Loss of species, ecosystems and biodiversity is animportant issue in the Pacific, as many species areendemic and, if lost from one island, they may disappearentirely. The pressures on biodiversity in the region aretherefore a result of a number of causes that have alreadybeen touched on. They include large-scale forest logging,commercial agriculture, associated land clearing, andfires. Increasing human populations have meant anintensification of shifting cultivation in many countriesand the depletion of marginal forest lands and otherhabitats. Mining has occurred on a large scale in somecountries, where whole ecosystems have been destroyed(e.g. Nauru). In the marine sector, overfishing anddestructive practices (including dynamiting) in coastalareas have destroyed and degraded reefs and lagoonareas of many PICs.

These activities are exacerbated by themisconception that nature will take care of itself and that

natural resources are there for humans to use at will.The lack of understanding of the potential impact ofpoorly planned development and overexploitation ofnatural resources has made these problems widespreadand in some countries urgent. Pacific island culture,which is closely bound to the diversity of the naturalenvironment, is also being eroded in many places aspeople aspire to materialistic lifestyles and ‘betterstandards of living’.

Trends forecast to 2010Endemic species can be lost in the space of a fewmonths through the destruction of critical habitat orthrough the introduction of predators, insect pests anddiseases. The loss of any habitat on a high island islikely to mean the extinction of species of plants oranimals. Given current trends in land degradation, theoverexploitation of nearshore marine resources, andpopulation growth, the high rates of extinctionsexperienced in PICs can be expected to continue.

To offset this trend, recognition of the significanceand value of biological diversity is growing within theregion. The recent economic valuation of ecosystemscarried out in Fiji as part of its Biodiversity Strategy andAction Plan provides further support for appropriateaction to conserve biological resources. The value ofFiji’s ecosystem services is about FJ$1 billion (US$0.5billion) per year, which strengthens the need to conserveecosystems not only for the resources they contain butalso for the services they provide to the people (Sisto1998). A number of other Pacific countries, such asSamoa, Vanuatu and Solomon Islands are also currentlyundertaking similar biodiversity strategy and action plansto support their existing protected area systems.

The search for new genetic material of commercialvalue is expected to place increased pressure on theregion’s biodiversity. While this may not advance the rateof extinctions, it may have implications for the culturaland economic uses and management of biologicalresources in island countries.

ConclusionThe Pacific region is one of the world’s most biologicallydiverse regions: the western Pacific has the highestmarine diversity on earth. The world’s most extensivecoral reef system is also in the region. A rich complex ofcoastal ecosystems, including mangroves, seagrass bedsand estuarine lagoons surrounds the Pacific islands.There is a high level of endemism in terrestrial species,especially on larger islands.

S T A T E O F T H E E N V I R O N M E N T10

Species Number Loss

Birds 173 9

Mammals 52 24

Reptiles 54 5

Frogs 17 4

Invertebrates 130 (est.) 4

Vascular plants 1 077 (est.) Not known

Source: State of the Environment Report for Solomon Islands (1993)

Table 1.2: Solomon Islands – estimated species loss

F R E S H W A T E R 11

The biological diversity of Pacific islands is amongthe most critically threatened in the world. Between1982 and 1991 the proportion of states noting seriousbiodiversity loss rose from 67 to 75 per cent, accordingto an ADB survey. Islands of this region now have morethreatened species (110) than any other.

Biodiversity in the region is pressurized by large-scale forest logging, commercial agriculture, associatedland clearing, and fires. Population pressure has led toshifting cultivation being intensified and marginal forestlands and other habitats depleted. Large-scale mining insome countries (e.g. Nauru) has destroyed wholeecosystems. Land-based sources of marine pollution (forexample eroded soils, pesticides, heavy metals, nitratesand chlorinated hydrocarbons) are considered to be oneof the four greatest threats to marine biodiversity, alongwith habitat destruction/degradation (includingdynamiting), overexploitation of living resources andinvasive species.

As the economies of most PICs are still subsistencebased, most Pacific islanders are dependent on localbiological and other natural resources for survival. In thePacific islands, biodiversity conservation is much morethan an economic and an ecological issue, it is also asocial and cultural one.

Fresh water Developments over the past 100 yearsCompared to most developed countries there arerelatively few long-term data within the region onhistorical levels of water quality or quantity. As in otherareas (such as Africa) there has been a post-colonialdecline in the level and continuity of monitoring activity.Except in some urban areas, on most islands piped watersupply systems and water storage systems such as watertanks and reservoirs are a very recent development.There is no doubt that occasional water shortages havehistorically been a problem throughout the Pacific,especially during drier than normal years. The mostsevere water shortages would have been experienced onthe atolls and raised limestone islands, where there areno rivers and inhabitants must rely on the groundwaterlens floating on top of the salt water. The ability of thesmaller atolls to sustain an exploitable freshwater lenshas determined whether these islands have been able tosustain permanent habitation or not. However, there hasbeen this rather romantic notion that, throughout thecoastal areas of Pacific islands, water supplies aresupplemented by the ubiquitous coconut tree, which

provides drinking water when other water supplies are inpoor supply or unavailable. These areas have neversustained populations of any size or for any length oftime (SOPAC 1999).

Developments over the past 10 yearsDuring the 1980s the UN Water Decade helped addressa great many of the regional concerns in the water andsanitation sector. One resulting success was theinstigation of a regional mechanism focusing on capacitybuilding, sharing technology, co-ordination andavoidance of duplication of effort. At the end of thedecade, regional and subregional reports, by WHO andUNDP in particular, provided the first comprehensiveregion-wide review and synthesis of the situation(UNDP 1996). Figure 1.3 gives an overview.

Water-related issues were also reported as a majorproblem in 1992 (Thistlethwaite and Votaw 1992), withtwo-thirds of SPREP members noting problems ofsupply/storage and an even higher number reportinggroundwater pollution. More specifically PNG did not atthat time register water shortage as a priority, but wouldnow need to register the effects of recent drought. InSamoa there is concern about the excessively highconsumption of water as a result of the inefficient use ofwater supplies and supply leakage. The region-widedrought in 1998 and the resulting water shortages havehighlighted the urgency for Samoans and others to reducewater consumption. Detailed work has not yet beencarried out on groundwater pollution levels but thestatistics on waste flows (see Atmosphere section, below)show that the pressures are building up, especially inurban areas and on the atolls and low-lying islands. Wastedisposal systems (both solid and liquid) are still generallyinadequate in the Pacific islands and this problem is likelyto continue to worsen as populations increase (Loerzel1998a; SPREP 1999b).

Fresh water resources and their management giverise to many different problems in the region. In the highislands, despite high levels of total rainfall, water issometimes not available where and when it is needed dueto the seasonality of the rainfall. Localized pollution,excessive sedimentation due to uncontrolled watersheddevelopment and water wastage are common problemsreported by Fiji, Samoa and Solomon Islands. In someatoll communities where water shortages may forcepeople to use polluted groundwater for drinking andcooking, health problems such as diarrhoea and hepatitisare prevalent, with occasional outbreaks of typhoid, and,in Kiribati, Tuvalu and the Marshall Islands, even rare

occurrences of cholera. Often with poor waste disposaland inadequate well-head protection, groundwater ishighly susceptible to contamination and water-borneorganisms. Pumping from the freshwater lens needs tobe carefully monitored and controlled in order to providewarning of impending saltwater intrusion and to testwater quality for bacteria counts, chemical residues andtotal dissolved salts. In Wallis and Futuna, households onFutuna have free access to water but it is not treated, anddisease is noted. By contrast, on Wallis, wherehouseholds are paying for access to water that is treatedand analysed on a regular three-month basis, no diseaseis noted (Goepfert 1998).

Water quality in the high islands is usually acceptableby WHO standards, although some problems occur invillages in flooded riverine and estuarine environments,where, though the water quality may be poor, it is stillpotable to the local populations. In Guam, groundwaterprovides over 75 per cent of water needs. Overuse oroverpumping of this resource has resulted in increasingchloride concentrations as a result of saline intrusion,making it unfit for drinking. Further evidence ofincreasing anthropogenic contamination of Guam’saquifers is demonstrated by the increasing nitrate levels(GEPA 1998).

Pollution and enrichment of fresh water occurs tovarying degrees throughout the region. It is difficult togive a precise assessment, as there are inadequate waterquality data available. The lack of water resource data inmost island countries often means that majordevelopment is implemented without knowledge of the

practical implications for the environment and theresource. Provision of expert water quality monitoringand analytical services is expensive and difficult for thewidely separated islands of the Pacific.

The UNDP report (1996) on The State of HumanSettlements and Urbanization in the Pacific Islands –prepared for the United Nations Conference on HumanSettlements (Habitat II) – provides information onPacific populations with access to safe water, as shownin Figure 1.3.

It should be noted that many of the data are derivedfrom national population censuses, which, though amongthe most reliable of sources, are still largely interpretive.There are therefore certain problems in using some ofthe census data. Most importantly, differences incoverage rules, the scope of the censuses, definitions,and procedures for collecting and processing data allmake it difficult to compare results. There are compoundproblems in the quality of data and their interpretation.For example, whilst a high percentage of people mayhave access to ‘safe water’, there is no indication of thereliability of supply of the water; nor do the data reflectthe marked differences in access between rural andurban settlements; nor is there a universal definition ofthe term ‘access’.

Trends forecast to 2010Current indications are that the future outcomespredicted by the World Bank (1995) study werereasonably accurate, namely that, for urban areas in Fiji,Solomon Islands and Samoa, service quality andenvironmental conditions for water supply woulddecline, with a corresponding increase in health risksand productivity losses. In Samoa concern overpollution of groundwater from inadequate wastedisposal systems (domestic and commercial, liquid andsolid waste) has led to plans for the development of asewage disposal system for Apia, which will be the firstsuch facility in the country.

Despite the optimistic statistics in the 1994 and 1996UNDP reports, there continue to be shortages of watersupply in many Pacific island countries. There is anobvious need to provide a secure continuous supply. Theproblem is more one of economics, health and hygiene,and overall water resource management, than just thealleviation of thirst. In particular there is a need to‘drought proof’ many regions which are prone to seasonaland cyclical shortages of supply. More importantly, in theregion there are many areas that have adequate quantitiesof water but of poor quality, leading to health problems.

S T A T E O F T H E E N V I R O N M E N T12

Cook Islands

FSM

Fiji

Kiribati

Marshall Islands

Nauru

Niue

Palau

PNG

Samoa

Solomon Islands

Tokelau

Tonga

Tuvalu

Vanuatu

99%

30%

92%

65%

50%

90%

100%

88%

23%

70%

61%

100%

100%

100%

87%

Source: UNDP (1996)

Figure 1.3: Percentage of Pacific populations with access to safe water

M A R I N E A N D C O A S T A L E N V I R O N M E N T 13

Atolls suffer from minimal surface water storage andlimited exploitable groundwater resources. Freshwaterlenses are governed by the interaction of rainfall volumeand periodicity, tidal fluctuations, seepage, hydraulicconductivity, and abstraction rates. Once the lens,which is in a dynamic state of equilibrium, iscontaminated (by saltwater intrusion, for example), thedelicate balance between fresh and salt water may takeyears to re-establish in certain situations. If thecontamination is from a land-based source (pesticides orleachate, for example), the problem may persist muchlonger. There is a growing consensus that globalwarming may lead to increased energy in thehydrological cycle and consequent greater intensity andfrequency of extreme events (drought and flood). This,together with sea-level rise and, on limited land masses,increasing population pressure on the carrying capacity,is likely to further exacerbate the problem.

In urban areas, fast-growing settlements withoutappropriate water supply and sanitation are not simplythe inevitable result of rapid and uncontrolled populationgrowth; they also suggest inadequate governmentinvestment in urban services as well as in the ruralsectors. Urban centres have an increasingly high demandfor water usage. In Tonga, demand for water has risenbecause of the higher standard of living and on Tongatapuit is estimated that potable water consumption increasedalmost tenfold over the 1970s–1980s, with the averagedaily consumption in Nuku’alofa now about 80 litres perperson (Thistlethwaite, Sheppard and Prescott 1993).Tonga has highlighted the need for public education onconservation of water and promotes a roof watercatchment and rainwater storage programme. Tonga hasalso embarked on a programme to reduce water loss inthe reticulation system. In Guam, residential wastedisposal by septic tank systems adds to nitrates ingroundwater. Nitrates can reach unhealthy levels ifurbanization is not served by central sewage treatmentand disposal (Loerzel 1998b). In Fiji, though no dataexist, there is a potential problem of diminishinggroundwater and river water quality caused by the long-term use of fertilizers and pesticides in the many sugarcane farms. The impact on groundwater recharge andstorage caused by the introduction of non-indigenousagriculture (pine forests, for example) is another activitywhose impact has not been fully assessed.

Industrial use of water, though limited in the Pacific,may provide a bigger concern through the waste itgenerates rather than the quantity consumed. Beermaking, soft drink manufacture, fish processing and

sugar refining are some of the larger users of water, asare activities associated with the tourism industry. Wateris also used for hydroelectric power in some countries,such as Fiji, Samoa, PNG and Vanuatu, but this is not, ingeneral, a competing or consumptive use. In some PICsthere is a growing number of light industries andcommercial agricultural practices, placing furtherdemands on water supplies. In Fiji water bottling andhydroponics are two new users.

ConclusionWater and sanitation as foundations of economicgrowth, social development and, in some cases, basicsurvival are vital. The protection and conservation ofthe supply and quality of water is expected to becomean increasingly important issue in the Pacific of thefuture, especially if global climate change results inincreasing rainfall variability in the region. Populationgrowth, urbanization and damage to water catchmentsas a result of rampant deforestation, inappropriateagricultural activities and inadequate waste disposal areall likely to have an increasing impact on water suppliesthroughout the region. Improvement in water resourcemanagement is fundamental and will require a co-ordinated effort across many sectors, including:improvements in watershed management; reductions indeforestation rates; raising public awareness of wisewater use and management; controls over agriculturalactivities, and improvements in waste disposal,especially sewage disposal facilities.

In many of the PICs management of the resourcesthat exist is a greater challenge than identifying newsources. A management structure or regime is oftendifficult to put in place when there is a policy vacuum,outdated legislation, insufficient budgetary provisions, anabsence of technical capacity and the perennial problemof land ownership.

Marine and coastal environmentDevelopments over the past 100 yearsThere are very few data on the historical pressures onthe marine and coastal environment in the Pacific.However, it should be noted that an extensive databasefor offshore fisheries in the Pacific has been developedover the past few decades. There is evidence that, sincethe vast majority of Pacific islanders (excluding PNG)live in the coastal zone, there was considerablepressure on coastal and marine resources, whichoccasionally led to resource shortages. Local shortages

of marine resources were perhaps partly responsible forthe development of traditional fisheries protectionstrategies such as closed seasons and areas, gearrestrictions, and restrictions on species that could becaught and who could catch them (Johannes 1982).However, in most cases the pressure on marine andcoastal resources is not considered to have been aserious issue until relatively recently (Baines 1984).

Developments over the past 10 yearsAs coastal areas are home to most of the region’spopulation, and the entire populations of the smallerlow-lying islands, changes in population density,combined with new technology and changingdevelopment priorities, have had a particular impact oncoastal environments. Uses of the coastal zone, oractivities that take place within it, may be aquatic orterrestrial in PICs and typically include the following:

● fishing;● coastal shipping;● port and harbour development;● water-based recreation, such as diving and other

tourism-related activities;● coastal construction – building of houses, hotels,

commercial and industrial premises;● infrastructure development – building of roads,

installation of power and water supplies;● sewage treatment and disposal; ● rubbish dumping, discharge of factory effluent and

other forms of waste disposal;● coastal protection – construction of sea walls or

other forms of shoreline stabilization;● agriculture;● logging;● mining of various types, including petrochemical

extraction;● modification of watercourses (dams, etc.).

Imminent threats to marine and coastal resourcesresulting from these developments over the past tenyears have been outlined in the Strategic ActionProgramme for International Waters in the PacificIslands Region (SPREP 1999b). These include:

● nutrients derived from sewage, soil erosion andagricultural fertilizers; eutrophication;

● solid waste disposal, particularly in urban areas;● sedimentation resulting from land clearance and

increased erosion;

● physical alterations caused by destruction of fringingreefs, beaches, wetlands and mangroves for coastaldevelopment and by sand extraction;

● overexploitation of coastal food fisheries, particularlythrough destructive fishing methods.

Specifically, increasing urbanization, dredging andlandfill have caused erosion and sedimentation of reefs,sewage discharge has reduced water quality, reef fishare starting to be overexploited due to fishingpressure, rubbish is being dumped along the foreshoreand nesting sea turtles have been eliminated from thearea (Bryant et al. 1998; SPREP 1996). Landreclamation and natural erosion as a result of waveaction is also regarded as an imminent threat to themarine environment by Cook Islands, Samoa andAmerica Samoa (SPREP 1998a). Marine invasivespecies have been identified as an issue in some portsand coastal habitats. There is also a need to addressship-sourced marine pollution in the region (SPREP1998a). Whilst not a serious problem in PICs, it is aconcern and the threat is likely to increase as tradeand economies develop further. The role of transitshipping and foreign fishing fleets in this issue shouldbe highlighted. It should be noted that imminentthreats to international (deep) waters and offshoreareas are encouraging the Pacific island countries tocontrol and fully utilize their EEZs.

The coastal zone is extremely vulnerable and theirreversible nature of many impacts (such as thedestruction of seagrasses, mangroves and reef habitats)make it an ideal indicator of the state of theenvironment in the Pacific. The information gaps are,however, once again serious, as illustrated by theinternational waters document (SPREP 1997a), whichlists across three pages topics for which data are non-existent or seriously deficient.

Whilst land-based and coastal zone environmentalissues are a recognized priority in the region, it is alsoimportant to appreciate the significance of the oceanicenvironment. By far the greatest area in the western andcentral Pacific is deep ocean. This supports, amongstother things, the world’s largest tuna fishery, which, withthe exception of one species (Bigeye), is in relativelygood health. Clearly fisheries resources represent amajor focus for long-term economic development in theregion. This has the capacity to finance consolidatedrevenue, with flow-on benefits for environmental areasnot currently receiving attention. The challenge facingthe region in terms of the oceanic environment is to

S T A T E O F T H E E N V I R O N M E N T14

M A R I N E A N D C O A S T A L E N V I R O N M E N T 15

ensure that the problems of overcapacity andoverexploitation (which have had severe economic andbiological consequences world-wide) are not repeated inthe region.

The implications for PIDCs’ development in relationto reefs, inshore and offshore fisheries over the last tenyears are highlighted below.

ReefsCoral reefs are among the most biologically diverseecosystems on the planet, and some living coral reefsmay be as much as 2.5 million years old. Yet, in the last

few decades, many of these ecosystems have beendestroyed by human activities (Bryant et al. 1998).

Species diversity for corals generally declines west toeast across the Pacific. Most of the reefs support anexceptional diversity of fish, marine invertebrates andcorals. During World War II, hundreds of vessels and avast load of armaments were deposited on these reefsystems, and during the past half century these warrelics have been colonized by fish, sponges, soft coralsand seaweed, attracting divers and fish. However, onChuuk in FSM, people have removed explosives frommunitions dumps to use for stunning and killing fish.

Fiji 10,000 km248%33% 19%

Papua New Guinea 12,000 km2

38%50% 12%

Solomon Islands 6,000 km2

42%50% 8%

French Polynesia 6,000 km282% 8%

New Caledonia 6,000 km2

13%83% 4%

Marshall Islands 6,000 km2

97% 3%

10%31%59%

Region 108,000 km2

Low risk Medium risk High risk

Source: Bryant et al. 1998

Figure 1.4: Reefs at risk by region and country

C o r a l S e a

140° W180°

Equator

Tropic of Capricorn

Equator

MARSHALL ISLANDS

Gilbert Islands

Caroline IslandsFEDERATED STATES OF MICRONESIA

GUAM

NORTHERN MARIANAISLANDS

PALAU

PAPUA NEW GUINEA SOLOMON ISLANDS

NAURU

VANUATU

NEW CALEDONIAAUSTRALIA

P A C I F I C O C E A N

Kiritimati

TUVALU

KIRIBATIPhoenix Is.

TOKELAU

FIJI

WALLIS ANDFUTUNA

AMERICANSAMOA

SAMOA

TONGA NIUE

COOK IS.

ÎS MARQUISES

FRENCH POLYNESIA

TahitiÎs.de la Société

Îs.Tuamotu

Îs.GambierÎs.Tubuai

L i n eI s l a

nd

s

Northern Cook Is.

140°

Estimated threat to coral reefs

Low risk

Medium risk

High risk

According to a 1994 survey, blasting has now killed 10per cent of the reefs in the lagoon (Bryant et al. 1998).

Fifty-nine per cent of the reefs in the Pacific havebeen assessed as being at low risk, 31 per cent as beingat medium risk and 10 per cent as being at high risk(Bryant et al. 1998). Assessment criteria includedproximity to coastal development, marine pollution,overexploitation, destructive fishing, and inland pollutionand erosion (Bryant et al. 1998). Risk statistics forselected countries, and reef distribution are shown inFigure 1.4.

Coastal fisheriesThe importance of subsistence fisheries (Figure 1.5) isunderlined by data (World Bank 1995b) indicating that83 per cent of coastal households of Solomon Islands,35 per cent of rural households in Vanuatu, 50 per centof rural households in Samoa, 87 per cent of allhouseholds in the Marshall Islands and 99 per cent ofall households in Kiribati carry out fishing, primarily forhome consumption. A World Bank report (1999) oncoastal management in the Pacific has revealed thatoverfishing poses a major threat to many PICs. Thereport found that the most serious threats wereoverharvesting, pollution, garbage, logging and mining.Destructive fishing practices such as dynamiting andfish poisoning were also major problems. In order forthe catches to recover, it is important to controlharvesting and allow the resources to reproduce. It wasalso recognized that many communities had limitedcapacity to control their own fishing practices andpollution sources.

Oceanic fisheriesThe commercial exploitation of marine resources isdominated for the most part by high-technologyoperations for harvesting highly migratory tuna.Harvesting of these resources (Table 1.3) is at presentpredominately undertaken by the fishing fleets ofdistant-water fishing nations, although it involvesnational tuna fisheries for both local consumption andexport. Economic returns to Pacific island resourceowners, such as fishing access fees, represent aninsignificant proportion of an industry valued atapproximately US$1.7 billion (Preston 1997). In theabsence of potential domestic tuna industrydevelopment, for some PICs access fees remain theonly economic return option. The sustainablemanagement of such an important fisheries resource isthe underlying motivation for the current negotiation

S T A T E O F T H E E N V I R O N M E N T16

13.0%

15.6%

12.6%

26.0%American Samoa 26780.5%

6.0%

4.8%

9.3%

38.9%

26.3%

10.3%

28.6%

19.5%

Papua New Guinea 25 554

80.5%

Kiribati 12 324

73.7%

Fiji 23 253

71.4%

Solomon Islands 11 150

89.7%

Micronesia 6 880

90.7%

New Caledonia 3 48171.8%

French Polynesia 6 043

61.1%

Western Samoa 3 48994.0%

Northern Marianas 2 96695.2%Vanuatu 2 51281.4%Marshall Islands 2 36984.4%Tonga 2 36239.5%Palau 1 48550.5%Cook Islands 98287.4%Tuvalu 92787.0%

67.7% 32.3%

32.3%

74.0%

19.5%

Wallis and Futuna 917

Guam 591

Nauru 376

18.6%

60.5%

49.5%

67.7%

28.2%

Tokelau 191100%Niue 11589.6% 10.4%Pitcairn Island 8100%

subsistence commercial

Source: Dalzell and Adams (1994)

Figure 1.5: Coastal fisheries production in PICs (tonnes/year, est. total)

process to establish a regional fisheries managementregime in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Thecontinued rational exploitation of the pelagic fishery isvital to the improved economic performance of manyPacific islands.

