Suriname GEF National Dialoguegef.prisenet.com/docs/cty/210.pdf · 2011-05-11 · Suriname GEF...

Suriname GEF National DialogueSuriname GEF National DialogueSuriname GEF National Dialogue

July 14 ‐ 15, 2009

Paramaribo, Suriname

Proceedings

Ministry of Labour, Technological Development and Environment

Global Environment Facility

English version

SSSuuurrriiinnnaaammmeee GGGEEEFFF NNNaaatttiiiooonnnaaalll DDDiiiaaallloooggguuueee

July 14 ‐ 15, 2009

Paramaribo, Suriname

Proceedings

Ministry of Labour, Technological Development and Environment

Global Environment Facility

Suriname GEF National Dialogue July 14 ‐ 15, 2009

Compiled by Environmental Services & Support Page | 2

Colofon These proceedings are published on behalf of the Ministry of Labour, Technological Development and Environment in Suriname Paramaribo, Suriname – July 2009 Reporting, editing, graphic design and photography: Mr. Rutger de Wolf Environmental Services & Support, Paramaribo, Suriname The opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors and the National Dialogue participants and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Ministry of Labour, Technological Development and Environment or the Global Environment Facility.



Table of contents

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................................................................................ 4 SESSION 1: OPENING AND INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 5

Welcome remark by the Ministry of ATM.......................................................................................................... 5 Welcome remark by the UNDP .......................................................................................................................... 5 Welcome remark by the IDB .............................................................................................................................. 5 Welcome remark by the GEF Secretariat ........................................................................................................... 6 Opening statement by the Minister of ATM ...................................................................................................... 6 Overview of dialogue objectives and agenda..................................................................................................... 7

SESSION 2: OVERVIEW OF RECENT GEF DEVELOPMENTS....................................................................................... 9 Brief introduction to the GEF ............................................................................................................................. 9 GEF Focal Areas & Cross‐Cutting Strategies ..................................................................................................... 11 Project Cycle..................................................................................................................................................... 16 GEF 5 Replenishment ....................................................................................................................................... 19

SESSION 3: NATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN RELATION TO THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONVENTIONS .................. 20 UNFCCC: National strategies and priorities...................................................................................................... 20 UNCBD: National strategies and priorities ....................................................................................................... 20 UNCCD: National strategies and priorities ....................................................................................................... 21 NCSA project: National strategies and priorities.............................................................................................. 21 POPs: National strategies and priorities........................................................................................................... 21 POPs awareness video...................................................................................................................................... 21

SESSION 4: PRESENTATION OF TWO POTENTIAL PROJECT PROPOSALS FOR SURINAME WITH THE FOCUS ON CO‐FINANCING............................................................................................................................................................ 25

Mainstreaming Biodiversity and Climate Change – IDB procedures................................................................ 25 Suriname Coastal Protected Area Management.............................................................................................. 27

SESSION 5: SMALL GRANTS PROGRAMME SURINAME......................................................................................... 31 Identification of opportunities for up scaling SGP projects ............................................................................. 31

SESSION 6: FIELD VISIT (SARAMACCA) .................................................................................................................. 34 Introduction...................................................................................................................................................... 34 Farmer 1: Mr. Robert Kriontani........................................................................................................................ 34 Farmer 2: Mr. Guno Sanrasid ........................................................................................................................... 35 Farmer 3: Mr. Randjietpersad Ajodiah............................................................................................................. 36

SESSION 7: CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS.................................................................... 38 ANNEX I PROGRAM OF THE SURINAME GEF NATIONAL DIALOGUE..................................................................... 39 ANNEX II PARTICIPANTS OF THE SURINAME GEF NATIONAL DIALOGUE.............................................................. 42 ANNEX III BACKGROUND INFORMATION TO THE FIELD VISIT .............................................................................. 45



BACKGROUND INFORMATION The GEF National Dialogue is a (multiple) consultation process providing stakeholders at national level the opportunity to discuss on the Global Environment Facility (GEF). On July 14th and 15th 2009 the Ministry of Labour, Technological Development and Environment (ATM) organized in cooperation with the GEF a National Dialogue for Suriname aimed to raise awareness about the GEF and to strengthen the national coordination. Next, ATM aimed at linking country GEF priorities and strategies to broader national environment and development processes, in collaboration with participants to the National Dialogue. Several representatives of the GEF Secretariat, UNDP and IDB attended the National Dialogue. The program consisted of several sessions, of which the first day mainly covered presentations and discussions on GEF and the national activities regarding the Multilateral Environmental Agreements and GEF. The second day started with a presentation on the Small Grants Programme after which a field visit to the district of Saramacca was organized to visit a specific Small Grants Project. This second day was closed with several conclusions and recommendations. See for more information on the National Dialogue Initiative the last paragraph of Session 1 and on the GEF the first paragraph of Session 2. See also www.gefcountrysupport.org



SESSION 1: OPENING AND INTRODUCTION Ms. S. de Meza (ATM) extended a warm welcome to the participants for the two‐day dialogue, and expressed the goal of the Suriname GEF National Dialogue: to raise awareness about the GEF and to strengthen the country coordination, and to indicate with participants the priorities and strategies. The GEF is an independent international financial organization stimulating global nature protection and sustainable development by making funds available. ATM is the operational Focal Point of the GEF in Suriname, and is responsible for the implementation of the projects.

Welcome remark by the Ministry of ATM Ms. I. Patterzon, alternate GEF Operational Focal Point Very welcome at this National Dialogue. My colleague just expressed the goal of this National Dialogue. I expect that at the end of the National Dialogue we will be able to express the national priorities for the GEF and that we can agree on how to expend available means to contribute to the global environmental issues. I wish you a fruitful dialogue.

Welcome remark by the UNDP Mrs. M. de Castro, UNDP Resident Representative I am delighted to be here this morning with you. UNDP is one of the executing agencies to the GEF and has a unique feature: we have prepared all submissions from this country to the GEF. We have a good cooperation with our partners here in Suriname and support creative and effective projects to GEF. We support the National Dialogue and co‐financing of activities to introduce sustainable environmental processes with representatives of a wide variety of local businesses. We are here today to get a greater understanding of the GEF procedures. This will also create ownership of initiatives in this country. In our relationship with the government and the people of Suriname, we should conserve the environment of this country and identify the essential issues. UNDP has moreover the Small Grants Programme (SGP), which has been supporting GEF focal areas and is a very successful program in this country. We look forward to the discussions in the development of sound sustainable strategies to conserve the environment of this country and I wish you success in the deliberations and look forward to a very productive dialogue.

Welcome remark by the IDB Mr. A. Brewster, IDB Representative Thank you for the opportunity to share some of the IDB insides. I myself as technical specialist several years ago had the opportunity to work with the GEF. In particular with regard to energy, reducing impacts of electricity operations on the environment. I am very pleased that Suriname is taking the initiative to take a part of the GEF. The Inter‐American Development Bank (IDB) considers itself to be partner to Suriname in the quest for environmental balances. In this regard we have our strategy (2006‐2010). The first focus area is the development of the private sector. The idea is to increase the contribution of the private sector to the GDP. The second focus is on the modernization of the public sector, to improve the supportive, facilitating and regulatory role in which the public sector is inspiring national development. The third focus area is on internal integration, including the development of the vast interior of Suriname in the economic mainstream of Suriname. We have pursued several activities in cooperation with the government of Suriname for instance the draft environmental legislation, and now we can appreciate the fruits of the cooperation between the government and the IDB to preserve the environment. This cooperation aims to mainstream management and sustainable exploitation of the vast natural resources, the forests, that allows sustainable development for both Suriname and the global community. We are taking part in this development with a team of specialists and experts. I want to emphasize the government of



Suriname is taking this initiative, and we expect to seek ways to mainstream the issues of managing the forest in a sustainable way, because of the pressure on forests for development. The answer is not to log it away, but to seek a way how to combine different kinds of interests. I stimulate you for discussion and reflection, so that we stand ready at the end of the Dialogue to work together.

Welcome remark by the GEF Secretariat Mr. W. Ehlers, Team leader External Affairs of the GEF Secretariat I am delighted to contribute to the work you are actively doing here in Suriname. This is an opportunity to increase the knowledge on GEF, to get greater understanding so you get the best advantage of them, and a great opportunity for coordination and interaction at National level. This kind of dialogue brings people from different areas together. This is also about the future. GEF cycles are developed for four years, we are now at the end of the fourth (GEF 4, to end June 2010), and will start the fifth (GEF 5) next year (from July 2010 onward), to be established by the GEF assembly in Uruguay. It is also important to think of GEF how we can help you to achieve your objectives. Sometimes people are thinking about environmental projects and the GEF in the way of: ”What do I need to do get the max?” This is not always very helpful. The best way is to think: “What are our objectives and plans, what are we trying to do, what are our strategies?” And then: “How can GEF help us to achieve them?” The partnership will be much more effective if you start from that point.

Opening statement by the Minister of ATM Hon. Mrs. Drs. J.D. Amarello‐Williams It is my personal satisfaction to speak to you at the opening of the GEF National Dialogue. We are here together to hare something with each other. This GEF National Dialogue is aimed to inform all stakeholders as much as possible on GEF and developments that take place within GEF, and to identify with you how to cater to these developments. Today it is the first meeting of actors that are directly connected to project development and implementation of the GEF focal areas. The GEF is established in 1991 – 1992 and as independent international financial organization it is aimed at promoting global protection of the environment and sustainable development, by making available funds to developing countries. The GEF is also the designated financing mechanism for Multilateral Environmental Agreements, in specific the agreements on biodiversity, climate change, land degradation (and desertification), persistent organic pollutants (Stockholm convention), which are all within the portfolio of the Ministry of ATM. Suriname is blessed with natural resources such as forests, water and mineral resources. However, last years we are confronted with serious environmental threats, leading to air, water and soil pollution. Little attention is furthermore given to the negative environmental impacts of natural resource exploitation. To reach proper policy regarding sustainable development of Suriname, the Government of Suriname identified environment as one of the six sectors. The environmental policy pays attention to biodiversity, management of chemicals, waste management, sustainable land management, atmosphere, renewable energy and sustainable water management. The GEF focal areas (biodiversity, climate change, land degradation, depletion of the ozone layer, international waters and persistent organic polluters) correspond to a large extent with our national environmental policy. Since 1994, Suriname has a relationship with GEF. Through the membership with the previous mentioned agreements, Suriname is able to cooperate with the GEF to implement programs and projects to strengthen the country against the negative impacts on our environment, such as soil erosion, landscape destruction, sea level rise, salination and loss of biodiversity. The cooperation with the GEF has led to the realization of several studies and reports and as such it has contributed to capacity building through increasing knowledge, insights and awareness. The program that already is implemented in Suriname with GEF financing is the Small Grants Programme (SGP), operational since 1997 and hosted at the UNDP. Within GEF we can also use financing for the implementation of full



size and medium size projects, enabling activities to support implementation of the Multilateral Environmental Agreements and project planning. The Ministry of ATM will also develop cooperation mechanisms and partnerships in order to be able to implement her tasks regarding the environment. Adequate and reliable data and information dispersion is an essential basis for the formulation of purposeful environmental policies. The commitment of actors in this decision‐making process is indispensable. It is concluded at international level, that it is necessary to pay attention to the integration of GEF priorities in the development process of developing countries. Otherwise the gap between developed and developing countries will increase. It appears that institutes are too reserved to submit project to be presented to the GEF. That’s why since 2006 ATM organized several consultation meetings with select groups of stakeholders, and amongst them the members of the biodiversity and climate change commission. As follow‐up was mentioned that a broader consultation with participation of a large group of stakeholders is desired. It is of crucial importance that organizations show more effective participation at national level with regards to GEF projects. Initiatives that are accomplished for GEF projects must be country driven. However, to often such initiatives are coming from donors, running the risk that national and regional priorities are not encountered. It seems that this is changing now. Together we need to have a more active consultation that will result in a national oriented view and the development of own initiatives. This will create a broader support for further action at policy level. I express the hope that this National Dialogue, which has an interactive approach, will give you more insight in the working of GEF and the possibilities this global environmental fund is offering for the preparation and implementation of environmental projects. This will strengthen us in our ambition of sustainable development. Finally, I wish you a fruitful and successful dialogue and declare this National Dialogue to be opened.

