VZCZCXRO2016
RR RUEHAP RUEHKN RUEHKR RUEHMJ RUEHPB
DE RUEHSV #0245/01 1202034
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 302034Z APR 07
FM AMEMBASSY SUVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0018
RUCPDC/USDOC WASHDC
RUEHAP/AMEMBASSY APIA 0165
RUEHBK/AMEMBASSY BANGKOK 0715
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 1678
RUEHKN/AMEMBASSY KOLONIA 0198
RUEHKR/AMEMBASSY KOROR 0112
RUEHMJ/AMEMBASSY MAJURO 0640
RUEHPB/AMEMBASSY PORT MORESBY 1251
RUEHWL/AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON 1447

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 SUVA 000245 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
BANGKOK FOR REO AND USAID 
 
COMMERCE FOR NOAA 
 
STATE PASS TO INTERIOR FOR USGS AND IOA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SENV TPHY EAID XV GEF UNDP
SUBJECT: SUSTAINABLE INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCES AND WASTEWATER 
MANAGEMENT (IWRM) FOR PACIFIC ISLAND COUNTRIES 
 
 
¶1. Summary: The Regional Environmental Specialist (RES) from Embassy 
Suva's Pacific Environmental Hub attended a week-long meeting on the 
GEF-supported Sustainable Integrated Water Resources and Wastewater 
Management (IWRM) Project in Nadi, Fiji, from April 23 to 27. IWRM 
is a new idea in the Pacific, and interest has been driven by the 
availability of donor funding. Nevertheless, participants showed 
enthusiasm for the project and recognized its potential. They also 
expressed frustration with the GEF process and the difficulty in 
accessing GEF funds. Many countries are behind the curve in 
identifying co-financers for their country projects, a GEF 
requirement that might cause some countries to fall out of this 
regional initiative. Despite this obstacle, IWRM presents 
significant opportunities for small, vulnerable Pacific island 
nations, and the donor community, to expand access to clean water, 
safeguard biodiversity, and support climate change adaptation 
activities.  End summary. 
 
¶2. The South Pacific Geosciences Commission (SOPAC) organized this 
meeting with funding from the GEF to informally assess national 
diagnostic reports and hotspot analysis from the Pacific island 
countries (PICs) it supports.  Late last year, SOPAC requested these 
reports from countries as part of its effort to design a full scale 
regional IWRM demonstration project proposal for GEF funding.  The 
overall value of the project could reach 10.4 million USD, with 
individual country components receiving up to 500,000 in GEF 
funding. 
 
------------- 
Participation 
------------- 
 
¶3. Meeting participants included IWRM country focal points and 
Pacific Adaptation to Climate Change Project country focal points 
from 14 PICs and French Polynesia.  (The involvement of both sets of 
focal points promoted synergies between these two GEF-supported 
activities.)  Embassy Suva-based RES Sandeep K Singh, a locally 
recognized expert on wastewater management, was invited to 
participate in the meeting as a resource person, along with UNDP, 
UNEP, and IUCN representatives, and staff from the South Pacific 
Regional Environmental Program (SPREP).  Other participants included 
NGOs and private consulting firms working in the Pacific on water 
issues. 
 
-------- 
Overview 
-------- 
 
¶4. Meeting sessions included presentations, working groups and 
discussions on the IWRM, which is a systematic process for the 
sustainable development, allocation and monitoring of water resource 
use to enhance integration of social, economic and environmental 
objectives.  Although the idea is relatively new in the Pacific 
Region, it has been extensively tried out in the greater Caribbean 
through the White Water to the Blue Water Initiative, in which the 
USG is a partner. Some PIC participants showed confusion about the 
IWRM concept, despite being part of the project for nearly a year. 
 
 
¶5. Countries' diagnostic reports and hotspot analysis highlighted 
that many PICs have very limited fresh water resources; what little 
water they do have is often contaminated through poor wastewater 
management. Small Island countries like Tuvalu, Kiribati and Niue 
are dependent on ground and rainwater.  The reports and discussion 
also pointed to pollution of ground water as a real threat to PICs, 
especially to small atoll countries. Once ground water systems are 
contaminated, it is difficult and costly to clean them up. (Poor 
water quality can also result from salt water intrusion from coastal 
zones, which can be exacerbated by extraction at unsustainable 
rates.) In addition, reports from Fiji, Samoa, PNG and the Cook 
Islands discussed how poor watershed management has lead to 
degradation of coastal resources, particularly coral reefs. 
 
¶6. The participants recognized that poor wastewater management 
threatens PICs vital fresh water systems and near-shore marine 
resources and that the IWRM project offers an opportunity to 
introduce best-practices to the region to counter this threat. 
Despite participants' recognition of the opportunity, however, many 
 
SUVA 00000245  002 OF 002 
 
 
were obviously overwhelmed by the prospects of securing required 
co-financing for the country components of the project and of 
complying with the bureaucratic requirements of accessing GEF 
funding over the next 3-4 months before the looming application 
deadline. 
 
¶7. Participants complained that, while the Caribbean has significant 
donor support to implement the IWRM concept, including a 3.5 million 
dollar total U.S. commitment to White Water to Blue Water since 
2002, PICs have come late to the party and are struggling to engage 
the donor community. SOPAC pointed out that the EU, through the next 
phase of its assistance program for the Pacific (EDF 9, which starts 
mid-year), has pledged 3.4 million Euros for drought resilience 
projects in PICs.  Some of this funding could serve as possible 
co-financing for IWRM, since the EU is encouraging PICs to make 
possible linkages between EU-funded programs and other assistance 
efforts. (Recognizing that some of the demonstration projects are in 
high biodiversity areas, the IUCN representative suggested 
additional linkages to countries' National Biodiversity Strategic 
Action Plans under the Convention on Biological Diversity and to the 
Ramsar Convention.) 
 
¶8. Comment: The IWRM concept is relatively new to the Pacific and 
has not been employed here in a systematic manner. GEF support could 
help to bring that about. Despite being driven by the availability 
of GEF funding, most PIC representatives at the event showed real 
enthusiasm for the IWRM approach and embraced the opportunity it 
represents for better integration of water sectors and for promoting 
good governance and sound environmental management.  Lack of 
familiarity with the concept, poor forward planning, difficulties 
identifying co-financing, and a profound lack of government capacity 
may, however, result in this opportunity being lost for some PICs 
and for donors looking for a vehicle to address the region's 
pressing water needs. End comment.