The size of the regional tuna fishery has beenincreasing steadily over the past two decades, as shownin Table 1.3. The total catch rose to a high of over1 million tonnes in 1991 and has stayed slightly belowthis level since then (Preston 1997).

Trends forecast to 2010Continued degradation of coastal and nearshore marineresources is expected to continue over the next decadeunless the deficiencies in management are addressed.These include the need for mechanisms to integrateenvironmental concerns, for development planning anddecision-making, and for achieving island-wide ecosystemawareness in Pacific island people (SPREP 1998c).Population growth and economic development in coastalareas are expected to continue to place pressure onwetlands and mangroves, generate land-based sources ofpollution and increase subsistence and cash demand forliving marine resources. The expansion of tourism isexpected to contribute to these pressures.

From 1991 to 1996, total tourist arrivals to 13member countries of the Tourism Council of the SouthPacific increased by 17 per cent, from 693 500 to 811 395. Recent studies on global tourism trends predictthat visitor volumes to the Pacific region as a whole willdouble over this decade, with corresponding benefits forPacific island countries (SPREP 1996).

The expected continued growth in the tourism sectorhighlights the need for special attention to be paid to therelationship between environmental quality and thesustainability of tourism development – an issue that wasidentified by countries in the Barbados Plan of Action(SPREP/ESCAP 1996). The need for infrastructure tosupport growing populations and tourist demands isexpected to place pressure on non-living marineresources. This will place further emphasis on improvingor finding substitutes for beach mining, which has beenparticularly damaging in the low coralline islands, whichhave a critical shortage of suitable construction-gradesand and aggregate for infrastructure development.

Oceanic marine resources are expected to fare a littlebetter. Given the healthy status of the tuna resources,catches could be expected to be maintained at similarlevels until 2010. During the same period PICs expect tomaintain policies of developing domestic tuna industries

as a means of increasing their share of the economicbenefits from tuna exploitation. It might be expected,however, that any growth in the domestic fleet woulddisplace distant-water vessels rather than adding vesselsto the overall fleet.

With increased shipping, the opportunities formarine spills will grow steadily over the next decade.The impacts that may be associated with offshoreexploration are not yet well understood, and thelikelihood of exploration taking place in the next tenyears is as yet unclear.

ConclusionsMarine resources are the major source of protein forPacific islanders, most of whom live in the coastal zone.In addition, the development of marine resources,including commercial fishing, represents almost thesole opportunity for substantial economic development,especially for the atoll states, such as Marshall Islands,Kiribati and Tuvalu.

Imminent threats to the marine environment include:nutrients derived from sewage, soil erosion andagricultural fertilizers; solid waste disposal;sedimentation; physical alterations caused by

M A R I N E A N D C O A S T A L E N V I R O N M E N T 17

Catch (thousands of tonnes)Year Skipjack Yellowfin Albacore Bigeye Total

1976 167.5 62.0 30.0 42.8 302.4

1977 200.2 73.6 35.9 41.1 350.8

1978 230.0 86.0 30.4 27.9 374.3

1979 186.4 82.7 25.4 39.1 333.7

1980 211.8 104.5 39.8 41.6 397.7

1981 254.6 110.2 31.1 28.2 424.2

1982 266.6 111.2 28.8 29.0 435.6

1983 426.1 141.3 20.2 26.5 614.1

1984 434.8 129.4 19.6 32.2 616.0

1985 367.3 124.6 27.3 40.5 559.6

1986 431.1 126.4 32.5 34.5 624.4

1987 406.9 183.2 23.7 40.7 654.5

1988 541.6 127.9 33.2 35.7 738.3

1989 531.3 181.2 47.5 34.2 794.2

1990 589.3 202.8 31.0 52.1 875.2

1991 759.1 229.3 24.6 36.7 1 049.6

1992 686.4 275.4 41.2 44.0 1 047.0

1993 535.8 284.3 34.3 49.4 903.8

1994 663.2 263.4 38.5 59.3 1 024.4

1995 666.8 215.8 38.3 37.3 958.2

Source: Lawson (1996)

Table 1.3: Tuna catch by major species in the Secretariat of thePacific Community statistical area

destruction of fringing reefs, beaches, wetlands andmangroves for coastal development and by sandextraction; overexploitation of coastal food fisheries.

Increases in population density mostly impact coastalenvironments. Coastal development related impacts areof particular relevance in this zone, with increasingtourism and settlement numbers, and pressure for newdevelopments as a means of economic growth. Therapidly growing urban populations are largely responsiblefor the destruction of mangroves and beach areas, thepollution of lagoons and harbours, the loss of somemarine species and ecosystems, and the fouling ofnearshore waters and reefs. There are also losses in theextraction of coral and other marine organisms, not onlyby tourists but also by commercial exporters.

The commercial exploitation of marine resources isfor the most part dominated by high-technologyoperations for harvesting tuna by fishing fleets fromoutside the region, with comparatively small returns forPacific island resource owners.

Increased demand for marine port facilities throughthe region’s participation in regional and global tradedirectly impacts on coastal environments and alteredcurrent flows can cause siltation and erosion in remotelocations.

AtmosphereDevelopments over the past 100 yearsThere is little accurate information on air quality in thePacific over the past 100 years. Localized air pollutionhas been associated with land clearance and cookingfires. Few industrial power sources other than dieselelectric power generation existed before 1980 and nosignificant health effects have been recorded.

Globally, however, trends in the concentration ofcarbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases haveincreased significantly this century, along with a gradualwarming of the atmosphere. Within the Pacific regionthis trend was identified as of particular concern due tothe potential of rising sea levels and increased frequencyof extreme weather events, such as cyclones, floods anddroughts (SPREP 1989).

Developments over the past 10 yearsAtmospheric pollution has not been perceived to be aproblem in most PICs since most islands are generallynot highly industrialized or urbanized (NEMS 1991–94;SPREP 1997b). However, in the larger urban areas, suchas Suva, Port Moresby and Apia, there is increasing

concern over levels of local air pollution by vehicleexhausts, fires and industrial emissions (Figure 1.6). Fewmeasures have been implemented to set pollutionstandards or to minimize pollution emissions. Althoughthese localized concerns have not been identified asregional or global priorities for islands (SPREP 1997b;SPREP/ESCAP 1996), atmospheric pollution fromindustrial nations outside the region has continued toincrease and with it associated global warming.

S T A T E O F T H E E N V I R O N M E N T18

5 10 15 20

.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

New Caledonia

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

Fiji

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

Vanuatu

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

Samoa

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

PNG

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

Solomon Islands

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

Source: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), 1995

Figure 1.6: CO2 emissions per capita for selectedcountries, 1975–95 (tonnes)

A T M O S P H E R E 19

The findings of the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC) (Houghton et al. 1996) confirmthat ‘the balance of evidence suggests a discerniblehuman influence on global climate’ and that ‘moreconvincing recent evidence for the attribution of ahuman effect on climate is emerging…’, which isunlikely to be ‘a result of natural internal variability’(Watson, Zinyowera and Moss 1998). This is of on-goingand particular concern to Pacific island governmentsand peoples, most of whose lives are entirely coastal innature (SPREP 1993a).

The three greatest anticipated consequences of anyglobal warming are expected to be sea-level rise, anincrease in climate-related natural disasters (storms,floods and droughts) and disruption to agriculture due tochanges in temperature, rainfall and winds. The IPCC hasnoted that the ‘best estimate’ of sea-level rise from thepresent to the year 2100 is 50 cm, with a range for allscenarios of 15–95 cm by the end of the century.

In the Pacific, areas under threat have been identifiedas marine ecosystems, coastal systems, tourism, humansettlement and infrastructure (IPCC 1998). There isgrowing evidence that the nature of impacts in thisregion is indicative of a changing climate. The region haslost atolls due to rising seas and has experienced moreextreme events and weather, coupled with El Niño. Theresults have included water shortages and drought in

PNG, Marshall Islands, FSM, American Samoa, Samoaand Fiji, and floods in New Zealand. Data gathered byNew Zealand’s National Institute of Water andAtmospheric Research (NIWA) also show a generalchange in the South Pacific climate from the mid-1970s:

● Kiribati, northern Cook Islands, Tokelau and northernparts of French Polynesia have become wetter;

● New Caledonia, Fiji and Tonga have become drier;● Samoa, eastern Kiribati, Tokelau and northeast

French Polynesia have become warmer and cloudierand the difference between daytime and night-timetemperatures has decreased;

● New Caledonia, Fiji, Tonga, southern Cook Islandsand southwest French Polynesia have becomewarmer and sunnier;

● Western Kiribati and Tuvalu have become sunnier.

Cyclones are a common feature, with some countriesexperiencing them almost each year. Table 1.4 showsthe level of risk to PICs of natural disasters such ascyclones. With the likelihood that the frequency andintensity of weather extremes will increase globalwarming, the region’s ability to develop a strongproductive base for sustainable development isjeopardized. Tokelau had had only three major stormssince 1846 until two cyclones (Tusi and Ofa) struck in

Cyclone Coastal flood River flood Drought Earthquake Landslide Tsunami VolcanoCountry

Fiji

FSM

Kiribati

Marshall Islands

Palau

Solomon Islands

Tonga

Tuvalu

Vanuatu

Low Medium High

Table 1.4: Estimated levels of vulnerability to specific natural hazards in selected PICs

Source: UNDHA (1996)

the early 1990s. Tuvalu was hit by an average of threecyclones per decade between the 1940s and 1970s, buteight occurred in the 1980s (Nunn 1990).

Trends forecast to 2010Observations of the past ten years have been furtherexamined in recent studies of latent energy in the oceansystem and regional impacts (Jones 1998; Jones et al.1999). It has been predicted (Jones 1998) that sea-levelrise resulting from anthropogenic greenhouse gasesalready in the atmosphere has the potential to threatenall regions of the Pacific, particularly in areas wherecoastal impacts are currently marginal. The CSIROmodels determined that sea-level rise caused by pasthuman emissions of greenhouse gases would be of theorder of 5–12 cm, peaking in 2020–25 (Jones 1998). Sea-level rise likely if the provisions of the Kyoto Protocolwere adhered to, and if the world then ceased allanthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions after 2020,would range between 14 cm and 32 cm, peaking in2050–2100 (Figure 1.7).

The prediction of regional impacts associated withclimate change over the next ten years (Jones et al.1999) further reinforces the concerns raised during thelast decade. Coastal areas will continue to experienceimpacts associated with ENSO variability, tropicalcyclones and wave action. Tropical cyclones maybecome more intense, which would increase stormsurge height. Current risks are therefore likely topersist and probably increase at a rate determined bysea-level rise (Jones et al. 1999).

ConclusionsClimate change and sea-level rise are expected to haveprofound effects on the Pacific islands and the issue istherefore expected to remain a priority for the region.

PICs have experienced a range of impactsconsistent with a changing climate. A general alterationoccurred in the South Pacific climate from the mid-1970s, and the intensity of extremeevents, such as the 1998 El Niño induced droughts inFiji, PNG and the FSM which resulted in severedamage to food and export crops, has causedconsiderable concern.

Based on current models and on the assumption thatthe Kyoto Protocol targets are met, coastal areas willcontinue to suffer phenomena resulting from ENSOvariability, tropical cyclones and wave action. Tropicalcyclones may become more intense, which wouldincrease storm surge height.

S T A T E O F T H E E N V I R O N M E N T20

Observed global mean atmospheric CO2 concentrations,and temperature andsea-level changes to 1990 compared with projections to 2100 based on theIS92a emissions scenario to 2000, with a gradual application of the KyotoProtocol to 2020 followed by a return of all greenhouse gas emissions tonatural values from 2025 (Scenario 2). Projections of temperature and sealevel are based on low, mid and high temperature sensitivity (1.5°C, 2.5°C and4.5°C) and mid-value ice-melt parameters, as in IPCC (1996). Observed dataare as in IPCC (1996).

Figure 1.7: Projected sea-level rise with adherenceto Kyoto Protocol

1880 1990 2100

350

375

400

425

450Atmospheric CO2 (ppm)

observed predicted

300

325

275

250

1880-0.8

1990 2100

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.6

1.0

1.2Temperature (°C)

observed predicted

0.8

0.4

-0.6High Medium Low

1880-30

1990 2100

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40Sea level change (cm)

observed predicted

High Medium Low

U R B A N A R E A S 21

Urban areasDevelopments over the past 100 yearsDuring the past century Pacific island people have beensteadily moving from the outer islands to the provincialor national seats of government, and from rural areas tothe urban centres. This has come with a gradual movefrom a subsistence lifestyle towards a more cash-basedconsumer society (SPREP/ESCAP 1996). Relatedproblems have been generally highly localized and oftenassociated with urbanization and growth in establishedpopulation centres; for example, Ebeye Island inMarshall Islands has a population density of 23 200/km2 (SPC 1998).

Although Pacific towns and cities remain small by world standards, the last century saw them grow in population, as well as economically and in the amountof land they require. By the early 1990s only fivecountries (PNG, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Niue and Western Samoa) had less than a quarter oftheir population living in urban areas, and sevencountries were more than 50 per cent urban(SPREP/ESCAP 1996). In most cases the growth ratesfor urban populations have been higher than for national populations.

Developments over the past 10 yearsThe general trend over the past ten years is thatPacific countries are becoming increasingly urbanizedand less rural in their focus than even a decade ago.Although not dramatic when examined as a percentageof total population (Figure 1.8), from Table 1.1 it isclear that for individual states the average is around 45per cent. The trend is not surprising given the natureof economic and political developments in the pastdecade. World market prices for agriculturalcommodities are declining, new investments are morevisible in urban than rural areas, and towns areperceived as important conduits for socio-economic,cultural and political innovation and change. Migrationto urban areas is a response to these developments,and is a significant component of urban growth, but thetowns also grow due to natural increase. The ‘town’ fora growing number of Pacific islanders is home to asecond and even third generation.

In the larger South Pacific countries, such as PNG,Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, with adequate untappedproductive land, the proportion of people living in urbancentres is still low. PNG is only 15–20 per cent urbanized(SPC revised 1998). Hence, although the same problems

of urbanization that occur throughout the developingworld are also seen in these countries, they are relativelyless important in terms of total population than in theurban areas of Suva (Fiji), Nuku’alofa (Tonga) or inparticular Majuro (Marshall Islands), Tarawa (Kiribati) orFunafuti (Tuvalu).

It is not possible to generalize about urban issuesacross the region. Isolated, low-lying, densely settledatolls with few natural resources contrast with urbancentres on large, high islands with many resources.Despite the tiny land areas of many PICs, with fewresources and urban areas of as little as 3 000 people,the countries of the Pacific are currently facing asituation of growing inequality and urban environmentaldegradation (Bryant 1995). Some areas arecharacterized by: overcrowded substandard and ofteninformal housing; a concentration of disease related topoor and unsanitary living conditions such as respiratoryillness, tuberculosis and gastro-intestinal complaints;polluted water supplies; and the ever-present difficulty ofhuman waste disposal, particularly on low-lying atolls.Waste management is discussed in more detail in thefinal section of this chapter.

In general, urban growth across the Pacific isproceeding so fast that governments simply cannot keeppace with facilities and services. Urban areas of thePacific are now manifesting lifestyles and conditions thatwere unheard of as recently as 20 years ago. Water isscarce and groundwater often polluted, toilets few, solidwaste disposal limited and hence intestinal diseases andear and eye infections prevalent. At the same timemedical and dental services are limited and hospitalsunderstaffed and underequipped. Health problems

1995

20%

24.9%

urban population

1990 23.8%

1985 22.7%

1980 21.6%

1975 20.4%

10% 30%

Source: United Nations Population Division (1996)

Figure 1.8: Trends in urban population as a percentage of totalpopulation across PICs

related to living conditions are increasing. For example,in Fiji the number of new tuberculosis cases is growingannually; in most of the Pacific dengue fever is a majorproblem, with periodic epidemics responsible for anumber of deaths. Illnesses related to water supply andsanitation are prevalent, especially in informalsettlements where dwellers are living in marginallocations with inadequate waste disposal, potable waterand sanitation.

There is an unequivocal link between dietschanging from traditional island foods and theincidence of lifestyle diseases throughout the Pacificisland region. Thirty per cent of all Pacific islandersnow live in urban areas, where they are compelled toeat less nutritious (generally imported) foods. Cardiacdiseases, diabetes and other non-communicablediseases are the leading causes of death in the region,with Guam, PNG, Nauru and Fiji leading the rest of thePacific islands in these aspects of morbidity. Changingvalues and habits account for an increasing number ofdeaths from suicide and accidents, and for increasingproblems from excessive alcohol consumption andcrime. A handful of countries have reported AIDScases; with the exception of four countries, there aregrowing numbers of HIV-positive cases (SPREP/ESCAP 1996) .

The most visible indicators of change in humansettlements in the Pacific are the rise in squatterhousing and urban poverty, and the decline in thequality of the urban environment, especially instandards of shelter, infrastructure and environmentalmanagement. These issues all point to a growing crisisthat neither communities nor governments have beenable to reverse. The major problems facing urbancentres in the Pacific include:

● serious shortage of land, and conflicts withtraditional land tenure;

● falling standards of infrastructure;● an increase in the number of squatter settlements

and informal housing;● poverty, vulnerability and environmental

degradation.

Environmental issues are more pressing and urgent inthe Pacific urban centres because of the risingpopulation pressures, often on small and low landmasses; vulnerability of urban areas to sea-level risebecause of their coastal nature; economic and culturaldependence on the natural environment; prevalence of

natural disasters; and vulnerability of freshwater lenseson atolls to environmental impacts. Pacific countriesnote that many of these problems arise from the lack ofurban planning and management which, if wellorganized, could mitigate the effects of change inhuman settlements.

The standard of living for the region’s urbandwellers is relatively high when compared with those inother developing countries, largely the result of thecontinued support from traditional networks for andamong people living in urban environments. However,there are some worrying trends. Although empiricaldata are usually sketchy, there are indications of: risingunemployment, particularly among young people; highdrop-out rates from primary schools; low householdcash incomes; and a growing incidence of substanceabuse and crime (SPC 1998).

Trends forecast to 2010Urbanization trends in the Pacific are likely to continue.Decentralization and rural resettlement schemes havebeen tried with varying success. Despite schemes forrepatriating people to rural areas, not everyone has avillage to return to and thus the problems facing urbanareas will continue to grow. Increasing urban povertyand environmental degradation are expected to becomemore obvious, making urbanization and the resultingchange in the nature of human settlements one of themajor challenges facing Pacific communities in the nextdecade (UNDP 1996).

A major policy issue is the extent to which aidspending has been concentrated on islands/areas withurban concentrations. This partly reflects governmentpolicies that spend aid for the benefit of thegovernment, so both government and aid becomelocalized. Consequently, both governments and donorsshould be more conscious of outer island development,focusing on infrastructure and support for the privatesector. However, this needs some care as there areobvious requirements to assist urban concentrates oncethey occur (water supply, roading etc.) and reversal ofpopulation flows is unlikely. Countries with a strongfocus on outer island development are Cook Islandsand Tuvalu.

These pressures of increasing urbanization andWesternization will necessitate an increased emphasis onmany issues, including:

● the critical need for national and regional capacity-building as a platform for the realization of

S T A T E O F T H E E N V I R O N M E N T22

W A S T E M A N A G E M E N T 23

sustainable development in the South Pacific;● the need to inform and involve people at the

grassroots level, particularly local NGOs andvillagers, in decisions affecting the allocation andmanagement of local resources;

● the impact of demographic pressures on the capacityof national governments and regional organizations toplan responses to key problems and the increasingimportance of town planning, including zoning of areasunder government jurisdiction;

● the importance of recognizing and respecting thekey role of traditional practices, cultures and thesubsistence economy in many Pacific Islandcountries;

● the difficulties of distance, isolation, dispersion andnational budget constraints in designing andimplementing environmentally sound and sustainabledevelopment programmes in the region.

ConclusionsUrbanization and the resulting change in the nature ofhuman settlements represents one of the major challengesfacing Pacific communities in the next decade.

The major problems facing urban centres in thePacific include: serious shortage of land and conflictswith traditional land tenure; falling standards ofinfrastructure; an increase in the number of squattersettlements and informal housing; poverty, vulnerabilityand environmental degradation.

Although the region’s urban populations are small,with overall only about one in four people living in anurban environment, almost everywhere in the regionurban growth has outstripped rural population growth bya large margin. In some island countries, urban areascontain over half the total population.

The major pressures of continuing degradation ofurban areas are exerted by high population growthrates, industrialization, urbanization and consumerism.Urban sprawl and industries associated with urbanareas, including manufacturing, power generation andthe provision of services and infrastructure, both createwaste and pollution and encroach on beaches, wetlandsand forests.

Increased urbanization also places demands oninfrastructure, including sewerage, power,communications and transportation services. Inadequatesewerage has severe health and environmentalimplications, causing degradation of river, subsurface andcoastal water quality, with adverse effects on recreationaland fishing activities.

Waste managementDevelopments over the past 100 yearsThe impacts of pollution and the need for wastemanagement in PICs were small for most of the pastcentury as most waste products were biodegradable andpopulations were dispersed. Commonly wastes weredisposed of through individual dumping in lagoons andrivers or on unused land close to villages.

Growing urban populations and increasing imports ofnon-biodegradable materials and chemicals related toagricultural and manufacturing have brought with themenvironmental health problems and a rapid confrontationwith the realities of waste and toxic and hazardoussubstances management. All PICs now share theproblems of disposal of waste and the prevention ofpollution. The physiographical characteristics of somePacific islands, their small size, isolation and oceaniclocation, and their dependence on a marine and limitedterrestrial resource base, make them highly vulnerable tocontamination by toxic and hazardous wastes andchemicals, as well as radioactive materials. Thedevelopment of common landfill sites over the past 50years was often carried out without extensive planning orthe establishment of the necessary managementarrangements to maintain them effectively.

Developments over the past 10 yearsIn the past decade trends have continued and themanagement of solid waste, wastewater and chemicalsis now a major concern in many PICs. The history ofwaste disposal in the region has led to a growingawareness of the dangers posed to the Pacificenvironment and people.

