Search the SPREP Catalogue

One of the most critical factors influencing the success of the IWP pilot projects has been the choice of sites. Communities that choose to be involved in the project were committed to the process from the outset. In contrast, in communities that did not initiate their own involvement — some did not ask for "expressions of interest", and in some instances the decision about the location of pilot initiatives was politically motivated — it took considerable time for the National Coordinators to convince the community that being involved in the IWP initiative was worthwhile. Two key lessons can be drawn from the initial engagement with pilot communities: pilot sites should be chosen carefully and efforts should be made to not give communities false expectations.

The recently enacted Environmental Management Act (EMA) calls for the development of a National Liquid Waste Management Strategy (the National Solid Waste Management Strategy and Action Plan was developed in 2005). The proposed Liquid Waste Strategy will set the direction for sustainable liquid waste management in Fiji, and was developed through a process of wide consultation with all stakeholders involved in the production and the management of liquid waste. The government will take the lead in implementing the strategy, working in close partnership with local government and other key stakeholders.

The IWP project team developed a written survey questionnaire in November 2004. Primrose Malosu (IWP Project Assistant) and Russell Nari (Deputy Director, Environment Unit) introduced the survey to volunteer facilitators who had earlier participated in preparation for and conduct of a Participatory Situation Analysis (Table 1). The survey team took the survey forms to their villages and conducted interviews during the first weeks of December 2004. The survey was conducted simultaneously with the mangrove and reef fish survey.

An assessment of the site was conducted on 6 December 2004 by Joe Aitaro and Ann and Clarence Kitalong of The Environment. Inc. (TEI). The TEI team conducted a qualitative and quantitative assessment within the waste disposal site and along the forest and river surrounding the site.The team identified and recorded flora and fauna found within and immediately adjacent to the site. At selected points the TEI team described the habitat, flora and fauna. The red dots on indicate reference points from this assessment. The team did not do any subsurface sampling during the terrestrial or coastal survey. The team also met a community representative of the Ebiil Society at the Ollei dock.

This report summarises the recommendations for site selection of the IWP pilot project site and priority areas of activities. Tins is based on the findings of the participatory' situation analysis (PSA) completed in the latter half of 2002 (refer to Participatory Situation Analysis: Summary Report of Village Consultations in Niue) and analysis of site options discussed in the April 2003 at a National Forum.

The International Waters Programme (IWP) on Nine planned and carried out island-wide village consultations and a participatory simation analysis from September to December 2002 to assist selection of a IWP pilot project. This initial community participation programme identified priority environmental concerns (PEC) of local residents and possible pilot project activities. Village information was also collected that will contribute to selection of a site for the pilot project.

The IW is one of the four focal areas of the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The GEF was created in 1994 to provide funding for programs and projects to achieve global environment benefits in four focal areas: biodiversity, climate change, international waters, and ozone layer depletion, as well as land degradation as it relates to these focal areas.

There is no shortage of provisions relating to waste management issues in the current laws of Kiribati. While it may be useful to consider the opportunities for recognising the role of the community in waste management under the laws of Kiribati, there would appear to be only limited scope for effective legislative action in this regard. The role of Local Government Councils is clear and this is effectively provided for the in the Local Government Act 1984. If the problem is one of planning, capacity or prioritisation, or any combination of these, then amendment to the laws of Kiribati is unlikely to provide an effective outcome.