ties, the government submits proposals through UNDP and implements the projects on its own. For regional projects, proposals are developed and submitted to UNDP by SPREP, which then acts as the executing agency. Evaluations of the regional projects have shown that it is difficult to manage multiple projects involving multiple countries spread over vast ocean areas. The inherent logistical problems create unnecessary delays in project implementation (Hunnam 2002). SPREP pinpoints the real problem as the limited capacity of many Pacific island countries to implement GEF-funded projects which often have set time frames and complex additional requirements and procedures as compared to other donor-funded activities. In addition, local arrangements established for in-country project implementation are ineffective. Despite these limitations, the regional approach is considered appropriate for dealing with transboundary issues (climate change, migratory species, invasive species, movement of hazardous waste, and so on) and for the sharing of knowledge and lessons learned. However, establishing stand-alone units within the executing agencies to manage these projects may create problems with sustainability as well as confusion because managers often have a poorly defined relationship with the executing agency and/or government agency responsible for project implementation. Samoa, through its MNRE, has far more capacity to manage its own environment compared to many other Pacific island countries. Although the GEF may have decided to use national projects only for enabling activities in the past, there is reason to believe that Samoa is ready to move on to implementing MSPs and FSPs (although some GEF objectives—for example, international waters—may be better achieved through a regional approach). 44
The role played by the Small Grants Programme should be noted. The SGP provides local NGOs and community groups with transparent access to GEF support, based on processes and requirements specifically targeted to them. Local activi ties can thus become part of larger, more comprehensive undertakings aimed at achieving global environmental benefits.
6.3 Relevance of Project Outcomes and Impacts All GEF-funded projects have contributed to increased public awareness about environmental concerns (biodiversity, climate change, land use management, waste management, and persistent organic pollutants) and to building national capacity (of individuals, institutions, and systems) to address environmental issues at various levels ranging from government to local communities. Both the MPA project and SPBCP established community-based, locally managed conservation areas that expanded the small number of existing protected areas in the country. These areas have suffered, however, from dwindling support since GEF funding ended. GEF-funded projects enabled the development of comprehensive frameworks (policies and legislation) and strategic actions (NBSAP, NAPA, NIP, NAP for land degradation, NCSA, national reports to the various conventions, and management plans for community conservation areas), which comprise the current charter for effective management of Samoa’s natural resources. Obviously, increased capacity will enable Samoa to respond effectively to the challenges facing its fragile environment through the loss of biodiversity, climate change, land degradation, and pollution. The GEF is thus helping Samoa meet its obligations under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, UNFCCC, and UNCCD. GEF Country Portfolio Evaluation: Samoa (1992–2007)