Solid waste management is a particular concern forPICs, with many lacking land suitable for waste disposalsites. The last decade has seen an increase in theimportation of goods, which has resulted in dramaticshifts in the waste stream in some countries, withplastics, cardboard, paper and metals now being ofgreater significance than organic matter. Increased levelsof participation in regional and global trade haveexacerbated this problem. Increased urbanization alsoplaces demands on infrastructure, including sewerage.Inadequate sewerage has severe health andenvironmental implications, causing degradation of river,subsurface and coastal water quality, with adverse effectson recreational and fishing activities.

Results from various national studies on solid wasteproduction in Pacific countries (Figure 1.9) show a

range of average daily waste generated in the domesticsector: from 0.2 kg/person/day in Rarotonga, CookIslands, to 0.7 kg/person/day in Tongatapu, Tonga(Government of Kingdom of Tonga 1994). The samestudies further highlighted that the household wastestream in most Pacific island states is dominated bybiodegradable material (vegetable and putresciblematerials and garden wastes). However, there is also arelatively high proportion of paper and plastics(average 22.5 per cent of total waste generation),metals (average 11 per cent of total waste generation)and glass bottles in the waste stream. Few data areavailable for commercial or industrial wastes as in mostPICs most (recorded) waste is currently generated bythe domestic sector (WHO 1996).

In the larger towns, the search for environmentallysafe and socially acceptable sites for solid waste disposalhas become a perennial concern, which is, for severaltowns at least, seemingly insoluble. In smallersettlements and coastal peri-urban situations, mangrove

areas or beaches have become the casual dumpinggrounds for much of the waste, ranging from derelict carsto household refuse. Expected further urbanization andindustrialization will make these problems even worse.

Inadequate sanitation systems for the disposal ortreatment of liquid wastes have resulted in highcoliform contamination in surface waters and ingroundwater near urban areas. Various incidents havealso been reported of pollution by toxins from industrialwaste, effluent from abattoirs or food-processing plants,by biocides and by polluted effluent from sawmills andtimber processing areas.

Figure 1.9 and Tables 1.5 and 1.6 provide aninsight into solid waste generation and thecontributions of wastewater to pollutant loads in urbancentres in the region.

The last ten years have seen the continued use of arange of chemicals for agriculture and manufacturing.The region in general has little capacity for monitoringthe pollution from toxic and hazardous substances but

S T A T E O F T H E E N V I R O N M E N T24

0.380.680.190.520.38 0.38

Majuro,Marshall Islands

1991

Paper

Generation Rate(kg/capita/day)

Bulk Density (kg/m3)

Composition(% by wet weight)

Vegetable/Putrescible

Leather / RubberTextile

Glass / Ceramic

Plastic

Metal

Garden Waste

Miscellaneous

Honiara,Solomon Islands

1990

Nuku’alofa,Tonga1994

Rarotonga,Cook Islands

1994

Apia,Samoa1993

Pohnpei,FSM1991

13

2

23

6

16

10

44

6

16

7

24

7

9

2

11

11

13

12

17

28

1

60

14

2

14

8

3

13

45

18

24

82

66

11

1311

17

17

8

32

110270 –100350120

Figure 1.9: Characteristics of municipal solid waste in PICs

Source: World Health Organization (1996)

W A S T E M A N A G E M E N T 25

there is increasing awareness of the impacts andmagnitude of the problem (SPREP 1997b). Thesemonitoring deficiencies are seen in inadequate laboratoryfacilities and the lack of trained field sampling andanalytical laboratory staff. All countries of the SouthPacific share a problem of safely disposing of solid andliquid wastes, particularly as a result of urbanization.Point source pollution from industrial wastes and sewage,inappropriately sited and poorly managed garbage dumps,and disposal of toxic chemicals are all significantcontributors to marine pollution and coastal degradation.There is also growing concern that toxic and hazardouswaste may be brought to the region from developedcountries for disposal. Discharges from selected PICs areshown in Table 1.5.

A recent study of persistent organic pollutants in theregion found that considerable stockpiles existed in somecountries and that a number of sites had beencontaminated through past disposal or storage of thesechemicals (SPREP/AusAID 1999). The study issummarized in Table 1.6.

In addition, it has been found that deficiencies existin many PICs with respect to other aspects of chemicalsmanagement (SPREP/AusAID 1999), notably:

● School laboratory chemicals. It is clear that manyschools have enjoyed easy access to laboratorychemicals that frequently they do not have a needfor. Consequently stocks of unwanted andunidentified chemicals are common, and teachershave been inadequately trained in appropriatehandling techniques.

● Medical wastes and chemicals. Management ofhospital wastes in many countries is inadequate,with little attention given to waste segregation ordisposal. In addition, some countries have enjoyed

donations of drugs that unfortunately have later beenfound to be either out of date or simplyinappropriate for use in the particular country.

Various incidents of pollution from industrial wastehave been reported, including: effluent from abattoirs,fish canneries or other food processing plants; leachatefrom sawmill areas; and copper-chrome arsenicchemicals used in the preservation treatment of wood.While the impacts of inadequate waste disposal areclearly evident in some locations, the composition ofindustrial wastes generated throughout the region havenot yet been fully catalogued nor has their extent beenquantified. Industrial activity based on agriculturalproducts, light engineering, preservative treatment andother processing of wood, fibreglass fabrication andmanufacture of plastic packaging has led to pollutionand waste. All these activities generate solid and liquidwaste, some of it toxic.

Trends forecast until 2010Areas of particular concern over the next decade willinclude the necessity for environmental health,protection of the quality and supply of fresh waterresources, and environmentally sound management oftoxic chemicals and hazardous and solid wastes. Generaltrends indicate an increased use of plastics, paper andmetal (cans), which may be reflected in a change inconsumption patterns.

Particular effort is required at the national level tostrengthen the capacity of island countries to minimizeand prevent pollution. In the long term, environmentallysound, cost-effective disposal options are limited. Inaddition to assistance with immediate disposal issues,regional and international support will be needed forprogrammes to reuse, recycle and reduce wastes and to

Pollutant characteristics (tonnes/year)Country BOD SS Oil and grease Nitrogen Phosphorus Lead

American Samoa 4.5 179.2 64.7 255.0 167.3 0.00

Fiji 510.6 431.9 112.6 25.6 0.9 0.04

New Caledonia 37.4 6.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00

Papua New Guinea 508.9 1 083.4 765.3 0.0 0.0 0.00

Solomon Islands 513.6 494.8 560.8 18.7 0.1 0.00

Vanuatu 548.1 241.4 98.0 117.2 42.7 0.00

Samoa 63.7 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00

Total 2 186.8 2 447.4 1 061.4 416.5 211.0 0.04

Source: Nancy Convard (1993)

Table 1.5: Summary of waste loads discharged from industrial wastewater in selected PICs

give effect to the Waigani Convention and the GlobalProgramme of Action for the Protection of the MarineEnvironment from Land Based Activities.

ConclusionsAll PICs share the problems of waste disposal and theprevention of pollution. The small size, remoteness,physical structure and rapid urbanization of manyislands have exacerbated these problems.

Overcrowding has serious consequences forenvironmental contamination, not only from sewage, butalso from the disposal of animal waste (especially frompigs) and household garbage, and because of the limitedsupply of fresh water. There are very limited recyclingand waste management programmes in the smallcountries, and rubbish is generally burned or dumpedinto the sea or in mangroves.

Incidents of dangerous and illegal pollutants beingdischarged into streams and oceans have increased, handin hand with a growing manufacturing industry. Pointsource pollution from industrial wastes and sewage,inappropriately sited and poorly managed garbage dumps,and disposal of toxic chemicals are all significantcontributors to marine pollution and coastal degradation.

Changing patterns of consumption in the next fewdecades as countries’ GDP and the population’s affluenceincreases are likely to be reflected in major rises in percapita waste generation. Increased use of plastics, paperand metal (cans) through importation by the packagingindustry is indicated. Consequently, non-organic wastemanagement is expected to become an increasinglycritical environmental challenge throughout the region,surpassing that of disposal of organic waste.

Contamination from stockpiles and past disposal ofpersistent organic pollutants presents a challenge forPICs. The challenge will include rehabilitation of sites,

disposal in another country and the means to ensureadequate chemicals management in the future, inparticular for school laboratory and medical chemicals

The three Rs of waste management – reduce, reuseand recycle – cannot be fully applied in thecircumstances of most PICs. The size of the market istoo small to impose special packaging requirements, andthis also affects the economic opportunities forrecovering waste materials or recycling them.

S T A T E O F T H E E N V I R O N M E N T26

Category Estimated quantity

Agricultural chemicals (including DDT) 130 tonnes

Potentially PCB contaminated transformer oil 220 000 litres

Pesticides contaminated sites 21

Bitumen contaminated sites 8

Oil and diesel contaminated sites 29

CCA contaminated sites 7

Potentially contaminated solid waste disposal sites 20

Source: SPREP/AusAID (1999)

Table 1.6: Contamination by persistent organic pollutants in PICs (not including PNG or French and US territories)

27

Policy backgroundCurrent policies related to the environment andnatural resource use in the region stem from acomplex mix of often relatively recent colonialadministration and strong social and cultural valuesand mores. Many Pacific island nations becameindependent states in the 1970s (Fiji, Kiribati, PNG,Solomon Islands, Tuvalu) and 1980s (Vanuatu). Nauruand Samoa achieved independence earlier. CookIslands and Niue are self-governing in free associationwith New Zealand. Tonga was never a colony. Twoformer US trust territories became freely associatedindependent states in 1986 and members of theUnited Nations in 1991. Palau has been a freelyassociated State of the USA, like FSM, for severalyears. American Samoa, French Polynesia, Guam, NewCaledonia, Northern Marianas, Pitcairn Island,Tokelau and Wallis and Futuna remain formallyattached to metropolitan countries.

The Pacific island nations have a wide range ofsystems of government. Countries with a Britishcolonial history (e.g. Fiji, Solomon Islands) haveadopted a Westminster-based parliamentary system.Micronesia, with its historical ties to the USA,operates a federal political system. Regardless of theirparticular forms of government, they share a strongcommon history of consultation when deciding local,national or regional affairs. Each country displays astrong sense of national identity. Several countries

have been governed by a single party in the yearssince independence, but all enjoy considerablefreedom of political debate. These countries haveencouraged a multiplicity of non-governmentalinstitutions which provide strength and vitality to thefabric of society. Family and churches of various faithsare pre-eminent among those institutions, but there isalso a growing network of vigorous, articulate andactive private voluntary organizations concerned withmany different aspects of national life and policy.

Pressure for accountability and better quality ofinformation is coming from Pacific island communitiesas well as from overseas aid donors and NGOs, alongwith mounting public concern about the spread ofcorruption at official and political levels. In a numberof countries, the public service is going through aprolonged crisis of confidence and competence, whichhas compromised its ability to perform effectively.Several Pacific island governments have responded byimproving financial controls and restructuring theirpublic service, for example Vanuatu’s ComprehensiveReform Programme effected in 1997. In spite ofdifficulties, it should also be recognized thatgovernance in the Pacific still has a strong foundationof community and traditional political systems.

The region also has a history of regional co-operation with a well-developed legal and institutionalframework within which to address issues of commonconcern. The Pacific’s regional institutions areworking through the South Pacific Organizations

PolicyResponsesC

hapt

er T

wo

Coordinating Committee (SPOCC) to develop aRegional Development Strategy and sustainabledevelopment framework that incorporates the keylinkages between the various development sectors.Sustainable management of these sectors, includingagriculture, health and marine resources, is beingactively promoted through the SPOCC working groups.

In 1996 the South Pacific Forum adopted anEconomic Action Plan to stimulate investment and jobcreation. Economic and public sector reform measuresbeing adopted include: implementing trade andinvestment policies that encourage the diversificationof export markets and sources of investment;reviewing exchange rate management; improvingmanagement of capital assets; improving the businessclimate; achieving free and open trade and investment;addressing multilateral trade issues; and promotingsustainable tourism development.

Economic reform in the region comes at a timewhen countries are also concerned about theirvulnerability to a wide range of economic andenvironmental factors, such as climate change. Theyare also concerned about the impacts of developmenton community cohesion and the natural resourcesupon which both cash and subsistence economiesdepend. The Forum Leaders and Economic Ministersare therefore fully aware of the need to implementeconomic policies that fully respect the differingnatural resources and environmental endowments ofthe region, and that take into account the social andcultural impacts. Pacific leaders have recognized theimportant links between environment and developmentand have stated clearly that development must be botheconomically and ecologically sound (ForumSecretariat 1993). This was endorsed by EnvironmentMinisters in 1996 and is now being implemented atthe national level and at the regional level through theForum process. As an example, the Forum EconomicMinisters in July 1999 agreed to adopt an integratedpolicy framework for promoting the sustainabledevelopment of tourism.

It is only relatively recently that policies havetaken account of the environmental dimensions ofdevelopment and specific resource exploitation. Theextent to which this has had an impact is difficult todetermine. At recent meetings of the Apia and SPREPConventions, in October 1995, it was apparent thatgovernments were finding reporting requirements astrain on limited human and financial resources.

MEAs and non-binding instrumentsThis section reviews some of the multilateralenvironmental agreements (MEAs) that have beenimplemented in the Pacific islands region. The global,regional and soft law agreements under review arediscussed separately, focusing on the implementation,impact, compliance and effectiveness levels of theMEAs, taking into account the linkages between thethree areas. The overall barriers to the implementationof MEAs in the region are identified, and items forpolicy action reviewed.

Global MEAsIMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLIANCETable 2.1 sets out a list of some of the major globalenvironmental MEAs in existence in the Pacific regionand the PICs that have implemented MEAs by eithersigning, acceding to and/or ratifying those instruments.

The status with respect to the implementation of theconventions by territories of metropolitan powersdepends on the treaty-making arrangement the territoryhas with the respective power in relation to an MEA.Exactly which conventions have been implemented in theterritories as a result of the implementation of aconvention by a metropolitan power is not easy todetermine and is an item for policy action below.

Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs),provide the main link with global policy, and there is agrowing awareness of the need to participateeffectively in the development of such globalagreements. This trend started with the activeinvolvement of the Pacific island states in the UNConvention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), theagreement on Conservation and Management ofStraddling Fish Stocks (CMS) and the UN FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)negotiations. In recent times it has continued with theregion’s interest in the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD) – particularly Article 15 on access togenetic resources – and the Convention on CombatingDesertification (CCD) .

United Nations Framework on Climate ChangeThe UNFCCC has been ratified by 12 PICs, and bothPICs and Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS)countries have played a pivotal role in the climatechange negotiations. PIC influence has ensured thattheir special and vulnerable status is recognized inChapter 17 of Agenda 21, as echoed in the preambular

P O L I C Y R E S P O N S E S28

M E A S A N D N O N - B I N D I N G I N S T R U M E N T S 29

paragraphs of the FCCC.The FCCC regional activities have been launched in

ten countries under the Pacific Island Climate ChangeAssistance Programme (PICCAP) and in 11 countriesunder the South Pacific Sea Level and ClimateMonitoring Project.

Countries such as Kiribati have led the way in thePacific with respect to development of national policy onclimate change and institutional arrangements, which inKiribati occurred in 1990, well before the adoption of theagreement itself at Rio in 1992. This has enabled theregion to make real progress in strengthening technicaland scientific capacity and in collecting oceanic, sea-leveland weather data to meet international obligations.

United Nations Convention on Law of the SeaFifteen PICs have ratified UNCLOS and its impact on the

region cannot be overstated. Access to a valuable pelagicfishery, guaranteed in the EEZ provisions of UNCLOS,promises the region continued income. PICs have beenswift to ratify subsequent international agreements, forexample the 1995 Agreement under UNCLOS Relating tothe Conservation and Management of Straddling FishStocks and Highly Migratory Species. The speed at whichratifications have been made to that Agreement is furtherevidence of the importance and impact of fisheries toPacific nations. The economic spin-off generated underUNCLOS has attracted the political commitment neededto set the platform for effective fisheries protection andmanagement laws. This will be important as economicactivities push into new frontiers, such as the seabed andaccess to the rich marine resource.

Given the clear economic benefits, the PICs havebeen more motivated to pass marine-related legislation,

as at 12/11/98 Basel Cites CBD FCCC FCCC Ozone Montreal London Copenhagen Montreal MARPOL AGMT UNCLOS UNCLOS: CCDpr 85 87 1990 92 97 95 MHFM S

Cook Islands ● ● ● ● ● ●

FSM ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Fiji ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Kiribati ● ● ● ● ●

Marshall Is ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Nauru ● ● ● ● ●

Palau ●

PNG ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Samoa ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Solomon Is ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Tonga ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Tuvalu ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Vanuatu ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Australia ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

New Zealand ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Niue ● ● ● ● ● ●

Tokelau ●

France ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Fr Polynesia

New Caledonia

Wallis and Futuna

United Kingdom ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Pitcairn ● ● ●

United States ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

American Samoa*

Guam*

N Mariana Is*

● ratified

*Agreements ratified by the USA also apply

Table 2.1: Global Multilateral Environmental Agreements

including legislation to control pollution that might affectthe lucrative fishing resource. The most significant legaldevelopment for conservation in the region is in the areaof fisheries management, such as PNG’s Fisheries Act1994 and the Solomon Islands Fisheries Act 1998. Samoahas successfully introduced village fishery reserves andhas done so by drawing on the knowledge and help of thelocal communities. Samoa has also passed FisheriesRegulations (1995). Enforcement has had limitedsuccess. However, the mere fact that, under theregulations, a village or an individual as opposed to thestate can commence an action for environmental damageis a significant milestone and is encouraging.

Convention on Biological DiversityThe Biodiversity Convention is also well supported. Lossof biodiversity, access to genetic resources, andassociated issues of benefit-sharing and intellectualproperty rights (especially in relation to traditionalknowledge and biosafety) are important issues to PICs.One of the main concerns of PICs is the need to controlaccess to their genetic resources and to derive a fairshare of the benefits from the use of these resources.

Compliance with the CBD has been slow. At aregional workshop in 1998 with 14 participatingcountries, it was reported that only four countries hadcompleted the National Reports required to be lodgedwith the CBD Secretariat by January 1998 (Cook Islands,Marshall Islands, Fiji and Samoa). Similarly, few hadfinalized their national biodiversity strategies, thougheight had established inter-agency coordinatingcommittees. No country had passed separate biodiversitylegislation or legislation governing access to geneticresources, drawing instead on existing sectoral laws toimplement CBD obligations.

Convention on Combating DesertificationThe drought relief provisions of the CCD are important

to PICs, many of whom have experienced extended dryseasons. Whether or not the convention will have long-term relevance for the region remains to be seen.

Other global MEAsFew PICs have signed, ratified or acceded to the Basel,MARPOL or London Dumping Conventions. However,there is scope for some of the provisions of these andother conventions to be implemented indirectly viaregional conventions. The SPREP (Noumea) Convention,for example, is widely supported and specifies that it isto be read consistently with the London DumpingConvention. The SPREP Convention also amplifies andexpands on the general Part XII provisions of UNCLOSbut goes further by recognizing the special marine andcoastal environment of the South Pacific Region. WhileBasel is not regionally well supported, the WaiganiConvention concluded under Article 11 of the BaselConvention has been signed by the majority of PICs(Tsamenyi 1996).

Compliance with global MEAs in the region varies.Clearly most PIC states do not have the capacity, usingtheir own resources, to implement the many provisionsof the conventions described above. Progress has beenmade in capacity-building and monitoring for the CBD,FCCC and UNCLOS, largely because of access toexternal funding, especially from the GEF, UNEP andEU under the Lomé Convention. However, as a generalrule, in the absence of expert personnel and externalfunding for implementation and compliance, there hasbeen little activity on the part of the PICs themselves.

Nevertheless, the conventions described above havebeen effective in developing appropriate environmentalpolicies by heightening awareness of the inter-relationships at stake in environmental protection andsustainable development. In addition, legislationimplementing the international conventions exists in anumber of PIC countries.

OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS OF GLOBAL MEASGenerally the more recent and holistic MEAs onbiodiversity and climate change have been effective indeveloping appropriate environmental policies in thePacific by heightening awareness of the inter-relationships at stake in environmental protection andsustainable development. These agreements have alsobeen effective in mobilizing much-needed funding forthe region and enabling participation and visibility ofthe region in global negotiations.

The impacts of UNCLOS, given the longer period of

P O L I C Y R E S P O N S E S30

PNG is one of the few countries to have ratified all the abovepollution-related agreements. It has taken systematic steps towardsimplementation, including specific legislation, and has also recentlydeveloped an Oil Spill Response Plan 1997, which includesdistribution of US$1.5 million of equipment to six regional ports anda 22-person inter-departmental and industry committee. Someactivities are carried out in co-operation with NGOs, such as wastemanagement at a dump site in Wewak that includes grassrootsparticipation in monitoring and collection of data and identificationof waste streams.

Box 2.1: National case study: PNG

M E A S A N D N O N - B I N D I N G I N S T R U M E N T S 31

time for its negotiation (1972–82), are perhaps moreapparent in the region. Historically, there had beenlittle regulation of coastal and oceanic resources.UNCLOS ushered in new regimes such as thosecovering exploitation of the deep sea areas, and rightsin archipelagic waters.

Coastal state jurisdiction in the Pacific, aselsewhere, has extended further and further seaward tocover areas up to 200 nautical miles (and beyond towhere the continental shelf terminates or wherearchipelagic waters are claimed), with correspondingreduction in the area of ‘High Seas’. The net result hasbeen a more equitable distribution of resources betweendeveloped and developing countries because theresource-rich marine areas could be (and have been)claimed by developing countries. (As noted in ChapterFour, Emerging Issues, there is a need for furtherattention to this issue by PICs.)

The Agreement under UNCLOS Relating to theConservation and Management of Straddling FishStocks and Highly Migratory Species 1995, and thespeed at which ratifications have been made to thatAgreement, is further evidence of the importance andimpact of fisheries to Pacific nations. Given the cleareconomic benefits, the PICs have been more motivatedto pass marine-related legislation, including legislationto control pollution that might affect the lucrativefishing resource. Another highly significant example ofregional action following from UNCLOS was theconclusion in 1993 of the Multilateral Treaty onFisheries Between the Governments of Certain PacificIsland States and the United States on shared benefitsfrom the latter’s fishing activities.

Similarly important, in relation to port state control,was the Tokyo Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)on Port State Control, which was concluded under theauspices of the International Maritime Organization(IMO). UNCLOS could therefore be said to haveenabled closer links to be formed between the Pacificand international organizations such as the IMO and theInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATIONPICs face a number of barriers to the implementationof global MEAs. These include:

● inability to participate fully in the heavy calendar ofmeetings because of a lack of finance andexperienced personnel;

● lack of funding mechanisms or personnel with the

necessary expertise or understanding of new MEAsto enable the countries to implement fully nationalobligations under conventions;

● outdated laws in need of reform;● little recognition of the newly emerging

environment departments/units on the part of morepowerful agencies;

● legal and law enforcement personnel who do nothave the time to deal effectively with environmentaloffences;

● difficulties in the central management andenforcement of traditional/customarily owned land;

● an acute lack of reliable links and computerequipment to inform and update countries onenvironmental developments;

● difficulties in ascertaining which global MEAs apply tothe respective Pacific island territories because therehave been only a few instances when a metropolitanpower declares that the MEA in question eitherextends or does not extend to its territory;

● lack of specific funding for the implementation ofsupportive regional agreements (Apia, SPREP andWaigani Conventions).

