1.0 Development Problem and Immediate Problems Addressed by the Project

The Project has sought to address development problems unique to atolls as marginal resource base and extremely fragile island environment.

1.1 Overall Development of Remote Atolls

The physical and ecological constraints make food production and other subsistence and economic activities more difficult then in other types of land mass. Likewise, the social institutions which have developed during previous decades of isolation have tended to be relatively complex on account of their being based primarily on the need for social harmony and survival, rather than on cost-effectiveness and efficiency. Thus while traditional culture and institutions preserve communal values in the face of natural adversities in these remote island communities, the social infrastructure put in place by government, the various religious denominations, development entities and NGOs has introduced the need for skills and information required for a more systematic and rational understanding and mastery of the harsh atoll environment.

1.2 Immediate Problems

During Phase I (March 1985 - October 1988), the Project dealt more with assisting island communities solve immediate problems related to food production, income generation, community skills training, ecological balance and the provision of transport and renewable energy.

For the current phase, the Project directs considerable expertise and resources in addressing immediate problems related t the sustainability of the technologies and development approaches it has field-tested and validated as suitable for atolls and small islands.

These immediate problems are actually perceived needs arising from the Project's implementation experience during the previous phase. These needs are:

• to further strengthen the capability of the Island council and other local institutions to plan and manage development activities;
  
  
• to further involve the central government in providing proficient technical and administrative support (resources, training and technical assistance, promotion of development opportunities among donors0 to outer islands development;
  
  
• to develop mechanisms which will encourage and facilitate the increased participation in development activities of various interest groups and subsections of the community, particularly the women and youth and others who have been traditionally at the periphery of local decision-making process;
  
  
• to consolidate the project atoll in each of the participating countries as demonstration and replication model for the rest of the atolls;
  
  
• to further disseminate information on proven technologies and practices which can maintain the integrity of the very fragile atoll ecosystem;
  
  
• to promote and establish viable income generating activities both as major poverty alleviation measure and institution building catalyst toward sustainable development taking into account relatively sever geographic and socio-cultural constraints.

In the process of addressing these immediate needs, the Project has identified, tested and disseminated improved technologies and implementation approaches suited for overall atoll development. These technologies and methodologies constitute in Phase II an integrated programme implemented with the full participation of national and local governments, technical agencies and NGOs, as well as religious and indigenous organizations, and the atoll communities themselves, in each participating country.

How to further strengthen national capability in carrying out this integrated programme to assist remote atoll communities solve their unique development problems has been the primary focus of Phase II activities.

1.3 Project Strategy to Address Immediate Problems

Throughout the current phase, the Project has continued to use participatory approaches in catalyzing solutions to development problems. Those affected by the problems are sought and mobilized to thresh out alternative solutions and to implement what is perceived to be the best action to take. The social mobilization strategy employed engages people to act on problems as a result of their own understanding and conviction about the necessity of exercising the collective will to solve these pressing problems.

While the Project relies on UNVs as change agent in most participating countries and trains a counterpart from the government, added emphasis has been placed on training as many people as possible to carry on tasks which will help eventually ensure the sustainability of improved technologies and development approaches.

Information dissemination and advocacy for integrated development approaches has assumed varying forms and methods depending on the country situation. Thus project atolls have been used for demonstration and learning areas in some countries, while in others, greater reliance has been placed on orientation and training activities to create the demand for replicable technologies and approaches.

The Project has adhered to the general strategy of adjusting methodologies to actual conditions in specific atolls and countries to ensure pertinence of development inputs. The project design reflects such flexibility with its country-by-country determination of outputs and activities consistent with country-specific priorities. The Project's methodologies, on the other hand, are further enhanced by each country's experience.

1.4 Phase II Objectives

The immediate problems related to the replicability and sustainability of IADP technologies and methodologies were clearly stated at the inception of Phase II. Hence, on the basis of these problems, the Project has defined the following as its main concerns for the current phase:

• to further refine previously-applied methodologies which will enable atoll communities to plan and implement a programme for integrated development;
  
  
• to assess project experience so as to form a sound basis for further replicating such methodologies; and
  
  
• to share information on relevant approaches and technologies to other atolls and countries.

2.0 Outputs Produced and Problems Encountered

2.1 Validated Methodologies for Integrated Atoll Development

The Project's institutional outputs to date are tested and validated methodologies for planning, managing and supporting sustainable development in atolls and other small islands.

These methodologies are as follows:

2.1.1 Participatory island Profiling and Development Planning

The PIPDP methodology represents a major breakthrough in the use of participatory approaches at the precise contact point between the Project and the community. At that point where popular involvement is weakest, on account of the usual constraints to effect a fit between project objectives and the often tedious participatory process, the Project has come up with a simple planning methodology which provides a common framework for both the government and the community to arrive at mutual understanding of the various development tasks at hand.

The process helps the island leaders and the community to arrive at a common understanding of the local situation through the gathering of critical data per relevant sector, i.e. agriculture, fisheries, health, education, etc. in addition to updated information on the island's history, local government, indigenous social organization and available manpower skills and other resources.

The government and the community next proceed to assess the data, identifying in the process interrelated problems which have plagued previous attempts to attain local develoment. The result is that each participant holds in the mind the same basic picture of the island community, its development history, problems and potential. This island profile also reflects the common resolve to seek the attainment of local goals through adherence to cherished values and vision and to the commitment to improve the community's situation largely through its own efforts.

With the profile as basic reference, the PIPDP process then becomes a self-propelled exercise to identify effective courses of action for the community to take in solving what it regards as priority problems. Each workshop is transformed ingot a live forum for the government and the community to deliberate, negotiate and to finally agree on how to go about solving each problem. They jointly decide on allocation of resources, critical activities to be undertaken to ensure local support and the projects urgently needed to solve local problems. Thus the PIPDP workshop process subtly uses and reinforces the traditional (e.g. maneaba) consultative mechanism for developmental ends.

Through these workshops, an island develoment plan is produced truly and genuinely in a participatory way. The government contributes the format for the develoment profile and plan consistent with the national requirements, but the content reflects close collaboration between the government and the community. It indicates a reversal of roles with the community defining its needs and determining courses of action and projects, and the government providing technical and commodity assistance to facilitate the local develoment process. In addition, probably quite rare in development planning practice, local legends, songs, names of indigenous institutions, as well as traditional leaders i.e. the chiefs, religious leaders, all the key elements in the island development scene find their way into the written profiles and plans.

Aside from the develoment plan with a time frame meshed with the national plan, the participants evolve a 1-year community actions plan which sets in detail the activities to be undertaken by both the government and the community with minimal external assistance. Thus the usual gap between planning and implementation is avoided.

The other aspect in the PIPDP methodology is that it does not require trainers to be highly educated to understand the workshop process and conduct it. The methodology builds on local knowledge and relies on the social and interpersonal skills of trainers to facilitate the process. The inputs and workshop designs have been made easy to follow through a user friendly Facilitator's Guide. The Project trains national trainers from the sectoral agencies and NGOs to handle the workshop themselves. Thus the sustainability of the participatory planning activity is assured.

2.1.2 Small scale High Impact Projects

To provide for immediate community action after the planning activity, the community is provided minimal funding support to identify and implement small scaled projects which can increase income, ensure wise use of local resources and provide opportunities for implementors to further refine project planning and management skills.

The fund is administered by a local body with representation from virtually all sectors of the community and specifically tasked to coordinate or manage overall development activity in the island. Creation of this body is a direct output of the PIPDP workshop process. The members decide on which projects will get the loan, the repayment terms, the reporting and accountability system. In effect, the projects supported by the fund become tools to solve local problems with many beneficial spin-offs, including their contribution to helping ensure the sustainability of development activities in a resource-poor environment. They serve also to train the members of the development coordinating body on skills required to make income-generating projects successful.

