SIDS need to act now to address these issues, but are hampered by small populations which limit the amount of technical capacity in-country as well as the economic base from which to finance mitigation measures.
A status review of IWRM and Water Efficiency Plans in Selected SIDS  , undertaken in 2008, reveals (refer to Table 1) that in a sample of 13 Caribbean and Pacific SIDS, only Samoa has a IWRM Plan in place; nine of the countries were in the process of preparing the plans; and one country had taken initial steps towards formulating the Plan. On the other hand, t here is some relevant experience in the Pacific and Caribbean SIDS from which to develop IWRM policies, strategies, and activities, as demonstrated by the findings of the country IWRM diagnostic reports in the Pacific and the IWCAM National Reports in the Caribbean. Countries responding to the GWP Survey in 2006. Refer to Pages 9 to 12 of Inception Report for examples of work undertaken in Caribbean and Pacific SIDS
To facilitate the implementation of IWRM plans, there is a need for establishment of effective and appropriate coordination mechanisms among different agencies and development of financial structures that enable these agencies to perform their tasks effectively and in a sustainable manner. At the operational level, stakeholders should be responsible for monitoring, progress reporting, and evaluation of the implementation of various measures and actions and to provide feedback on the impacts of the implementation of specific activities on water resources to a leading agency. This process calls for the establishment of a reformed institutional structure, that involves decision makers, at the highest political level, from ministries, agencies, local administrations in addition to representatives from civil society, NGOs, private sector, and other actors concerned with management of water resources. The nature, structure, and organisation of reformed institutions have to allow for involvement of all sectors at all levels to guarantee a nation-wide consultation and to promote bottom-up approaches in planning and implementation of IWRM combined with the more common top-down approaches. The reformed institutional structure must be able to warrant the political support and commitment and provide the enabling environment needed to implement multi-sectoral water policies and strategies.
Water institutions in SIDS Regions have severe shortage of the skilled staff on issues related to IWRM. Involved personnel are commonly engineers or environmentalists. There is a severe shortage of other professions such as agronomists, economists, sociologists, lawyers, environmental health experts, etc. Multi-discipline efforts need to be mobilized for the mainstreaming of environmental, economic, social, and legal dimensions in the developed IWRM policies and strategies. At the local level, there is a serious shortage of capacities, knowledge, know-how, and other capabilities needed to participate in and implement water policies and projects. This can be attributed to the centralized approach (i.e. top-down approach) of water policy development and lack of advanced training and capacity building campaigns on the new emerging IWRM issues and approaches. The inappropriateness and overlap of roles and functions of current water-related institutions within the context of IWRM and lack of coordination and integration among concerned stakeholders hinder the implementation of IWRM policies. Most of existing coordination instruments are related to short-term activities/projects and lack sustainability and empowerment. Stakeholder participation process is usually practiced through technical committees that are typically inactive following the completion of these projects. Some actors that have a vital role in water management do not participate in IWRM plan formulation. For example, at the central level, ministries of planning and finance that are responsible for approving developments which may have implications for national water plans and for allocating and providing the required investments to implement these, have no significant roles during the formulation phase of water policies.
There are four things that we would like the HLS to conclude on: 1. That the present GWP Toolbox is not quite appropriate for SIDS - scale and lack of resources - although we are also cognizant that the donors and IFIs would rather us not use that arguement because the rest of the DCs also use that same arguement. but as practitioners in the field we know that lack of capacity and resources - and the issue, generally of scale dominate all natural resource and environmental management. 2. Sector wide reform of the water sector is too cumbersome for a SIDs to tackle. Therefore, a better approach would be a problem based approach which is tied into a national priority and which will allow for easy buy in - at all levels - and for scaling up in the future. 3. The IWRM plan must be built around a demonstration project(s) so that there is buy in and so that the IWRM plan does not become a futile exercise. You know how we like to formulate plans which adorn the bookshelves! 4. That our preliminary thoughts on a set of guidelines for SIDS is acceptable.
Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) Methodology and Guidelines for Small Island Developing States CHRISTOPHER CORBIN For UNEP/DEPI in partnership with UNEP Division of the Global Environment Facility
solution to managing and protecting water resources,
improving governance arrangements and
improving water supply and sanitation provision.
IWRM Plans for SIDS 2 Tuvalu 2 Trinidad and Tobago 2 (Union – an Outer Island) St. Vincent and the Grenadines 3 Solomon Islands 1 Samoa 2 Saint Lucia 2 Mauritius 2 Kiribati 2 Jamaica 2 Grenada 2 Fiji 2 Belize 3 Cape Verde 2 Barbados 1=plan in place 2=plans in preparation 3=only initial steps taken Country