Regional MEAsTable 2.3 sets out the list of regional MEAs inexistence in the Pacific region and the PICs that have

Ten PICs are implementing the GEF/UNDP/UNITAR-funded PacificIslands Climate Change Assistance Programme (PICCAP) through theSouth Pacific Regional Environment Programme. A further two areimplementing similar projects – PNG through UNDP, and Niuethrough UNEP. All of the countries are undertaking ‘enablingactivities’ or activities to meet the obligatory reporting requirementsof the Convention. However, enmeshed within these activities is theneed to ensure sound and longer-term policy development andintegration of climate policies with national development planning.For PICCAP this is part of the project design and activities. Countriesparticipating in PICCAP will establish the technical and scientificbackground prior to policy development, such as national greenhousegas inventories, mitigation options, and vulnerability and adaptationassessments. From the results of these activities, policy dialoguesand policy formulation will ensure that climate change responsesappropriate to each country’s development context and needs areestablished. The raising of awareness and capacity-building onclimate change across a wide range of sectors nationally is a vitalneed and is part of the project design. Government-recruited co-ordinators and the establishment of multidisciplinary countryteams ensure that, following technical studies, the development ofclimate policy consistent with national priorities takes place.

Box 2.2: Climate change and sea level rise – acapacity-building response

implemented MEAs by either signing, acceding to,and/or ratifying those instruments.

IMPACTSThe regional agreements cover issues as diverse asprotected areas, marine pollution, waste management,nuclear testing and fisheries. As mentioned above,most are consistent with a pre-existing global MEA. Forexample the Waigani Convention is consistent with theBasel Convention and the Niue Treaty implementsArticle 73 of UNCLOS.

While some conventions are well supported, others are not. For example, ten PICs have signed theSPREP Convention. However, the Convention on theConservation of Nature in the South Pacific (the Apia Convention), signed relatively early in 1976 byfour PICs, has so far attracted only six countries in the region. Even fewer PICs file country reports inaccordance with the requirements of theseconventions.

Accurate assessment of the impact of some of theregional conventions is made difficult because of theoverlap between global and regional instruments insimilar subject areas. Overlap exists between the ApiaConvention and the SPREP Convention with respect toprotected areas, and between both instruments and theCBD in relation to the same. The SPREP Conventionrefers to ocean dumping of radioactive waste, which isalso mentioned in the London Dumping Convention1972 (although the latter was amended in 1996), aswell as in the Rarotonga Treaty.

IMPLEMENTATION AND COMPLIANCEImplementation and compliance has been mosteffective in the area of the marine-orientatedconventions, as illustrated in Box 2.3.

With respect to the Convention for the Prohibitionof Fishing with Long Driftnets in the Pacific 1989,some states were particularly efficient in enactinglegislation, for example the Marshall Islands MarineResources Authority (Amendment) Act 1989.

Cook Islands has displayed the greatestcommitment to regional agreements by ratifying all fiveagreements, signing the Waigani Convention andintroducing effective framework legislation for thecapital (Rarotonga Act 1994–95), as well as preparing aPrevention of Marine Pollution Bill.

However, little action at the national level appearsto be attributable specifically to the SPREP and ApiaConventions. An exception is Samoa, which has

established no fewer than 58 protected areas, amendedits National Parks and Reserves Act 1974 andintroduced its Fisheries Regulations in 1995.

Largely outdated sectoral laws remain in forcethroughout the Pacific, with inter-agency co-ordinationoccurring on an ad hoc basis. In Vanuatu, for instance,environmental responsibilities are scattered betweenfive ministries and 15 departments. This inevitablycreates confusion, though there is inter-agency co-ordination with respect to environmental impact

P O L I C Y R E S P O N S E S32

The Exclusive Economic Zones of the PICs cover 30 million km2 ofocean space, where there is a lucrative tuna harvest to the valueof US$1.4 billion. The Niue Treaty on Co-operation in FisheriesSurveillance and Law Enforcement in the South Pacific region is,however, applicable only in the territorial sea and archipelagicwaters of the Forum States. That limitation aside, it could be saidto be an effective agreement, triggering regional programmes andcorresponding revisions of national fishery laws.

The Treaty, based on the general principles in Article 73 of theUnited Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), is anumbrella agreement. It is intended to provide flexiblearrangements by enabling parties to enter subsidiary agreementsin the co-operative sharing of surveillance platforms andenforcement equipment, empowerment of surveillance officials (tostop, detain, seize vessels or direct to port), enhancement ofextradition procedures, evidentiary provisions, and theauthorization of prosecutors/witnesses in each other’s courts. Theregional response was the establishment of the Monitoring, Controland Surveillance Division of the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA),which achieved the following:

● harmonized minimum terms and conditions of foreign fishingvessels that have been used by understaffed and often inexperiencedForum State officials in access negotiations with powerful distant-water fishing nations;

● establishment of an FFA Regional Register of Foreign FishingVessels in 1983, and the requirement for registration prior to anyissue of fishing licences, with sanction through suspension from theRegister for fishing violations;

● satellite-based regional vessel monitoring system (automaticlocation communicator – ALC) as a requirement for all foreignfishing vessels, which will provide speed and direction details toassist in enforcement operations. In terms of national legislation,although measures of the 1970s and 1980s had already incorporatedcertain provisions such as penalties and release on posting of bonds,the latest enactments (since 1994) have indeed incorporated most ofthe international and regional obligations. Increased penalties haveresulted in effective deterrence, due to fines in a range betweenNZ$100 000, not less than US$800 000 in criminal proceedings andeven a maximum of US$5 million for illegal fishing in civilproceedings. The most recent legislation is the Solomon IslandsFisheries Act 1998 and Merchant Shipping Act 1998, affectingapproximately 129 foreign fishing licences issued per year. Therehave been on average 5–6 prosecutions per year.

Box 2.3: National case study: the Niue Treaty

M E A S A N D N O N - B I N D I N G I N S T R U M E N T S 33

assessments under the National Advisory Committeeon Environment (NACE) and the Rural LandsDevelopment Committee. Vanuatu has, however, madea significant policy commitment under the currentComprehensive Reform Programme. This givesenvironmental and resource management a priority inthe development planning agenda.

Framework environment laws elsewhere in thePacific have been drafted over the last ten years, butfew have been enacted, either because of argumentsabout their implementation/effectiveness or because ofconcern that they might impede development activities.

OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS OF REGIONAL MEAS The regional conventions have been effective to theextent that they constitute a platform on which furtheraction may be based. Much national implementation hastaken place in the fisheries area. However, the overalleffectiveness of the other regional MEAs is not readilyevident. The Waigani Convention is not yet in force,little regional interest has been shown in the ApiaConvention, and the SPREP and the NFZT Conventionsgenerally reflect a compromise between the interests ofthe PICs on one hand and the metropolitan powers onthe other.

There are no special arrangements made for thefunding of Apia or SPREP Convention related activities,or for Secretariat support. Bare funding is provided forthe biennial meetings of the parties. In terms ofmonitoring and reporting under these Conventions, theparties requested preparation of a standardized formatfor national reports in 1994. After many iterations, itwas agreed in 1996 that the guidelines needed to besimplified and should avoid duplication of reportingunder other international agreements. This reflects awider issue that arises with regional instruments.

Also of note in the area of regional agreements isthe role of regional trade agreements as co-ordinated bythe Forum Secretariat. Increasingly, the role of suchinstruments in managing sustainable development willneed to be recognized and utilized where appropriate.Some of the areas of concern where trade and theenvironment overlap are:● Domestically Prohibited Goods (DPGs); ● the issue of fishing subsidies; ● the importation of Living Modified Organisms

(LMOs); ● eco-labelling; ● sustainable tourism;● intellectual property rights.

BARRIERS TO IMPLEMENTATION● As noted above, the lack of specific funding for the

implementation of regional agreements (Apia,SPREP and Waigani Conventions) has been a barrierto effective implementation and participation inagreements. In particular, legal activities andcapacity-building to develop appropriate legislationhave only taken place through ad hoc financialassistance.

● The last significant regional activities in the field ofenvironmental law were the UNDP-funded Capacity21 Project and the IUCN/ADB project in 1994–97,which resulted in legal reviews of national legislationin 12 PICs as part of the larger NEMS process. TheGovernment of Australia has also been funding a legalcapacity-building programme in Melanesia since 1994to strengthen national environmental legislation(PNG and Solomon Islands).

● Sometimes, environmental issues are not as high apriority for the Pacific as trade and economicdevelopment, education, health and public sectorreform. Environmental protection is still seen ashampering ‘development’, with resultant delays inmaking progress with formal legislation.

Non-binding agreementsGLOBALAgenda 21The Pacific was well represented at the Earth Summit(United Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopment – UNCED, 1992), with over one hundreddelegates including nine heads of government, and thepreceding 18 months of preparations involved aconsiderable commitment and investment by the regionand its partners in sustainable development (Miles1992). The region has since endorsed Agenda 21 at thehighest level (Forum 1992) and its objectives andactivities have become an integral part of the region’sAction Plan for Managing the Environment in the SouthPacific, 1997–2000 (SPREP 1997b). The extent towhich these have become part of national policies andprogrammes is unclear. The development of NationalEnvironmental Management Strategies has facilitatedthis integration but the actual implementation ofAgenda 21 has been largely driven by the availability offunding and political momentum (e.g. related to thenegotiation and implementation of MEAs).

Of all the elements in Agenda 21, Chapter 17 hasreceived considerable attention from PICs. This hasbeen expressed through their involvement in the

negotiation of the Implementing Agreement underUNCLOS for highly migratory fish stocks, the BarbadosProgramme of Action and the Global Programme forthe Protection of the Marine Environment from LandBased Activities (GPA).

Barbados Programme of ActionIt also is hard to gauge the extent to which theBarbados Programme of Action has influenced theaction taken by the region and its developmentpartners to implement sustainable development. The Programme of Action provides a comprehensiveframework for the sustainable development of islandsbut so far has been linked to few specific fundingmechanisms apart from the GEF. There have,nonetheless, been a significant number of initiativesthat can be identified as implementing the BarbadosProgramme of Action. These are shown in Table 2.2. Ofthese, the development and imminent implementationof the Strategic Action Programme for InternationalWaters has drawn directly on the Barbados Programme

of Action and its influence on the Global EnvironmentFacility’s international waters portfolio.

In 1996, the region submitted a report to CSD4 onactivities to implement the Barbados Programme ofAction. Since this time, considerable effort at a nationallevel has been complemented by collective regionalaction to fulfil commitments made to the blueprints forsustainable development – Agenda 21 and the BarbadosProgramme of Action. Particular effort has been made tobuild capacity, develop effective policy and plans, betterco-ordinate national and regional action, take stock of theregion’s environment and natural resources, and reformnational and regional arrangements where necessary.Examples of commitment and progress include, at thenational level, the formulation and implementation ofNational Environmental Management Strategies (NEMS),the establishment of environment units and thedevelopment of environmental legislation and policies.Examples at the regional level include the work ofSPREP, the progress in integrating environmental andother social concerns in the region’s economic and public

P O L I C Y R E S P O N S E S34

Chapter of Barbados Programme of Action Regional initiative

Climate change and sea-level rise ● Capacity-building to meet reporting obligations under the UNFCC

● Sea-level rise monitoring programme

Natural and environmental disasters ● Strengthening of meteorological capacity, introduction of EMWIN and tropical cyclone warning upgrade

Management of wastes ● Development of PACPOL

● Assessment of persistent organic pollutants

Coastal and marine resources ● International Waters Strategic Action Programme

● Multilateral High Level Consultations covering conservation and management of the region’s highly migratory fish stocks

Freshwater resources ● Establishment of the Pacific Water Association

Energy resources ● Review of the energy sector and continued development of the Pacific Power Association

Tourism resources ● Further promotion of sustainable tourism and the integration of the private sector within the Tourism Council for theSouth Pacific (to become the South Pacific Tourism Organization)

● Pacific centre of excellence on sustainable tourism (USP)

Biodiversity resources ● Action Strategy on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and Round-table process

Administrative capacity ● National Environment Management Strategies (NEMS)

● Economic and public sector reform process

Regional co-operation ● Improved co-ordination through a regional development strategy and working groups of the South Pacific OrganizationsCo-ordinating Committee

● Subregional implementation through the establishment of subregional offices of the UN system (e.g. FAO and WMO)

● START – Oceania established at USP

Transport and telecommunications ● Regional aviation agreements

● Establishment of the Pacific Islands Telecommunications Association

● Improved communications – connectivity is increasing in the region and SIDSNET is slowly evolving, with clear benefitsfor the region

Human resource development ● Regional Strategy for Environmental Education

● Proposed Pacific Centre for Sustainable Development

Implementation monitoring and review ● Initial assessment of an Environmental Vulnerability Index

Table 2.2: Progress to implement the Barbados Programme of Action

M E A S A N D N O N - B I N D I N G I N S T R U M E N T S 35

Depository

Secretariat

Australia

Cook Is

FSM

Fiji

Kiribati

Marshall Is

Nauru

Niue

Palau

PNG

Samoa

Solomon Is

Tonga

Tuvalu

Vanuatu

France

French Polynesia

New Caledonia

Wallis & Futuna

New Zealand

Tokelau

UK

Pitcairn

US

American Samoa

Guam

Northern Marianas

Conven

tion o

n the

Prohibi

tion o

f Fish

ing

with Lo

ng Drift

nets

in the

South

Pacific

Welling

ton 19

90

Niue Tr

eaty

on Co-o

perat

ion in

Fishe

ries S

urveil

lance

and L

aw En

force

ment in

the S

outh

Pacific

Conven

tion o

n Con

servat

ion of

Nature

in the

South

Pacific

Entry

into

force

26 Ju

ne 19

90

Conven

tion f

or the

Protec

tion o

f the N

atural

Resourc

es

and E

nviron

ment o

f the S

outh

Pacific

Region

Entry

into

force

22 Au

gust

1990

Ratification-AccessionSignature/Ratification-Accession

Protoc

ol 1

Protoc

ol 2

South

Pacific

Nuclea

r Free

Zone

Trea

ty SP

NFZT

6 Aug

ust 1

985

Entry

into

force

11 Dece

mber 1

986

Protoc

ol 1

Protoc

ol 3

Protoc

ol 2

Protoc

ol 1

Protoc

ol 2

Conven

tion t

o Ban

the I

mporta

tion o

f Haza

rdous/

Radioa

ctive

Wastes;

Contro

l Tran

sboun

dary

Movemen

t and

Manag

emen

t of

Hazardo

us Wast

es with

in the

South

Pacific

Region

16 Se

pt 19

95 (n

ot in

force)

Govt. Samoa

SPREP

Signature

Forum Sec.

SPREP

FFA

FFA

FFA

FFA

Forum Sec.

SPREP

Forum Sec.

Forum Sec.

Forum Sec. = Secretariat of the South Pacific Forum

Table 2.3: Regional Multilateral Environmental Agreements

Compiled by SPREP (1999)

sector reform programmes through the Forum EconomicMinisters’ Meeting (FEMM), and the South PacificOrganizations Coordinating Committee (SPOCC)Regional Development Strategy and working groups onmarine resources and tourism.

Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-BasedActivitiesThe international community adopted the GlobalProgramme of Action for the Protection of the MarineEnvironment from Land Based Activities in WashingtonDC in 1995. While a range of national and regionalinitiatives have attempted to address the issues of sourcecategories covered by the GPA, no specific initiative hasbeen taken to implement the GPA in the Pacific region(SPREP 1999a). The first steps to develop acomplementary Regional Programme of Action areexpected to take place in 1999.

REGIONALA number of non-binding environmental agreementsoperate in the Pacific. Most of these agreements havetranslated into specific programmes and are consistentwith the objectives of Agenda 21.

The principal agreement for environmentalprotection is the SPREP Action Plan 1997–2000. This isa requirement of the Agreement Establishing SPREP

(1995), which gave the South Pacific RegionalEnvironment Programme (SPREP) new legal status and aframework for members to improve co-ordination onenvironmental matters and to protect and improve theshared environment of Pacific island states. Theprogrammes contained in the Action Plan cover a widerange of detailed environmental issues. The fivepriorities identified in the Action Plan are:

1. Biodiversity and Natural Resource Conservation2. Climate Change and Integrated Coastal Management3. Waste Management, Pollution Prevention and

Emergencies4. Environmental Management, Planning and

Institutional Strengthening5. Environmental Education, Information and Training

Related to the implementation of the Action Plan,governments and NGOs have agreed to an ActionStrategy for the Conservation of Nature and NaturalResources. This was revised in 1998 and is now thefocus for a series of donor/institution/NGO round-tablesto promote its implementation.

Laws and institutionsInstitutional and legal frameworks atnational levelWhile it may be difficult to demonstrate categoricallywhere there has been progress to protect theenvironment at the national level, some of the policyand institutional foundations for progress towardssustainable development are being put in place. Theseinclude the strengthening of environment units and theadoption of National Environmental ManagementStrategies (NEMS).

The capacity of countries to undertake activities toprotect the environment and to integrate environmentalobjectives into national planning and decision-making is auseful measure of progress. Any increase in the numberof staff in environment units, particularly at a time whenthe public sector is under pressure to downsize, is anindication that governments are making somecommitment towards the implementation of Agenda 21.Not all positions are financed solely from governmentfunds but those that are financed through officialdevelopment assistance result from government requestsfor assistance and are normally linked to the provision ofcounterparts and logistic support. As shown in Figure 2.1there has been a discernible increase in the region.

P O L I C Y R E S P O N S E S36

Kiribati

Fiji

Palau

Solomon Islands

Tokelau

Tuvalu

Vanuatu

Western Samoa

1995

12

8

1

5

5

6

7

2

5

3

1

4

3

3

11990

includes 3 atoll co-ordinators

includes 3 project staff

Source: after Miles (1994)

Figure 2.1: Change in staffing levels of environment units in selected PICs

L A W S A N D I N S T I T U T I O N S 37

This does not include capacity in fisheries agencies,the community or NGOs. It is likely that there has beensome increase in the capacity of NGOs and localcommunities as a number of donors and activities havefocused on these groups in the region.

As recorded in the series of NEMS documents,these efforts have noted encouraging progress in anumber of countries. There is also a well-establishedregional network of environmental personnel, withuseful extensions outside the region. Moderntechnology, especially e-mail and the Internet, leaveslocal environmental staff on remote islands far lessisolated than was the case twenty, or even ten, yearsago. This trend will continue as further advances intechnology will continue to revolutionize thecommunications sector, with clear benefits for the flowof information within the region.

The machinery of government has also been modifiedto introduce environment and/or conservation agencies.Usually they are part of a larger resource managementdepartment, but in some cases they are free-standing.Even more than their counterparts elsewhere, thesegroups are invariably under pressure, with small

numbers of staff and a rapidly increasing workload.Financial resources are also a constraint, but budgetaryincreases alone would not solve the staffing problem.Capacity-building has been identified as one of the mainpriorities for the region during the current phase: it is aneed that affects the largest countries as well as thesmallest. Also, in some countries the mainstreaming ofenvironmental policy and resource managementapproaches across all sectors of government has beenidentified as a legitimate, useful approach.

Current institutional arrangements in regard to thegovernment structure and management of theenvironment are summarized in Table 2.4.

Legislation dealing with environmental protectionhas been drafted in several countries (Cook Islands,Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, SolomonIslands and Vanuatu). In some cases the legislation hasincorporated procedures for environmental impactassessment (EIA), but care has been taken not to makethese too demanding of slender administrative andtechnical resources. The implementation of thislegislation is the next step in the process of legalreform (Boer 1993).

Country or territory Description

American Samoa Environmental matters dealt with by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Marine and Wildlife Resources and the American Samoa Coastal Management Program

Cook Islands Cook Islands Environment Service, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Immigration

Federated States of Micronesia Department of Health Education and Social Affairs, Department of External Affairs

Fiji Environmental matters dealt with by the Ministry of Local Government, Housing and Environment

French Polynesia Environment matters dealt with by the Department of Environment and Special Adviser for Foreign Affairs

Guam Guam Environmental Protection Agency established in 1973 to administer laws and regulations adopted for the protection of air, land andwater. Guam formalized EIA requirements and wetland use controls in 1998 following eight years of management under executive orders.

Kiribati Ministry of Environment and Social Development

Marshall Islands RMI Environmental Protection Authority has broad powers to monitor environmental quality and to enforce protective regulations.

Niue Department of Community Affairs

Northern Mariana Islands Office of the Governor

Palau Palau Environmental Quality and Protection Board (EQPB)

Papua New Guinea Department of Environment and Conservation

Samoa Environmental issues are coordinated by the Division of Environment and Conservation within the Department of Lands, Surveys and Environment.

Solomon Islands Division of Environment and Conservation, Ministry of Forests, Environment and Conservation. DEC is guided by the priorities identifiedin NEMS and by its recently passed Environment Act.

Tokelau Office of Tokelau Affairs, Department of Natural Resources and the Environment

Tonga Environmental issues are co-ordinated by the Environmental Planning and Conservation Section, Ministry of Lands, Surveys and Natural Resources.

Tuvalu Each Ministry deals with environmental issues falling within its own area of responsibility. No single body is responsible forenvironmental protection and management, although attempts to co-ordinate through the Office of the Prime Minister and the NationalPlanning Co-ordinating Committee have been made.

Vanuatu Environmental issues in this independent republic are co-ordinated by the government’s Environment Unit. The Department of Forestshas established an internal Conservation Unit to deal primarily with forest conservation issues, particularly in areas related to ForestPolicy and the Code of Logging Practice.

Table 2.4: Institutional arrangements at national level in PICs

Governments have also shown a commitment toimproved forestry practices, particularly in the largerisland countries. National forestry action programmes (inFiji and PNG), national forest resource inventories (Fiji,PNG, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu), codes oflogging practice and forest policy/legislation reviews(several countries) have been among the measures taken.In the smaller island countries, the response hasincluded watershed management programmes andexpanded reforestation and agroforestry initiatives. In allcountries, governments have increased their support forthe non-timber forest products subsector.

EIA-related regulations exist in at least nine otherPacific countries, but implementation and enforcementremains weak, with provisions inserted in unco-ordinated sectoral laws. Vanuatu is one of the fewcountries to have established an inter-agencycommittee for assessments (Rural Lands DevelopmentCommittee). Given limited country capacities,assessments in even the more established countries ofPNG and Fiji are of the order of only 3–6 per year.Some countries, such as Solomon Islands and FSMhave EIA requirements as part of legislation to control foreign investment but these are alsoinadequately implemented. Guam’s local EIArequirements have been applied for eight years and,although 1998 was a very slow year for development,17 EIAs were reviewed.

Draft laws that seek to co-ordinate all environmentand conservation related issues have either beenpassed, exist or are in the pipeline in Fiji, SolomonIslands, PNG, Kiribati, Niue, Samoa, Cook Islands,Nauru and Vanuatu. In Fiji the detailed provisions ofthe Sustainable Development Bill are now beingenacted in parts, with the first such enactment in 1998relating to implementation of obligations under theOzone and Montreal agreements. Despite thesignificant implementation score for ozone-relatedMEAs in the region, only PNG (1997) and Fiji (1998)have enacted legislation.