The Project operates a similar scheme for social projects.

2.1.3 Integrated Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development Management

The Project builds into existing Island Councils the capability to fully mobilize for development the indigenous social organization as well as relatively recent institutions and organizations formed by the government, the religious sector and development projects, NGOs and other entities. The respective developmental roles of government bodies and other institutions are clarified as part of systematic efforts to further strengthen local management capability. Assigning tem specific tasks in plan implementation helps immensely in motivating the various relevant entities to clarify these roles both to themselves and the entire community.

A common and standard process to implement social mobilization activities is adopted and carried out by all sectors to ensure community-wide decision and action on develoment problems. These activities take into account the need to stress the positive aspects of certain traditional values, beliefs and practices in the promotion of local-level development.

Rooted in the local culture, and nurturing the relevance of programmes to local needs, this change process will eventually result in responsive structures which can be part of a full-blown development management system supported by the entire island community.

2.1.4 Social Preparation and Training for Technology Adoption

This methodology seeks community support and acceptance prior to widespread dissemination of improved technologies in atoll agriculture, fisheries and other productive sectors.

Volunteers are drawn from the people themselves to identify the need for specific technologies, test improvements or innovative features and acquire new skills so that they themselves will set up the demonstration and advocate for technology adoption. Thus, with this methodology, each technology adopted is itself and output of an intensive public education campaign as it is in another sense an innovative technical intervention in a remote island community. It involves intensive community-based training t teach a wide cross section of the community the specific skills for a particular project (e.g. construction of water tanks, making soil, building canoes, etc.)

The skills imparted and the pertinence itself of the improved technology will make the newly-adopted technology sustainable.

2.1.5 National Core Team of Trainers

The organization and training of an inter-agency team of trainers for outer islands development represents a radical departure from the usual practice of having each sector field on or two trainers to handle specialized topics. Forming the trainers into a team

• facilitates inter-disciplinary osmosis of technical knowledge;
  
  
• encourages sharing and assessment of field experience which is vital for the seemingly never-ending quest for methods requiring nothing more than common-sense sensitivity to the community's needs;
  
  
• maximizes the effectivity of the sectoral worker through linkages with other programmes; and
  
  
• siphon off directly from the local situation itself to the consciousness of central planners the observations and insights which will lend greater relevance to rural develoment planning and implementation.

Since the trainers mostly come from agencies and NGOs implementing programmes in the outer islands, their participation in a common training activity will make them more familiar with the interrelatedness of local problems and, hence, can lead hopefully to improve the existing service delivery system.

As these countries are short of technical expertise and manpower, the multi-sector pooling of resources overcomes this often quoted constraint to development. The NCTT promotes coordination and an integrated approach to outer island development.

Fielding an active inter-agency team will also generated relevant policies and administrative procedures based on the actual field experiences of the trainers, and thus further reinforcing the support mechanism for outer islands development.

The core team concept is now also being applied to rural food production and water and sanitation programmes.

2.2 Programme Outputs Common to All the Countries

Varied experiences in each of the participating countries have contributed to the validation and refinement of IADP methodologies. On the other hand, application of these methodologies has resulted in the following major programme outputs related to the replication and institution building objectives of Phase II.

2.2.1 A unique Integrated Atoll Development Project implemented in an outer island to serve as demonstration and learning model with concrete accomplishments and sustainable development activities in local level planning and management; institution building; food production; water and sanitation; fisheries; skills improvement; and income generation.

Current Status

Planed for all countries except Tuvalu, the output has been produced in five Pacific countries and in the Maldives in the Indian Ocean.

In the Cook Islands, Mangaia was chosen to serve as model for institution building. Hence, from this varied coral island in the south, the Project field-tested ad disseminated for nation-wide application the PIPDP methodology; the use of local coordinative body, known as the Mangaia Development Coordination Committee (MDCC) to take an active role in local development; and specialized skills training for handicraft and other income generating projects.

In the Federated States of Micronesia, Woleai in Yap State was chosen at the start of the current phases as the project site for applying the proven technologies, social preparation and other participatory methodologies developed during Phase I. With project inception in February 1990, it promptly distinguished itself within the year as the premier demonstration site for atoll-based agricultures in the FSM.

The Project sought advice of the chiefs and other traditional leaders, demonstrated to them improved cultivation practices, trained them on the required skills and made them part of the food production team. When the paramount chief became the first to put hoe to ground, it shattered the myth that agriculture was only for women. Social preparation had worked its familiar magic. Now the whole community is involved in compost making, seed nursery maintenance, potting and planting of seedlings in vacant lots. The experience in project atoll continues to influence the direction of the state's agriculture extension programme.

In Kiribati, Tamana provided the model in 1990 for the nation-wide replication of the Island Development Committee as the technical arm of the Island Council for project planning and management. It became apparent to the project that given the limited composition of the Island Council, and the multitude of projects undertaken by various community groups, a development body with broader membership would have to be formed in the project atoll. Thus, in coordination with the Island Council, the country's first IDC was organized composed of representatives from the various sectors ad interest groups in the island, such as the Unimane (old men), youth ad women's groups, religious organizations, village welfare groups for health-related activities, agriculture and fishing associations. As planned based on the Tamana model, the various IDCs throughout the country identify and plan projects for submission to the central government through the Island council.

As part of the pioneering efforts in local-level planning, the Project assisted Tamana to produce the country's first participatory island development plan (1989). With refinements drawn from the experience in other countries, the PIPDP process was adopted as a national strategy to further enhance the initial efforts.

In the Maldives, an atoll country in the Indian Ocean, Meemu atoll has been a source of valuable lessons, as well as proven development approaches, for a new integrate project initiated by the government in Nilandhe, a nearby atoll. As early as 1989, IADP upon the request of the government prepared the conceptual framework for the project preparation process in Nilandhe. The trailing modules used to generate the active participation of island communities were all validated and refined in Meemu. The project preparation consultant and the prospective national and local staff for Nilandhe were trained in Meemu. Nilandhe's Atoll Chief and Island Chiefs visited Meemu and conducted community dialogues to get first-hand from the people themselves the lessons learnt from their IADP experience.

In the Marshall Islands, Moloelap as the project atoll served as testing area for agricultural extension methods suitable both to the atoll environment and the unique socio-cultural setting of a community heavily dependent on external assistance. Projects maintained by the community long after the UNV has left include those in water and sanitation and food production for nutrition and hoe consumption. Health problems have been considerably reduced in the atoll's five inhabited islands. During an assessment meeting held in 1990 and attended by community leaders from each island, the project activities implemented which were considered most relevant to local needs were: water catchments; wells; nursery beds for pumpkins, improving cultivation of sweet potatoes and water melons; home gardening; coconut replanting; and toilets.

In Tokelau, one of the country's three atolls, Faka'ofo, became the demonstration area for improved technologies, and appropriate extension methods for their adoption, in water supply, renewable energy, agriculture and fisheries. Despite setbacks caused by strong hurricanes in 1987 and 1989, the technologies field-tested in the project atoll became part of the government's development and extension programmes.

Problems encountered

Choosing a project atoll for demonstration and learning area presented a problem in Tuvalu on account of the country's policy to share develoment benefits equally to all the islands. The Project modified its approach in deference to this policy. It has since concentrated in assisting the government carry out institution building activities aimed at strengthening the planning, coordination and implementation of rural develoment programmes.