Overview of dialogue objectives and agenda Mr. S. Gold, GEF CSP The National Dialogue Initiative is a corporate program of the GEF and supports countries to undertake national stakeholder dialogues. What makes the GEF a unique facility, is that if you read the GEF Instrument document you find language referencing the importance of multi‐stakeholder dialogue in determining how GEF resources are spent. The whole GEF begins with multi stakeholders analyses; it is fundamental to the GEF. That’s why the GEF funds the National Dialogue Initiative on GEF related themes and issues. There are up to 12 National Dialogues held in different countries every year, and 93 National Dialogues have taken place to date. Suriname is hosting now its first National Dialogue. Some of the global objectives regarding the National Dialogues are to raise awareness on GEF’s strategic directions and issues and promoting understanding of policies and procedures, to strengthen country coordination and ownership in GEF operations and share lessons learned from project implementation, to achieve greater integration of GEF activities into national planning frameworks and to reach better coordination and synergies between GEF and convention issues at the national level. The National Dialogue objectives in Suriname are:

• Increase awareness about GEF and its revised strategies, policies and procedures in sustainable development context of Suriname among broad array of national stakeholders;

• Review Suriname’s national activities as they relate to the Global Environmental Conventions and GEF’s funding priorities with an outlook toward GEF 5 funding cycle;

• Review Suriname’s proposed projects in biodiversity and climate change using GEF 4 resources;

• Identify concrete opportunities to upscale the GEF Small Grants Programme during a field visit.



The National Dialogue agenda includes several sessions (presented in the PowerPoint slide below). The second session is primarily aimed at awareness raising, giving a series of presentations on e.g. the different focal areas and the GEF project cycle. The third session focuses on sector presentations regarding the Multi‐lateral Environmental Agreements, and during the fourth session two projects will be discussed that are developed for GEF 4. There will be ample opportunity for discussion, and we are looking forward to active participation. There will also be a side event: the signing of the project document for the second national communication (with regards to UNFCCC). Tomorrow, the fifth session will focus on the GEF Small Grants Programme (SGP) in Suriname, followed by a field visit: the idea is not only to visit GEF in action, but also to look at opportunities for up scaling a small grants project.

National Dialogue Initiative in Suriname

National Dialogue agenda includes:Session 1: Opening and Welcome RemarksSession 2: Overview of Recent GEF DevelopmentsSession 3: National Activities in relation to the Global

Environmental ConventionsSession 4: Presentation of 2 Potential Project

Proposals for Suriname with the Focus on Co-financing

Session 5: GEF Small Grants Programme (SGP) in Suriname

Session 6: Field Visit

Figure 1: Overview of National Dialogue Initiative in Suriname

We do have a group of senior and talented resource persons from the GEF Secretariat, the IDB and UNDP, with extensive experience with the GEF, and participants are encouraged to take the opportunity to consult with them outside of the plenary. For more information on the National Dialogue Initiative, please visit the programme WebPages at: www.gefcountrysupport.org, specifically: http://www.gefcountrysupport.org/report_detail.cfm?projectId=164



SESSION 2: OVERVIEW OF RECENT GEF DEVELOPMENTS

Brief introduction to the GEF Mr. W. Ehlers, Team leader External Affairs The GEF was one of the results of the Rio Conference, during which also Agenda 21 was designed. However, the activities that were identified would be very expensive, and donors tried to find a way to channel their contributions. The industrialized countries had caused damage to the environment and they wanted developing countries to follow a different path, so they would follow a sustainable path; that was the central idea. GEF supposed to channel resources to the first essentials to benefit the global environment and to finance the incremental costs. That is a difficult concept, but in short it means: if you have a normal traditional development project and you want to make it environmentally sustainable, than that would cost additional money. That surplus can be financed by GEF. The essence is that when you use a different methodology that is more environmentally sustainable, but also more expensive, the difference would be paid for. GEF is linked to the negotiation process and based on the philosophy of the Convention on Biological Diversity and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. GEF initially focused on biodiversity, climate change and international (shared) water bodies, but the focal areas were extended in 2002 to land degradation and POPs.

Figure 2: GEF Governance Framework Figure 2 presents how the GEF is governed. Some clarifications:

• GEF Assembly: plenary where all countries each four years meet and launch the replenishment cycle: the countries decide on priorities, donors decide how much money they provide.

• Conventions: GEF is financial mechanism to the conventions, so during the conventions also instructions are given to the GEF.

• GEF Council: More immediate task of working with GEF is carried out by the GEF Council that meets twice a year and consists of 42 constituencies, of which 16 are developing countries and countries in transition, and 18 are from donor countries.

• STAP: Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel. The team that looks at the project, reveals them, and ensures that projects include most popular science.

STAP GEF

Assembly Countries: Political FPs

GEF Secretariat

GEF Agencies •UNDP •UNEP •World Bank •ADB •AFDB •EBRD •IDB •FAO •IFAD •UNIDO

Projects Countries: Operational Focal Points, Convention Focal Points, other gov’t

agencies, civil society

Evaluation Office

Conventions Countries:

Convention FPs

GEF Council Countries: Council

Members/ Constituencies

Strategic Guidance

Operations Action



• Evaluation office: an independent office who is constantly working on reviewing what GEF Secretariat does, evaluating the country programs, and evaluating the overall performance study for the fourth replenishment period.

• GEF Secretariat: manages the GEF day to day and has a number of teams, to help countries and their representatives (focal points).

• GEF Agencies: The GEF started in the beginning as a partnership, establishing a small secretariat, and not to create a large international organization, but using the organizations that already exist and use their resources through a partnership. Started with three agencies: UNDP, UNEP and World Bank. Different to other organizations, GEF was not created by countries that signed the agreement, but they gave an instruction. GEF made a trust fund at the World Bank. The other agencies (Asian Development Bank, African Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Inter‐American Development Bank, Food and Agriculture Organization, International Fund for Agricultural Development, United Nations Industrial Development Organization) were not at first executing agencies, but worked through the other agencies. As from the last three years, all executing agencies operate at equal level. Projects from Suriname mostly go through the IDB and UNDP.

• Projects: The countries decide what their projects are going to be. The political focal point is normally associated with Foreign Affairs, who follows the formal political side of GEF, while the operational focal point is most in contact with the projects, the person who endorse the letter that comes to the GEF.

There was first the pilot phase (1991‐1994 with US$ 1 Billion), than the replenishments:

• 1995‐1998: US$2.2 Billion • 1999‐2001: US$2.8 Billion • 2002‐2005: US$2.9 Billion • 2006‐2010: US$3.1 Billion

The amounts are in fact not increasing, partly due to the decreasing dollar value. Numbers in figure 3 are little out of date, but it shows the proportions regarding the different focal areas: the amount of money is highest for biodiversity and climate change.

Figure 3: GEF Portfolio, as of December 2007 in US$ millions The Resource Allocation Framework is about how we distribute the money. The first three cycles it what basically a process of submitting proposals, reviewing them (if they were correct, according to the standards) and then going to the pipeline as the money appears in the order the projects were

$2.521,83

$2.527,37

$969,42

$348,87

$865,58$182,73 $241,42 BIODIVERSITY

CLIMATE CHANGE

INTERNATIONALWATERS

LAND DEGRADATION

MULTI-FOCAL AREAS

OZONE DEPLETION

PERSISTENT ORGANICPOLLUTANTS (POPs)

TOTAL GEF GRANTS: US$ 7,657.22 TOTAL CO‐FINANCING: US$ 28,509.20 TOTAL US$ 36,166.42



financed. This was found not as efficient as it should be. At the end of GEF 3 it was decided to (at least for climate change and biodiversity) set aside allocations that are to be distributed among the countries, among specified criteria. The design that came up existed of 1 million for biodiversity and 1 million for climate change, the other 1 million was distributed among the other areas. First 10% was taken of for regional and global projects and for the Small Grant Programme. The rest was distributed among the countries for which allocations were based on global environmental benefits and country level performance (country specific allocations). It was however decided to distribute until they get to 75%, the rest of resources is no country specific allocations, but is shared among them. So countries receive individual allocations, or they have joint access to group resources. Suriname had access to these group resources. However, after half‐way through recalculations Suriname received a country specific allocation for biodiversity. Now GEF 5 will be a different system, trying to avoid the problems of the current system. For example, the group allocation was not very efficient, it was too complicated and difficult to access and manage. This will be left out. When Suriname was still in the group, it’s allocations in GEF 4 were: up to US$ 3.6 million in Biodiversity and up to US$ 3.3 million in Climate Change. The remaining resources are (as of 30 June 2009): US$ 3.063 million in Biodiversity and US$ 3.3 in Climate Change.

Questions & answers Ms. M. Silos, The Caribbean Institute: What is going to happen, will this money vanish, or will it still be available for Suriname? It is our expectation that Suriname will use the money. We will go to the donors and ask them to give the money. But then we want the money to be used. Some people will tell you that GEF is very difficult and takes forever. What we really need, is to have the first concept of a project on the table. Then we can set aside the money.

GEF Focal Areas & Cross‐Cutting Strategies Mr. M. Zimsky, GEF Secretariat GEF is the designated financial mechanism for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs). Next GEF is one of the financial mechanisms for the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), and it also closely cooperates with other international agreements and treaties with common global objectives (on international and transboundary water systems, Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer). It is important to know that historically GEF funded operations of the conventions’ programs. However, over time it is tried to be more strategic and focused, because of the relatively small amounts of money available (see also table 1 for long term objectives and strategic programs). The focal areas are:

• Biodiversity • Land Degradation • International Waters • Persistent Organic Pollutants • Ozone Depletion (only countries in transition) • Climate Change

The GEF strategy regarding the Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) really reflects the convention’s objective: conservation, sustainable use and fair and equitable benefit‐sharing (of the use of genetic resources). In GEF 5 the concentration areas will remain mostly the same. The issue of International Waters is an interesting process. It is transboundary and very scientifically based, on which the strategic actions are build.



The Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) aims to combat desertification and mitigate effects of drought in countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification through improved land productivity, rehabilitation, conservation and sustainable management of land and water resources, and leading to improved living conditions at the community level. In fact the production of landscape and how to sustainable manage it. It is probably the most challenging one. In GEF 5 there will be a continuation of the long‐term objectives. The Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) aims to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, preventing dangerous human interference with the climate system, in order to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, ensure food production is not threatened, and enable sustainable economic development. GEF 5 will have fewer objectives, more concentrated on energy and reduction of emissions. The Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) is aimed to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants. POPs primarily supports national development and implementation plans to meet the convention’s objective. It is very specific and focused, so implementation will be easier. Adaptation to climate change, sustainable forest management and sound chemicals management are the main cross‐cutting issues. GEF looks at conservation of forest and regarding production forest just in a restricted way: investments in policy and regulatory frameworks, such as that each practice is more environmental friendly, e.g. the introduction of international recognized certification standards. GEF does not support Reduced Impact Logging (RIL) in primary forest. We try to integrate projects that are focused on the focal areas. This framework provides opportunities for coordination and interaction between focal areas. The sound chemicals management’s is dealing with land based pollution and has some overlap with International Waters and Climate Change management. Table 1: Long term objectives and strategic programs in GEF 4

Biodiversity Long‐term Objectives Strategic Programs 1: To catalyze sustainability of protected area (PA) systems

1. Sustainable financing of PA systems at the national level 2. Increasing representation of effectively managed marine PA areas in PA systems 3. Strengthening terrestrial PA networks

2: To mainstream biodiversity in production landscapes/ seascapes and sectors

4. Strengthening the policy and regulatory framework for mainstreaming biodiversity 5. Fostering markets for biodiversity goods & services

3: To safeguard biodiversity 6. Building capacity for the implementation of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety 7. Prevention, control and management of invasive alien species

4: To build capacity on access and benefit sharing 8. Building capacity on access and benefit sharing



International Waters Long‐term Objectives Strategic Programs 1: To foster international, multi‐state cooperation on priority transboundary water concerns 2: To catalyze transboundary action addressing water concerns