In response to waste management problems, manyPICs have developed and enacted legislation thataddresses litter (e.g. Fiji’s Litter Decree of 1991); localcouncils have been empowered to provide sanitaryservices dealing with rubbish (Kiribati’s LocalGovernment Act of 1984); and Public Health Acts (PapuaNew Guinea, Solomon Islands) have providedmechanisms for regulating and controlling domesticrefuse, as well as covering health, sanitation, scavengingand disposal of waste. Some PICs are also working

towards specific legislation regarding waste management.For example, the Fijian authorities have included acomprehensive section on waste minimization andmanagement as a component of their overall draftsustainable development legislation, which is currentlybeing considered by cabinet. It is expected that thelegislation will be approved in mid-1999.

A further example of the use of legislation is theuse of village by-laws in Samoa. These have been passedto create no fewer than 60 village fishery reservesranging in size from 1 500 to 16 000 m2. Otherlegislation is more conventional and gives effect to EIAand the establishment of various types of ProtectedAreas (Boer 1993).

Like other regions, the Pacific faces the‘implementation gap’. This means that the policies thatare on paper or in the statute book may not beimplemented in a consistent way and may, in the worstcases, be completely bypassed (SPREP 1992). Notsurprisingly, this arises when the pressure to reap aneconomic benefit by rapid resource extraction is toogreat, and when governments are reluctant to slowdown a project by sticking to the letter ofenvironmental regulation.

Institutional and legal framework atregional levelThe Pacific region has many regional organizations. Theprimary organizations are listed below (for furtherdetails see Box 2.4):

● South Pacific Regional Environment Programme(SPREP);

● Forum Secretariat (FS);● Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA);● South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission

(SOPAC);● Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC);● Tourism Council of the South Pacific (TCSP);● University of the South Pacific (USP);● Pacific Island Development Programme (PIDP).

The implementation of Agenda 21 and the BarbadosPlan of Action requires these organizations, with oftennarrow sectoral mandates, to co-ordinate their activitiesand collaborate actively on projects. Since the EarthSummit, collaboration between regional organizations inthe Pacific has increased (Miles 1994). The Council ofRegional Organizations for the Pacific (CROP), formerlythe South Pacific Organizations Coordinating

P O L I C Y R E S P O N S E S38

L A W S A N D I N S T I T U T I O N S 39

Committee (SPOCC), is the formal co-ordinationmechanism for regional organizations and a recentreview by CROP of institutional arrangements in themarine sector aims to ensure complementary mandatesand to avoid duplication among regional organizations.CROP, with the Forum Secretariat providing permanentadministrative support, is providing an importantframework for ensuring regional institutions are focusedon common regional goals. This also allows forimproved mainstreaming of environmentalconsiderations into regional policy and programmes.

At an operational level co-ordination between regionalorganizations occurs through their participation in thesectoral meetings convened by each other. Anotherapproach to co-ordination is in the joint planning andimplementation of projects. Recent examples include a

co-ordinated response to Canadian developmentassistance (CSPOD II) and the development of aStrategic Action Programme under the internationalwaters portfolio of the Global Environment Facility(GEF). The Forum Secretariat is responsible forpromoting the harmonization of regional programmesthrough the preparation of a regional developmentstrategy (Forum Secretariat 1993). At the regional levelthe Pacific’s regional organizations are working throughthe CROP Regional Development Strategy process todevelop a sustainable development framework thatincorporates the key linkages between the variousdevelopment sectors. Sustainable management of thesesectors, including agriculture, health and marineresources, is being actively promoted through the CROPworking groups.

South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP). SPREP was establishedin 1982 by the governments and administrations of 22 PICs and four developedcountries with direct interests in the region. It is the intergovernmental organizationcharged with promoting co-operation, supporting protection and improvement of thePacific environment and ensuring its sustainable development. In the last ten yearsthis has focused on biodiversity conservation, waste management, climate change,impact assessment, and environmental education and awareness.

Forum Secretariat (FS). The Forum was established in 1971 from the independentand self-governing countries of the Pacific. Its 16 members are Australia, CookIslands, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, FMS, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau,Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. TheForum’s mission is to enhance the economic and social well-being of the Pacificislands in support of the efforts of national governments. Its responsibility is tofacilitate, develop and maintain co-operation and consultation between and amongits members on issues such as trade, economic development, transport, energy,telecommunications and other related matters. As the permanent chair of SPOCC,the Forum provides a lead co-ordination role in the Pacific.

Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA). The FFA was established in 1979 by the independentstates comprising the South Pacific Forum. With a broad mission to enable itsmember countries to obtain maximum sustained benefit from the conservation andsustainable use of their fisheries resources, the FFA has in practice concentrated onassisting member countries in the management and development of their tunaresources, in particular the negotiation and implementation of related agreementsamong its member countries and with distant-water fishing nations.

South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC). SOPAC originated in 1972as the Committee for Co-ordination of Joint Prospecting for Mineral Resources inSouth Pacific Offshore Areas, a United Nations (ESCAP) project to assist SouthPacific countries by investigating their non-living marine resources. Its membercountries are Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, FSM,New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu andVanuatu. SOPAC has been involved in offshore projects, including oil and mineralprospecting, resource surveys and nearshore activity (i.e. assessing sand andaggregate resources for construction), advising PICs on environmental effects ofphysical modifications to the coast, water and sanitation, and co-ordinates with SPCon health-related issues and with SPREP on pollution issues.

The Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC). Established in 1947, the SPC has 5 metropolitan and 22 island countries/territories as members and isheadquartered in Noumea, New Caledonia. Its current work programme covers suchdiverse activities as agriculture and plant protection, marine resources, ruraldevelopment and technology, community health, statistics, economics, demography,women’s programmes and activities, community education and training, youth andadult education, information services, awards, grants, and cultural conservationand exchange. It is mandated to provide development assistance, managementadvice and applied research in the coastal/national fisheries sector and researchon oceanic (mainly tuna) fisheries.

Tourism Council of the South Pacific (TCSP). The TSCP is a regionalintergovernmental organization jointly owned by its 12 member countries. Its role is towork with national tourist offices, international airlines and tour operators to increasevisitors’ arrivals to the region, to market and promote tourism and to help the privatesector enhance the quality of their products and services through a variety ofprogrammes on training, tourism awareness and preservation of the environment.

University of the South Pacific (USP). USP was established in Suva, Fiji in 1969and has campuses and offices, tutorial studies, classrooms and libraries in 10 ofthe 11 countries of the region. (e.g. in Tonga the Institute of Rural Development, inVanuatu the Pacific Law and Language Units, and in Kiribati an Atoll Research andDevelopment Unit). The university has four schools (Agriculture, Humanities, Pureand Applied Social and Economic Development), seven action-orientated institutions(education; marine resources; natural resources; Pacific studies; research, extensionand training in agriculture; rural development; social and administrative studies)and units for atoll research and extension services.

Pacific Island Development Programme (PIDP). Initiated at the East-West Centerin Honolulu, PIDP has 22 members, including Pacific island developing countriesand territories. The Programme draws academic resources from regional andinternational organizations to plan and conduct projects mainly concerned with:private sector development; positive cross-cultural business interactions; trainingsenior government officials, representatives of the private sector and otherprofessionals; regional advisory services to help formulate national developmentpolicies and strategies; establishing computerized databases of regionally relevantinformation; and publishing significant research results.

Box 2.4: Members of the Council of Regional Organizations (CROP)

Economic instrumentsIt is clear that the key to sustainability of resource useand the achievement of environmental conservation isthe integration of environmental safeguards ineconomic decision-making. This is a complex task,which needs to be addressed at all levels, from thenational policy level to the local level. To achieve long-term economic and environmental viability, somecomprehensive institutional and legal changes need tobe made. These include the introduction of integratedmechanisms for the generation of economic andenvironmental policy, and the enactment of legislationat national and provincial (or state) level to ensure thatpolicies can be carried out within a consistent andenforceable legal framework.

Techniques of environmental accounting andeconomics have evolved in recent years to take greateraccount of the sustainability of welfare and to provideimproved guidance for environmental policy. These maybe of particular interest to small island states, given theirheavy dependence on the natural environment. Initialwork on environmental accounting and economics in theregion (Fairbairn and Tisdell 1994) identified anunderlying need to better quantify natural stocks andenvironmental assets for the successful introduction ofthese techniques. Many examples of economicinstruments are being used globally but there is noexplicit country or regional effort to examine theirapplicability to PICs. Examples of the use of economicinstruments in island communities have been shown toproduce benefits (SPREP 1998e). There has been littleconcerted effort towards the use of economic policyinstruments, in spite of their encouragement in countryNEMS produced in the early 1990s.

Examples of economic instruments currently usedin the PICs include:

● access fees and licensing of foreign fishing vessels(Preston 1997);

● deposit-refund schemes for glass bottles (GOWS 1994);

● user fees for park, reserve or coastal access tocustomarily owned land (SPREP 1993b).

The success of the instruments has not been formallyevaluated. Their overall impact on environmentalprotection and enhancement needs to take into accountthe large subsistence economy that still functions in theregion. Communal management of resources can be

relatively efficient and can provide social security at thevillage level. However, titles of the local community needto be definite and settled and there may be a need toimprove communal or village governance. Once the titlesof local communities become definite this should establisha legal responsibility for the use of these resources. Forexample, a village may be held to be liable for adverseenvironmental spillovers on other villages caused by itsactivities, and compensation or penalties may be imposed;or, if favourable externality is created by the village, beeligible for reward. Furthermore, within the village greaterconsideration should be given to the rights andresponsibilities of resource owners.

In many cases, village leaders would benefit frommore accurate information about environmentalchanges and risks in the local area, as well as theirpossible impacts on other communities. Negotiatedintercommunity settlement of issues of mutualconcern, such as impacts of environmental spillovers,should be encouraged.

Industry and new technologiesThe countries of the South Pacific are small and ingeneral do not rely heavily on an industrial base. Thenecessity for cleaner and innovative productionprocesses is therefore perceived to be less than in moreindustrialized nations. As a result governments have notgiven the imposition of strict controls over industry ahigh priority, sometimes with adverse impacts.Initiatives in the areas of cleaner production processesand new technologies are at an embryonic stage withinthe region.

The adoption of cleaner production processes hasnot been given a high priority by manufacturers in theregion. The management of tailings waste at the BHPOk Tedi mine in Papua New Guinea is one example.Due to cost considerations a tailings dam was not builtand maintained, with tailings instead being dischargeddirectly into the Ok Tedi river for many years. Theresulting environmental damage to the river is nowfamous internationally as an example of inappropriatewaste disposal and has cost the company manyhundreds of millions of dollars in compensation.

The SPC Plant Protection Programme is providingtraining on pesticide safety and the promotion,facilitation, training and research of non-chemical meansof pest control: that is, biological control, integratedpest management, use of protein bait sprays andbagging of fruit to prevent infestation by fruit flies.

P O L I C Y R E S P O N S E S40

There is also the growing importance of organicproduce, a niche sector that, with the right marketing,may be able to provide higher returns to farmers.

A number of companies have established ‘green’products (Fullerton 1998), and a number of opportunitiesexist to further develop eco-labels in the Pacific. Pacificisland governments and the private sector are beingconsulted on ways to maximize these opportunities.

Financing environmental actionThe lack of human, technical and financial resources isa fundamental constraint to the integration ofenvironment and development in decision-making inmost PIDCs. In the past, with the benefit of aid inflowsand remittances, the central banks in PICs haveperformed credibly in maintaining stability in domesticprices and balance of payments. In the last few years,however, the need for fiscal discipline has becomeevident. The current high inflation rates, mountingbalance of payments deficits, falling external reservesand public sector deficits pose serious threats tonational development and disadvantage PICs relative totheir competitors. Island countries are also vulnerableto falling export prices, rising import prices andoverseas interest rates which are beyond their control.

All countries are seeking to attract more foreigndirect investment, in order to boost output and foreignexchange earnings. Apart from timber, minerals and tunafisheries, flows of foreign direct investment remain wellbelow hoped-for levels. Forum member countries havenow agreed to work towards implementation of aninvestment code along the lines of the Association ofPacific Exporting Countries’ (APEC’s) non-binding code,as a signal to potential investors of the region’scommitment to promoting investment.

Financial flows, in themselves, have noenvironmental impact: it is the use of these flows thatare of concern. For example, aid or internal finance tobuild infrastructure and capital flows to construct touristfacilities have obvious environmental impacts.Consequently, the issue becomes one of how these realimpacts are dealt with. By and large assessment of thesereal impacts is through the application of environmentalimpact assessments (EIAs). These attempt to assesseconomic, social and environmental impacts, and eitherto balance these out in order to determine a net benefitor cost, or identify ways in which to ameliorate thenegative economic, social and environmental impacts.

Most PICs have adopted, through their NEMS, a

general policy to undertake such an EIA in all cases (orfor projects of substance). In addition, aid donors willusually require an EIA for projects they are funding.There are recommendations that international financialinstitutions insist on PICs mainstreamingenvironmental concerns by requiring theirgovernments, as a loan condition, to make financialallocations to implement environmental regulations.Finally, investment regulations for foreign and domesticinvestors, town and country planning regulations andso forth, also commonly require EIAs.

The integration of EIA into the planning process isnow widespread in the developed world and is becomingobligatory in projects funded by multilateral and bilateraldevelopment assistance. There is a tendency in somequarters of government, however, for EIA to be regardedas an unnecessary extra hurdle in the developmentprocess and one that is concerned with peripheralinterests. Earlier this decade, many PICs highlightedtheir concerns as to EIAs having no formal legal status,with their application being purely discretionary as partof planning permission approval or departmentallicensing. In Fiji, NEMS highlights key developmentbodies such as the Trade and Investment Board, FijiDevelopment Bank and Native Land Trust Board todevelop policy provision for any form of EIA, to minimizeserious implications for development initiatives.

However, it is important to draw a distinctionbetween the existence of regulations and policies andtheir application. Thus, while the requirement toundertake EIAs will be universal, the extent to whichthese are actually undertaken might well be less thanperfect. Consequently the issue in relation to theenvironment is not to control financial flows, but tocontrol their use. If the proposed use of funds isunacceptable on environmental, social or economicgrounds, then the flow of funds should not occur.

It has not been possible to determine the extent ofaccess to or mobilization of financial resources necessaryfor the implementation of the Barbados Plan of Action inthe Pacific region. However, some progress has beenmade. At a national level, there are indications that agreater proportion of national budgets has beenmobilized for environmental management and sustainabledevelopment. For example, staffing levels of environmentunits have been increased in all PICs at a time whengovernment indebtedness is high in some countries andwhen there is pressure to reduce employment in thepublic sector. However, most PICs still have smallenvironment and conservation agencies, and generally

F I N A N C I N G E N V I R O N M E N T A L A C T I O N 41

few staff, often with limited training and experience. Forthe small island states, the training and retaining ofenvironmental specialists is a particular concern.

At a regional level SPREP’s financial resources haveincreased steadily over the past five years although theprojections are that this trend is stabilizing. This is shownin Figure 2.2. It appears that for specific environmentalactivities new funds are available. The stand-off betweendeveloped and developing countries over the allocation offinancial resources, which still exists at an internationallevel, is less obvious in the Pacific region.

As a measure of their commitment to theenvironment and sustainable development, in 1991 the 26 member countries of SPREP also agreed toincrease the total of their voluntary contributions fromUS$250 000 to US$500 000. The balance of the fundsshown in Figure 2.2 is made up of extrabudgetarycontributions. Over the next five years considerableextrabudgetary support is likely from Countries such asAustralia, Canada and New Zealand, and donors like theEC, GEF and UNDP.

Public participationPolicy approaches aimed at facilitating communityparticipation are integral to a number of programmeareas at a national level and within regionalorganizations. Specific examples include:

● approaches taken in developing NEMS at countrylevel;

● private sector involvement in trade and investmentprogrammes, tourism development and regionalenvironmental policy;

● capacity-building for environmental management andplanning activities, as outlined in the Regional ProjectDocument, July 1998;

● community resource management activities, asoutlined in the Capacity 21 Programme, to improvethe capacity of customary landholder groups to planfor the management and monitoring of their land andsea areas for sustainable development;

● community and consultation processes related to theimplementation of GEF projects;

● village-level coral reef monitoring programme inSamoa;

● crown-of-thorns clean-up by reef user communities inCook Islands;

P O L I C Y R E S P O N S E S42

The fundamental principle of the Convention is that States have thesovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their ownenvironmental policies and the responsibility to ensure thatactivities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage tothe environment of other States or areas beyond the limits ofnational jurisdiction (Article 3).

Article 8 (j) states ‘... States are expected to respect, preserve andmaintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous andlocal communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for theconservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promotetheir wider application for the approval and involvement of theholders of such knowledge, innovations and practices andencourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from theutilization of such knowledge, innovations and practice’.

In the Pacific, with often over 80 per cent of resources held incustomary land tenure arrangements, the importance ofparticipatory approaches to conservation cannot be over-stated.Western concepts of national parks and nature reserves failed toprotect biodiversity in the Pacific because they ignored the closerelationship between Pacific island people and the naturalresources. Imposing ‘reserve status’ therefore isolated, andsometimes antagonized, the very people whose livelihood dependedon the resources of the area in question. A community-basedapproach to conservation programmes in PICs recognizes the needfor the land and resource owners and users to be at the front line inthe conservation of the resources they depend on. They must becommitted to the conservation of these resources as their veryexistence dictates that they do so.

The Action Strategy for Nature Conservation and Protected Areas inthe South Pacific is a regional strategy for the promotion ofsustainable development and the conservation of biodiversity. Thestrategy recognizes the important role of local landowners andcommunities in conservation of biodiversity and seeks to encouragerecognition of its importance to Pacific island societies andsustainable economic development based on the region’s biodiversity.

Box 2.5: Participation in the Convention onBiological Diversity

2.7

3.6

4.2 4.1

4.8

5.5

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

5.9US$ millions

Source: SPREP 1991–1997

Figure 2.2: SPREP expenditure on regional environmental programmes

P U B L I C P A R T I C I P A T I O N 43

● training for local communities in sustainableagriculture and fisheries practices in Samoa;

● Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) workshops forlocal communities and conservation officials inSolomon Islands;

● some domestic measures in the area of biodiversityand nature conservation have also broken new groundby using traditional practices and customaryownership to support conservation measures in thecoastal fishery, as in Samoa; these measures havebeen particularly participatory in nature, as isdescribed in Box 2.5 outlining Convention onBiological Diversity activities.

The importance of non-government organizations (NGOs)in the region also needs to be highlighted. The role ofNGOs in promoting participatory and grassrootsdevelopment is well recognized. NGOs are effectivevehicles in encouraging and empowering thedisadvantaged to play a greater role in improving theirown well-being. Increasingly, NGOs are working hand-in-hand with governments and development partners innational development efforts. The potential of manyindigenous NGOs and community-based organizations inhelping to promote human development is, however, notfully realized because of inadequate managementcapability, lack of skills in programme planning andimplementation and often weak project accountability andmonitoring systems.

NGOs at the regional level include the Pacific IslandsAssociation of NGOs (PIANGO), which functions as aregional NGO association focusing on the organizationand regional development of NGOs in the Pacific. Mostcountries have a national umbrella NGO association, suchas DSE in the Solomon Islands, and the TuvaluAssociation of NGOs (TANGO) in Tonga and Tuvalu. TheFoundation for the Peoples of the South Pacific (FSP) isa regional non-profit organization aiming to work with thePacific people in human development programmes and toimprove the quality of life for village people. Activitiesrange from rural housing construction programmes andincome generation projects to community forestryactivities. FSP is present in Solomon Islands, Vanuatuand Tonga. NGOs at the international level, such as theWorld Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), The NatureConservancy (TNC) and Greenpeace, also play asignificant role in the promotion of environmentalmanagement and sustainable development in the region.

At the national level, there are a growing number ofNGOs, with a range of mandates and objectives: women’s

development programmes, research (ecological, historical,cultural), disaster relief, the co-ordination of youthactivities, adult literacy programmes, farmer supportprogrammes, family planning programmes and academicinstitutions such as USP extension service centres that,for example, run community training programmes inTonga. Some NGOs, such as the Girl Guides Association inthe Cook Islands, have developed environmental policies.Vanuatu and Solomon Islands have in recent yearswitnessed the establishment of the Vanuatu EnvironmentOrganization (VEO) and the Solomon Islands IndigenousPeoples Environment Organization (SIIPEO).

During the last decade, there has been an importantshift in the direction of NGO activity. During the 1980s,the crisis of the rainforest worldwide led a number ofinternational NGOs to conduct campaigns to ‘stoplogging’. In the Pacific, some NGOs from Australia andNew Zealand followed this line, whereas others adopted aslightly different approach. They became involved on theground and looked for options available to forest ownersto derive income in other ways, such as investment ineco-tourism and eco-timber.

Over the same period, and sometimes with supportfrom offshore NGOs, the local movement became moreactive, especially in PNG and the Solomon Islands. Thislocal thrust was partly towards non-wood forest productsas a means of providing income for the forest-owningcommunity, but it also took up the theme of sustainablemanagement. Some NGOs went into the provision oftraining courses in forest management, chainsawoperation and other technical skills, so that local people

Regional campaigns for the conservation of key species andecosystems have proved effective at the regional level. The 1995 Yearof the Sea Turtle campaign resulted in one country declaring a one-year moratorium on the commercial harvesting of this important butcritically threatened species. This moratorium was later extended foranother three years. A number of other countries have expressed thedesire to follow this example but have yet to do so. The 1997 Year ofthe Coral Reef campaign demonstrated the effectiveness andsuccess of awareness-raising to motivate people to change theirattitudes and behaviour regarding the use of a resource such ascoral reefs.

Policies for the conservation of migratory species such as seaturtles and marine mammals can only be successful in a region likethis if there is international co-operation. Unfortunately, whilstPacific islands have again taken the lead in promoting a regionalban on the commercial harvesting of sea turtles, neighbouring statescontinue to harvest them at unsustainable levels. More must be doneat the international level if these species are to survive.

Box 2.6: Campaigning to raise awareness andchange behaviour

could derive maximum benefit from the extraction of asustainable volume of timber. NGOs have also beenstrongly supportive of policy measures to protect the useof traditional and indigenous knowledge, as in the SuvaDeclaration of 1995.

Environmental information and education

The importance of environmental education andawareness-raising is increasingly well understoodthroughout the region and forms an integral element ofsupport to all environmental programmes.

Environmental education programmes have developed awide range of formal and non-formal curriculumresources and provided training activities for teachers,NGOs, church leaders and the media, all aimed atraising environmental awareness.