To implement this strategy for the rest of the participating countries, the Project fielded UNVs in the atolls, living there for a period ranging from two and a half years, as in the case of Kiribati and Marshall Islands, to four years as in the Maldives.

The first problem encountered was how to provide a viable support system to the volunteer considering the remoteness of the project area. Such isolation could often breed self-pity and despair, particularly in the face of initial frustrations normally encountered in promoting developmental concerns in a small community whose set ways have been hardened by decades of collective routine and habits and sanctioned by traditional and religious practices. In some cases, the UNV himself began to exhibit local traits which are resistant to change, a natural aftermath of deep and total immersion in conservative island life.

To overcome these problems, the Project systematically worked out the logistical programme and moral support for its UNVs through regular visits of the UNV to the main island for consultation with central agencies; attendance in assessment meetings at the Project's office in Suva; regular monitoring visits by the Project management; and sharing of reports among UNVs, among other measures mutually thought of between the Project and the government.

The Project also took an active and in the identification and recruitment of volunteers, making sure that the UNV fits the very specific and difficult work environment. It recruited the volunteers directly and provided intensive orientation and training on the requirements of tee assignment.

Implementing an integrated project for the develoment of an area is itself a daunting task which is usually easier to envision by planners, but always harder to implement by ordinary mortals. It requires painstaking work to ascertain the degree and intensity of integration to be carried out among a myriad of services, each promoted by competing agencies with the usual claim to eternal usefulness to the rural populace by some central mandate. While it has been easy to ascertain such mandate, which decrees the kind of services to be delivered to the hapless populace, it is relatively harder to convince everyone involved in the rural sector to first ascertain the real needs of the people, as articulated by the community itself, and from this knowledge work out which services could best match those needs. The Project has proven this challenging task could be undertaken with a large degree success by intensive social preparation work among government functionaries prior to formal entry in the demonstration atoll.

At the project atoll itself, the task to carry out an integrated programme has been equally challenging with the emphasis on participatory methodologies. It requires tedious process to bring the community and government together in a forum to thresh out local needs and the available resources and services to meet those needs.

Granting that all these tasks have been done, maintaining the enthusiasm of the various government agencies to carry on with the various activities (monitoring and assessment, programming of additional services required, feed backing of experiences to central planners and trainers as basis for the possible revisions of project and training designs; provision of management inputs to implementing groups, etc.) of the development process which supports integration requires not only the commitment of individual sectoral agencies, but actual and unwavering support at both the central planning and policy-making levels.

Outlook

Towards the end of Phase II, the Project has been involved in working closely with the respective governments of participating countries on how to scale up operations from the project atoll to the rest of the outer islands. Various strategies have been proposed: expansion by cluster of islands rather than programming services for all the islands; establishing a programme coordination and monitoring authority to ensure inter-agency cooperation; contracting an NGO to serve as arbiter among competing interests in the expansion of services to the outer islands, and simultaneously serving as resource agency for training, institution building and technology adoption activities; strengthening a department of rural development to institutionalize the approaches for IRD sustainability.

All these approaches are for the next phase to further consider and to assess as to their efficacy in enabling small island countries achieve sustainable rural develoment not only in one remote atoll but in all.

2.2.2 Model atoll develoment plans and strengthened capability at the local and national levels for planning and implementing integrated atoll development projects.

Current Status

Participatory planning workshops, based on the IADP-developed PIPDP methodology and which involves all relevant sectors and interest groups in the island community, have been completed in the following islands: Mangaia, Penrhyn, Rakahanga and Manihiki in the Cook Islands; Nukufetai, Nukulaelae and Vaitupu in Tuvalu; and Aranuka, Kuria, Makin, Marakei, Abaiang, Abemama, Nonouti, Tab South, Maiana, North Tarara, Tab North, Beru and Nikunau in Kiribati.

In each of these islands, the Project has applied the PIPDP methodology, refining further its participatory aspects. The PIPDP process is propelled by problems previously identified by the community and reflected in the Profile. These problems serve as a common frame of reference in the negotiations between the community and the central government, development NGOs or donor agencies. For the first time in the development history of the island, project identification is not dependent on the wishes and, sometimes, caprice, of a powerful local leader or entity.

Likewise engaging people for local action does not happen anymore solely within the limited confines of traditional mobilizing issues: raising funds for the church or mosque; cleaning the streets for feast days; building a canoe or a school fence; donating labor or some projects initiated by a visiting team from the capital island; repairing the community center, etc. Community mobilization now includes other concerns. The development plan, which specifies the activities to be undertaken by the community and the government to achieve Plan objectives, has truly become a guide to collective action.

The next task addressed by the Project in each of these islands was how to channel the enthusiasm enkindled by the innovative planning activity into sustained and systematic efforts to implement the plan.

Several models were developed in tackling this task.

Cook Islands Model

First in Mangaia, in the Cook Islands, a community-based coordinating body was formed as an output of the planning activity. The Mangaia PIPDP participants identified the need for an organizational mechanism which would assist the Island Council and the Chief Administration Office carry out coordination work among the various sectors involved in the newly formulated development plan. Thus they organized the Mangaia Development Coordinating Committee with membership representing the cross section of the community. The Project extended a NZ$5,000 grant to the MDCC as support to small-scale projects proposed by community groups. Repayments, as planned, would be recycled by the MDCC for other projects. By administering the fund, the MDCC would also be trained to appraise projects, manage funds and monitor loan repayments.

Priority funding assistance has been extended to projects with the following features:

• impact seen in relatively shorter time, i.e. 1 year;
  
  
• income-generating;
  
  
• high local resource use and development;
  
  
• local capital requirements;
  
  
• high community impact; and
  
  
• self-sustaining.

Among the early grantees of loans were: Mangaia Vanilla Growers Association; Ivirua Planters Association, a 15-member youth group; woodcarvers Association; and Mangaia Vegetable Growers Association. Each received a NZ$1000 loan. Repayment rate was nearly 100% from these loans.

Due to the excellent record of the MDCC in the management of the grant, it has attracted development funds from other sources. Meanwhile, in Penrhyn, at the conclusion of its workshop, the participants also organized the Penrhyn Development coordinating Committee with tasks similar to the MDCC.

In July, 1991, the Cabinet institutionalized both committees as "working advisory arm" of the Island council. The Cabinet Memorandum provides that:

• requests by the various community organizations for aid funds from the Government should first be appraised and endorsed by the Committee and the Island Council;
  
  
• any revolving fund or grant approved for any particular group on the island should be released to the recipients through the Island council and the IDCC to avoid confusion resulting from the proliferation of different revolving funds.

Through this memorandum, the government has expressed policy support to institution building efforts in the outer islands, particularly in helping strengthen a community-based focal point for coordination and development management.

Kiribati Model

In 1989, the Government, with the technical assistance of the Project, undertook a comprehensive programme to strengthen island level institutional capabilities in support of sustainable development. Aside from the various IDCs, the Rural Planning Unit (RPU) was established at the Ministry of Home Affairs and Rural Development (MHARD), formerly Ministry of Home Affairs and Decentralization. Project planning workshops were conducted for the newly-formed IDCs and subsequently, the RPU-coordinated team of national trainers launched the PIPDP which to date had been completed 13 islands.

Aware that the central task in these islands which have completed PIPDP will be to strengthen local capability to implement, monitor and evaluate the programmes and projects in the island plans, the Government and the IADP formulated a development management model as vital component of the rural capability enhancement programme in Kiribati.

Its key elements are as follows:

Provision of priming-up funds to the Island Council for the initial projects to be undertaken for supervised implementation.