1. Restoring and sustaining coastal and marine fish stocks and associated biological diversity 2. Reducing nutrient over‐enrichment and oxygen depletion from land‐based pollution of coastal waters in LMEs consistent with the GPA 3. Balancing overuse and conflicting uses of water resources in surface and groundwater basins that are transboundary in nature 4. Reducing persistent toxic substances and testing adaptive management of waters with melting ice

Land Degradation Long‐term Objectives Strategic Programs 1: To develop an enabling environment that will place Sustainable Land Management (SLM) in the mainstream of development policy and practices at the regional, national, and local levels 2: To upscale SLM investments that generate mutual benefits for the global environment and local livelihoods

1. Supporting sustainable agriculture and rangeland management 2. Supporting sustainable forest management in production landscapes 3. Investing in innovative approaches in SLM

Climate Change Long‐term Objectives Strategic Programs 1: To promote energy‐efficient technologies and practices in the appliance and building sectors

1. Promoting energy efficiency in residential and commercial buildings

2: To promote energy‐efficient technologies and practices in industrial production and manufacturing processes

2. Promoting energy efficiency in the industrial sector

3: To improve the efficiency and performance of existing power plants

(strategic objective not pursued directly in GEF 4)

4: To promote on‐grid renewable energy 3. Promoting market approaches for renewable energy

5: To promote the use of renewable energy for the provision of rural energy services (off‐grid)

(strategic objective not pursued directly in GEF 4)

6: To support new low‐GHG emitting energy technologies

4. Promoting sustainable energy production from biomass

7: To facilitate market transformation for sustainable mobility in urban areas leading to reduced GHG emissions

5. Promoting sustainable innovative systems for urban transport



7 bis: To reduce GHG emissions from land use, land use change and forestry

6. Management of land use, land‐use change and forestry (LULUCF) as a means to protect carbon stocks and reduce GHG emissions

Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Long‐term Objectives Strategic Programs 1: To reduce and eliminate production, use and releases of POPs

1. Strengthening capacity for NIP (National Implementation Plan) development and implementation 2. Partnering in investments for NIP implementation 3. Partnering in the demonstration of feasible, innovative technologies and best practices for POPs reduction

Cross‐Cutting Issues

Adaptation to climate change (CC and all Focal Areas)

Sustainable Forest Management (BD, CC and LD) Long‐term Objectives Strategic Programs 1: To conserve globally significant forest biodiversity 2: To promote sustainable management and use of forest resources

Shares several of the strategic programs of BD, LD, and CC

Sound Chemicals Management (all Focal Areas) Long‐term Objectives Strategic Programs 1: To promote sound management of chemicals for the protection of human health and the global environment

1. Integrating sound chemicals management in GEF projects 2. Articulating the chemicals related interventions supported by the GEF within countries’ frameworks for chemicals management

Questions & answers Mr. W. Wirth, SBB: The issue of mercury pollution in small‐scale gold mining, would it fit in the GEF environmental framework? I don’t know, let’s talk and look at the specific project idea. Mr. B. Drakenstein, UNDP: What is meant by the remark under the Climate Change chapter: “not pursued directly”?



There has been a reduced emphasis on these issues, because there was a big drop off in requests. The request for donors is to make a case how the money will be spent. What are the most important things the GEF is supplying to increase the impact. The climate change issue here is to make greater impact given the possible resources, but you should make strategic decisions, where the donor money should be invested. What very often happens is that other actors (private sector, development banks) reveal programs that are doing what the GEF wanted to do. So where is the additionality of the GEF? You better work with them on those issues. Mr. W. Wirth, SBB: Regarding the issue of the use of chemicals that are threatening the coastal areas and ecosystems in the coastal areas, would a project looking at the transformation of chemical agriculture to biological agriculture fit in the GEF financial framework? Look in depth, what is the Suriname national implementation plan regarding POPs. I always hesitate to say no or yes. There is no global benefit in helping farmers to transfer from non‐organic to organic agriculture, unless you make a link to pollution. Than you get more into Integrated Coastal Zone Management, and then you have donors. But regarding co‐financing, not all is funded by GEF, but it might be possible if it fits within the Coastal Zone Management Plan on protected areas. Other donors can maybe come in on other aspects, e.g. the agricultural approach. Ms. M. Silos, The Caribbean Institute: Regarding biodiversity: is GEF also interested in agro‐biodiversity? Look at the strategy or responses to the threats to biodiversity, e.g. overexploitation. I would argue that within the long term objectives and strategic programs you have all the tools to conserve your agro‐biodiversity. The convention identified it as a gap and conservation of the components of agro‐biodiversity has found opportunities within the biodiversity strategy. Addition by Mr. S. Gold, GEF SCP: The US$ 3 million for biodiversity and US$ 3 million for climate change must at least be allocated in the next months. The other side of the coin is that in July 2010 the clock resets. So we are on the one hand talking about GEF 4 and on the other hand about GEF 5. Ms. M. Quick, National Zoological Collection of Suriname (NZCS): Is the strategic program number 8 (within the biodiversity chapter) also about education and training? With all these strategies we try to reflect the guidance received from the conventions. In GEF 5 there is a lot of coherence with the Conference of the Parties. Regarding access and benefit sharing: historically the guidance of the convention was not very specific. It guided on a very generic way what countries should do. GEF 4 wanted to support capacity building and then we tried to identify a program where countries could try to develop an ABS pilot intervention in specific circumstances and with specific resources to kind of test how they would develop a larger conceptual framework. What we try to do is help countries develop a regulatory framework to deal with the issue. And that can include training and courses as long as that higher level of the environmental program is met. For those who are more interested in this subject, in June there was a GEF project approved in India on those issues. Mr. N. van Amson, Ministry of Trade and Industries (HI): Could you please elaborate more on the issue of the strategic program for promoting energy efficiency in the industrial sector (Climate Change)? What are the tools for promoting and how can you effectively monitor? Let’s look at the strategy. Promoting is a very generic thing, what we try to do is supporting the adoption and use of energy developments, building structures for promoting energy efficient technical appliances, basically we set up standards. Regarding monitoring: we start with a baseline (what is the situation?) and over time, with the introduction of norms and standards, we look how efficiency increases.



Project Cycle Mr. N. Remple, UNDP‐GEF Since the beginning we had some project cycle simplifications. In the past we had a number of elaborations, with a range of project documents. That system simplified drastically, nobody likes to reviews tons of documents. The basic idea in the project cycle is the intention to do quality control to ensure that the project will meet certain criteria. Projects have taken long in the past, but that has changed now. There are two basic stages. The first is that the national focal point endorses the project idea; this is a simple decision (approval) point. The second stage is that the GEF Agency works with the Country on three major phases: the project preparation & approval, the project implementation and the project closing & evaluation. There are three different types of projects:

• Enabling activities, to meet the requirements of the conventions, such as national communications (as signed today);

• Medium size projects (< US$ 1 million) – relatively quicker to produce and get started, institutions and organization can be smaller; and full size projects(> US$ 1 million) – most people think of when practicing GEF;

• Small Grants (up to US$ 50,000) through the Small Grants country Programme – this is a legal limit of grants, each country national scheme determines the upper limit of the small grants.

The project cycle of a full‐size project is as follows (see also figure 4). An important feature of the cycle is the kind of dialogue, between the government and stakeholders and between the government and the GEF Agency and the GEF Secretariat. The dialogue should be back and forth. It is not a recipe. Once a project is identified, a Project Identification Form (PIF) should be produced, which is a very short document that allows the GEF Agency and GEF Secretariat to understand what is supposed to do. The PIF is presented to the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the GEF Secretariat for clearance, after which the work program is developed and presented to the GEF Council for approval. If the council approves it, then the Implementing Agency will sit down with the country to prepare the project proposal for final approval. But there is a second option: requesting the Project Preparation Grant (PPG). At the same time you may decide to prepare a PPG, which is a small amount of money to help develop the project proposal. It is difficult to develop a full project document of millions of dollars just based on some ideas. You will need to hire consultancies, do national consultations and workshops etc. That’s where the grant is for. Once the Project Proposal is prepared, it is presented to the GEF Council. If the council has no objections or comments to it, than the CEO endorses the project, and you can proceed with implementation. At the end there will be a final evaluation: extracting lessons learned. In this cycle the approval points are:

• PIF cleared by CEO; • Cleared PIF included in work program for approval by the Council; • Fully prepared project document circulated to Council for a 4 week review period prior to

CEO endorsement.



Figure 4: Project cycle for full‐size projects (grey blocks: decision and control points; brown blocks: activities) The project cycle for medium‐sized projects (figure 5) is very similar, though slightly simplified. There are fewer steps, you do not have to develop a work program, review by the council is shorter, and thus it is in general a quicker option. For the rest it is much like the previous cycle.

Figure 5: Project cycle for medium‐size projects (grey blocks: decision and control points; brown blocks: activities) The PIF provides key information on the project idea and an estimate of project costs. It can be submitted on a rolling basis and should be accompanied by the National Operational Focal Point endorsement. The PPG is available to PIFs cleared by the CEO, and which grant amount is based on the estimate of project preparation costs. PPGs are approved on a rolling basis. PIF and PPG can be submitted together. Countries are advised to identify national priorities for GEF funding, develop a comprehensive and coherent GEF strategy in consultation with key stakeholders, and integrate GEF

Prepare project proposal

CEO Approval

2 Week Council Review ofProject Document

Final evaluation

Project impacts continue after completion of GEF funding

CEO Approval of PIF (and PPG)

Develop concept

Project Identification Form (PIF)

Option to request Project Preparation

Grant (PPG)

Implement, monitor and evaluate project

Develop concept

Project Identification Form (PIF)

Prepare project proposal

Option to request Project Preparation

Grant (PPG)

CEO Clearance of PIF

‘Work Program’ Inclusion ‐

Council Approval

CEO Endorsement

4 Week Council Review ofProject Document

Implement, monitor and evaluate project

Final evaluation

Project impacts continue after completion of GEF funding

CEO Approval of PPG



priorities within broader national environment and sustainable development frameworks. The Operational Focal Point should be in dialogue with the GEF Secretariat to discuss proposed project concepts and approaches. He/she moreover endorses projects for GEF funding after proper consultation with stakeholders, and he/she can choose an appropriate GEF Agency for project development and implementation.

Questions & answers Mr. W. Wirth, SBB: Is there a template or manual available to formulate the project along the GEF criteria? For PIF: yes. For PPG: the Agency will walk through those steps. Mr. S. Hofwijks, IDB: How does it play in reality if a project is submitted to one of the Agencies: does this project cycle include the cycle of the agencies also? Than you conserve time. To avoid double cycles we strived to streamline agencies project cycles, so it won’t be done double. Addition by Ms. C. Jaramillo, IDB‐GEF Technical Focal Point: We have mainstreamed the GEF cycle in our cycle. Mr. R. Somopawiro, SBB: If I see it right we still have US$ 6 million available. I was wondering what the reason is why we did not utilize the money. We have a problem with capacity for project writing and utilizing money. You should discuss amongst yourselves how to solve the problem. We have not yet done training on that subject, only the kind of activities presented. But one of the activities we suppose to do is to develop curricula, and then offering it to countries, so that we can get 5‐10 people per country trained. If this activity is approved, then countries will have the opportunity to train people. The UNEP has a partnership with the GEF and has a capacity building role: they work with their clients and train them in the whole process of project preparation and implementation. You should expect that going through the process your team is building capacity, not only for GEF but for all project processes. Mr. B. Drakenstein, UNDP: With regards to the access and benefit sharing project being done in India, maybe you can give your experience, and explain how it contributed to or had an impact on the international discussions. Because it is an issue in India, the project did put something forward. But do not draw a clear influence between doing a project and its influence on international negotiations. I would be very practical and operational. It will take some time to go through the project cycle and you would have no opportunity to impose your issues on the negotiations. It may be a role for the UNDP as a development agency to raise awareness on the issues if there is a knowledge gap, and there is a position the government can take to better understand the issue. I would not connect it to a pilot. Mr. W. Wirth, SBB: GEF is a co‐financing institution, what is generally expected from project contributions: own budget, or seek other donors? What is the ratio for own contribution? The idea was: if there is a development project, GEF will finance the difference of that project and the way to do it sustainable. The other contribution can be any (agencies, government, civil society, donors etc.). Agencies can help them to identify and attract co‐financing. There is no written rule how much own contribution should be, though the minimum rate is expected to be 1:1, but get the maximum co‐financing as possible.