One of the most significant recent events inenvironmental education in the Pacific was the conveningin mid-1998 of a regional conference for environmentaleducation and training. The major output of theconference was the ‘Action Strategy for EnvironmentalEducation and Training in the Pacific Region, 1999–2003’,which was subsequently endorsed in principle by the 10thSPREP Meeting. The Action Strategy, published in

P O L I C Y R E S P O N S E S44

Lomé ConventionThe Lomé Convention, which for the past 25 years has been theframework for the European Community and its African Caribbean andPacific (ACP) development co-operation partners, has from the verybeginning taken into consideration the obstacles particularly hamperingthe SIDS1. Out of the 71 ACP countries 26 are independent islandstates2 and 17 of them3 fall under the category of least-developed ACPStates, which entitles them to special treatment under the Convention4.When compared with other ACP regions the island states have derivedconsiderable benefits per capita from the European Development Fund(EDF) allocations5. In addition, for several island ACP countries thetrade protocols of the Lomé Convention on sugar, bananas andrum haveprovided privileged access to the European market, and also indirectprice support for these products. In order to assist some SIDS todiversify their mono-producer economies, the EU is supporting somebanana and mineral producers with EDF and budget line assistance.Good examples of this are Jamaica and the Windward Islands.

Lomé and EnvironmentLomé IV embodied for the first time in 1991 environmental objectivesstating that ‘development shall be based on a sustainable balancebetween its economic objectives, the rational management of theenvironment and the enhancement of natural and human resources’(Art. 4) and a new Title I on Environment spelled out the principles,priorities and procedures for integrating ‘environmental aspects’ intoall other Lomé operations. It did not however set any quantitativetargets and as EDF 7 was programmed just prior to the Rio Conference,it is unreasonable to expect the Rio commitments to be fully reflectedin the EDF national indicative programmes for 1990–95. Theintegration of the environment dimension into EC development co-operation takes place at three different levels: direct financing ofprojects and programmes with specific environmental objectives;environmental concerns in the overall dialogue with the partnercountries; and through efforts to ensure that overall development andeconomic co-operation activities integrate environmental issues, inparticular by using Environmental Assessment tools.

In 1996, the EC initiated a comprehensive independent evaluationof the environmental performance of its programmes in the developingcountries. It was concluded that, in the period of 1990–1995, theoverall environmental performance of EC programmes was relatively

low compared to the extensive policy objectives. Only a few ACPcountries included environment into their National and RegionalIndicative Programmes as a cross-sectoral issue at the strategic level,although almost all rural development programmes incorporatednatural resource management. However, it was also indicated thatimprovements have been set in motion since 1990 through the designof specific strategies and through a more systematic use ofEnvironmental Assessment tools and the integrated Project CycleManagement. In late 1993 the Commission introduced formalprocedures, which became mandatory in 1996, for assessing theenvironmental implications of project proposals and for integratingenvironmental factors during the project cycle. Over the period1990–1995, Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) procedures wererarely applied, although those actually undertaken being of a highquality. In 1998, the various departments of the Commission involvedin economic and development co-operation started a comprehensivereview to update and harmonise the EIA procedures and guidance.Strategic environment assessments will be introduced during policyformulation and country programming. However, since Lomé Conventionis a partnership agreement, the success of environmental policiesdepends only in part on incorporation of priority objectives into thedesign of EC programmes. More importantly, it depends on thecommitment of ACP governments to these objectives in their respectivenational and regional indicative programmes.

Post-LoméThe current Lomé IV Convention expires 29 February 2000 andnegotiations with a view to concluding a new development partnershipagreement were started in September 1998. In 1996 the EuropeanCommission published its Green Paper on the future ACP-EU relationslaunching the debate on the thorough review of the present Convention.The Paper observes that the relationship between the EU and the ACPcountries will enter a new phase, that this renewed relationship willhave to be based in the new global reality and that the innovationsintroduced will have to increase the efficiency of the co-operationprogramme. It also identifies some special aspects of importance to theSIDS: the challenges of further regional integration and transition to acompetitive economic environment; problems such as politicaltransitions, heterogeneous economies within the region, lack of humanresources, migration and drugs6; and stresses the attention to be given

Box 2.7: Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and the Lomé Convention

E N V I R O N M E N T A L I N F O R M A T I O N A N D E D U C A T I O N 45

The establishment of conservation areas has been identified as criticalto the implementation of the Action Strategy for Nature Conservation inthe Pacific Region. This strategy recognizes the important role of theland and resource owners in the conservation of biodiversity and seeksto encourage their full support and participation in the planning,establishment and management of areas set aside for the conservationof important biodiversity.

Funded by the GEF pilot phase through UNDP and SPREP, with co-financing from Australia, the South Pacific Biodiversity ConservationProgramme (SPBCP) has established 17 community-based Conservation

Areas in 12 countries of the region—Cook Islands, Fiji, FSM, Kiribati,Marshall Islands, Niue, Palau, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvaluand Vanuatu. These areas are owned and managed by localcommunities with assistance from relevant government agencies andNGOs through Conservation Area Co-ordinating Committees (CACCs).Sustainable economic development opportunities have been identifiedfor a number of CAPs with certain activities such as eco-tourismalready showing great potential as a means of sustaining ConservationArea Programmes (CAPs), and communities in the long term.

Box 2.8: Case Study in Collective Policy-making – the South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Programme (SPBCP)

to problems relating to transport, communications, environment andpreservation of natural resources.

On the surface the EU and ACP agree on the principles andobjectives of future co-operation: strengthened partnership throughdeeper political dialogue – a partnership geared towards povertyreduction, sustainable development and further integration of the ACPinto the international economy. Both mandates recognise the need for‘differentiation’ between ACP countries (e.g. by providing specialtreatment to least-developed countries and vulnerable land-locked andisland countries).

However, the aspirations of designing a simple, leaner and user-friendly agreement, are not necessarily focused on same priorities. TheCommission’s mandate translates the commitment of radical review ofthe existing Convention into four main priorities. First, to rationaliseand simplify existing instruments by grouping all resources for long-term development into a single facility (including structuraladjustment, Stabex, Sysmin, decentralised co-operation etc.). Second,to restore the centrality of programming while linking resourceallocation to performance. Third, to move away from projects towardssupport for sectoral reforms and, if conditions allow, direct budget aid.Fourth, to introduce the concept of differentiation in resourcemanagement. The ACP reform agenda looks quite different. There ismuch insistence on reducing delays; improving transparency;simplifying aid instruments; clarifying the division of roles andreducing the adverse effects of aid on local institutions and capacities.The focus is on improving day-to-day management, less on changingthe rules of the game. The three main proposals of the ACP groupdiffering from the EU mandate are: more time before making changes;retain as much as possible of the current agreement; and a fairer deal– the ACP call for existing access for agricultural goods to beimproved, whereas EU is not prepared to settle the case beforenegotiations on the future trade arrangements (REPAs), maintainingthe current access provisions until the new agreement.

Generally, the ACP seem more ‘conservative’ than EU. Theprinciples that the ACP promote are: local ownership of reforms;Predictability and security of resources; Partnership with more explicitallocation of responsibilities; Simplification and rationalisation ofinstruments and Flexibility in programming. As for the actors inpartnership, in its negotiating mandate the ACP Group is rather vagueabout the nature and modalities of the private sector involvement

whereas for EU extending partnership to a wide range of actor seems tobe a political priority.

ReferencesACP Secretariat, 1998, ‘ACP Group Negotiating Mandate’, on the Internet:http://www.oneworld.org/acpsec/gb/lome/future/negman_e.htm.

Information on Commission website:http;//europa.eu.int/comm/dg08/event/negociation_en.htm.

Cox, Aidan; Koning Antonique, 1997, ‘Understanding European Community Aid’,Overseas Development Institute, London.

ECDPM.1998. Comparing the ACP and EU Negotiating mandates. (LoméNegotiating Brief No. 3). Maastricht:

ECDPM, 1998, ‘What future for ACP-EU Trade Relations?’ (Lomé Negotiating BriefNo. 1), Maastricht.

Environmental Resources Management, 1997, ‘Evaluation of the EnvironmentalPerformance of EC Programmes in Developing countries’, London, December 1997.

European Commission, 1999, ‘The European Union's Co-operation with SmallIsland Developing States in the Framework of the Barbados Programme of Action’,European Commission, Brussels, April 1999.

Montes, Carlos; Migliorisi Stefano, 1998, ‘Evaluation of European Union Aid(Managed by the Commission) to ACP Countries’, Investment DevelopmentConsultancy, Paris, November 1998.

Sutton, Paul, 1998, ‘Small States and a Successor Lomé Convention’, backgroundpaper for a seminar on Small (Island) Developing States, organised by EuropeanCentre for Development Policy Management in Brussels, September 1998, ECDPM,Maastricht, September 1998.

‘The Lomé Convention as revised by the agreement signed in Mauritius on 4November 1995’, in: The Courier, No. 155, January-February 1996.

1 Art. 335 Lomé IV Convention2 Western Coast of Africa: Cape Verde and Sao Tomé & Principe; the Caribbean:

Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Dominica, Dominican Republic,Grenada, Haiti, Jamaica, St.Christopher & Nevis, St. Vincent & the Grenadines,St. Lucia and Trinidad & Tobago; Indian Ocean: Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritiusand Seychelles; South Pacific: Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, SolomonIslands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu

3 Antigua and Barbuda, Cape Verde, Comoros, Dominica, Grenada, Haiti, Kiribati,St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Greandines, Sao Tome andPrincipe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Samoa

4 Art. 329 Lomé IV bis5 The total funds provided by the EC to island developing states for the period

1976–1995 were 4447 MEURO. For the period 1996–2000 (Lomé IV bis) thepackage foreseen for the National and Regional Programmes amounted to 1024MEURO.

6 Green Paper p. 21

February 1999, will be used by Pacific island countries asa guide for all environmental education and trainingrelated projects and programmes.

Social policiesIt is clear that social goals have not been given equalpriority with economic goals in national planning inmany PIDCs. This is evidenced in continuing lowliteracy rates in some countries; the number ofunderskilled and inappropriately skilled school leavers(coupled with unemployment and underemployment onthe one hand and significant expatriate presence on theother); low levels of income; the inability to controltraditional diseases like malaria; and the emergence of

‘lifestyle’ diseases.Environmental considerations are rarely given the

weight that is vital to the sustainable developmentplanning process. PICs have declared their commitmentto integrate environmental considerations with economicand sectoral planning and policy-making and to formulateresource utilization policies in accordance with theprecautionary principle. There is still a need to adjustplanning and management systems to integrateconsiderations such as population trends, consumptionpatterns, health and nutrition concerns, educationalstandards and requirements, the availability of bothtraditional and innovative technologies, financingconsiderations, and the complementary roles of publicand private sector organizations.

P O L I C Y R E S P O N S E S46

Regional co-operationRegional co-operation under the Lomé Conventions shall promote long-term collective, self-reliant, self-sustained and integrated social,cultural and economic development and greater regional self-sufficiency. In recognition of regional co-operation as a special featureof the four Lomé Conventions, over 10 percent of the Lomé funds havebeen set aside for projects dealing with issues of interest to groups ofACP states on a regional basis. This funding is in addition to nationalallocations.

In the Pacific region, previous Regional Indicative Programmes(RIPs) have concentrated on alleviating problems resulting from thehuge distances between the eight ACP countries by implementingprojects in the fields of transport and telecommunication, and havecontributed to enhancing regional assets: agriculture, marine resourcesand tourism.

About €120 million has been allocated to this kind of co-operationsince 1976. Under the first Lomé IV Financial Protocol (7th EDF), the RIP(€35 million) carried this strategy forward, while adapting it to newneeds in environmental protection and human resources development.Projects have been implemented in support of fisheries, tourism,agriculture, regional air transport and human resources development.Projects under environment included Cyclone Warning Systems and theRegional Waste Awareness and Education Programme.

The RIP under the Second Financial Protocol of Lomé IV (€35million) provides for a significant increase in human resourcesdevelopment (from 10 percent to 45 percent), and puts more emphasison environment within its second area of concentration. In humanresources development, the EC will support the regional sector strategy:a review of knowledge requirements and developing and implementinglong-term strategies for human resource development in the Pacific.The support will be directed to tertiary education and harmonization ofsecondary and primary education at the national levels. Attention isalso paid to enhancing policy skills in the area of telecommunicationsand information technologies, capacity-building and institutionalstrengthening, sustainable management of agriculture and forestry, andin health infrastructure, training and research capacity. Tourism andshipping receive attention, but mainly to upgrade these services tointernational standards, with no particular attention to sustainable

ecological aspects. The second area of concentration is the sustainabledevelopment of natural resources and environmental management andprotection. The objective is to broaden the production base and increaseincomes out of natural resources, while ensuring that these resourcesremain available in the long term, keeping in mind the fragile nature ofthe region's most important assets. The support of the EC within thisarea of concentration will go to activities such as: information and datacollection, development and implementation of common policies, rulesand regulations, and other activities to ensure the sustainability of thenatural heritage of the region. To achieve higher investment returns andincome-generation, greater ownership and participation by the membercountries and communities in harvest or production, and adequatemonitoring and surveillance of the natural resources, will be supportedby the EC.

Since 1994, resources from the General Budget of the EuropeanCommunity have been mobilized to support five projects aimed at thesustainable use and conservation of rain forests in the Melanesian sub-region. The AIDS programme, implemented by the Secretariat of thePacific Community and supported with some €400 000, is also fundedfrom budgetary resources.

However, it is not clear to what extent the different programmesthat will be supported will be carried out with an integrated approach tosustainable development. It will depend very much on how the RIP willbe implemented and on the approach taken by the Pacific governmentsand their capacity in this field. There is no mention in the RIP ofspecific support for integrating environmental concerns into the overalldevelopment planning.

Post-Lomé and tradeIn the past, aid flows to the Pacific have been highly influenced by

Stabex transfers which accounted for 32 percent of all aid but weremore than 60 percent in three of the years (1987, 1991 and 1992).€282 million was committed through Stabex, of which €189 millionwent to Papua New Guinea, €29 million went to the Solomon Islands,€22 million went to Vanuatu and €17 million went to Samoa. For all ofthem, Stabex funds have been the largest single component of the ECaid they receive (42%, 28%, 61% and 40% respectively). The otherinstruments are not significant. Fiji benefits from the second-largest

Box 2.9: Lomé and the Pacific Region

S O C I A L P O L I C I E S 47

quota (165 348 tonnes per year) under the Sugar Protocol annexed tothe Lomé Conventions. This quota covers about 45 percent of thecountry's sugar exports and provides benefits of €40–50 million peryear. The gross income from Fiji's sugar exports to the EU in 1998amounted to almost €92 000.

In November 1998, the European Commission released studies onthe impact on ACP countries of its proposed Regional EconomicPartnership Agreements (REPAs). General conclusions of the studieswere: 1) In most cases, LDCs have little to gain from REPAs in terms ofmarket access to the EU. (Total funds provided by the EC to islanddeveloping states for the period 1976–1995 were €4 447 million. For theperiod 1996–2000 (Lomé IV bis) the package foreseen for the Nationaland Regional Programmes amounted to €1 024 million. They can keepnon-reciprocal trade preferences in any case. 2) The loss of non-reciprocal preferences would hardly affect the export performance ofmany ACP countries. 3) By contrast, the direct or indirect effects of notrenewing the protocols could dramatically affect the exports of some ACPcountries. However, the studies did not estimate these effects as thiswould have required separate studies. 4) The negative impact oncustoms revenues varies considerably, but could be substantial for some.

The main conclusions summarised for the Pacific region were: Theeight Pacific ACP countries have not been organized as a regionalgroup, but belong to the South Pacific Forum along with eight othercountries. The report suggests that a Free Trade Area (FTA) could benegotiated with the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), a sub-groupcomprising Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. Amore general Partnership Agreement could cover all eight Pacific ACPcountries. The lack of institutional capacity of the MSG would need to beaddressed. Besides, the interests of the other members of the SouthPacific Forum would need to be considered, notably Australia and NewZealand. The latter in particular would probably require the sameaccess to the ACP Pacific countries as granted to the EU. A step towardsthe above direction was taken on 1 June 1999 when Trade Ministers ofthe South Pacific Forum endorsed in principle a Free Trade Area betweenthe Forum Island Countries in the region.

The termination of the sugar protocol and the preferences forcanned tuna would have large implications for Fiji in terms ofemployment, export earnings and thus the government's budget. Even if

the protocols remained, both sectors would need to adjust, probablywith some support from donors. For the seven other Pacific ACPcountries, the termination of Lomé preferences would have nosignificant effect. Effects on imports are also likely to be small.

References:

De Groot, Albert and van Nes, René, 1998. Introducing reciprocity into the traderelations between EU and the Pacific countries. Netherlands Economic Institute,September 1998, Rotterdam.

ECSIEP/PCRC, 1998. Reflection of the Programme of Action for the SustainableDevelopment of Small Island Developing States in the National IndicativeProgrammes and the Regional Indicative Programme of the Pacific ACP. June1998. On the internet: http://www.antenna.n./ecsiep/lome/sidspoa.html.

European Commision, 1997. Annual Report (as required by Article 318 of theFourth Lomé Convention) on Co-Operation between the European Union and theSouth Pacific Region 1997. Brussels, 1998.

European Commission, 1997. Annual Report (as required by Article 318 of theFourth Lomé Convention) on Co-Operation between the European Union and theRepublic of Fiji 1997. Brussels, 1998.

European Commission, 1997. Annual Report (as required by Article 318 of theFourth Lomé Convention) on Co-Operation between the European Union and theRepublic of Kiribati 1997. Brussels, 1998.

European Commission, 1997. Annual Report (as required by Article 318 of theFourth Lomé Convention) on Co-Operation between the European Union and PapuaNew Guinea 1997. Brussels, 1998.

European Commission, 1997. Annual Report (as required by Article 318 of theFourth Lomé Convention) on Co-Operation between the European Union and Samoa1997. Brussels, 1998.

European Commission, 1997. Annual Report (as required by Article 318 of theFourth Lomé Convention) on Co-Operation between the European Union and theKingdom of Tonga 1997. Brussels, 1998.

European Commission, 1997. Annual Report (as required by Article 318 of theFourth Lomé Convention) on Co-Operation between the European Union and Tuvalu1997. Brussels, 1998.

European Commission, 1997, Annual Report (as required by Article 318 of theFourth Lomé Convention) on Co-Operation between the European Union and theRepublic of Vanuatu 1997. Brussels, 1998.

Tuononen, Heli (compiled by), 1999. The European Union's Co-operation with SmallIsland Developing States in the Framework of the Barbados Programme of Action.European Commission, Brussels, April 1999.

United Nations, 1994. Report of the Global Conference on the SustainableDevelopment of Small Island Developing States, Bridgetown, Barbados, 26 April-6May 1994. United Nations, New York, 1994.

49

OverviewThe evidence gathered for this report suggests that theregion will continue to face a steady – and sometimesserious – decline in environmental quality. This decline willvary across and within PICs. It will be most marked in therapidly growing urban areas, but cumulative impacts in thecoastal zone are also likely to become dramatic. From theanalysis of the state of the environment (Chapter One), thecommon environmental problems of priority for the regionremain largely unchanged. These are:

● loss of biological diversity – continuing in bothmarine and terrestrial environments;

● threats to fresh water resources – furthercomplicated by the potential of climate change andincreasing pressure from growing populations andtourism development;

● degradation of coastal environments – in particularcoral reefs and inshore fisheries – from landclearance, sedimentation and destructive fishingpractices;

● climate change and sea-level rise – expected torequire adaptive responses even if the KyotoProtocol targets are met;

● land and sea-based pollution – continuing from awide range of sources.

From the review of current policy it is clear that therehave been some successful approaches to addressing

these pressing environmental and sustainabledevelopment concerns of the region. They include:

● community-centred environmental initiatives for theestablishment of conservation areas, education andawareness campaigns, and as a model for protectionof international waters;

● improved co-ordination at national and, in particular,regional levels through the South PacificOrganizations Coordinating Committee (SPOCC);

● increased capacity in the public sector to deal withenvironmental issues;

● increased awareness and increasing participationwithin Pacific island communities;

● strengthened regional legal framework to deal withcommon environmental concerns.

While significant progress has been made, thereremains concern that current policy initiatives are notkeeping pace with the rate of environmentaldegradation and related development imperatives inPICs (SPREP 1998b). In general:

● there is a lack of enforcement or implementation ofmany policies and legislation;

● there are weaknesses with regard to the protectionof indigenous property rights in the region;

● implementation of small, focused policies isgenerally far more effective than large,comprehensive policies.

Cha

pter

Thr

ee Alternative Policy Options

50

These gaps combine with a general weakening ofenforcement through traditional and communitystructures as a result of continuing urban migration andincreasing pressure for cash income at the village level.From the analysis above and consistent with the recentsubmission to the United Nations Commission onSustainable Development (Forum Secretariat 1999b),effort is clearly required to:

● further increase capacity in the public sector to dealwith environmental issues, in particular withindepartments involved in planning and resource use(e.g. agriculture, fisheries, tourism, finance);

● provide basic infrastructure, in some cases incombination with appropriate regulatory andeconomic mechanisms and enforcement/implementation of existing legislation;

● promote effective partnerships among allstakeholders, in particular local communities, NGOsand the private sector;

● further develop skills training, and basic and highereducation opportunities for sustainable development;

● build upon efforts to integrate environment anddevelopment within PICs. Efforts to implementeconomic and public sector reform, along with thework of the SPOCC, provide opportunities to do this.Ideally this integration would continue to promote aholistic approach to island development, to makemost effective use of the capacity within countriesand regionally;

● gather basic information that establishes baselinesor benchmarks and ongoing systems for monitoringand assessment of key indicators that can be used toassist decision-making and measure progress inimplementing sustainable development. Alsoessential are effective communications andnetworking systems to share that information;

● make explicit the links between health, populationand the environment, including issues of gender, ascontained in the Port Vila (Population) and YanucaIsland Declarations and the Rarotonga Agreement(Healthy Islands);

● compile a composite vulnerability index ofeconomic as well as ecological/environmentalparameters, as was highlighted in the BarbadosProgramme of Action. The 1998 South PacificForum agreed the index should be included amongcriteria for determining Least Developed Countrystatus and for deciding eligibility for concessionalaid and trade treatment. The Pacific region is now

engaged in the development of the ecologicalaspects of a vulnerability index and will contributeto the efforts of UNDP, the World Bank and theCommonwealth Secretariat to develop a compositevulnerability index.

In this context, and as recommended by the RegionalConsultation on the Pacific Islands EnvironmentOutlook held in Apia, Samoa, on 9–10 November 1998,a useful focus for the following discussion of alternativepolicy options is the reduction of the impacts of humanpopulation and the improvement of public health.

Population and healthPopulation experts have focused on these interrelatedissues of the human environment in the Pacific. Theyare succinctly summarized in a publication prepared bySPC for the International Conference on Population andDevelopment, held in Cairo in 1994:

‘Environmental degradation is most evident wherepopulations and economic activity are concentratedtogether, particularly around towns, and whereresources such as timber and minerals are being over-exploited. Demand on resources has increased notsimply because there are more people, but also becausetheir individual requirements have increased. Theseeming inexhaustibility of resources has until veryrecently encouraged people in the Pacific, as elsewherein the world, in a short-sighted use of resources.’ (SPC,revised 1998)

The estimated population growth rate of 2.2 per centper annum is an average across the region and thusconceals these trends, as well as the considerablevariations within the region. As noted, there are also in-country variations: Vanuatu, for example, has an urbanpopulation growth rate of 8 per cent per annum,whereas the national statistic is 2.4 per cent (SPC1998). The future outlook is complicated further by thefact that the low population growth figures for much ofPolynesia are due in part to a continuing high level ofmigration to developed countries around the PacificRim. When economic conditions deteriorate in thosecountries (which is the current situation), there is likelyto be a fall in the rate of emigration.