An AUD 15,000 Island Development Fund (IDF) for each island will be made available to the community under two categories: as Revolving Fund for Income Generating Projects with minimum allocation of AUD 5,000 and the balance, as Community Projects Fund to help facilitate the implementation of selected projects identified in the Island Development Plan. Administered directly by the Island Council, and assisted by the IDC, the IDF will, in effect, serve to refine the council's financial and management skills.

Intensive training of the island Council in project implementation, as well as social mobilization work to ensure the participation in the development process of all sectors ad interest groups, including indigenous institutions and religious organizations.

The island Council will be intensively trained in its role as development institution with capability to tap indigenous skills and resources and on the whole, serve as fulcrum for effective plan implementation and management. It will be given on-the-job training on the administration of the IDF; the conduct of social preparation activities among the Unimane (old men), religious groups and other relevant institutions to facilitate local involvement and support for projects; and the exercise of overall management responsibilities for plan implementation.

Setting up of a functional monitoring and evaluation system linking both the community and government levels which provides timely information on project progress where it can be best acted upon.

This community-based system will assist the Island Council to determine courses of action needed to overcome possible constraints encountered by community groups in project implementation. In the long run, it will provide much-needed data as basis for replanning projects and for preparing the next Island Development Plan. As a management tool, the system, with its appropriate forms, progress and impact indicators, and participatory methodologies will be vital in ensuring that the projects as implemented are consistent with the Island Development Plan.

It will also indicate areas for improving project performance through the revision of the project design, implementation practices or administrative procedures. Recommendations on policy support to project implementation may also be provided by data or information derived from the community-based system.

In September 1991, the Development Coordination committee, composed of department secretaries, endorsed the funding proposal initially for the three islands to the Cabinet for submission o the Forum Secretariat, which has indicated willingness to support it.

Tuvalu Model

On the request of the government of Tuvalu, IADP fielded a mission to Funafuti in July 1991 to conduct series of consultative meetings with officials of agencies delivering services to the outer islands. Its task was to propose strategies for outer islands development and to assess the role of the Integrated island Development Office (IIDO), taking into account the recent creation of the Ministry of Home Affairs and Rural Development (MHARD).

The output was a rural develoment management model unique to the Tuvalu situation. It seeks to strengthen national and local capability to plan, implement and manage rural develoment with the following strategies:

Formulation of an Integrated island Development Project (IIDP) for each Outer Island.

The project will be prepared based on the PIPDP outputs for each island. It will basically contain the socio-economic profile; the island development plan, including the one-year community action plan; the proposed projects and their profiles; and the organizational mechanism for plan implementation and management.

With the IIDP for each island, there will be a concrete basis for the programming of service delivery to the outer islands by each sectoral agency. The IIDP document will, in itself, serve as effective tool for soliciting support from donor agencies; the relationship of projects the agencies will support to community-articulated problem is clearly established.

Consolidation of the IIDPs into a National Integrated Rural Development Programme (NIRDP)

The IIDPs also provide a basis for preparing a national integrated rural development programme. With such a programme, the planning, implementation and monitoring of projects for the outer islands can be systematically carried out. There will be a comprehensive policy framework; roles and responsibilities of other sectors vis-à-vis outer islands development will e clarified and each sector's planning and actual delivery of services will be clearly in response to local plans.

Establishment of an Integrated Rural Development Coordinating and Monitoring Center

The Office of the Secretary to Government will be designated as such a center since it is the Secretary who effects coordination and oversees inter-department work. Locating the center where he holds office will emphasize outer islands develoment as a major thrust for each of the sectoral agency to respond to with relevant projects. The newly-created Department of Rural Develoment will serve as the Secretariat to the IRD center.

Streamlining the bureaucracy for rural develoment in this manner can hopefully overcome institutional constraints in delivering services to the outer islands.

Provision of adequate policy support to the National IRD Programme by the national Development Strategy Committee

After a thorough review of all policies related to IRD to identify existing policy gaps, the Committee will consolidate all relevant policies into a comprehensive policy framework. It will also conduct periodic assessment of IRD policy requirements.

Problems Encountered

The first problem tackled was how to engraft the comprehensive PIPDP methodology into existing local-level planning procedures of each participating country in as logical a way as possible without eradicating previous gains. Efforts were taken to involve trainers and planners in each of the participating countries to assess existing methodologies and procedures, identify the deficiencies and indicate the specific ways the PIPDP methodology could correct those gaps.

In the Cook Islands, IADP demonstrated the methodology through its Mangaia model and worked closely with the New Zealand-funded Northern Group Islands Profiling Exercise (NGIPE) team, which saw it fit to adopt the approach.

In Kiribati, upon assessment of the project planning workshops conducted for the IDCs, the national trainers concluded that application of the PIPDP methodology could lead to a better framework for project formulation and appraisal due to an intimate knowledge of the local situation and the participatory approaches adopted.

In Tuvalu, also upon assessment by the inter-agency team of trainers and agency planners, PIPDP became the logical response to the need to expand the scope of the existing Island Development Planning Process (IDPP), which limited itself to a few sectors with funding from the sponsoring NGO, which has since ceased operations in the country. Preparations are underway in other participating countries to bring about qualitative changes in local-level planning approaches through adoption of the PIPDP methodology.

In the Federated States of Micronesia, the Project works with the Outer Islands Planning Commission (OIPC) during the current preparatory stage for island-level planning. Surveys (baseline on livelihood; water supply and sanitation; local institutions) have been undertaken both for the use of the fieldman in operations and social preparation activities. The same data, which have been gathered with considerable community involvement, are also available to the OIPC. OIPC needs to be trained to implement PIPDP initially in Woleai.

In Maldives, community-wide project assessment workshops were undertaken to determine the activities completed based on the atoll development plans prepared in 1987. The Project and the national trainers noted that while considerable progress has been achieved, most especially in mobilizing youth and women, the full potential of the Atoll Development Assistance committee (ADAC) and the Island Development assistance Committees (IDACs) has not been fully harnessed. In response, a training programme on basic island development management was implemented in Meemu. A specialized skills training on management for the atoll chiefs was also requested by the government. The revision of existing atoll plans based on the refined PIPDP methodology would ideally follow this training activity to take advantage of the atoll chief's renewed commitment to community-wide planning.

In the Marshall Islands, Phase II began at the same time as the UNDP-DTCD development planning project started assisting the Ministry of the Interior and Outer Island Affairs in preparing local government plans. IADP cooperated actively and focused on community development and the provision of appropriate skills training for project replication. A UNV community Projects Trainer has been assigned recently to the MIOIA to help local governments implement the island plans.

In Tokelau, the Project directed efforts initially to improve existing structures, systems and procedures of the entire public service to gear it more effectively to overall development planning and implementation. Likewise, the roles of indigenous institutions were assessed and clarified into context of the central task to strengthen the planning, implementation and monitoring of integrated atoll development. Community profiling and social mobilization for local-level development planning is currently undergoing in the three atolls.

In building local and national capability for the implementation and management of integrated atoll development projects, the same participatory approach was carried out: review and assessment was conducted by the Project and the government through PIPDP and post-planning consultation sessions; institutional and programme reforms were jointly formulated and subsequently implemented.

Outlook

While each model developed was unique to the country situation, there were common elements of what could be considered the generic approach to mainstreaming rural development:

• provision of a comprehensive policy framework;
  
  
• an institutional mechanism with mandate to bring about sectoral linkages for effective service delivery to the outer islands;
  
  
• an integrated national programme based on the island development profiles and plans which rationalized existing strategies for the effective planning and management, and the provision of linkages to all sectors in the community;
  
  
• provision of a framework for the immediate implementation of post-planning activities;
  
  
• establishments of a community-based monitoring and evaluation system as basis of replanning, policy and administrative reforms and to improve overall plan implementation and management.