GEF 5 Replenishment Mr. W. Ehlers, Team leader External Affairs This year several meetings were held to discuss the next replenishment cycle, to discuss a new way of distributing money and to review the constructions. It was submitted to the process in June, chaired by the World Bank. If you are interested in what the issues are: go to GEF website and click on the data of meetings on the right. It does also include a relevant document referring to the program (quickly and schematic what GEF is supposed to do). A second document gives a number of ideas that are very useful. A third document refers to the new Resource Allocation Framework and gives a quick overview how the money was distributed. It will have a new name: System Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR), with three levels of funding and three levels of approaching. The three levels of funding are: US$ 3, 5, and 10 million replenishments. And then the three options of distributing the money: 1) keep the system as GEF 4, with focus on biodiversity and climate change; 2) distribute among climate change, natural resources (biodiversity and international waters) and chemicals (POPs); 3) give the countries a lump sum that they can distribute among the focal areas. To give an idea of the last discussions in the council: there was a lot of support for option 1), and also considerable support for option 3). This is happening in the context of the economic crisis and the discussions on the climate change convention. Within that context there is a proposal to request commitment of Parties for a special climate fund, for which developed countries will set aside 1% of their annual GDP. However, history shows that for decades it is hard to let countries give 0,7% of GDP for development, and to set up an adaptation fund, it will take 10 years to get up and running, so that means that we are in a transition phase. Even in the best scenario it is still not going to happen before 2014. In the mean time GEF will be the main source to fund this kind of activities. The proposed GEF 5 replenishment target is US$ 8 ‐ 10 billion, and the replenishment negotiations have recently begun and will be completed in early 2010. The GEF 5 replenishment meeting policy documents are available on the GEF website: http://www.gefweb.org/interior_right.aspx?id=48 For more information please see: www.gefweb.org and www.gefcountrysupport.org



SESSION 3: NATIONAL ACTIVITIES IN RELATION TO THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONVENTIONS During this session an overview was presented of the national activities regarding the Multilateral Environmental Agreements that are developed with GEF means.

UNFCCC: National strategies and priorities Ms. I. Patterzon, Ministry of ATM Suriname signed the UNFCCC in 1992, ratified it in 1997, and published its First National Communication in 2005. The Climate Action Plan was accomplished for the coastal zone, and the part for the interior is currently in process. For the Second National Communication the project document is formulated, which incorporates the findings and recommendations of the work sessions of the National Capacity Self‐Assessment and the Climate Change Self‐Assessment and various workshops. This morning the signing of that project has taken place, in a short time the process of implementation will be started. During the last years inventories of greenhouse gasses were conducted (1996 and 2003) conform IPCC Guidelines. Now the vulnerability of Suriname with regards to the effects of climate change will be established and adaptation measures will be formulated, incorporating the sectors that were not considered in the First National Communication. Next the ministry is improving the quality of information on specific inventory sectors, such as energy, land‐use and forest. Currently the ministry is thus preparing the Second National Communication in favor of the COP.

UNCBD: National strategies and priorities Ms. I. Patterzon, Ministry of ATM Suriname is party tot the UNCBD since 1996 and implemented various activities:

• The formulation of the National Biodiversity Strategy in 2006, aimed to implement the three goals of the UNCBD at national level.

• The formulation and finalization of the National Biodiversity Action Plan, for which the coastal part is elaborated, the interior part still has to be done, which is currently in process.

• The formulation of the National Biosafety Framework in 2005, which aimed to safeguard transboundary transport and the use of Living Modified Organisms (LMOs). The ministry set up an interdepartmental commission that has to assure that preparations are made for the implementation of the NBF.

• The formulation of the Third National Report in 2009, one of the obligations of Suriname towards the UNCBD Secretariat, and meant to report on the implementation of the convention at national level. The report is finalized, but still has to be presented to the UNCBD Secretariat.

The first full size project that Suriname implemented is the ‘Conservation of Global Significant Forest Ecosystems in Suriname’s Guyana Shield Bio‐region’. The project aimed to protect Suriname’s biodiversity through the establishment of a management plan for the Central Suriname Nature Reserve (CSNR) and the Sipaliwini Nature Reserve (SNR) (including a sustainable financing plan), and the strengthening of legislation and the institutional framework for protected area management. The establishment of the Suriname Conservation Foundation (SCF) was one of the results of this project. Currently SCF, in cooperation with various institutes, is implementing the project Capacity Building Support to the SCF, which aims to promote biodiversity protection through awareness, institutional reinforcement, protected area management and research



UNCCD: National strategies and priorities Ms. I. Patterzon, Ministry of ATM Referring to the title of the convention you might think of: we do not have desertification in Suriname. The goal is however broader: to combat the causes of land degradation and to combat and mitigate the negative impacts of droughts. This has also to do with irresponsible logging. GEF defines land degradation as: each form of deterioration of soil fertility, corrosion of intactness of ecosystems and the loss of ecological productivity. In 1996 the agreement became operational and in 2000 Suriname became a member. Since then Suriname has fulfilled the first National Report in 2003, arranged a land degradation information meeting in 2005, developed the first National Action Plan framework in 2006 (SNAP), formulated a medium size project for Sustainable Land Management (SLM project) in 2006 en 2007 en developed a concept land degradation awareness plan in 2008. The SLM project has a duration of four years and is currently in the process to attract a coordinator and to continue with implementation. The project focuses on capacity building at ministries related tot land use and land management, and to integrate sustainable land management in the national development strategies and policy documents. At this moment the National Committee for Land degradation is formed that will guide this project. Furthermore, technical experts of governmental, non‐governmental and community based organizations are being identified. The national priorities regarding this convention are the implementation of the SNAP, the development of national reports, the finalization of the concept land degradation awareness plan and the generation of data.

NCSA project: National strategies and priorities Ms. I. Patterzon, Ministry of ATM The National Capacity Self‐Assessment is a national analysis of capacity needs regarding the implementation of the three main environmental conventions (UNCBD, UNFCCC, and UNCCD). One of the main results is the formulation of a Capacity Development Action Plan (CDAP), which contains actions to build capacity regarding capacity needs that are overlapping among the three conventions. The next important cross‐cutting issues are identified: planning and implementation, capacity building, exchange of information, and the harmonization of sector and cross sector plans. The activities proposed are developed at three developed at three levels:

• Individual level – research skills, technical skills, management skills and social / cultural skills; • Institutional level – public reform, physical planning, capacity improvement and research; • Systemic level – legal framework and communication.

The formal delivery of NCSA reports will take place soon.

POPs: National strategies and priorities Ms. I. Patterzon, Ministry of ATM Suriname did not yet ratify the Stockholm conventions, but is already actively implementing parts of the convention. The formulation of National Implementation Plan (NIP) is in its final stage. Furthermore, several workshops were organized: a PCB workshop (including two inventory field courses), a pesticides workshop, and a dioxins and furans workshop. Next, an awareness video is recorded regarding POPs, which is launched last July 7th. The national priorities are currently the ratification of the convention (countries that have not yet ratified the convention, do not yet receive support to implement the NIP) and next the implementation of the NIP.

POPs awareness video Next, the POPs awareness video was shown. This video presents information on the agreement, the situation in Suriname and presented an exemplary project with regards to organic agriculture.



Discussion and questions & answers Mr. M. Zimsky, GEF Secretariat: This is my second time in Suriname, the first time (at the end of the nineties) I was here to assist in the GEF CSNR project. Can you share with us what has happened since that project closed? What is the status, can you give an update of the impact of that project? It was a successful project, activities are still continuing. Now they have the capacity building support for SCF project, which is managed by the Ministry of PLOS. They are also implementing small projects having to do with conserving and maintaining the protected areas. Addition by Ms. S. Boedhoe, ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation (PLOS): First the SCF was created as a financial mechanism for the development of protected area management plans. There is a management plan for CSNR which is now being implemented. Mr. M. Zimsky, GEF Secretariat: It seems that that was a successful project. What was characteristic to that project, which can be used for other projects? Also referring to the earlier remark that Suriname has used so little of the available money. It was the only GEF full size project for Suriname and it was not designed by Surinamese people, but an international consultant wrote the PIF and the project document. One of the reasons why we have not used the money is that people face problems with writing project proposals. Addition by Ms. A. Tjon Sie Fat, Conservation International (Suriname): I want to give a small correction. There was an international consultant that was asked to write the project documents, but Conservation International was included and the Surinamese people participated in that process. What we learned from that project is that it was a very complicated project, not only to implement but also to monitor. The stakeholder consultation process was also new for Suriname. The development of SNR was a completely different situation and process than the process for setting up the CSNR. The third component was the setup of a financing mechanism for these National Reserves and other protected areas in Suriname. This was a pilot that we as CI took, with the obligation to make available US$ 1 million. Additional funding was received from the UN system. This allowed SCF to have a total amount of US$ 1,6 million. Then the government of Suriname had to look for additional funding for the set up of SCF. Now SCF is set up and is a fund, giving small grants to a variety of biodiversity initiatives, and development of management plans and operational plans for protected areas. I am not sure in what stage they are now. Mr. W. Wirth, SBB: From the presentation I did not get clear what exactly are the national strategies and priorities. With regards to those we will be able to formulate projects that are eligible for GEF financing. Which are the priorities regarding biodiversity, climate change etc. If there is a template, we can write project, but than we need to be updated on these items. The national priorities are elaborated in the action plans and strategies. The actions that are elaborated in the action plans can thus become projects. Unfortunately these action plans are still in concept, and consequently not yet available. With regards to the guidelines I want to refer tot the (fifteen) operational programs of the GEF. These are available on the CD which you received in your workshop package. Addition by Ms. H. Uiterloo, Ministry of ATM: There were smaller sessions with stakeholders on the GEF and the formulation of GEF projects. Suriname people are able to write project documents, but there is a certain kind of barrier to submit ideas, probably because of the procedures, or because people are not yet acquainted with writing project documents for GEF. That’s why we started with awareness activities towards the stakeholders.



Ms. K. Li a Kwie, State Oil company (Staatsolie): During the presentation several times the action plans were mentioned. To what extent is there a role for the private sector? We as State Oil Company are willing to anticipate what is going to happen in future. With regards to climate change the Association of Suriname Businesses (VSB) is participating in the Steering Committee. The task of this committee is to coordinate the implementation of the action plan. Mr. W. Wirth, SBB: Regarding mercury use I was lately told that WWF has reserved US$ 250,000 to tackle this issue. That represents however very little, if compared to the scale at which it takes place. Is it possible to get GEF finances? After all, it is a harmful material, yearly 20,000 kg of mercury is used, which causes mercury pollution. Unfortunately mercury is not one of the harmful chemicals of POPs. A national committee is installed to make an inventory of POPs and has to incorporate mercury. Next, we are working on the mercury State Resolution. Addition by Mr. B. Drakenstein, UNDP: Maybe you should drop the project idea at the ministry of ATM and look for opportunities. Possibly it does not come under POPs, but might fit within other policy frameworks. Mr. W. Wirth, SBB: Since April 2006 I dropped it at the Ministry. Addition by Mr. H. Creton, UNDP SGP: It depends on how you look at the problem: if you look at it as mercury, than you won’t find funding. But if you look at it within the sector of mining, than it falls under sustainable land management, or even under international waters, because mercury is moving through the rivers into the sea. Then we would definitely support such a project. Of course all projects should support the Multi‐Annual Development Plan of the government. Addition by Mr. M. Zimsky, GEF Secretariat: It is very important to identify the causes of the problem. GEF projects are comprehensive approaches to eliminate threats to biodiversity. There are often many drivers to those threats. We might support analyzing the problems that are generated by gold mining, in as much as they threaten globally significant biodiversity and a response to this threat fit within the GEF biodiversity strategy. Ms. M. Jagroep, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (LVV): Is the Basel convention also one of the possibilities? No, that is about transport. Mercury is included in that convention, but Suriname did not ratify the convention. Mr. M. Boejoekoe, National Women Movement (NVB): Is there a possibility to tackle the problem of eco‐sanitation with financial support of GEF? Most SGP projects were related to that subject. We at the ministry ATM have not yet received any requests with regards to eco‐sanitation to be further guided to the GEF. Addition by Mr. H. Creton, UNDP SGP: GEF is supporting communities with eco‐sanitation problems through SGP. We have just approved a project. It depends on the priorities of the government if it is placed under the focal area of biodiversity, or international waters. Ms. C. Jaramillo, IDB‐GEF Technical Focal Point: Could you please elaborate more on the Steering Committee? Ms. T. Elder, Ministry of Labour, Technological Development and Environment (ATM): The climate change steering committee has representatives of the government (Ministry of ATM, Ministry of