The governments and people of PICs have takenmajor initiatives in recent years to begin to articulatetheir urban development needs and priorities. Fiji is

A L T E R N A T I V E P O L I C Y O P T I O N S

51W A T E R A N D F O O D S E C U R I T Y

addressing this in the planning and infrastructurestandards of its public housing sector; Kiribati is workingon an urban management plan for South Tarawa; theMarshall Islands are introducing a Majuro water supplyand sanitation project; and Vanuatu is developing anurban growth management strategy in the areas of watersupply, environmental sanitation, environmental healthand urban expansion.

As population pressures grow, the region will see anincrease in the problems of environmental health, asillustrated below in the discussion on safe drinking water.Malnutrition and disease will affect populations to amuch higher degree. As in other parts of the developingworld, serious poverty will create obstacles to soundenvironmental practices.

These patterns will reinforce the effects of internalmigration, and the progressive weakening of traditionalcontrols on resource management. All migrants takesomething, leave something and pick up something.Migration patterns in the region, as elsewhere in theworld, are driven by the wish to find greateropportunities – usually in terms of employment and cashincome, but also in areas such as education and access toentertainment/recreation, or spectator sport.

Water and food securitySecurity of access to clean, fresh water and adequatenutrition is fundamental to both survival anddevelopment. In the Pacific, as noted in Chapter One,there are increasing grounds for concern that shortageswill occur and that human health will be adverselyaffected. At the Regional Consultation, for example,water issues were raised by Guam, Tuvalu andAmerican Samoa, while Fiji referred to the high demandfrom the tourist industry – a factor that in a dry yearexacerbates supply problems for the local population. Inthe case of water, supply problems arose in severalcountries and territories during the extreme El Niñoevent of 1997–98. This had serious effects on foodsupply for subsistence communities, for example inPNG, where there was widespread crop failure.

Some problems could be alleviated throughinvestment in improved storage and distribution systems.In most countries, year-round rainfall could meet humandemand if adequate amounts could be stored inreservoirs or tanks at the village level. Conservationmeasures would still be needed, together with propertreatment to ensure the availability of potable water.Rising living standards can lead to higher consumer

demand, which needs to be matched with publicawareness campaigns, possibly combined in due coursewith metering arrangements. Assistance will be neededto help countries place the supply of clean water on asustainable basis.

In other countries, particularly smaller islands andatoll groups, the crisis of water security is more seriousand cannot be handled through improved storage alone.The freshwater lens (which stores the small amount ofrainwater that drains from the surface of an atoll) is notsustainable if too much is taken for human use. Somepopulations may need to install desalination systems,which are expensive to operate but which could draw onthe daytime availability of solar or other forms ofrenewable energy. The main requirement will be to plansuch investments well in advance, before the shortage offresh water reaches crisis point.

Food security as an issue is relatively new for Pacificpopulations, although it has always arisen in the wake ofnatural disasters. Traditionally, it has not been an area ofconcern for public policy, but this is changing as theresult of a number of factors. The link with extremeweather conditions has been mentioned above, as has theimpact of rising populations. Over-exploitation of coastalfisheries is another significant factor in most countries ofthe region (SPREP 1997a).

It may become more difficult in future to ensurethat Pacific island populations have the basic ‘cushion’needed when there are fluctuations in food supply, forclimatic or other reasons. With a higher proportion ofthe population living in urban areas, there will be lesscapacity to produce subsistence crops. Financing maybe needed for new initiatives in food production. Oneexample is investment in fishing boats capable ofwinning a share of the oceanic tuna resource.

There is an important link between the issues of foodand water security and the preservation of biodiversity,as well as the wider question of reducing the high levelsof vulnerability in the region. It is well known, forexample, that the protection of mangrove areas willproduce benefits through the marine food chain. Ifdegradation of other habitats can be reversed, similarbenefits will be available. (In New Zealand, for example,recreational and commercial fishermen have come roundto supporting the establishment of further marinereserves, on the grounds that it will aid the recovery offish populations in neighbouring zones.) Inland, theprotection of streams and rivers from run-off is attainablethrough planting programmes, which can also be plannedto provide food for threatened birdlife.

52

The success of community-based conservationprojects in the region could therefore lead logically tolocal improvements in food and water security and agreater degree of resilience in handling natural disastersand extreme climatic events. Such initiatives should betaken at the local/village level and could do much tooffset the growing impacts of urbanization.

Pollution and waste managementA number of countries see this as a high priority (Fiji,Niue, Samoa and the USP raised this at the RegionalWorkshop) and it has already been discussed, togetherwith the link to urbanization, in Chapter One. Thereversal of present trends will call for a concentratedeffort to build capacity across the region, backed by amenu of policy options that will reduce the volume ofconventional waste streams (both solid and liquid).Attention also needs to be given to new and unfamiliarforms of waste, such as packaging material that is hardto dispose of, or the by-products of new technology.

The three Rs of waste management – reduce, reuseand recycle – cannot be fully applied in thecircumstances of most PICs. The size of the market istoo small to impose special packaging requirements on adistant exporter, and this also affects the economicopportunities for recovering waste materials or recyclingthem. The region is thus at the end of the line for manywaste streams generated in manufacturing countries, andspecial measures (e.g. surcharges, taxes or deposits) maybe justified for plastics, cans and bottles. Suchinstruments are fully in line with the Polluter PaysPrinciple. The funding thus obtained could be used inpart to ensure that these materials can be sorted andback-loaded at reduced rates to destinations whererecycling can be carried out.

There are other areas where a ‘clean Pacific’ policymay be justified, given the limited space for wastedisposal facilities on many islands and the hugeexposure of coastal regions to intractable waste, suchas polystyrene and plastic bags. It is here that the linkis most obvious with the need for clean water and foodsecurity. Public education and awareness will need tobe built up, using vernacular material – as has beenshown in some of the region-wide campaigns onconservation issues.

The composition of the waste stream will respondboth to rising levels of consumption and to shifts inproduction patterns in exporting countries. Theexample of building materials is a case in point.

Increased proportions of treated timber and plasticcomposites mean that building wastes, particularlyfrom commercial buildings, hotels and larger publicinstitutions (e.g. schools, hospitals), will become lesseasy to dispose of. This is an area where awareness canbe developed within the industry and where standardscan be used as appropriate. Demonstration projectsusing an adaptation of traditional building techniques,using local materials where available, would assist inthe process.

Regional action is needed in some of the morespecialized areas of waste management: informationnetworks can be developed on the identification andhandling of hazardous wastes and toxic materials, andguidelines can be drawn up for improved environmentalmanagement in ports and harbours and for theprotection of freshwater lenses. Other actions will beprimarily local in nature: examples include theconstruction of siltation controls, planting to assistfiltration and protect water bodies, and sorting of wastestreams at village/neighbourhood level.

In relation to this, an important policy issueconfronting governments and regional agencies iswhether the region can expect to influence the choiceof technology in a direction that improves the healthand welfare of Pacific peoples. This could be achieved,for example, if a technology is introduced whichreduces the present high levels of risk and vulnerabilityto which the region is exposed. Environmental opiniontends to regard technology as a two-edged sword: itpromises lower throughput of resources and reducedpollution, but it also removes us further from any directconnection with natural cycles and the resources onwhich we ultimately depend for survival.

Integrated decision-makingTo make progress with water security and wastemanagement issues it will be important to developeffective ways of integrating environmentalconsiderations within decision-making. Since the EarthSummit in 1992 there has been a theoretical acceptanceof the need to integrate environment and economics.Examples of such integration taking place in PICs areoutlined in Chapter Two. The extent, however, to whichthis has gone beyond co-ordination through committeestructures and consultative process is unclear.

The logic of integrating environment and economicsleads to the conclusion that it is the developmentagency (Finance, Planning, Development or Treasury)

A L T E R N A T I V E P O L I C Y O P T I O N S

I N T E G R A T E D D E C I S I O N - M A K I N G 53

that must be accountable for the impacts on theenvironment that flow from the investments approvedby governments. Such impacts may be positive as wellas negative. The essential feature is that they becomepart of the cost/benefit analysis carried out by thatagency. If the Ministry of Finance takes on the task ofaddressing environmental costs (and benefits), therelationship with the existing environment agency ordepartment must be considered.

First, the application of cost/benefit calculations isonly one part of the task that faces the trainedenvironmental administrator. Much of the technical work,e.g. in relation to toxic or hazardous materials, will neverfit with the finance portfolio. When necessary, advice onthese aspects of risk assessment can be supplied byexperts to other agencies of government.

Secondly, the environment agency could be givenresponsibility (and funding) for remedial and restorativeinitiatives – protecting biodiversity, preventing erosion,avoiding degradation of land and water, or applyingconservation principles to resource management in theinformal sector. It would supply expertise to assist in theassessment of costs and benefits, and to identify ways inwhich win–win solutions could be achieved, eitherthrough adjustments to project design or through aswitch to different technology. This would enable PICs totake advantage of the rapid shift in industrial countriestowards technology that is both efficient in commercialterms and minimal in its environmental impact.

Such choices at the administrative level could put theregion in a leadership position and could generate a newapproach to the issues of sustainable developmentanalysed in the earlier chapters of this report. Ifalternative policies are to be encouraged in the areaslisted above, and if they are to be given equal weight indecision-making, the first step would be to draw a cleardistinction between:

● cases where investment analysis requires theincorporation of environmental cost/benefit analysisbefore the investment is approved, drawing on thestandard techniques now applied by the World Bankand other multilateral institutions;

● cases where the environmental impact flows fromindividual actions in the informal sector, and wherethe solution does not require any major capitalinvestment.

The implementation of alternative policies to bringenvironmental factors into the centre of development

decision-making will require deliberate administrativereform. Most countries are in the process ofadministrative or public sector reform, mainly in order toreduce the size of the public sector. While this has thepotential to limit the influence of environmental unitseven further, it does provide opportunities to adoptstructures that reflect the strong cultural and traditionalapproaches to the management of resources for thebenefit of future generations. Indeed, there is a strongeconomic argument for ensuring that the administrativereforms extend to and draw on the community orinformal sector.

In some PICs there is a core group of staff at themiddle level of government (and in the NGO networks)with the skills and confidence to push for sustainablesolutions to local problems. They are able to link andinteract with a wider network of resource people inother countries, using the Internet and other tools thatwere not previously available. Their sensitivity to localvalues and conditions will enable them to judge howtechnology transfer can be tailored to fit the uniqueeconomic, social, political and cultural circumstances ofeach community. However, having said this, it shouldalso be noted that in many PICs senior and middle-levelpublic servants have considerable (financial andpolitical) limitations to their jobs and are often not thepeople who decide what technologies are going to betransferred to the countries or the communities. Incountries such as Fiji, these decisions are increasinglybeing shifted to the private sector. This implies a needto engage private business interests if PICs are to movetowards sustainable development.

55

This final chapter identifies some issues that are likelyto dominate the environmental agenda over the next 25years, and links these to some of the global trends thatare already making their effects felt in the Pacific. Itposes some of the questions that are specific to theregion, and that may not arise elsewhere.

Globalization and economic reform‘Globalization’ of the world economy and related tradeliberalization is expected to have a profound effect onPacific island economies. In response to ‘globalization’,the region’s Economic Action Plan (1996) sets outmeasures to stimulate investment and job creation.These were outlined in the ‘Policy background’ sectionof Chapter Two, Policy Responses, and are designed tomaximize the benefits to the region from potentiallygreater global travel, trade and tourism.

A wide range of environmental issues for islandcountries are expected to stem from increased travel,trade and tourism. The more obvious include the impactof invasive species, diseases and the question of wastes,as discussed earlier. More subtle are the pressures fromcorporate interests to gain access to genetic resourcesthat may have medicinal or other commercial value. Asnoted previously, no local legislation has been put in placeto give effect to the provisions on intellectual propertyrights in the Convention on Biological Diversity. This isdiscussed in more detail below.

External economic fluctuations, more influential for

small and open economies, will increase the problemsof environmental management. In assessing the impactsof the 1997–98 economic downturn in the Asian region,for example, experts have concluded that the Pacificisland economies, like other SIDS, are characterized bya high degree of vulnerability (Forum Secretariat 1998).For a general treatment of the situation of small statesand the possible development of an index ofvulnerability, see Commonwealth Secretariat (1998).This same description has been used in environmentalreports on the region for many years and in studies onthe effect of natural disasters (see, for example,UNDP/UNDHA 1996, 1997). The new element is thegrowing interaction between globalization as a force inthe Pacific region and the wide spectrum of ecologicalpressures that most countries are experiencing.

The process of public sector reform and economicrestructuring necessary to maximize benefits to theregion will also bring with it challenges and opportunitiesfor environmental protection and sustainabledevelopment. Rapid deregulation, combined with a lossto private firms of skills formerly available in the publicservice, are expected to alter approaches to capacity-building and mechanisms used to ensure environmentallysound practices.

Sound environmental policy will therefore requiretwo additional elements:

● a proper assessment of long-term and downstreamrisks;

Emerging IssuesC

hapt

er F

our

56

● an internalization of all costs, including the cost ofmanaging these risks.

It follows that environmental advisers to governments ofthe region will need ‘a seat at the table’ when significantinvestment decisions are being evaluated. Anotheremerging issue therefore revolves around the choice ofpublic sector mechanisms to achieve this in PICs.

Adaptation to climate changeAs outlined in the ‘Atmosphere’ section in Chapter One,the need to take measures to adapt to climate changeappears inevitable for PICs. These measures will needto address the frequency and intensity of extremeevents, as well as the effect on PICs of sea-level rise –even at the lower end of the prevailing estimates for thenext century.

Some of the possible effects of climate change andsea-level rise that are expected in PICs are noted inTable 4.1.

There are, however, a number of local actions thatcould minimize these negative impacts of climate changeand sea-level rise, should they occur. Improving themanagement of natural coastal systems such as coastalforests, mangroves, beaches, reefs and lagoons, thecareful planning of coastal zone developments, and theconstruction of coastal defences such as sea-walls toprotect particularly valuable and vulnerable sites, are allactions that can be implemented now.

Adaptation strategies will not be cost-free. Thereare, however, ways in which they can be linked to otherinvestments that need to be made and to otherenvironmental objectives discussed elsewhere in thisreport. In other words, an adaptation strategy that isplanned for implementation over 30–50 years willimpose lower costs than one that has to be handled in afive-year period.

Particular emphasis will need to be placed ondevelopment policies, programmes, plans and projects toensure they take into account the likely effects of climatechange and incorporate adaptation as necessary. This is

E M E R G I N G I S S U E S

Coastal zone ● Inundation and flooding of low-lying areas

● Coastal erosion

● Possible increase in cyclone-related effects

● Changes in sediment production due to changes in coral reef systems

Water resources ● Changes in freshwater lenses and other groundwater resources

● Salt intrusion of groundwater resources

● Changes in surface-water resources

● Changes in surface run-off, flooding and erosion

Agriculture ● Changes in commercial crop yields

● Changes in subsistence crop yields

● Changes in plant pest populations

● Possible changes associated with changes in ENSO, drought and cyclone patterns

● Changes in soil quality

Fisheries ● Changes in distribution and abundance of offshore fish species

● Changes in productivity of inshore fisheries

● Changes in fish breeding sites

Ecosystems ● Coral bleaching and coral degradation (also possible increased upward coral growth)

● Changes in mangrove health and distribution

● Degradation of sea grass meadows

● Changes in forest ecosystems

● Changes in wetland systems

Human health ● Increased incidence of vector-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever

● Increased heat stress and heat-related illnesses

● Indirect effects on nutrition and well-being secondary to effects in other sectors, such as agriculture and water resources

● Deaths, injuries and disease outbreaks related to possible increases in extreme events such as cyclones, floods and droughts

Source: SPREP 1999c

Table 4.1: Indicative list of potential impacts of climate change and sea-level rise requiring adaptive responses in PICs

57A C C E S S T O G E N E T I C R E S O U R C E S A N D I N T E L L E C T U A L P R O P E R T Y R I G H T S

of greatest significance for long-term investments (e.g.port development, infrastructure, tourist hotels, tree cropplantations and forestry), where climate change ‘maystress a resource or ecosystem sensitive to climatechange or have an effect on the ability of society to copewith climate change’ (Campbell and de Wet 1999).

In a recent analysis for policy-makers (Campbell andde Wet 1999), three types of proposals were consideredin terms of adaptation and development:

1. Proposals in which the main objective is development.In these projects the adaptation component can beseen as additional, but necessary in order to ensuresustainability. Examples:● infrastructure development;● housing programmes;● agricultural development;● tourism development.

2. Proposals that are specifically adaptation oriented.Examples include:● coastal protection;● developing drought/salt resistant crops;● public awareness programmes on the effects of

climate change and on possible adaptivestrategies.

3. Proposals including capacity-building for dealing withthe likely effects of climate change. Examplesinclude:● institutional development;● human resource development, including:

climate science training;technical training for adaptation;public awareness skills training.

Overall, the optimal adaptation approaches will beanticipatory approaches that facilitate the inclusion ofadaptation options in development.

Access to genetic resources andintellectual property rights

One emerging issue that will increase in importance isaccess to genetic material. As previously noted, thishas already attracted commercial prospectors and, asthe coverage of protected areas increases, there couldbe a growth in back-door or illicit dealings, such ashappens world-wide with endangered bird and animalspecies. The steps that need to be taken at the

legislative level are only one part of the responsestrategy. Conservation staff and managers of protectedareas will need to work with local communities in orderto build awareness and achieve co-operativesurveillance.

Threats to the region’s environment that could resultfrom uncontrolled access include: excessive collectingthat depletes the species being sampled, damage to theecosystems where the sampling occurs, and theaccidental spread of diseases or introduction of alienspecies in the process of collecting. Access should bemanaged, to ensure that collecting is sustainable and thatthe region’s ecosystems are conserved. Control could beachieved through a system of permits for bioprospecting,collecting and export, where permission is grantedprovided specified conditions are met.

One mechanism for the country of origin to share inany benefits that may arise from use of the geneticresource is to require benefit-sharing as a condition ofgranting an access permit. Governments, privatecompanies, individuals and local communities can benefitfrom the results of research, information on researchmethods, training, facilities, fixed payments and royalties.In the case of the TaroGen project commenced in 1998,participating PICs expect to benefit through improvedconservation of taro varieties and the development oftaro varieties that increase food production – the firstgoal is to develop taro varieties resistant to blight.

Controlled access provides a means for parties tothe Convention on Biological Diversity to balance theirobligations under Articles 6 and 15. Parties haveagreed, under Article 6, to ‘develop national strategies,plans or programs for the conservation and sustainableuse of biological diversity’ and, under Article 15, to‘facilitate access to genetic resources……by otherContracting Parties’.

Investors in genetic resources will usually seekintellectual property rights to protect their investment.Intellectual property rights include rights in relation toinventions, such as patent rights, copyright, plant varietyrights, registered and unregistered trademarks includingservice marks, geographical indications, registereddesigns, confidential information (i.e. protection ofundisclosed information in a commercial context,including trade secrets and know how), and all otherrights resulting from intellectual activity in theindustrial, scientific, literary or artistic fields. Note thatpatents give creators exclusive economic rights for onlya limited time and act as an incentive to discloseinformation to the public. In contrast, trade secrets are

58

not time limited and cannot be used by others as a basisfor further innovation.

In developing an access and benefit sharing regime,countries may wish to recognize intellectual propertyrights, including the rights of holders of traditionalknowledge such as the location and traditional uses ofgenetic resources.

This is a category of environmental change thatrequires intensive monitoring and careful considerationof approaches to access and intellectual property. Witha host of immediate administrative pressures to attendto, local agencies will need all the help they can get,including funding. As in the case of offshore fisheries,it is not practicable to seal off the region frompressures that are being felt elsewhere. Coherentdecision-making at the national and regional level can,however, make a difference

E M E R G I N G I S S U E S

References

Acronyms

Participants in the Regional Consultation

References

ADB (in co-operation with SPREP and UNDP) (1992). Environment andDevelopment: A Pacific Island Perspective. Asian Development Bank,Manila.

Baines, G. (1984). Environment and Resources – Managing the SouthPacific’s Future. Ambio, 13, No. 5–6, 355–358.

Boer B. (ed.) (1993). Strengthening Environmental Legislation in thePacific Region. SPREP/IUCN Workshop proceedings, Apia, November 1992.

Bryant D., Burke L., Mc Manus J. and Spalding M. (1998). Reefs at Risk –a map based indicator of the threats to the world’s coral reefs. A jointWRI, ICLARM, WCMC and UNEP publication.

Bryant, J. (1995). The Myth Exploded: Urban Poverty in the Pacific. InEnvironment and Urbanization, 7, No. 2.

Campbell J. and de Wet N. (1999). Climate Change adaptation:Incorporating climate change adaptation into development planningactivities in Pacific island countries – a set guidelines for policy makersand development planners. Prepared for the South Pacific RegionalEnvironment Programme. In press. SPREP, Apia.

Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), 1995. 1995Estimates of CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Burning and CementManufacturing based on the United Nations Energy Statistics andthe US Geological Survey Cement Manufacturing Data.Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Convard N. (1993). Land-based Pollutants Inventory for the South PacificRegion. South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, Apia.

Dalzell, P. and Adams, T (1994). The Present Status of Costal FisheriesProduction in the South Pacific Islands. Working Paper 6, 25th RegionalTechnical Meeting on Fisheries. SPC, Noumea.

ESCAP (1995). Review of the Environment and Development Trends in theSouth Pacific. ESCAP, Port Vila.

ESCAP (1999). Survey of Pacific Island Economies. ESCAP/PacificOperations Centre, Port Vila.

Fairbairn, T. and Tisdell, C. (1994). Applicability and Use of NaturalResource Accounting and Environmental Economics in Small IslandDeveloping States. SPREP, Apia

Forum Secretariat (1993). Forum Comminuqué. South Pacific Forum.Forum Secretariat, Suva.

Forum Secretariat (1998). Forum Economic Action Plan: 1998 Review.Forum Economic Ministers Meeting, Nadi, Fiji, 7–8 July 1998.

Forum Secretariat (1999a). Pers. Comm. Gender Adviser. ForumSecretariat, Suva.

Forum Secretariat (1999b). Pacific island countries, submission to theUnited Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. ForumSecretariat, Suva.

FSM Country Report (1996). Heads of Forestry Meeting, Port Vila, Vanuatu.SPFDP Field Document No. 11.

Fullerton J. (1998). Green Products Study. Forum Secretariat/SPREP, Suva.

Gawel, M. (1998). Official communication. SPREP, Apia.

GEPA (1998). Guam Water Quality Report to Congress, 1998, Federal WaterPollution Control Act (Section 305b).

