PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM SECRETARIAT & THE DELEGATION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR THE PACIFIC

PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM SECRETARIAT & THE DELEGATION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR THE PACIFIC 11TH EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT FUND (EDF) PACIFIC REGIONAL INDICATIVE PROGRAMME (PRIP) MEETING OF THE REGIONAL STEERING COMMITTEE OF THE PACIFIC (RSCP) Ryoichi Jinnai Conference Centre, Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) 16-7 June 2015, Suva Fiji Launch of the 11th EDF Pacific Regional Indicative Programme Introduction and Welcoming Remarks 1. The Launch and RSCP Meeting were co-chaired by Dame Meg Taylor, Secretary- General of the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) and Regional Authorising Officer (RAO), and Mr Pierre Amilhat, Director Asia Central Asia, Middle East/Gulf and Pacific, Directorate-General for International Cooperation and Development, European Commission (EC). The Launch and Meeting were attended by the Hon Neven Mimica, European Commissioner for Development, the Hon Charles Abel, Minister of Planning of Papua New Guinea (PNG) and officials from the Cook Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue, Palau, PNG, Republic of Timor Leste, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and the European Commission. Attending the Launch and Meeting as Observers were French Polynesia, New Caledonia, the Asian Development Bank, Australia, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Indonesia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the United States, the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA), the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), the Office of the Chief Trade Advisor, the Pacific Power Association, the Secretariat for the Pacific Community (SPC), the Secretariat for the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, the South Pacific Tourism Organisation, the University of the South Pacific (USP), the SPC/GIZ Coping with Climate Change in the Pacific Region (CCCPIR), the International Federation of the Red Cross, Locally-Managed Marine Area Network (LMMA Network), the Pacific Centre for Peacebuilding, Pacific Council of Churches, the Pacific Islands Private Sector Organisation (PIPSO), the Pacific Youth Council and World Vision. See Attachment 1 for the list of participants. 2. On behalf of the PIFS, the Duly Mandated Regional Organisation (DMRO), Dame Meg Taylor, welcomed the Commissioner, the Minister, Meeting participants and other invited guests to the official launch and signature of the 11th EDF PRIP for 2014-2020. The launching represented the commitment and interest of both the Pacific and the European Union (EU) to the partnership, observed the Secretary-General. The support extended to the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) Group over the years through various modalities had been significant. 3. Since 2012, recalled the Secretary-General, the region and the EU had engaged in a consultative process involving all stakeholders through the RSCP to develop the 11th PRIP, the financial resource for which would total 166 million. It thus reflected the focal areas of priority of the region: regional economic integration through trade integration and private sector development; the sustainable management of natural resources and the environment and the management of waste; and inclusive and accountable governance and