PLOS, Ministry of Natural Resources (NH), Geological Mining Division (GMD)), of the VSB, and of the Anton de Kom University of Suriname and they meet once a month, evaluating activities, screening documents like the Netherlands Climate Change Assistant Programme, and evaluating public awareness activities. Mr. W. Ehlers, Team leader External Affairs: There is a proposal for GEF 5 that requests countries to have a GEF national committee under the leadership of the operational focal point, to discuss projects before endorsing. The idea is that not only the convention focal points but also other agencies are involved in taking that decision. This proposal is combined with another idea, to have a GEF business plan. As soon as a country knows how much money they will receive, than a plan can be set up how to use the money for the next four years. Ms. I. Patterzon, Ministry of Labour, Technological Development and Environment (ATM): Within the ministry we already have a GEF working group; in future we are looking to expand the group. At the moment we are just working with colleagues within the ministry with different backgrounds: UNCBD, UNCCD, UNFCCC, financial management, and also NIMOS. Mr. L. Sampai, ICCA: Does GEF have financed micro hydro energy projects in Suriname? No major projects. Addition by Mr. H. Creton, UNDP Small Grants Programme (SGP): We have tried to finance micro hydro energy projects, but they have not been as successful as we wanted. One reason was that for the community involved the implementing capacity was a challenge (also at civil society level). Next, the oil price was at that time very high, resulting in a delay. It took more time and needed more money, so we had to close the project. But the Ministry of Regional Development (RO) has taken over that initiative and will look for ways with Anton de Kom University in Suriname and the private sector to finance such projects. The Ministry of RO has started another initiative with communities. It is thus a positive effect that the government now supports such kinds of projects and is willing to invest.



SESSION 4: PRESENTATION OF TWO POTENTIAL PROJECT PROPOSALS FOR SURINAME WITH THE FOCUS ON CO‐FINANCING

Mainstreaming Biodiversity and Climate Change – IDB procedures Ms. I. Patterzon, Ministry of ATM This project idea is still in process of formulation. Several parts still have to be justified before the PIF can be formulated. The Ministry of ATM came up with this idea, after several colleagues went to a GEF meeting, where they realized that Suriname had not yet used its GEF money. That’s why it was decided to organize several information meetings: a general awareness meeting, and two meetings to inform stakeholders how to formulate a project proposal (with assistance of IDB and UNDP). As a result of these meetings several stakeholders submitted project ideas. These proposals had to do with making inventories of biodiversity in the interior, monitoring of biodiversity and the economic value of the interior. The ministry of ATM reviewed these ideas with representatives of the GEF and IDB and concluded to formulate one large project. With assistance of IDB a project idea is elaborated to mainstream biodiversity and climate change. A PIF is formulated that still needs to be formalized. An important goal of the project is emphasize the different action plans (NBAP en NKAP) and to strive for an integral approach of the environmental policy, as presented in the Multi‐annual Development Plan (MOP). In the meantime IDB had some meetings with the Ministry of Physical Planning, Land and Forest Management (ROGB), and they looked to which extent the concept could be integrated in their forest policy. Next, several meetings were organized between ROGB, IDB and ATM. For this project co‐financing will probably be arranged through a loan at the IDB. At this moment we are in the process to arrange that and that’s why the PIF can not be formalized yet. We are waiting the approval, after which we can begin to formulate the concept and submit it to the National Operational Focal Point, after which it can be send to the GEF Secretariat for approval. With this process we want to illustrate that we are formulating projects and try to incorporate as much as possible stakeholders and work with their input. GEF has several implementing partners of which IDB is one. Hardly anybody in Suriname did know that. That’s why we chose to involve the IDB. The IDB will now give a presentation of their procedures and rules. Ms. C. Jaramillo, IDB‐GEF Technical Focal Point The IDB Group is the largest financing institution in the Latin American region, and our mission is to partner with countries to combat poverty, promote sustainable development, and promote social equity. Therefore our primary strategic goals are: sustainable economic growth, increased competitiveness, modernization of public institutions and fostering free trade and regional integration. The IDB has several financial and non‐financial instruments and is trustee of 40 funds from 18 donor countries. With regards to GEF, the IDB is an Implementation Agency and thus responsible for originating, developing, executing and evaluating GEF projects. The IDB has large experience across countries and focal areas. In May 2004 the IDB received the status of a GEF Full‐Access Executing Agency, and the IDB‐GEF portfolio has grown from US$ 7.5 million to more than US$ 20 million in 2008. The current pipeline and approved projects for 2009‐2010 amounts to more than US$ 56 million (see also figure 6). The IDB’s programs are based on Country Strategies that are built jointly with the governments (country driven process). Each strategy is reviewed and updated every 3 years, and GEF and all other financial and non‐financial tools used by the Bank are applied in the context of the Country Strategy. Mr. Brewster has already explained the strategic focuses during the opening session. Figure 7 shows how the IDB has integrated the GEF project cycle.



Figure 6: IDB‐GEF program evolution

Figure 7: IDB‐GEF project cycle

Programming Identification PreparationCouncil

Review & CEO Endorsement

Approval Execution

and Supervision

Country & Bank

Country, Executing Agencies & Bank

Country, Executing Agencies & Bank

GEFSEC and

Council Bank

Current 1‐2 Years but strong directive from the Bank management to reduce it to 8‐12 months

4‐6 Years

Country& Bank

PIF and PPG preparation

Draft Operation Grant

PPG TC and Project

Operation Document

IDB-GEF Approved total project amount per year 2004-2010

0

5.000

10.000

15.000

20.000

25.000

30.000

35.000

40.000

45.000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

US$

('000

)

In preparation or approval process



Suriname Coastal Protected Area Management Ms. C. Sakimin, Nature Conservation Division (LBB/NB) of the Ministry of ROGB The presentation elaborated on the PIF as sent to the GEF Operational Focal Point (Ministry of ATM). The Nature Conservation Division (part of the Forest Service) has two important sections, namely protected area management and wildlife management. Legislation that supports the policy and subsequent activities are the Law on nature protection (1954), L‐decree (1982), Game law (1954) and Game Resolution (2002, amended 2009). LBB is furthermore the CITES management authority in Suriname. Figure 8 gives an overview of the various protected areas in Suriname (13% of land surface), consisting of 11 Nature Reserves, 4 Multiple Use Management Areas (MUMAs – special management areas in the coastal zone) and 1 Nature Park (see also table 2).

Figure 8: Protected areas of Suriname.

The Coastal zone of Suriname harbors the most extensive and pristine mangrove forests of the Guiana Eco‐region, and is in South America the wintering ground for migratory shorebirds from North America. Next it is of special importance as feeding and nesting ground for more than 118 species of coastal birds, of which more than 70 species are defined as waterfowl according to the criteria of the Ramsar Convention. In the coastal area there are two types of protected areas: nature reserves and special management areas (MUMAs). These areas have all a management plan. The mangroves however are threatened by development projects such as urban and housing development, rice farming, aquaculture and dike building. Furthermore degradation of mangroves is an issue as there is an obvious adverse impact on wetlands birds and fisheries resources. And some water bird species are hunted illegally. These problems especially occur in the western coastal



Table 2: Protected areas Name Protected Area ha Remarks 1 Bigi Pan MUMA 67,900 1987 ARS 2002 no. 94 excl. Herten Rits NR 2 Herten Rits NR 100 1972 GB 1972 no. 22 3 North Coronie MUMA 27,200 2002 SB 2002 no. 87 4 North Saramacca MUMA 88,400 2002 SB 2002 no. 88 excl. Coppename‐Monding

NR 5 North Commewijne‐ Marowijne MUMA 61,500 2002 ARS 2002 no. 94 excl. Wia Wia NR 6 Coppename Monding NR 12,000 1966 GB 1966 no. 59 7 Wia Wia NR 36,000 1966 GB 1966 no. 59 8 Galibi NR 4,000 1969 GB 1969 no. 47 9 Peruvia NR 31,000 1986 SB 1986 no. 52 10 Boven Coesewijne NR 27,000 1986 SB 1986 no. 52 11 Copi NR 28,000 1986 SB 1986 no. 52 12 WaneKreek NR 45,000 1986 SB 1986 no. 52 13 BrinckHeuvel NR 6,000 1966 GB 1966 no. 59 14 Brownsberg NP 8,400 Erfpachtterrein 15 Central Suriname NR 1,592,000 1998 SB 1998 no. 65 16 Sipaliwini NR 100,000 1972 GB 1972 no. 25 Proposed Protected area ha Remarks 1 Nani NR 54,000 2 Kaburi NR 68,000 3 Mac Clemen SPF* 6,000 4 Snake Creek SPF* 4,000 *) proposed in 1980 as forest reserves based on the forest law of 1947, the ultimate status of these areas will be special protected forest within the Law on Forest Management of 1992 protected areas: the Bigi Pan MUMA, the North Coronie MUMA and the North Saramacca MUMA. The management of these areas is up till now not very effective. Within LBB the resources are very limited. It is furthermore unclear, what the roles are of the various ministries, which all undertake their activities in these areas. At this moment several activities are implemented with regards to coastal zone management: the SCF capacity building project (improve capacity of LBB, Ministry of ATM, SCF), the WWF & SCF project (assessment of hydrology and use of Bigi Pan MUMA), oil exploration and exploitation activities of State Oil Company (including EIAs), the Coronie dike project (may lead to rehabilitation of mangroves for natural coastal defense), and spatial planning (policy of ROGB – so‐called no‐building zone). In March 2009 NB had a complete project idea and consulted with the Ministries of ATM and PLOS, and the UNDP. The consultancy firm ESS was attracted to assist in the development of the project idea and the PIF. Next, stakeholders from several Ministries, the GEF focal point, NGO’s, UNDP, WWF Guianas and consultants of the ICZM project were invited for a one day workshop at NB to provide their input. In the District of Nickerie a meeting with a local CBO was held to discuss this project idea. Finally the consultant finalized the project idea with support from UNDP and in May 2009 the PIF document was submitted to the GEF focal point, the Ministry of ATM. The project title is: Suriname coastal protected area management. It is aimed to promote the conservation of biodiversity through improved management of protected areas along the western coast of Suriname (the three mentioned MUMAs) and is a medium size project for three years. Co‐financing is US$ 1,703,900, and requested GEF funding is US$ 1,027,400. The project has two components and a range of outputs:

• Improved effectiveness and efficiency of the management of MUMAs; o Co‐management agreements for MUMAs developed, specifying roles of key Ministries

and stakeholders, financial responsibilities, and conflict resolution mechanisms;



o Consultation Commissions established (with representation of governmental agencies and MUMA users) to resolve MUMA‐related conflicts;

o Review of environmental impact assessment of the oil industry on MUMAs; o Three updated management plans in place for the MUMAs, which are adaptive in the

sense that they describe how management is to be adapted based on information obtained on biological and pressure indicators;

o A monitoring system for each MUMA is in place, of key species, habitats and processes; o Selected staff from the MUMAs are trained in management plan development,

administration, and financial planning; • Improved financing mechanism for MUMA management;

o Earmarked MUMA‐related line items in the annual budgets of key governmental agencies;

o Three business plans for MUMAs, which aim at financial sustainability of MUMA management;

o MoUs on payment for MUMA use, and compensation for impact on MUMA, between key governmental agencies and key MUMA users and other stakeholders;

o Visit and service fee schemes piloted and canalized into the three MUMAs; biodiversity offset system from the oil industry in place;

o Mechanism to manage and administer MUMA‐derived income / funds. Capacity building will be part of the project, training new game wardens and employing them. Next there will be a need for infrastructure, facilities and equipment. During planning and implementation, this project will be coordinated together with ongoing activities, through the GEF project steering committee, the GEF annual work plan (AWP) implementers meeting, the ICZM committee and the WWF steering committee. The Ministry of ROGB is partner in all of them. Regarding next steps, the Ministry of ROGB has received a letter from the focal point with some questions regarding the PIF. After responding to these questions, they can expect the endorsement letter and then the PIF will be submitted to GEF. Hopefully the PIF will be approved so that implementation can start.