Two methodologies, PIPDP and the Outer islands Development Plan Implementation and Management (OIDPIM), will be principal tools to enable small island communities achieve sustainable development. While considerable attention has been directed to improve planning, less systematic efforts are spent on post-planning activities. Everything has been left to each sector to form service delivery structures and carry out activities without regard to the efficacy of existing local government entities and the indigenous institutions.

The next phase will further enrich these methodologies as the Project broadens their application to cover more islands in each participating country. Experiences with the country models are expected to yield more insights on how best to achieve sustainable outer islands development.

2.2.3 Increased awareness on the Project's institutional and sectoral achievements'

The Project builds awareness about its experience to generate national and regional support to the integrated programme.

In-country project staff have attended as resource persons in activities for youth and women, fishermen and farmers, health educators and other interest groups. In addition, the Project Coordinator and the Community Development Specialist/Trainer have acted as speakers, panelist and resource specialists in numerous in-country and regional meetings, workshops and conferences.

High-level consultative meetings are undertaken with governments and bilateral agencies as well as regional NGOs, during each country visit of the Project Coordinator. In addition, the UNVs assigned to the Project have regularly visited and reported to concerned agencies and NGOs. Training designs prepared by the Project's trainer and his mission to the outer islands are discussed with key government officials prior to execution.

At regional level, linkages have been established with regional institutions such as the South Pacific Commission, the Forum Secretariat, USP and the multilateral and bilateral organizations.

All these activities have brought information about the Project to all levels of the government bureaucracy in each participating country and to other development bodies and organizations in the region.

In each participating country, Project activities have been undertaken in pursuit of this strategy.

Cook islands

Aside from the extensive coverage of its activities by the broadcast and print media, the Project employs other means to make targeted sectors aware and committed to support the integrated approach to rural development:

• The UNV and his counterpart became members of the Northern Group Islands Profiling Exercise (NGIPE) within which they have carried out advocacy and orientation on the PIPDP methodology. The NGIPE coordinator himself visited Mangaia and, noting the potential of the MDCC, suggested its recognition by the government as a vital island-based development entity.
  
  
• In July, 1989, the Project sponsored with the Office of the Prime Minister and the Public Service Commission the Integrated Atoll Development Seminar for Chief Administration Officers (CAOs) and Island Council Mayors from the Northern Atolls. The participants endorsed the IADP strategy and action plan.
  
  
• In July , 1990, the Project conducted a seminar on Outer Islands Development Planning and Management for all Mayors and CAOs to orient them on project progress and the various methodologies being developed for application in their respective islands.
  
  
• In September, 1990, a USP study team noted the efforts of the Project to involve the entire Mangaia community in integrated development planning and implementation.
  
  
• In December, 1990, the Project provided inputs to the Training of Women Trainers sponsored by the International Labor Organization (ILO), United Nations Funds for Population Activities (UNFPA) and INTAFF. The participants were imparted communication skills and oriented on structures they could use at island level for their development activities.
  
  
• In 1991, field visits by representatives of donor agencies and the central government have been undertaken in Mangaia to look into the innovative features of PIPDP and the revolving fund strategy, which has attracted in turn donor response to assist in the implementation of the island development plan.

Federated States of Micronesia

Periodic reports on project progress are sent to the national government in Pohnpei. The response has been to request the Project to expand its coverage in FSM. Meanwhile, awareness about the Project's unique agriculture extension methods has brought the services of its specialist to practically all of FSM. The national government, jointly with the SPC and IADP, has funded his training visits to the outer islands to conduct extension classes on atoll agriculture.

Other means used by the Project to create awareness and win support for its programme are:

• Regular reporting and consultative meetings with the state government and the various sectoral agencies. Their support has been solicited on the conduct of surveys, food production, water supply, health and sanitation and on income generating projects.
  
  
• Consultations with traditional leaders. The Project always takes the opportunity to share experiences and exchange development information with traditional leaders. For instance, the progress of the IADP activities in Woleai was reported to the Council of Tamol, composed of paramount chiefs and island chiefs, during their Outer Island Leadership Conference held on Satawal Island in November, 1990. The Council endorsed the Project and its accomplishments and requested that its benefits be extended to as many atolls as possible.
  
  
• Liaison with the Outer Island Planning Commission (OIPC). The UNV Atoll Development Officer maintains close links with the OIPC on the developments in Woleai.

Kiribati

The involvement of key agencies at national level in IADP activities has facilitated awareness and support to the Project:

• The rural Planning Unit (RPU) of the Ministry of Home Affairs and Rural Development (MHARD) continues to assume the lead agency role for the conduct of PIPDP workshops in the outer islands. The enthusiasm of the inter-agency NCTT has remained high, as indicated by the number of agencies sending their representatives to join the team. Ministers and secretaries have attended PIPDP-related activities in the outer islands.
  
  
• PIPDP has become a part of the national development planning process. The various Island Development Plans will be the basis for the formulation of the National Integrated Rural Development Programme.
  
  
• The Rural Working Group, an inter-agency committee of rural planners, and the Development Coordination Committee (DCC), composed of department secretaries, continue to be involved in technical and policy decisions involving IADP operations.
  
  
• Meanwhile, the Mobile Training Unit of the Ministry's Local Government Division has accepted the challenge to take the lead for implementing the Outer Island Development Plan Implementation and Management Project. Both the PIPDP and the OIDPIM are methodologies fully accepted by the agencies as vital tools they can use in contributing to sustainable atoll development.
  
  
• NGOs such as KMK, AMAK, the Foundation for the Peoples of the South Pacific or FSP and the religious organizations remain actively involved in IADP-related activities, indicating a high degree of awareness about the project's mission.

Maldives

In the Maldives, the Project has worked closely with the IRD Projects Section of the Ministry of Atolls Administration (MAA), which coordinates and monitors IADP implementation either by government and international NGOs. To assist the section create national awareness on these projects and to encourage donor support, the Project recruited and trained members of the inter-agency National Core Team of Trainers (NCTT).

The Project has trained since 1989 a total of 18 national trainers and 1 local trainer. After their initial training and field practicum, they were able to handle the training of the IDACs in Meemu. Each trainer became a conduit of agency messages with bearing on integrated development. In effect, the participation of each trainer expanded considerably the limited agency outreach to the outer islands. At the same time, each trainer has become an advocate for integrated development in his or her agency.

In June, 1990, the Project in conjunction with the MAA, organized a seminar to thresh out issues related to the central task of achieving sustainable development in the atolls. It was attended by 9 local NGOs, 1 international NGO and 6 government agencies. One output of the seminar was the consensus to use the IRD Projects Section as clearinghouse for information on the various IADPs being implemented in the country. NGOs were encouraged to visit the section at any time, even on an informal basis.

Marshall Islands

The major activities undertaken to create national awareness about the technologies and methodologies developed by the Project are as follows:

• Transfer of the UNV-Atoll Development officer (ADO) from Maloelap, the project atoll, to Majuro.

At the start of Phase II, the ADO was transferred from the project atoll to the Ministry of Resources and Development (MRD) in Majuro to work closely with the extension staff. He shared with them the technologies and extension techniques found effective in Maloelap during his stay in the atoll for two and a half years.

He also worked with the MIOIA, specifically the Local Government Division, on support activities required to enable the island communities in Maloelap to sustain critical development activities and to encourage other islands to plan and implement projects through the Grants-in-Aid Programme administered by the Ministry.

• Training of the NCTT and the local trainers.

