GLOBAL ISLAND PARTNERSHIP

1
GLOBAL ISLAND PARTNERSHIP

• Promoting local actions for island conservation
  by inspiring leadership, catalyzing commitments,
  and facilitating collaboration among all islands
• Rolph Payet and James Hardcastle
• Hanoi, April 2008

2
GLOBAL ISLAND PARTNERSHIP

• The Global Island Partnership (GLISPA) was
  created to help bridge local and global
  initiatives
• GLISPA is recognized by the Convention on
  Biological Diversity (CBD) as a partnership to
  advance the implementation of the Programmes of
  Work on Island Biodiversity and Protected Areas

3
GLOBAL ISLAND PARTNERSHIP

• The GLISPA group spans all the regions of the
  world and includes leaders from Small Islands
  Developing States (SIDS), large island nations,
  overseas territories, and bilateral and
  multilateral agencies as well as local, national,
  regional and international organizations

4
GLISPA Principles

• GLISPA is an open partnership
• 2. GLISPA commitments are based on global,
  national, regional and/or organizational
  priorities
• 3. Partners are responsible for implementing the
  Partnership provides global network
• 4. Collaboration is encouraged and facilitated by
  the Partnership but is always voluntary
• 5. GLISPA concentrates on adding value

5
GLISPA COMMITMENTS

• Phoenix Island Protected Area (Kiribati)
• Fiji Marine Initiative
• Micronesia Challenge
• Western Indian Ocean Marine Protected Area
  Initiative

6
New GLISPA Commitments

• Caribbean Challenge Marine Initiative
• Invasive Species on Islands
• Sea Level Rise Foundation
• Global Islands Database and Information Portal
  (world atlas of island biodiversity)
• Mediterranean Partnership
• Sustainable Tourism on Islands initiative

7
(No Transcript)
8
MICRONESIA CHALLENGE

• Background
• What worked
• Lessons Learned
• Recommendations

9
Micronesia Challenge

• In the Federated States of Micronesia, more than
  half of
• our citizens and residents livelihoods depend
  on a
• subsistence lifestyle hence managing our natural
• resources is a matter we take very seriously. In
  Micronesia,
• we do not see conservation and development as
  opposing
• forces, but rather as complimentary to each
  other.
• 2006, The Honorable Joseph Urusemal,
• then President of the Federated States of
  Micronesia

10
Lessons Learned

• Micronesia Challenge Focal Points for each
  jurisdiction
• The Micronesia Challenge Support Team, which
  includes
• Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment
  Programme (SPREP)
• US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
  Administration (NOAA)
• The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
• RARE
• Micronesia Conservation Trust (MCT)
• Community Conservation Network (CCN)
• Locally Managed Marine Area (LMMA) Network,
• Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat,
• Conservation International (CI)
• U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Insular
  Affairs

11
Launching the Challenge

• Charismatic leaders initiated the process
• The MC was the first of its kind - a regional
  commitment
• The existence of regional frameworks and sharing
  of best practices catalyzed political will
• Jurisdictions have long-term cultural and
  political ties (former UN Trust Territories)
• Built upon existing conservation efforts and
  obligations
• Commitment came before financial pledges
• Highly visible venue used for global launch
  (COP8)
• The Micronesia Conservation Trust in place and
  capable of managing an endowment
• The TNC-CI funding pledge helped build MC
  credibility in the region and globally, and
  provided a match for other international donors
  and leverage for GEF funds

12
Launching the Challenge

• Some jurisdiction leaders were less engaged
• Sustainable finance plans were not complete
  initially except in Palau
• MC designed and launched at the top political
  levels with more limited input from mid-level
  executing staff little involvement of
  legislative branches in MC launch
• Needed more emphasis on previous commitments that
  helped inspire the Challenge in the beginning
• Underestimated country needs for technical
  assistance and funding in planning stage
• All of cultural and geographical Micronesia not
  brought into the Challenge
• Partnerships with key partners not fully
  formalized early-on for maximum leverage

13
Early Implementation

• Launch and effective management of MC Support
  Team partnership
• A well attended regional meeting to launch the MC
  was planned and funded by a diverse mix of
  partners
• Sustainable financial planning experts available
  in region
• Use of regional forums to move MC forward
  (Western Micronesia Chief Executives and
  Micronesia President Summits)
• MIC and other networks continue to provide good
  opportunities for coordination
• Association of Pacific Island Legislature (APIL)
  buy-in through a resolution of support
• MC support after leadership transition in the FSM
  through early Presidential resolution
• GEF commitment of 6 million

14
Early Implementation

• MC Support Team lack the capacity to assist all
  jurisdictions equally
• Need to fully involve communities from the
  beginning, especially in site-based planning
  efforts and building local political support
• Challenging coordination among small
  jurisdictions across region
• Need more local financial commitments
• Need to build greater support among some
  government resource agency mid-level managers
• Identify ways of sustaining regional interest in
  the MC
• Hard to get public donors to commit to endowments
• Technical working groups (marine, terrestrial,
  and GIS) set up at regional meeting but not
  formalized
• Different goals/approaches between various
  partners

15
Recommendations
Linkages, Equity, PreparationRealistic
Commitments and Resources
16
THANKYOU