Discussion and questions & answers Mr. W. Wirth, SBB: For my orientation: is the project only designed for the three mentioned MUMAs? Not the whole coastal shore? That’s where are more problems, such as coastal zone erosion in Coronie and Nickerie. Because people are living in these areas, several studies have been implemented and it is suggested to make the whole coastal zone a protected area, to reduce the threats from e.g. cutting mangrove forests. There are also other activities running, such as the ICZM project on which the consultants are working. Also the Ministry of ROGB is approached. With regards to the three MUMAs, it is just a pilot project. The management plans still have to be updated and that is also a part of the ICZM project, in which a part of the coordination will be. Ms. A. Tjon Sie Fat, Conservation International (Suriname): I did not hear anything about problems regarding co‐financing. Is there no problem with co‐financing in your project? There were some conversations with e.g. the consultants of the ICZM project. They will co‐finance a part, also WWF is willing to co‐finance, just as State Oil Company (Staatsolie). There is just one partner pending. Mr. H. Creton, UNDP SGP: I was wondering to what extent you took into account the local communities while developing the PIF. Communities argue that governmental organizations often do not take into account their activities in relation the protected areas.



There was a meeting in Nickerie for which stakeholders from Coronie en Nickerie were invited. They are informed and consulted, just as the local government. For sure we have involved them. Mr. W. Wirth, SBB: If we now make an interim overview of submitted project, how much money is then left? If we look at the two presented projects, than these projects exceed the available budget within GEF 4. So for GEF 4 we are covered. But there is still space for new ideas in GEF 5, do not wait until July 2010, start now. Mr. W. Wirth, SBB: Which character should the projects have? To which direction do we have to think? We have different operational programs. If you have an idea, look under which program you can accommodate it; that will give you an indication to which direction you can write you project. Mr. W. Wirth, SBB: There is an understanding that there will be an agreement with the IDB to make the GEF project operational. Can you tell us more about it? Ms. C. Jaramillo, IDB Technical Focal Point: Co‐financing requirements are not a strict rule. What IDB has been asked by the ministries of ATM and ROGB, is to put together a loan to help them in implementing a program basically working on e.g. monitoring, forestry, climate change and a regulatory framework for environmental issues. That was only a request for a loan. We are taking an opportunity to combine it with GEF. At this time we are looking with both ministries how we could cooperate in that. That is as much I can say for now. Addition by Mr. M. Zimsky, GEF Secretariat: GEF expects projects from Development Banks, where the GEF increment focuses on specific activities that generate global environmental benefits in the focal areas and serves as a complementary intervention to the loan or credit provided by the Development Bank.



SESSION 5: SMALL GRANTS PROGRAMME SURINAME

Identification of opportunities for up scaling SGP projects Mr. H. Creton, UNDP Small Grants Programme, National Coordinator Ad Interim The Small Grants Programme is a global program established in 1993 and administered by the UNDP. Suriname became partner to the program in 1994 and became active in 1997. First it was administered by Bureau Forum NGOs, from 2001 until 2002 by Conservation International and since 2003 by the UNDP. In the beginning the program was part of the Trinidad & Tobago Office, but since 2004 Suriname has its own SGP. It is also known as “the peoples GEF” and is especially meant for marginalized and poor communities or NGOs / CBOs. Until now, it has spent US$ 1.6 million in grants in 64 projects. SGP tries to focus on the empowerment of the most vulnerable communities (in the Interior, but also in Paramaribo), and raises awareness about agriculture and personal environments because people rely on the environment, and SGP strives to enable poor people to compete in the market place. SGP is a country based program and each country has a Country Programme Strategy (CPS 2007‐1010) and a national steering committee. Furthermore it has a national coordinator (vacant in Suriname) and a program assistant. Participants to the program come from different backgrounds, e.g. scientific institutes, government, non‐government, indigenous groups and international agencies (such as UN organizations, PAHO, EU). Grantees are mainly NGOs and CBOs, and can receive grants up to US$ 50,000. GEF supports ongoing activities; therefore you should already be working in these areas and have an efficient plan that is aligned with the governmental issues as described in the Multi‐Annual Development Plan. We can support those parts for which you do not have resources. We have mainly been working with communities that sometimes even don’t have basic education, so they lack the capacity to implement the projects successfully. As a consequence we have to guide the learning process and create the best environment for thinking. It is a challenge, as these structures (such as the project cycle) are not known in their culture. It is furthermore very important to have the trust of the communities. People tend to forget the link between the community and the environment. The captain of Kwamalasamutu once said: “When you go to the doctor, you just go there and receive the medicine. But for medicines I am dependent on the environment. You want me to put boundaries in the area where I live, but the environment does not recognize these boundaries, especially not the birds.” Communities tend to take the freedom to live with their environment, because they are totally dependent on their environment. SGP has five focal areas:

• Climate change – Suriname has a reasonably pristine forest, but it is under pressure because of economic development. We try to implement demonstration projects, e.g. the making of clean water with the help of solar installation. We hope that these exemplary projects will move the government to set up basic drinking water facilities;

• Protection and preservation of biodiversity – SGP implements learning processes for communities how to link the livelihood with their economic advancements. People tend to protect their environment more efficiently if they receive direct benefits from those efforts;

• International waters – Mostly regarding mining activities, such as small scale gold mining and its influence on water quality and pollution. One of the projects arranged exchange visits with Guyana and French Guyana. WWF is taking this project further to help them to organize themselves;



• Land degradation – Because of human interference soils deteriorate. It depends on the type and quality of the system. SGP supports communities use the soil more efficiently. With regards to mining, there are alternative ways that are less destructive, but because they need to change their systems and customs, it is a long during process. For these kinds of projects you need patience to see the impacts;

• POPs. With regards to lessons learnt and challenges there are two main issues. Firstly, the establishment of trust is very important. Communities tend to appreciate that very highly. Secondly, collaboration with partners and other donors is important for reasons of cost effectiveness (e.g. with regards to transport). If other partners are working in the same area, costs for transport can be combined and thus reduced. The up scaling of SGP projects (moving from small to medium size projects) has some weaknesses, strengths, threats and opportunities:

• Major weakness: capacity of implementers is low and skilled human resources and expertise is limited. Many people do not yet have the mindset for a system like the project cycle;

• Major strength: the environment is relatively pristine and low populated; • Major threat: economic development is advancing, and results in increased pressure on the

environment; • Major opportunity: through training and awareness activities we can reach an equitable and

sustainable balance between economic development, cultural development and environmental protection and preservation.

There are several concrete opportunities to upscale projects:

• Biodiversity – sustainable community tourism, small business development (e.g. regarding agriculture: improving the ways people are producing crops, in cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (LVV));

• Climate change – saving transportation of fuel through demonstrating and introducing alternative ways of energy and sustainable use of resources, this will save fuel, money and reduces the impact on the environment;

• International waters – rain harvesting projects for clean water purposes, transformation and regulation of small scale gold mining;

• Land degradation – the government took already a step in this part; • POPs – e.g. in the Brokopondo area: waste management, prevention of POPs use.

I like to encourage you when you develop projects or policies, include the communities, go and meet them. Please keep in mind that we have people living in the Interior. See for further information www.undp.org/sgp

Discussion and questions & answers Mr. N. Remple, UNDP‐GEF: In Suriname 64 projects have been implemented. What is the most common type of project, in which focal area and why? The majority of projects were regarding biodiversity (this is the same at global level). It is easier to develop projects in that area, because of the wealth of biodiversity in Suriname’s Interior. Furthermore it is easier to make a link between livelihoods and biodiversity; it is e.g. more difficult to make such a link with climate change. The second main area is land degradation, followed by climate change. Ms. A. Bajnath‐Khoenkhoen, Ministry of Labour, Technological Development and Environment (ATM): What kind of POPs related projects did you have?



In Brokopondo a project that included a feasibility study for a waste management scheme. People in the interior try to burn the waste but 60‐80% is plastic and through burning you get dioxins. One of the communities collaborated with Peace Corps to start a waste management project. In another project a survey was done on the soil quality because of the potential POPs residents. Mr. M. Zimsky, GEF Secretariat: What are the top three environmental problems? Firstly, land degradation and deterioration of the soil. E.g. in the upper Suriname river areas communities lose the basic forests products and need to go further to collect their products. Species are more difficult to encounter. Primary forests are getting more and more degraded to secondary forests. Secondly, the loss of some types of species (e.g. birds) because of overexploitation. Now people have to search for alternative ways of income. Thirdly, communities feel that they are neglected in the national policy making processes. That’s why we encourage communities and the government to work on partnerships. Mr. M. Zimsky, GEF Secretariat: What is driving forest loss? Concessionaires only have access to 12‐13% of forest cover, another 13% is protected areas. What is happening with the rest of the forest cover? It is not really clear. I think there should be an assessment where concessions are and how these are used. Often concessions are given in areas where communities are in the direct zone. And sometimes communities are not included in development activities, such as in Patamacca. On the other hand, there is the example of communities that have established a link with Iamgold (large gold mining company) to supply them with vegetables. Government should implement an assessment of the threats to the forests. Ms. J. Artist, VIDS: It is said that there is a lack of capacity within NGOs. How do we solve that problem? Is there a possibility to bring in a project coordinator in the project proposal? The capacity issue is indeed a constraint, but training has to be financed by co financing, and we have partners in the board representing other potential donors. Partnership is the keyword: we sometimes ask another agency to finance the training part. With regards to the coordinator: next month we will probably have filled the vacancy for the SGP national coordinator. Mr. L. Sampai, ICCA: A general observation on sustainable rural development: when you look at the environment in the interior, what is the reason for land degradation? People depend on farming and agriculture and use slash and burn practices. In most areas there is no structural support. If you want to deal with this problem, than you have to work on the structural base, and recognize that they need to feed themselves from those lands. So give them opportunities and basic information to make use of these resources. A very important issue is that of education. If there is no possibility for employment, then they move out. Look very carefully at it. That is an overall structural problem, not only an environmental problem. SGP wants to put an example and hopes that other departments will take up further, for which we have medium and large size GEF projects.



SESSION 6: FIELD VISIT (SARAMACCA)

Introduction In 2006 The Caribbean Institute started a project in Saramacca entitled Wroko Nanga Koni: Food safety and income security in Suriname horticulture. The goal of this project is to assist small farmers in the transition to competitive organic horticulture and the development of a sustainable agro supply chain. The pilot phase of the project was financed by the Small Grants Programme. More than 40 small fulltime and part‐time farmers participated in training sessions, and 17 full time farmers decided to make the full scale transition. This second stage of the process started in January 2009. Currently these farmers are still using both types of agriculture: commercial fields where they use conventional methods (with chemical fertilizers) and transition fields where they introduce new organic methods, such as the use of compost. Compost is used as a tool for sustainable soil management. The soils of Saramacca are totally damaged and infected by nematodes, because of intensive fertilizer and pesticide use. The application of compost is needed to restore the soil fertility and its ecological balance, and thus a composting facility is needed. Therefore a composting place was set up during the project and farmers were trained in using compost. Making compost is a very intensive process for which large amounts of raw material is needed: a farmer needs 20‐30 tons of compost per hectare per year. The current composting facility is small (using a small tractor and windrow turner), but for cost‐efficiency it would be more attractive to have a large facility, which needs high investment costs. Investors are sought to industrialize composting and make it commercial. Although the composting place is part of the project, it was not visited during the field visit, because of the distance and because there have been no activities for three months. The Caribbean Institute has a partnership with East West Seed Company (one of the largest producer of tropical vegetable seeds in the world) in the Philippines, and five farmers are now testing these seeds. It is expected that the trials will show which varieties can be used in Suriname. The project and participating farmers are facing several constraints, such as the limited number of experts in Suriname with regards to crop management and crop protection. After three years of implementation and development of the program, The Caribbean Institute now has a solid methodology and enough data to up scale the project to a medium size program. During the field visit three small farmers were visited that are participating in the project. Around fifty people participated in this GEF National Dialogue field trip. See also Annex III for additional background information on the project and the field trip.