Aside from the NCTT, local trainers were trained in Maloelap drawn from the ranks of council members, teachers and youth leaders. They now constitute a reserve training force for the transfer of technologies from Maloelap to the other atolls.

The principal activity undertaken by the national trainers after their initial training and field was the project assessment and replanning workshop participated in by Maloelap residents in February 1990. The outputs were submitted subsequently for discussion to the national consultative conference on the Project's replicability.

• Role in implementing island plans.

The project provided funding support to the Mayors conference held in December 1990 to discuss the outputs of the UNDP-DTCD planning project. It will assist the Ministry to implement the plans, particularly in those activities which aim to strengthen the development management capability of local governments.

Through its UNV-community projects Trainer, it will continue to impart skills to enable the community to carry out fad production and income generating projects. Thus the Project will continue to create among the island people outside Maloelap an awareness about the proven technologies of the project atoll.

Tokelau

The for a used by the Project to create widespread awareness about its experience have been the periodic workshops for the Tokelau Public Service (TPS), the regular meetings of the Senior Management Team (SMT) and the seminars and workshops fro various groups in the country's three atolls.

In August 1990, an assessment workshop was conducted in Apia. The participants were key officials of the Office for Tokelau Affairs (OTA) and UNDP. It was noted that the following were so far the Project's accomplishments:

• equipping the Department of Economic Affairs and Information (DEAI) and
  the OTA with relevant skills to help improve the planning and programming capability of local institutions;
  
  
• devising mechanisms for community participation in development;
  
  
• creating awareness for integrated approach development;
  
  
• introducing new procedures for development programme budgeting;
  
  
• instituting a regular reporting and monitoring system;
  
  
• initiating a data and management system in support of rural development planning.

The Project will continue to use assessment conferences among key officials as a means to create national awareness on the steadily accumulating richness of local IADP implementation.

Tuvalu

IADP has used assessment workshops and the training activities of national trainers as principal means to create national awareness about integrated atoll development.

Through the initial assessment conducted by the Project with the Island Development Planning Process (IDPP) team, the following points were highlighted:

• Need for additional expertise on the part of the team to appraise projects and prepare project proposals for submission to the central government and donor agencies. There was considerably delay from project identification project preparation.
  
  
• Lack of the "larger picture" to guide project identification. Without the island profile, projects are not linked to problems they are supposed to solve.
  
  
• Need to seek maximum participation of traditional leaders and indigenous institutions. Their systematic participation in development has to be sought to complement the efforts of government-mandated structures to mobilize the entire community.

In close partnership with the IDPP, which the Project subsequently trained as national trainers, IADP formulated a strategy addressed to these needs. The strategy, in turn, became the basis of the training programme for implementation by the IDPP team.

The training programme was actually the application of the PIPDP methodology in the Tuvalu context. The preparatory work undertaken to plan for its implementation actually commenced systematic awareness-building on the Project in Tuvalu.

A national consultation conference on strategies proposed by IADP for outer islands development in Tuvalu will be held in October 1991 and will involve the policymaking levels of government, i.e. the Prime Minister and the Cabinet and the members of the National Development Strategy committee, which is composed mostly of department secretaries. This activity will further sensitize the Government bureaucracy on the need to formulate a comprehensive policy framework and adopt an effective, affordable and sustainable approach to the planning, implementation and monitoring of rural development.

Problems Encountered

Creating awareness about the Project and its experience in developing technologies and approaches suited to the atolls has depended on a lot of factors:

• the relative visibility of gains achieved in the Project atoll;
  
  
• the degree of cooperation and commitment to the project by the various agencies;
  
  
• the presence of other development concerns with competing claims on the attention of the public and the government;
  
  
• the availability of substantial manpower and other resources to respond to the advocacy for integrated approaches in the planning and delivery of services and development commodities to the outer islands.

The problems encountered by the Project in relation to producing this particular output have been due to the interplay of these factors.

The central task to recruit, train and deploy an inter-agency team of trainers for outer islands development has been responded to quite differently in each participating country. The problems experienced in relation to this task have been conditioned by the foregoing factors.

In the Cook Islands, the Northern Group Islands Profiling Exercise (NGIPE) team virtually performs the role of a training team. Its full acceptance of the PIPDP methodology has coincide with its mandated task to prepare the island profiles. Demonstration of how the methodology had worked in Mangaia paved the way for its easy acceptance.

In Yap, FSM, the Outer Islands Planning Commission (OIPC) remains as having the potential to act as training team for the outer islands. Its members, however, who are also full-time employees in other agencies, have still to organize into such a team although it receives regular briefing on project progress. Community training is done by the UNV-ADO, the Project's agriculture specialist and selected government employees and residents from the project atoll.

In Kiribati, the formation of the NCTT appeared to answer a deeply felt need of the government and NGOs. Enthusiasm has remained high since the first training in February 1990. Initially a core group based at the MHARD, the team expanded to include other ministries. All the agencies give full support through sending representatives to the team in the conduct of workshops in the outer islands. The MHARD Rural Planning Unit (RPU) coordinates the team. Most members of the inter-agency Rural Working Group (RWG) have become NCTT members.

In Maldives, despite high enthusiasm in its formation and initial deployment, the team's future viability has been threatened by fast turnover of personnel in the whole government system. Most of the 18 who have been trained have shifted jobs, some to the private sector, or have gone abroad on study leaves. The training of new NCTT members has to keep pace with the changes in personnel.

In Marshall Islands, the inter-agency NCTT was formed and fielded once to the project atoll to conduct assessment and replanning workshops among representatives of the five islands. They were able to present the outputs to the national consultative conference on the replication potential of the Maloelap experience. Their full mobilization as a team was constrained by the other role of the coordinating agency to implement a development planning project. A work programme, however, has been prepared for the team's role in replicating some of the proven technologies in Aur, a neighboring atoll.

In Tokelau, no NCTT was formed. Instead, the UNV-ADO organized local trainers from out of the existing Atoll Learning Centers who were envisioned to handle specialized training activities for community groups and local institutions. Forming the NCTT was considered untimely since at that time, the various departments and units were being encouraged to clarify their respective roles vis-à-vis the atolls.

In Tuvalu, the IDPP team became the NCTT. The team's problem was how to complete the sectoral representation since some agencies sometimes failed to provide embers to the team. The IIDO wild always produce the needed missing member from out of its own small staff. Some agencies, such as fisheries and agriculture, have their own extension staff to cover all the outer islands. The Project, in the course of Phase II, was able to mobilize a bigger team through sheer perseverance in stressing the benefit to the agency of having a representative in the team. In majority of cases, however, the problem was the conflict in schedules of an agency and the trip to the outer islands. From an ideal number of 10 per visit, the team registered an average membership of 6.

Outlook

Creating awareness and sustaining interest in the integrated programme for the outer islands will depend on the creativity of governments to think of mechanisms which will, in fact, bring the various agencies together in common undertakings for the outer islands. The NCTT is one such mechanism. Its viability will depend on the quality of support bestowed on it by the policymaking levels of government.

2.2.4 Reports, publications and instruction materials relating to integrated atoll development planning and implementation; community organization and local group formation; selected methodologies and technical information; case studies on selected activities and experience of the project; and successful income generation activities.

Various reports, publications and instruction materials have been produced by the Project both as advocacy and training tools and distributed within each participating country and the region. Most of the publications have been sent to academic institutions, libraries and development projects with special interest in sustainable development for the small islands. The topics covered are quite varied, from a description of the Outer island Capability Enhancement Process or OICEP, to the promotion of atoll agriculture.