Given D. R. (1992). An Overview of the Terrestrial Biodiversity of PacificIslands. SPBCP Report. SPREP, Apia.

Goepfert, J. (1998). Official communication. SPREP, Apia.

Government of Kingdom of Tonga (1994). Solid Waste Management Study.Ministry of Health.

GOWS (1994). Western Samoa: National Environment and DevelopmentManagement Strategies. SPREP, Apia.

Houghton, J. T., Filho Meira, L. G., Callander, B. A., Harris, N.,Kattenberg. A. and Maskell, K. (1996). Climate Change 1995: The Scienceof Climate Change; Contribution of the Working Group I to the SecondAssessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Cambridge University Press, IPCC.

IPCC (1998). The Regional Impacts of Climate Change: An Assessment ofVulnerability. Special Report of IPCC Working Group II, WMO/UNEP,Cambridge University Press.

Johannes, R. E. (1982). Traditional Conservation Methods and ProtectedArea Management in Oceania. Ambio 11, No. 5, 258–261.

Jones, R. (1998). An Analysis of the Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol onPacific Island Countries. Part One: Identification of Latent Sea-Level Risewithin the Climate System at 1995 and 2020. A research report preparedfor the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, Apia.

Jones R., Hennessy K. J., Page C. M., Pittock A. B., Suppiah R.,Walsh K. J. E. and Whetton P. H. (1999). An Analysis of the Impacts of theKyoto Protocol on Pacific Island Countries. Part Two: Regional ClimateChange Scenarios and Risk Assessment Methods. A research reportprepared for the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme, Apia.

Lawson, T. (1996). South Pacific Commission Tuna Fishery Yearbook, 1995.SPC, Noumea.

Leary, T. (1993). State of the Environment Report: Solomon Islands. IUCN,SPREP, ADB.

Loerzel, A. (1998a). Protect Our Source of Life: Clean Water. GEPAsupplement to Pacific Daily News, April 17 1998.

Loerzel, A. (1998b). Septic Tanks Threaten Water. GEPA supplement toPacific Daily News, April 17 1998, p.5.

Miles G. (1992). UNCED: a Pacific regional perspective. Review of theEuropean Community and International Environment Law. 1(3), 317–19.

Miles G. (1994). Progress since the Earth Summit. Pacific EconomicBulletin. 8(2), 32–41.

Nunn, P. (1994). Oceanic Islands. Blackwell, Oxford.

Overhoff L. (1998). Pers. comm. South Pacific Regional EnvironmentProgramme, Apia.

Preston G. (1997). Review of Management Regimes for Coastal andOceanic Resources in Pacific Island Countries. SPREP, Apia.

Savage J. A. (1987) Extinction of an Island Forest Avifauna by anIntroduced Snake. Ecology 68, 660–668.

Sisto, N. P. (1998). The Economic Value of Fiji’s Ecosystems. University ofthe South Pacific, Suva.

Smith, A. (ed.) (1993). Coastal Protection in the Pacific Islands: CurrentTrends and Future Prospects. SPREP/SOPAC Joint Publication. SOPAC Misc.Publication No. 177. SPREP, Apia, Samoa.

SOPAC (1997). A Review of Non-living Resources and Threats in thePacific Region (Technical Report No.247). SOPAC, Suva.

60 R E F E R E N C E S

SOPAC (1998). Kiribati Government delegate to regional consultations,Apia, 9–10 November 1998. Pers. Comm.

SOPAC (1999). Official Communication to SPREP. SOPAC, Suva.

SPC (1992). The Pacific Way. Pacific Island Developing Countries Report tothe United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. SouthPacific Commission, Noumea.

SPC (1994, revised 1998). Pacific Island Populations. Secretariat of thePacific Community, Noumea.

SPC (1997). Regional Tuna Bulletin, Fourth Quarter 1997. Ocean FisheriesProgramme. SPC, Noumea.

SPC (1998). Tokelau Population Profile: A Guide for Planners and PolicyMakers. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea.

SPC (revised 1998). Pacific Island Populations. SPC, Noumea.

SPREP (1989). Majuro Declaration on Climate Change. SPREP, Apia.

SPREP (1992). The Pacific Way: Pacific Island Developing Countries’Report to the United Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopment. ADB, UNDP.

SPREP (1993a). Report of the Regional Technical Meeting for Indian andPacific Oceans: Input to the Global Conference on the SustainableDevelopment of Small Island Developing States. SPREP, Apia.

SPREP (1993b). South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Programme(SPBCP): Project Document. SPREP, Apia.

SPREP (1993c). Report of the Regional Technical Meeting for Indian andPacific Oceans: Input to the Global Conference on the SustainableDevelopment of Small Island Developing States, Port Vila, 31 May–4 June1993. SPREP, Apia.

SPREP (1994). Action Strategy for Nature Conservation in the Pacific.SPREP, Apia.

SPREP/ESCAP (1996). Report to the United Nations Commission onSustainable Development on Activities to Implement the BarbadosProgramme of Action in the Pacific Region. Prepared by SPREP jointly withESCAP Pacific Operations Centre and with the financial assistance of theGovernments of Australia and New Zealand.

SPREP (1997a). Strategic Action Program for International Waters in thePacific Islands Region. SPREP, Apia.

SPREP (1997b). Action Plan for Managing the Environment of the SouthPacific Region 1997–2000. SPREP, Apia.

SPREP (1998a). South Pacific Regional Environment Programme AnnualReport 1996/1997. SPREP, Apia.

SPREP (1998b). Report of the Workshop Input to the Pacific IslandsEnvironment Outlook, Apia, 9–10 November 1998. SPREP, Apia.

SPREP (1998c). Pacific Island Ocean Pollution Prevention Programme.SPREP, Apia.

SPREP (1998d). Review of EIA Activities in the Region 1991–97. SPREP,Apia.

SPREP (1998e). Financing Environmental Management. Training materialsprepared for SPREP by ANU, USP and the Maruia Society. SPREP, Apia.

SPREP (1999a). South Pacific Regional Environment Programme AnnualReport 1998. SPREP, Apia.

SPREP (1999b). Overview of threats and management regimes forInternational waters of the Pacific region. Unpublished. SPREP, Apia.

SPREP (1999c). Climate change adaptation: incorporating climate changeadaptation into development activities in Pacific island countries – a setof guidelines for policy makers and development planners. Prepared bythe International Global Change Institute. SPREP, Apia.

SPREP/AusAID (1999). Assessment of Persistent Organic Pollutant inPacific Island Countries. SPREP/AusAID, Canberra.

Steadman D. W. (1995). Prehistoric Extinctions of Pacific Island Birds:Biodiversity Meets Zooarchaeology. Science 267, 1123–31.

Thistlethwaite R. (1996). State of Environment Reporting for the SouthPacific. Prepared for SPREP’s consultation of State of the EnvironmentReporting, March 18, 1996, Suva. SPREP, Apia.

Thistlethwaite, R. and Votaw G. (1992). Environment and Development: APacific Island Experience. ADB, Manila.

Thistlethwaite, R., Sheppard, D. and Prescott, N. for the Government of theKingdom of Tonga (1993). The Kingdom of Tonga: Action Strategy forManaging the Environment. IUCN, SPREP, ADB.

Tsamenyi M. (1996). Evaluation of the Implications of the UN Conventionon the Law of the Sea for SPREP Activities. SPREP, Apia.

UNDP (1994). Pacific Human Development Report: Putting People First.Provisional edition. Suva, Fiji.

UNDP (1996). The State of Human Settlements and Urbanization in thePacific Islands: Regional Report on Pacific Island Countries Served by theUnited Nations Development Programme, Suva, Fiji for the United NationsConference on Human Settlements (Habitat II), Istanbul, Turkey, 3–14June 1996. UNDP, Suva.

UNDP/UNDHA (1996). Natural Disaster Mitigation in Pacific IslandCountries. In conjunction with South Pacific Disaster ReductionProgramme, Suva. UNDP, Suva.

UNDP/UNDHA (1997). The Economic Impact of Natural Disasters in theSouth Pacific. In conjunction with South Pacific Disaster ReductionProgramme, Suva. UNDP, Suva.

United Nations Population Division (1996). Annual Populations 1950-2050(the 1996 Revision). On diskette. UN, New York.

Watson, T. R., Zinyowera, C. M. and Moss, H. R. (1998). The RegionalImpacts of Climate Change. An Assessment of Vulnerability. A SpecialReport of IPCC Working Group II. WMO/UNEP, Cambridge University Press,IPCC.

World Bank (1995a). Managing Urban Environmental Sanitation Servicesin Selected Pacific Island Countries. World Bank, Washington D.C.

World Bank (1995b). Towards Higher Growth in Pacific Islands Economies:Lessons from the 1980s. World Bank, Washington D.C.

World Bank (1999). Voices from the Village: A Comparative Study ofCoastal Resource Management in the Pacific Islands. (Draft report: not forcirculation.) Pacific Islands Discussion Paper Series, No 9, East Asia andPacific Region, Papua New Giuinea and Pacific Islands CountryManagement Unit, World Bank, Washington, D.C.

World Health Organization (1996). Guidelines for Municipal Solid WasteManagement in Pacific Island Countries. WHO Western Pacific Region.

Zann, L. P. (1992). Marine Biodiversity Review of Western Samoa.Unpublished Report. South Pacific Regional Environment Programme,Apia.

61R E F E R E N C E S

Acronyms

ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific

ADB Asian Development Bank

ALC Automatic Location Communicator

AOSIS Alliance of Small Island States

APEC Association of Pacific Exporting Countries

BPOA Barbados Programme of Action

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CBEMP Capacity Building for Environmental Management in thePacific

CCD Convention on Combating Desertification

CDM Clean Development Mechanism

CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species

CMS Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocksand Highly Migratory Species

COP Conference of the Parties

CROP Council of Regional Organizations for the Pacific

CSD4 Fourth Session of the Commission on SustainableDevelopment

DPGs Domestically Prohibited Goods

EDF European Development Fund

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ESCAP Economic and Social Commission of Asia and the Pacific

EU European Union

FAD Fish Aggregate Device

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

FCCC Framework Convention on Climate Change

FEMM Forum Economic Ministers Meeting

FFA Forum Fisheries Agency

FS Forum Secretariat

FSM Federated States of Micronesia

FTA Free Trade Area

GEF Global Environmental Facility

GEO Global Environment Outlook

GEPA Guam Environmental Protection Agency

GLASSOD Global Assessment of Soil Degradation

GPA Global Programme of Action for the Protection of theMarine Environment from Land Based Activities

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

IMO International Maritime Organization

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature andNatural Resources

LMOs Living Modified Organisms

MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollutionfrom Ships

MEA Multilateral Environmental Agreements

MHFM Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks

MSG Melanesian Spearhead Group

NEMS National Environmental Management Strategy

NGO Non-Government Organization

NWFPs Non-Wood Forest Products

PENRIC Pacific Environment and Natural Resource InformationCentre

PIANGO Pacific Islands Association of NGOs

PICCAP Pacific Islands Climate Change Association Programme

PICs Pacific Island Countries

PIDCs Pacific Island Developing Countries – Cook Islands, Fiji,Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Republic of theMarshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Papua New Guinea, Palau,Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu

PIDP Pacific Islands Development Program

PNG Papua New Guinea

PNGRIS Papua New Guinea Resource Information System

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

REPA Regional Economic Partnership Agreement

RIP Regional Indicative Programme

SAP Strategic Action Programme

SIDS Small Island Developing States

SOER State of the Environment Report

SOPAC South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission

SPBCP South Pacific Biodiversity Conservation Programme

SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community

SPREP South Pacific Regional Environment Programme

TCSP Tourism Council of the South Pacific

TNF The Nature Conservancy

UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment andDevelopment

UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea

UNDHA United Nations Division of Humanitarian Affairs

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

UNIA United Nations Implementing Agreement

USP University of the South Pacific

WHO World Health Organization

WMO World Meteorological Organization

WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

62 A C R O N Y M S

63P A R T I C I P A N T S I N T H E R E G I O N A L C O N S U L T A T I O N

GOVERNMENTS

AMERICAN SAMOA

Mr Lelei PeauActing Director, Department of CommerceOffice of GovernorPago PagoAmerican SamoaTel: (684) 633 5155Fax: (684) 633 4195E-mail: lpeau@ocean.nos.noaa.gov

AUSTRALIA

Ms Janet DonnellyProgram Manager, Environment andNatural ResourcesPacific Regional SectionGPO Box 887Canberra Act 2601Tel: (612) 6206 4546Fax: (612) 6206 4720E-mail: janet_donnelly@ausaid.gov.au

COOK ISLANDS

Ms Tania TemataSenior Environment OfficerCook Islands Environment ServiceMinistry of Foreign Affairs andImmigrationGovernment of the Cook IslandsP O Box 105Rarotonga Cook IslandsTel: (682) 29347/21256Fax: (682) 21247/22256

Mr Stuart PorterNational Food InspectorDepartment of Health, Education, andSocial AffairsDept of Foreign AffairsP O Box P.S.123Palikir, PohnpeiFM 96941Tel: (691) 320 2641/2513

Fax: (691) 320 2933E-mail: eservice@taporoporo.gov.ck

FIJI

Mr Manasa SovakiPrincipal Environmental OfficerMinistry of Local GovernmentHousing and EnvironmentP O Box 2131Government BuildingsSuva, FIJITel: (679) 311 699Fax: (679) 312879

GUAM

Mr Mike GawelEnvironmental PlannerGuam Environmental Protection AgencyP O Box 22439 GMFBarrigadaGUAM 96921Tel: (671) 475 1658/9Fax: (671) 477 94 0 2E-mail: mgawel@ns.gov.gu

KIRIBATI

Mrs Tererei AbeteEnvironment CoordinatorMinistry of Environment and SocialDevelopmentP O Box 234Bikenibeu, TarawaKiribatiTel: (686) 28 593Fax: (686) 28 334E-mail: mesd2@eskl.net.ki

NEW ZEALAND

Mr Vince McBrideDeputy DirectorEnvironment DivisionMinistry of Foreign Affairs and TradeStafford House, 40 The TerracePrivate Bag 18901Wellington, New ZealandTel: (644) 494 8500Fax: (644) 494 8507E-mail: env@mft.govt.nz

Mr D. A. Philipp Muller17 Watling StreetMt EdenAuckland 3New ZealandTel: (64() 638 9255Fax: (649) 638 9252E-mail: xfalle@ihug.co.nz

NIUE

Mr Crossley TatuiDirectorDepartment of Community AffairsP O Box 77AlofiNiueTel: (683) 4021/4019Fax: (683) 4391

PALAU

Mr Donald Dengokl Environmental SpecialistPalau Environmental Quality andProtection Board (EQPB)Office of the MinisterMinistry of StateRepublic of PalauTel: (680) 488 2509/488 1639Fax: (680) 488 2443/488 3600E-mail: eqpb@belau.com

SAMOA

Ms Easter GaluvaoSenior BioDiversity OfficerDepartment of Lands and EnvironmentBeach RoadApia, SamoaTel: (685) 23 358/23 800Fax: (685) 23 176/23 174E-mail: envdlse@samoa.net

Ms Andrea Williams-StewartSenior Foreign Affairs OfficerMinistry of Foreign AffairsGovernment BuildingsApia, SamoaTel: (685) 25 313Fax: (685) 21 504

Ms Fetoloa’i AlamaEnvironment Planning OfficerDepartment of Lands and EnvironmentBeach RoadApia, SamoaTel: (685) 23 358/23 800Fax: (685) 23 176/23 174E-mail: envdlse@samoa.net

Participants in the Pacific Islands Environment Outlook RegionalConsultation Meeting, 9-10 November 1998, Samoa

TONGA

Ms Netatua PrescottHead of the Environment Planning andConservation SectionMinistry of Lands, Survey and NaturalResourcesTongaTel: (676) 23 210 or 23 611Fax: (676) 23 216 or 25051E-mail: netatua.epacs@candw.to

TUVALU

Mrs Seinati Willy Acting Aerology OfficerMeteorological OfficeVaiakuTuvaluTel: (688) 20102Fax: (688) 20820

VANUATU

Mr Earnest BaniHead, Environment UnitPMB 063Port VilaVanuatuTel: (678) 25302Fax: (678) 23 565Email: environment@vanuatu.gov.vu

WALLIS ET FUTUNA

Mr Jean Paul GoepfertIngènieur AgronomeMinistere De L’AgricultureEt De La PecheRepublique FrancaiseTerritoire Des Iles MatautuWallis Et FutunaTel: (681) 722823Fax: (681) 722544Email: jpgoepfert@hotmail.com

SPOCC AGENCIES

FORUM SECRETARIAT

Mr John LowResource AdviserDevelopment and Economic PolicyDivisionForum SecretariatPrivate Mail BagSuvaFijiTel: (679) 312 600Fax: (679) 300 192

Iosefa MaiavaDirectorDevelopment and Economic PolicyDivisionForum SecretariatPrivate Mail BagSuvaFijiTel: (679) 312 600Fax: (679) 300 192

SOUTH PACIFIC APPLIED GEOSCIENCECOMMISSION (SOPAC)

Dr Russell HoworthProgram Manager SOPACPrivate Mail BagSuvaFijiTel: (679) 381 377Fax: (679) 370 040E-mail: Russell@sopac.org.fj

Dr Ursula KalyEnvironmental AdviserEVI-Project AdviserSOPACTuvalu GovernmentFunafutiTuvaluTel: (688) 20181/20999Fax: (688) 20820Email: uschikaly@bigpond.com

Mr Craig PrattEVI-Project CoordinatorSOPACPrivate Mail BagSuvaFijiTel: (679) 381 377Fax: (679) 370 040Email: craig@sopac.org.fj

TOURISM COUNCIL OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC(TCSP)

Ms Teresa Ngau-ChunManager Research and DevelopmentTCSPLevel 3, FNPF Place343-359 Victoria ParadeP O Box 13119Suva, Fiji IslandsTel: (679) 304 177Fax: (679) 301 995E-mail: spice@is.com.fj

peautoa@hotmail.com

THE UNIVERSITY OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC (USP)

Ms Bale TamataManager of Environment UnitInstitute of Applied SciencesUSP P O Box 1168SuvaFIJITel: (679) 313 900 ext 2251 or (679) 302 403Fax: (679) 300 373E-mail: Tamata_b@usp.ac.fj

FORUM FISHERIES AGENCY (FFA)

Ms Barbara HanchardFFAP O Box 629HoniaraSolomon IslandsTel: (677) 21124Fax: (677) 23995

UNITED NATIONS AGENCIES (UN) AND OTHER ORGANISATIONS

UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME(UNEP)

Dr Marion CheatleProgramme OfficerSOER/DEIAEWUNEPP.O.Box 30552NairobiKenyaTel: (254 2) 623520Fax: (254 2) 623944Email: Marion.cheatle@unep.org

Mr Choudhury Rudra Charan MohantyProgramme SpecialistUnited Nations Environment ProgrammeEnvironment Assessment Program forAsia-Pacific (UNEP/EAP-AP)Outreach Building, Room No-304, UNEP/EAP-AP, A.I.T,P O Box 4Klong Luang, Pathumthanl,Thailand 12120Tel: (66 2) 524 6240 Fax: (66 2) 516 2125/524 6233E-mail: mohyng@ait.ac.th

Mr David SmithProgramme OfficerUNEPPO Box 30552NairobiKenyaTel: (254 2) 624 059/623 243Fax: (254 2) 624 249Email: david.smith@unep.org

P A R T I C I P A N T S I N T H E R E G I O N A L C O N S U L T A T I O N64

UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME(UNDP)

Dr Jenny Bryant TokalauSustainable Development AdvisorUNDPPrivate Mail BagSuvaFIJITel: (679) 312 500Fax: (679) 301 718E-mail: jbryant@undp.org.fj

Mr Tom Twining-WardUNDPPrivate Mail Bag Apia , SamoaTel: (685) 23555Fax: (685) 23670E-mail: t.twining@samoa.net

EUROPEAN UNION (EU)

Mr Peter HughesEUP O Box 3023ApiaSamoaTel: (685) 20070Fax: (685) 24622

OTHER AGENCIES/NGO’S/PRIVATE SECTORREPRESENTATIVES

Dr. Vili A FuavaoDirectorFAO Sub-Regional Representative for thePacificPrivate Mail BagApia, SamoaTel: (685) 20710Fax: (685) 22126E-mail: FAO-SAP@field.fao.org

Mr Masa Izumi, SAPAFishery OfficerFAO Sub-Regional Representative for thePacificPrivate Mail BagApia, SamoaTel: (685) 20710Fax: (685) 22126E-mail: FAO-SAP@field.fao.org

Mr Jeffry OlegerillMember, Board of DirectorsPalau Visitors AuthorityOffice of the MinisterMinistry of StateRepublic of PalauTel: (680) 488 2509Fax: (680) 488 2443

Ms Leilani NgirturongExecutive DirectorPalau Chamber of CommerceP O Box 6021Republic of PalauTel: (680) 488 3400Fax: (680) 488 3401E-mail: pcoc@palaunet.com

Mr Harkai PihigiaManaging DirectorHakitechNiue IslandTel: (683) 4377Fax: (683) 4377Email: hakitech@sin.net.nu

RESOURCE PEOPLE

Mr Ken PiddingtonConsultant1 Harrold StreetHighbury, Wellington 6005New ZealandTel: (644) 475 3453Fax: (644) 475 4090E-mail: kenpid@compuserve.com

Mr James AthertonO le Siosiomaga SocietyTaufusiApiaSamoaTel: (685) 25 897/21 993Fax: (685) 21 993

SPREP SECRETARIAT

Tel: (685) 21929Fax: (685) 20231E-mail: sprep@sprep.org.ws

Mr Gerald MilesHead, Environmental Management andPlanning Division

Mr Neale FarmerEnvironmental Assessment and ReportingOfficer

Mr Petelo IoaneGIS/Database Assistant Officer

Ms Seema DeoEnvironmental Education Officer

Mr Andrea VolentrasLegal Officer

Ms Olivia PartschSecretary, Environmental Managementand Planning Division

Ms Saunoa Mata’uConference Assistant

P A R T I C I P A N T S I N T H E R E G I O N A L C O N S U L T A T I O N 65

GGlloobbaallEEnnvviirroonnmmeennttOOuuttllooookk

GGlloobbaallEEnnvviirroonnmmeennttOOuuttllooookk

The Pacific Islands Environment Outlook is a report from the Global EnvironmentOutlook (GEO) programme of UNEP. The global publication of this programme, theGlobal Environment Outlook 2000 (GEO-2000) (ISBN: 1 85383 588 9), can be orderedfrom Earthscan Publications Ltd, 120 Pentonville Road, London N1 9JN, UK. Tel: +44 (0)171 278 0433Fax: +44 (0)171 278 1142WWW: http://www.earthscan.co.uk

GEO-2000 is a comprehensive and authoritative review and analysis ofenvironmental conditions around the world. It is the flagship publication of the world’sleading environmental organization, the United Nations Environment Programme(UNEP), and is based on information provided by more than 30 regional andinternational collaborating centres.

The Pacific Islands Environment Outlook is a report from the Global Environment Outlook (GEO) programme of UNEP.