Farmer 1: Mr. Robert Kriontani This farmer is producing a variety of crops (e.g. cabbage, pepper, winged bean, tomato, bell pepper (Capsicum)) on a shell ridge and sandy soils, which partly inundates during the rainy season. This farmer needs much water, and has a small well for the nursery and a large water basin for irrigation during the dry season. During the project many farmers were trained, but not all farmers went into transition. Farmers who chose to go in transition, received incentives such as initial investments. One of the things this project did for this farmer is digging a well. There are several requirements to become an organic



farmer. Firstly, they need to have a nursery to learn to carefully grow the seedlings. They used to put seeds in the soil or in cups, but when transplanting these plants, the roots get easily damaged, exposing them to diseases. Secondly, they need to have a cage that can be locked to store the pesticides. This farmer does not yet receive stable income from the new methods used, because they do not have enough compost yet for the whole farm. He experiences large differences between growing crops on compost or growing them the old way. With compost the soil improves: when he harvested his cabbage he saw many worms, he had never seen that before. The soil becomes more fertile and regains soil fauna. Fertilizers salinate the soil and bring toxins in the soil and plants, because fertilizers also contain toxins. Crops that grow on compost and are not fertilized with chemical fertilizers taste better, are softer and look better. This farmer did not dare to eat raw cabbage in the past, now he does. With fertilizers however cabbage grow bigger and especially heavier. He did an experiment with pepper, growing half of it on normal soil and the other half on soil with compost (see left picture below). Both were fertilized with chicken manure. Participants clearly saw difference between the yellowish, weak plants and the greenish, full grown plants on the composted soil. The farmer told that he harvested until that day respectively 35 and 60 kg.

With regards to pests and diseases he has many challenges. Nematodes are common, and in the past they used Furadan, an insecticide with a nematicide effect, which is now banned by the government, though no alternative is given. They now use a biological method, using a seed extract of Crotalaria striata and pour it once in 15 days around the plants. It does not kill the nematodes but suppresses them sufficiently to get the crops well grown. Another farmer had his soil fully infected with nematodes, causing death to all crops he planted on his land. During this project, an expert on nematodes proposed to test different kinds of treatments with Crotalaria striata, and it really worked. Now that farmer proudly says: “I can be a tomato farmer again on my own sandy soil.” These farmers apply these new methods on a commercial scale because they have to live from it, they are no hobbyist. They are convinced that it works; otherwise they would have left the project. Mr. Kriontani will do an experiment planting a field full with Crotalaria striata and replacing them after a while with pepper plants, to see which effect the Crotalaria striata plants have on the nematode in the soil. Furthermore these plants fix nitrogen which improves the soil. Next, his plants suffer from mole cricket (Scapteriscus). Now he use specific leaves that he wraps around young plants to protect the young roots against the mole cricket. Crops furthermore suffer from aphids and leaf miners for which he uses organic fertilizers or extracts of tobacco leaves.

Farmer 2: Mr. Guno Sanrasid This farmer has used the last seven years pesticides and chemicals (fertilizers) to such an extent that the soil completely became soured; planting crops is hardly possible now. He participates in the project to restore his land and currently he is growing celery now in planting bags with compost. He now has approximately 1100 bags with celery growing.



Farmer 3: Mr. Randjietpersad Ajodiah Since many years this farmer wanted to switch to organic agriculture, but did not know how to do it. When he heard of The Caribbean Institute’s project, he immediately entered the project. He germinates crops in plant trays, not under shade but in the full sun to let them become used to direct sun light and stimulate strong root growth. This farmer expressed the hard circumstances in which they have to work. At the moment they hardly earn something with agriculture and he often wonders whether he should not stop because it is hardly profitable. Farmers earn relatively little, as much of the value remains at the middle man and wholesalers. It is hard to offer their products directly to the consumers, as the stallholders occupy the markets. According to this farmer, to improve the situation of the farmers they need to be enabled to sell their products directly to the consumers, and thus there should come more markets. Or a buyer‐system should be introduced, in which a fixed percentage will be established that retailers are allowed to use. Furthermore, a guaranteed price would help farmers considerably to invest in their farm and to know that they will make some money out of it. They are yet too much in the hands of the wholesalers. Participants suggested the option of co‐operatives, but in the past these have proven not to function in Suriname, many do not exist anymore and there is very little confidence in co‐operatives. He explains that it is hardly an option for farmer to go to the markets themselves to sell their products. They need whole‐sale buyers, because they need to work the lands, but the whole system of wholesalers needs to be revised. He prefers to see clear agreements on minimum and maximum prices for agricultural products. Next, the government should put more input in this sector. Financial means that are available for the agricultural sector are still benefited too little by the farmers themselves. He always longed to make the transition to organic agriculture. He has experienced and learned more in this project than he has ever learned in the previous 45 years from the Ministry of LVV. “I bring the practical side of me and the theoretical side of that organization [the project] together, and as such I continue.” Farmers that have chosen to go in transition are all fulltime farmers. That is quite unique, generally people do not want to become fulltime farmers because there is hardly any money in it, and income is insecure. The process is intensive, there are so many steps and much money and expertise is needed. But the participating farmers will get there, because they want it. We hardly had to do any recruitment, most farmers came to us and asked to be trained, they want to learn something. And they will be able to sell their products. They have already had the experience (with hotels like Torarica and Krasnapolsky and some hospitals) that when you cut the middle man, you got three to four times more money for your products. If you can arrange a delivery contract, than you have a secure income for a year. At that point the farmers can become an entrepreneur and begin to plan and develop a production scheme. They have also learnt to separate the products in quality classes.

Until now all harvested products are going into one heap. So why should they do an extra effort if you don’t get a premium for that? Next, the previous mentioned buyers want to be HACCP certified (hygienic certification), but then all suppliers also need to be certified. That’s why these companies want to buy products of these organic farmers. It is a very difficult job, and as a farmer they need to know so many things, so we will take out the idea that agricultural work it is primitive work.



A challenge for the farmers and the project is, that they do not have a farm administration, so there is no written data. If they can get insight in what is going on in their farm and with their sales, they will be triggered to critically evaluate some of their practices and make alterations. Currently an expert is sought to sit with the farmers in the field and help them to build up an administration. Marketing of organic food is not only good for the environment, it should also be good for their pocket. They have the belief that it will be profitable and the project contains a part for awareness in the society.



SESSION 7: CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND NEXT STEPS Ms. A. Bajnath‐Khoenkhoen and Ms. I. Patterzon (GEF National Focal Point), Ministry of ATM On behalf of the minister and director of the Ministry of ATM and the GEF workgroup within the Ministry, I want to thank you all for your participation. We are grateful with your attendance and participation and hope that this first National Dialogue also went well for you. We kindly await your input and your projects. I would like to thank the GEF representatives. We are grateful that we could have our first National Dialogue after many years. Mr. R. Ajodiah, farmer participating in the Wroko Nanga Koni project I said many things today and I hope that you will communicate it correctly to the minister. So that they will listen to the problems that we experience. I would appreciate that. But only then, I will say that I am glad that you have brought something positive. Ms. M. Silos, The Caribbean Institute On behalf of the farmers that participate in this project Wroko Nanga Koni and as executive director of The Caribbean Institute, I would like to thank the Ministry of ATM for asking us to host this field visit. It was a great honor, especially for the farmers. Secondly I want to thank the representatives of the GEF for their very informative workshop and the inspiration that at least I got for submitting now a medium sized project that I have been sitting on for two years. For me it was a very interesting and fruitful workshop and I hope that you will stay in this job for a very long time, because we really need it. Mr. S. Gold, GEF SCP This is the first time that I made such a statement in such a T‐shirt, I am very proud to wear it. This dialogue is a long time coming. We have been working on it for nearly two years now and we, all the GEF partners, are delighted to be here to participate in your dialogue. We are very impressed with your commitments to the dialogue, to global environmental issues and the vast and varied knowledge and skills that you as participants have and brought to the dialogue. From my point of view it has been a very fruitful couple of days and we hope that we have been able to facilitate your dialogue, to reach the stated objectives, and to review two priority projects that you proposed and than to try to assist you using GEF 4 co‐financing resources and prepare you for GEF 5. We are also grateful to the organizers for organizing this interesting field visit. It is nice to see that the very small seed money from SGP has resulted in this significantly expanded farming project. Hopefully this can further upscale to a larger project. I want to thank the Ministry of ATM, especially the minister, director and the focal point, Ivette Patterzon. This is the end of this two day dialogue but certainly not the end of the dialogue with the GEF. Please stay in very close contact with Mr. Ehlers and his team and the GEF Agencies. We wish you all the best.



ANNEX I PROGRAM OF THE SURINAME GEF NATIONAL DIALOGUE

Suriname GEF National Dialogue

14 ‐15 July 2009

Venue: Torarica Royal Ballroom

AGENDA

Day 1: Tuesday 14 July 2009

Time Session Moderator/ Resource Persons

8.00 – 8.30 Registration of participants & distribution of workshop materials

Ministry of ATM

8.30 – 9.30 Session 1: Opening and Introduction Opening and Welcome remarks

• Welcome remark by the Ministry of Environment (Alternate GEF Operational Focal Point)

• Welcome remark UNDP Representative

• Welcome remark IDB representative

• Welcome remark by the GEF Secretariat

• Opening statement by the Minister of Environment

Overview of Dialogue Objectives and Agenda

Chair: Ministry of ATM

Ms. Ivette Patterzon

Mrs. M. de Castro

Mr. A. Brewster

Mr. William Ehlers, Team leader External Affairs

Hon. Mrs. Drs. Joyce D. Amarello ‐Williams

Mr. Stephen Gold, GEF CSP

9.30 – 10.00 Coffee/Tea Break

10.00 – 11.40

Session 2: Overview of recent GEF Developments

• Brief introduction to the GEF (background, structure, funding, GEF 5) (20 min) Questions & Answers (15 min)

• GEF Focal Areas & Cross‐cutting Strategies (20 min) Questions & Answers (15 min)

• Project Cycle (15 min) Questions & Answers (15 min)

Mr. William Ehlers, Team leader External Affairs

Mr. Mark Zimsky, GEF Secretariat

Mr. Nick Remple, UNDP

11.40 – 13.30 Session 3: National activities in relation to the Global Environmental Conventions




• UNFCCC: National strategies and priorities (10 min)

• UNCBD: National strategies and priorities (10 min)

• UNCCD: National strategies and priorities (10 min)

• NCSA project: National strategies and priorities(10 min)

• POPs: National strategies and priorities (10 min)

• POPs awareness video (26 min)

Discussion and Q & A (60 min)






13.30 – 14.30 Lunch Break

14.30 – 16.00 Session 4: Presentation of 2 potential project proposals for Suriname with the focus on co‐financing

• Mainstreaming Biodiversity and Climate Change (20 min) IDB procedures

• Suriname Coastal Protected Area Management (20 min)



Ms. Ivette Patterzon Ms. Carolina Jaramillo

Ms. Claudine Sakimin, Ministry of RGB

Closing day 1

9.45 – 10.45 am Side event: Signing of Project Document Second National Communication Venue: Banquet Hall



Day 2:

Wednesday 15 July 2009

Time Session Moderator/ Resource Persons

8.00 – 8.30 Registration of participants Ministry of ATM

8.30 – 9.30 Session 5: Small Grants Programme Suriname

Identification opportunities for up scaling SGP projects (30 min)



Mr. H. Creton

SGP Coordinator

9.30 – 9.45 Coffee break

9.45‐ 16.00 Session 6: Field visit (Saramacca)

Introduction

Session 7: Conclusions, Recommendations and Next Steps

Closing remarks (10 min)