A complete list of major reports, publications and instruction materials, produced for this purpose during Phase II, is in annex 1.

A video documentary on the project is presently being produced in cooperation with the Division of Information experiences with the Division of Information of UNDP and the UNDP/OPS-supported Azimuths Television Unit based in Geneva.

Reports on successful experiences with the Revolving Loan Fund in Mangaia and the IADP Loan Programme in the Maldives have been distributed to relevant projects and agencies both within and outside the region.

3.0 Objectives Achieved or Likely to be Achieved in the Near Future

3.1 The Project's immediate objectives will all likely be achieved within the current phase with varying degrees of success. While the stated objectives, in general, will be accomplished, this in itself will not ensure the sustainability of Project methodologies and activities. This lesson was learned as early as Phase I. Distilled from crucial Project experiences during that phase and partly on the current one, OICEP stresses the need for capability-building inputs and viable support systems at all levels (policy, planning and programming, and implementation) to achieve a significant degree of sustainability of development approaches and activities at the grassroots.

Considerable gains have been achieved in pursuit of the following immediate objectives:

• Methodologies and technologies on the various aspects of integrated atoll development (community planning and implementation; development of subsistence and cash agriculture; artisanal subsistence and commercial fisheries; water supply and sanitation; income generation; productivity and skills development) are undergoing replication in each of the participating country.

Replication of IADP methodologies and technologies has been vigorously pursued in all the participating countries except in FSM, which experienced start-up delays. The status of replication for each methodology has been dealt with in previous sections. Technologies in food production, income generation and ecological resource management which have been developed with atoll communities and the relevant government entities have been made part of each participating country's extension programmes. They have been also made part of the atoll community's tested strategies and techniques for survival.

• Project experiences have become the basis for refining methodologies or development approaches to further improve planning and implementation of an integrated programme for the unique socio-economic, cultural and physical features of the atolls.

Several outstanding examples can be cited here: the Project experience in Meemu, Maldives, has been a source of methodologies and technologies which can be applied for full-scale implementation in Nilandhe atoll, the new project site for a government-executed IADP; Kiribati provides a valuable lesson in the national government's willingness to draw lessons from the Tamana experience and refine approaches for replication to all the atolls;

PIPDP was first tested in Cook Islands and applied in other project countries with each country experience contributing to its further efficacy and enhancement.

• Vigorous information dissemination on the proven methodologies for sustainable atoll development has been undertaken both within each participating country and the region.

The Project has utilized both the mass and interpersonal media to get its development messages across to a broad spectrum of target groups and audiences. The support generated by the Project from the respective governments, donor agencies, the atoll communities, as well as development planners and practitioners interested in marginal communities, reflects the outstanding achievement of this immediate objective.

3.2 Contributions to the overall development objective

All the five methodologies (Participatory island Profiling and Development Planning; small Scale high Impact Projects; Integrated Institutional Framework for Sustainable Development; social Preparation for Technology Adoption; national core Team of Trainers) will be significant contributions to the efforts to accomplish the development objective.

The following are indicators that support the foregoing observation:

• Adoption by the national government of the technologies and development approaches field-tested and validated by the Project for dissemination and replication to the atolls;
  
  
• Formation or strengthening of national and local structures and mechanisms (Island Development Committees, Development Coordination Committees, Atoll/Island Development assistance Committees, National Core Team of Trainers, Rural Planning Unit, Department of Rural Development etc.) to facilitate the planning, implementation and management of integrated atoll development programmes and projects;
  
  
• Maintenance by the communities themselves of the simple technologies and projects aimed at increasing food production, augmenting family income and enhancing ecological resources;
  
  
• Acceptance by the national government and local communities of responsibilities for the planning, implementation and management of integrated atoll development projects.

Based on its rich experience in field-testing and validating the various methodologies to achieve sustainable atoll development, IADP formulated the Outer Island Capability Enhancement Process (OICEP), which sequences the various activities necessary to be undertaken in the critical areas of social mobilization, project development ad institutional strengthening.

4.0 Reflections on the lessons Learned

4.1 Achieving sustainable development in the outer islands requires an integrative, capability-building process

The momentum for change that a development project generates in a community is itself an assurance that the people are aware of their situation, that they want it improved, that they want to do things for themselves. Otherwise, they will remain as passive or evasive even, hiding behind the cloak of traditional indifference, cultural conservatism or the simple expedient of letting things go and 'wait until the visitor leaves," as an old islander puts it.

A water pump, a school building, a clinic, a motorboat, seeds for the nursery - all these familiar development commodities can stir a community to new life. Each one represents a concrete effort to solve a locally-perceived problem.

In a simple service delivery project, the commodity matches one on one what the community thinks it lacks. It is quite easy for the community to understand that it needs a water pump or a well, a school or clinic, etc., particularly if it knows from which agency the extension agent comes from. It becomes a matter of asking and negotiating for the delivery, settling such issues as whether the island council will pay for the transport of the pipes or whatever, the able-bodied men will donate labor or that the equally able-bodied women will sweep the fallen breadfruit leaves off the site where the pimp will be erected as an unmistakable marker tat central government cares for the hapless islanders.

An IADP-type requires a little more elaborate process. It involves a mix of services which may still be sectorally delivered but the location, timing, programming and monitoring of inputs requires a high degree of community participation. In fact, such type of project stresses the need for the community to be involved from the first step, that of identifying problems, assessing their interrelatedness and deciding the critical interventions needed to produce a significant difference in the local situation. Hence, the enthusiasm generated is not from the start, commodity-based, but it comes rather from how well the project has penetrated the community's consciousness of its own problems and potential and, subsequently, from the resolve to tackle these problems collectively.

The output is not only adequate water, higher literacy rate, lower infant mortality rate, increased family income, or other standard indicators of human development, but also improved technologies, skills, positive attitudes and viable local structures t ensure that the community will be a willing and equal partner in development. Thus, service delivery serves not only to create an impact on community problems, but also an entry point and a powerful intervention to transform society, its technological and skills level, its aspirations for a better life, and to realign local institutions and structures towards these ends.

The Project has recognized from the start of Part II that such rationale for its institution-building objectives requires an integrative, capability-building process aimed at institutionalizing these key concerns:

• a core food production and income generation programme which makes possible a significant level of human productivity while preserving the life-support systems of the atolls and small islands, taking into account their fragility and the need for sustained ecological management;
  
  
• a core social development programme directed at the provision of essential services to island villages and with expanded outreach to marginalized groups and households;
  
  
• a social mobilization and training programme which builds skills, attitudes and structural realignments or reorientation of government and indigenous institutions, as well as of community organizations, in pursuit of tasks required in collectively planning, implementing and managing the core development programmes;
  
  
• a support programme for outer islands development in terms of policies, technical assistance, package of services, including funding for critical project activities.

Essentially, the process builds capabilities on the part of both the government and the community to work together towards achieving sustainable development in the remote outer islands.

4.2 Replicating IADP methodologies requires national capability to undertake tasks in support of outer islands initiatives.

A Capability-building programme will have to be put in place to enable the national government to carry out tasks in support of outer islands' activities. These capabilities include:

• how to provide relevant training and technical assistance to government bodies, indigenous institutions, project implementors and community groups;
  
  
• how to integrate community-based development planning and implementation processes into existing government systems;
  
  
• how to identify policy gaps, revise existing policies or recommend new policies to ensure adequate guidelines for the eventual adoption methodologies by all concerned sectors, agencies and NGOs.

4.3 Building national capability to assist small island communities achieve sustainable development requires in turn, prompt and adequate support from regional organizations and projects.