• GEF Secretariat

• Permanent Secretary ATM

Ms. Maureen Silos Executive Director of The Caribbean Institute



ANNEX II PARTICIPANTS OF THE SURINAME GEF NATIONAL DIALOGUE # Organization Name July 14th July 15th Foreign Participants 1 Dutch Embassy S. Bihari x 2 GEF‐Secretariat W. Ehlers x x 3 GEF‐Secretariat S. Gold x x 4 GEF‐Secretariat M. Zimsky x x 5 Inter‐American Development Bank (IDB) C. Jaramillo x x 6 IDB E. Lima x 7 IDB J. Tejeda x x 8 UNDP M. de Castro x 9 UNDP‐GEF N. Remple x x Suriname Participants – Governmental and Semi‐Governmental 10 Anton de Kom University of Suriname (AdeKUS) S. Carilho x 11 AdeKUS G. Wesenhagen x 12 Bureau Public Health G. Lieveld x x 13 Centre for Agricultural Research in Suriname (CELOS) A. Soetosenojo x 14 Foundation for Forest Management and Production

Control (SBB) A. Goeptar x x

15 SBB S. Martosatiman x x 16 SBB R. Somopawiro x 17 SBB W. Wirht x x 18 Foundation for Nature Conservation in Suriname

(STINASU) S. Amatroeijat x

19 STINASU J. Drielsma x x 20 Maritime Authority Suriname (MAS) T. Saeri x 21 MAS T. Tjin Wong Joe x 22 Minister of Labour, Technological Development and

Environment (ATM) Hon. J. Amarello‐Williams x

23 Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries (LVV)

M. Jagroep x

24 Ministry of LVV A. Kartoredjo x x 25 Ministry of Defense (sub NCCR) R. Nasibdar x x 26 Ministry of Education (MINOV) S. Tjoe A On x 27 Ministry of Foreign Affairs (BuZa) G. Abdoelsaboer x x 28 Ministry of Justice and Police (JP) J. Sawiran x x 29 Ministry of Labour, Technological Development and

Environment (ATM) M. Apensa x

30 Ministry of ATM A. Bajnath‐Khoenkhoen x x 31 Ministry of ATM A. Boedhoe x 32 Ministry of ATM N. Busropan‐Tjin Kong

Foek x x

33 Ministry of ATM J. Caupain x x 34 Ministry of ATM R. Defares x 35 Ministry of ATM T. Elder x x 36 Ministry of ATM W. Ellis x x 37 Ministry of ATM A. Emanuels x x 38 Ministry of ATM R. Jubithana x 39 Ministry of ATM S. de Meza x x 40 Ministry of ATM I. Patterzon x x 41 Ministry of ATM N. Plet x x 42 Ministry of ATM V. Sabajo x x



# Organization Name July 14th July 15th 43 Ministry of ATM P. Setrowidjojo‐

Karijodrono x x

44 Ministry of ATM S. Soetosenojo x x 45 Ministry of ATM H. Uiterloo x x 46 Ministry of ATM N. Wijngaarde x x 47 Ministry of Physical Planning, Land and Forest

Management (ROGB) J. Lenne x

48 Ministry of ROGB (LBB) F. Baal x 49 Ministry of Planning and Development Cooperation

(PLOS) A. Boedhoe‐Hemai x

50 Ministry of PLOS S. Lakhisaran ‐ Jaggan x 51 Ministry of Public Health (VG) J. de Kom x 52 Ministry of Trade and Industries (HI) N. van Amson x x 53 Ministry of HI T. Cheung x x 54 National Council for the Envirment (NMR) E. Mormon x x 55 National Herbarium Suriname (BBS) D. Traag x 56 BBS E. Zschuschen x x 57 National Institute for Environment and Development

in Suriname (NIMOS) R. Ramsukul x x

58 NIMOS E. Soetodrono x x 59 National Zoological Collection of Suriname (NZCS) P. Ouboter x x 60 NZCS M. Quick‐Stregels x x 61 Nature Conservation Division (LBB/NB) E. Kromodihardjo x x 62 LBB/NB C. Sakimin x x Suriname Participants – Non‐governmental organizations and private sector 63 AP&G Consultancy S. Bhairo x 64 Association of Indigenous Village Chiefs in Suriname

(VIDS) J. Gijsberg x x

65 VIDS J. Artist x x 66 Association of Suriname Businesses (VSB) N. Engelman x x 67 VSB M. Meyer x 68 Atics V. Hoffman x 69 Atics M. Poelsema x 70 Bureau Forum NGO Y. Tjon Jaw Chong x 71 Conservation International Suriname (CIS) A. Tjon Sie Fat x 72 Consultant J. Engelman x 73 Consultant (POPs) M. Tirtotaroeno x 74 Environmental Services & Support (ESS) R. de Wolf x x 75 IICA L. Sampai x x 76 IntegraMarine A. Mackintosh x x 77 Inter‐American Development Bank (IDB) A. Brewster x 78 IDB S. Hofwijk x 79 IDB J. Sakidjo x x 80 National Women Movement (NVB) M. Boejoekoe x x 81 NVB F. Groenenberg x x 82 Organization of Indigenous People in Suriname (OIS) N. Aloema x 83 Schurman Advocaten H. Schurman x 84 Schurman Advocaten M. Kaboord x 85 Small Grants Programme (SGP) H. Creton x x 86 State Oil company (Staatsolie) K. Lie a Kwie x 87 Suriname Conservation Foundation (SCF) H. Brandon x 88 The Caribbean Institute M. Silos x x 89 UNDP B. Drakenstein x x 90 UNDP T. Gittens x 91 UNDP N. Seegulam x 92 UNICEF M. Schmeitz x



# Organization Name July 14th July 15th Press 93 Apintie (Media) W. Echteld x 94 De West F. Elbers x 95 NSS N. Ramcharan x 96 Sky Radio (Media) J. Eyk x 97 SPS (media) C. Sairras x x



ANNEX III BACKGROUND INFORMATION TO THE FIELD VISIT The next four pages present background information to the field visit:

• ‘Wroko Nanga Koni’ elaborates on the project background, goals and activities, developed by The Caribbean Institute;

• ‘Field trip to the district of Saramacca’ elaborates on the activities in which farmers participated, developed by The Caribbean Institute.

With initial funding of the UNDP Small Grants Pro-gram we trained 17 farmers in Damboentong (district of Saramacca) in 2006-2007. With follow-up funding from ICCO we were able to scale-up the project to Tijgerkreek-West and Catharina Sophia, where we trained 32 fulltime and part-time farmers in the principles of organic horticul-ture in 2007-2008.

In January 2009 17 fulltime farmers started with the full-scale 3 year transition to or-ganic horticulture. We expect to train 30 farmers in Calcutta in 2009.

The Caribbean Institute has introduced an innovative two-pronged extension method-ology consisting of a combi-nation of group trainings in the evening and ongoing, hands-on support on the farm, individually and in crop groups.

Experience has shown that providing farmers hands-on experimentation with new practices is an important ele-ment of successful site-specific learning. It enables them to adapt the new prac-tices to the specific condi-tions in which they live and work.

Beginning October, 2007 participating farmers have had the opportunity to take part in direct deliveries to hotels, hospitals and restau-rants. With these deliveries farmers earned three to four times more than they would receive from a middleman.

We are well on our way to establish a sustainable horti-culture production chain.

Food Safety and Income Security in Surinamese Horticulture

30 years. It is well-known that over-application of chemical fertilizers may reduce farm profits, create a risk of soil degradation, and cause envi-ronmental pollution.

Synthetic fertilizers are easy to apply, and farmers often do not know how to match fertilizer applications to the amount of nutrients needed

by certain crops. These have added to the problem with the result that the soil in Saramacca is severely de-graded. This means that the land has undergone changes which reduce its ability to naturally support agricul-tural activities – growing of crops, grazing of livestock,

growing of trees and so on. The land is no longer able to provide the yields with-out a continuous increase of agro-chemicals.

Compost and the reversal of land degradation

July 14 – 15, 2009

Suriname GEF National Dialogue

In 2006 The Caribbean Insti-tute started a project in Saramacca entitled “Wroko Nanga Koni: Food Safety and Income Security in Suriname Horticulture.” The goal of this project is to assist small farmers in the transition to competitive or-ganic horticulture and the development of a sustainable agro supply chain.

‘Wroko Nanga Koni’

THE CARIBBEAN INSTITUTE

Vegetable growers in Saramacca have been using synthetic fertilizers and toxic agro-chemicals for more than

serious problem for local livelihoods and food secu-rity.

Land degradation harms people’s livelihoods in many different ways. Where soil is degraded, crop yields are lower; the farmer has fewer surpluses to sell. To main-tain their livelihoods, farm-ers must either crop larger

areas or buy synthetic fertil-izers, involving more work and cost. None of these two options is feasible in Saramacca.

To reverse this trend of re-duced soil fertility, reduced yields and threatened liveli-hoods, The Caribbean Insti-tute has been introducing compost as a proven way to

restore the natural balance of the soil, to reverse land degradation and to restore agro-biodiversity.

Compost and the reversal of land degradation

Project components

Page 2 ‘Wroko Nanga Koni ’ Sur iname GEF Nat ional Dia logue

The greatest land degrada-tion problem in Saramacca is declining fertility in culti-vated areas as a result of nutrient depletion. This is a

THE CARI

SurinFIELD TRIP

Good mor

Today weproject “Ware memsometime

Today youthe sustai

The farme

1. Yeimrevi

Acran

Sifam

BBEAN INSTIT

name GP TO THE DISTR

rning,

e will visit thWroko Nangambers of the es difficult 3 –

u will meet Rinable agricul

ers go throug

ear One: Evmproved groecognition aniruses; safe u

dditional trarop planning,nd Good Agri

ix months intarm to gain management.

TUTE

GEF NatRICT OF SARA

ree small fara Koni: Food SSaramacca

– 5 year trans

Robert Kriontture moveme

gh a rigorous t

vening traininwing techniqnd control of se of pesticid

inings includ, and crop ancultural Pract

to the traininfirsthand exAll field activ

tional DMACCA

rms in SaramSafety and InHorticulture

sition to organ

ani, Guno Saent of Surinam

three‐year tra

ngs in sustaiques; sustainpests and di

des (only in tim

e organic fand financial atices (GAP).

g, each farmxperience in vities are carr

Dialogu

macca that arncome Securit Collective anic productio

nrasid and Rame.

aining and tra

inable methonable weed iseases such mes of crises)

rm managemadministratio

er chooses athe valuableied out under

ue, July

e participatinty in Surinamand have chn.

andjietpersad

ansition proce

odologies. Thmanagementas nematode).

ment methodn; collective

crop for an ee impacts anr the guidanc

14 – 1

ng in The Camese Horticulthosen to ma

d Ajodiah. Th

ess.

his includes st; organic cres, insects, fu

dologies suchmarketing of

experimentalnd results ofce of a qualifie

5, 2009

ribbean’s Insture.” The farake the long

ey are pione

soil managemrop managemungi, bacteria

as crop rotf fresh vegeta

l plot on theirf sustainableed trainer.

1

9

titute rmers g and

ers in

ment; ment; a, and

ation, ables;

r own e land

THE CARI

2. Yeorinfad

Inbepofrep

3. YefaouwfumbeAgu

I would be

Maureen ExecutiveThe Carib

BBEAN INSTIT

ear Two: Farrganic horticnclude intensiarm by a teamisciplinary ba

n the second egin to plan reparation fof their cropeceive traininroduction gro

ear Three: Inarmers solidifut collective

working in curther expertmanagement. egin marketinll of this iuidance of ex

e happy to an

Silos Director bean Institut

TUTE

mers begin tculture. The five hands‐on m of trainersckgrounds.

half of the yeand work in or the collecps. During tng in workingoup.

n the final profy their knowmarketing.

crop groups tise in organiAt the sam

ng their prodis carried oxperienced fie

nswer any qu

e

he transition first six montsupport on ts from differe

ear, the farmecrop groupsctive marketithis time thg together as

ogram year, wledge and caThey continas they g

ic soil and crme time, thuce collectiveout under teld experts.

estions and I

to ths the ent

ers as ing hey s a

the arry nue gain rop hey ely. the

hope you havve a very nicee day.

2

Suriname GEF National Dialoguegef.prisenet.com/docs/cty/210.pdf · 2011-05-11 · Suriname GEF...

Documents

Transcript of Suriname GEF National Dialoguegef.prisenet.com/docs/cty/210.pdf · 2011-05-11 · Suriname GEF...