Prompt and adequate support is needed from regional organizations and projects to systematically build national capabilities for IADP implementation.

The following are some critical areas for regional inputs:

• documentation and refinement of programme methodologies;
  
  
• policy formulation;
  
  
• technical assistance to atoll-based projects;
  
  
• assessment of cultural factors in development planning, implementation and managements
  
  
• innovative approaches to the design of income generating projects;
  
  
• case studies; and
  
  
• technical backstopping of rural development agencies.

5.0 Recommendations

In the light of the Project to date, it is recommended that:

5.1 high priority be given to completing the institution and national capability building process in all 7 participating countries in order to reach a critical mass for continuing and sustainable development of the outer islands. Critical activities for the participating countries beyond 1991 are outlined below:

5.1.1 Cook Islands

• extension of the PIPDP process to the Southern Group islands;
  
  
• setting up of the Island Development coordinating Committees in all the outer islands and to train tem to plan and mange local development;
  
  
• establishment of national capability responsible for coordinating, planning and monitoring of outer islands development;
  
  
• formulation of a comprehensive outer islands development policy.

5.1.2 Federated States of Micronesia

• replication of IADP to Chuuk, Pompeii and Kosrae
  
  
• establishment and strengthening of antional and island institutional capability for programme planning, implementation and monitoring.

5.1.3 Kiribati

• expansion of the Outer Island Development Plan Implementation and Management to all the atolls which have completed PIPDP;
  
  
• designing of projects for sustainable development as part of on-going plan formulation process;
  
  
• formulation of rural development policies and strategies in the context of qualitative changes brought about by application of PIPDP, OIDPIMP and other IADP methodologies;
  
  
• continuity of technical backstopping and crisis management and/ or problem solving inputs as required.

5.1.4 Maldives

• training of the new NCTT on project replication
  
  
• conduct of critical activities as requested by the government (training of atoll chiefs on development management; retraining of the ADAC and IDACs on basic management; training of the staff of the IRD Projects Section on project monitoring);
  
  
• formulation of policy framework for integrated atoll development in view of the need to reach other atolls with the integrated programme.

5.1.5 Marshall Islands

• continuation of assistance to the implementation of local government plans with emphasis on providing training support to provide skills for carrying out community projects;
  
  
• strengthening plan implementation and management at national and island levels around tasks related t the replication of IADP methodologies and technologies to other atolls.

5.1.6 Tokelau

• conduct of PIPDP in all three atolls;
  
  
• strengthening of national and local capability for plan implementation and monitoring.

5.1.7 Tuvalu

• technical backstopping and assistance to the newly formed Department of Rural Development and alignment of staffing structure and job descriptions to the national rural development strategies;
  
  
• conduct assessment conference and retraining of the NCTT;
  
  
• strengthening plan implementation and management at national and island levels.

5.1 the special and unique development problems of the atoll and other small island countries be given continued and special focus;

Regional organizations, institutions and NGOs should be encouraged to consider the special and unique problems of the atoll and small island countries in their support to development. Convergence of services in these marginal communities will have to be taken into account in plan formulation and project planning. An ad hoc forum with the present regional arrangements specifically for the development problems of small atoll and island countries will be worth considering.

5.2 the Outer Island Capability Enhancement Process (OICEP) be applied in new countries to share development benefits from IADP methodologies with other small island communities.

National capability building for the planning, implementation and monitoring of integrated rural development will have to be systematically undertaken utilizing the process evolved from IADP experience. It will be an excellent opportunity to start afresh and build structures around the tasks of helping small island communities achieve sustainable development.

The implementation of these recommendations will constitute a logical third and, possibly final phase of IADP in ICP5.

25 September 1991
Suva, Fiji

Community Development and Institution Building Training Programme Formulation (February-June 1989)

Atoll Development Planning Course (ADPC) (Novembers -December 1989)

Tamana "Impact Study" (October 1989)

Mangaia Integrated Development Framework Plan: 1990-1995 (October 1989)

A New Initiative for Outer Island Development (September 1989)

Atoll Development in Kiribati: Innovations as Entry Points (November 1989)

Institution Building Process in Kiribati: Training of Island Development Committees (November 1989)

Approaches and Methodologies Tested in Maloelap Atoll

Institution Building: Tokelau Experience (An Update) (November-December 1989)

Development of Training Modules: Report on Field Mission to Maldives (October 19889)

Training Design - Training of Trainers Course (TCC): 1989 consultative Meeting of Project Staff (November-December 1989)

Analysis of Meemu (Mulaku) Atoll Development Loan Fund Programme, Republic of Maldives: September 1986-June 1989 (November 1989)

Outer Island Capability Enhancement Process (OICEP) - an Institutional Development Strategy for Small Islands (October 1990)

Promoting Food Production in atolls (November 1990)

Penrhyn Socio-Economic profile (march 1990)

Penrhyn Integrated Development Framework Plan (1991-1995) (July 1990)

Mangaia Socio-Economic Profile (July 1990)

Report on the Training of Island Development Committees (October 1990)

Initial Impact and Insights - Reflections of the Rural Development Officer on IADP Operations in the Cook Islands (December 1990)

Report on Recent Visits to the Outer Islands of Yap State, FSM, from 21 August to 5 October - Agricultural Training Consultant's Report (October 1990)

Consultancy Report on Introduction of Fruit and Nut Trees to Atoll countries (November 1990)

Water Supply and Sanitation Design Study - Woleai Atoll, Yap State, FSM (November 1990)

Some Notes on Population and Development in Tokelau (August 1990)

The Leading Role of Local Institutions in Tokelau Development (August 1990)

Report on the Orientation Workshop: Tokelau Onward to Development (June 1990)

Tokelau Development Planning and Budgeting Process (January 1990)

Tokelau Development Framework Plan (1990-1995) (January 1990)

Guidelines on Small Scale High Impact Projects (SSHIP) (January 1990)

The Fine Mesh wire Fly Trap - On the design of the fly trap in Woleai (May 1990)

Training Modules (with Training Kits) on: Training of Trainers; Project Cycle; Communication; Training Design Preparation; Training Management, and Basic Management (January 19909)

Proposed Project Management Structure for Nilandhe IADP - Feedback on the Nilandhe Draft Project proposal (July 1990)

Towards Sustainable Development for Atolls and Other Small Islands (March 1991)

Sustainable Development and Environmental Management of Atolls (January 1991)

Development Strategies for Pacific island Economies: With Special Reference to Atoll Countries (January 1991)

Atoll agriculture: Some Experience of the UNDP/OPE Integrated Atoll Development Project (January 1991)

Community Organizing in the Context of Social Mobilization (January 1991)

Promoting Food Production in Atolls (January 1991)

Outer Island Capability Enhancement Process (OICEP) - An Institutional Development Strategy for Small Islands (January 1991)

Water Supply and Sanitation Design Study, Woleai Atoll, Yap State, FSM (January 1991)

A Solar Powered Groundwater Pumping System for Atoll Island Communities (January 1991)

Aranuka Island Socio-Economic Profile (March 1991)

Aranuka Island Development Plan, 1991 -1995 (March 1991)

Kuria Island Socio-Economic Profile (March 1991)

Kuria Island Development Plan, 1991-1995 (March 1991)

A Report on the Indigenous Institutions of Kiribati (March 1991)

Kiribati Training Programme on Participatory Island Profiling and Development Planning (June 1991)

Kiribati Outer Island Development Plan Implementation and Management Programme (August 1991)

Nukulaelae Island Development Plan: 1992-1994 (January 1991)

Nukulaelae Socio-Economic Profile (January 1991)

Nukufetau Socio-Economic Profile (January 1991)