respect for human rights. 46 million had also been included to leverage regional investment projects focusing on the RIP priorities. With the signature of the PRIP, it would be for the RSCP and the DMRO to steer and facilitate an effective implementation and achievement of the PRIP priorities. In that regard, the Secretary-General emphasised the importance of inclusiveness of stakeholders in the design and implementation of PRIP projects. PIFS looked forward to working in partnership with the EU, the Pacific ACP States (PACPS) and the technical agencies in the implementation of the PRIP as well as a strengthened coordination mechanism and deepening dialogue and cooperation among all concerned for the benefit of the people of the Pacific in accordance with the Framework for Pacific Regionalism (FPR). The Secretary-General's opening remarks are found as Attachment 2. 4. Speaking on behalf of the EU, Mr Amilhat, DEVCO Director for the region, recalled that the PRIP had been developed through an inclusive process of consultation and that the launching of the PRIP was far from the end of the process. It was necessary to continue to involve all partners in the implementation process going forward and to identify strategic actions and programmes that would fit into the PRIP programming process. 5. Mr Renato Mele, Head of Cooperation, Delegation of European Union for the Pacific, gave a brief overview to the Meeting on EU support to the Pacific region, including through National Indicative Programmes (NIPs), the PRIP, intra-acp programming and programmes for the Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) of the EU. In doing so, he stressed the importance of complementarity of initiatives and in moving forward with project identification and formulation as well as the need to address important cross-cutting issues, especially gender, youth and persons with disabilities. He noted that there had been an increase of 15% in assistance for the regional envelop under EDF 11 compared to EDF 10. 6. Minister Abel informed the Meeting of his Government s recent activities with respect to PNG s National Resources Development Plan. He expressed PNG's appreciation to the EU for its assistance both to PNG and the region. The Minister commended the regional agencies as well as PIFS for their efforts in drafting the PRIP, observing that the three focal areas were closely linked to those in PNG's national plans. He supported the PRIP, including its particular attention to the needs of the smaller Pacific ACP members. 7. Mr Teriba Tabe of Kiribati expressed his Government's gratitude to the EU for its assistance for Kiribati's national development as well as that of the region as a whole. He acknowledged the role of the Secretary-General and officers of PIFS for facilitating finalisation of the PRIP. The priorities contained in the PRIP reflected those of Kiribati at the national level and complemented Kiribati's own actions, including integration of all of the islands of Kiribati and addressing critical issues relating to fisheries and climate change. 8. Ms Noumea Simi of Samoa acknowledged the EU s support to the region both through the RIP and individual NIPs. She emphasised the particular challenges to development faced by Samoa and other small Pacific States because of their vulnerability and hoped that the PRIP would address those challenges and bring about positive change in the lives of Pacific peoples. Samoa supported the regional priorities set out in the PRIP as regional funding would provide an opportunity to stimulate regional reforms and promote closer cooperation in accordance with the FPR. She also stressed the need for regional organisations to keep in contact with national governments in implementing the PRIP.

9. In his remarks, Commissioner Mimica said that the EU had been and would remain a reliable partner to the Pacific. The EU valued the strong foundations of that partnership and would remain committed to the well-being of Pacific citizens through its work as one of the region's key development partners. In that regard, the Commissioner highlighted the importance of the EDF and that the EU's regional aid programme under the 11th EDF would be 166 million for the 2014-2020 period, an increase of 15% over assistance provided under the 10th EDF. The Commissioner stressed the importance of the EU providing better, more effective aid by working closely with the Pacific at both the regional and national levels, with regional organisations, civil society organisations (CSOs) and other development partners. The RSCP had a very important role to play in the new governance arrangements for EU assistance. 10. The Commissioner recalled the extensive consultation process leading up to the final PRIP, thereby assuring that the Programme conformed to the region's priorities and expectations, most importantly the orientations of the FPR. Regional cooperation would help to reduce poverty and promote inclusive growth in Pacific countries. Towards that end, trade and private sector development would make a contribution. Fisheries cooperation would also remain a priority under the PRIP supported within the framework of a broader commitment to promoting the sustainable management of natural resources, the environment and waste. In addition to these main priority areas under the PRIP referred to above, the resource of the PRIP would also be available to strengthen the important role played by CSOs and non-governmental organisations. The Commissioner welcomed the presence of representatives from the OCTs, which would facilitate information-sharing and the development of linkages between the PRIP and the OCTs in future. The Commissioner's opening remarks are found as Attachment 3. 11. The Secretary-General and the European Commissioner proceeded to sign the PRIP for 2014-2020, formalising the arrangement. See Attachment 4 for the PRIP text. RSCP Meeting Session 1 - Welcome and Adoption of Agenda 12. In opening the day s proceedings, Ms Andie Fong Toy, PIFS Deputy Secretary- General, on behalf of the Secretary-General, the PIFS Co-Chair, recalled the lengthy process leading up to the signing of the PRIP the previous day. It was now necessary to consider specific follow-up action, ensuring that the Pacific region had full ownership of the PRIP and that the implementation was in line with the Pacific Leaders visions, values and objectives as set out in the FPR. During this Meeting there would be an opportunity to discuss collectively how best to proceed with PRIP implementation as well as the approach needed to ensure that the PRIP allocation reserved for the blending and co-financing mechanism was operationalised in a manner that best responded to the needs of the region. 13. In his opening remarks, Mr Amilhat, the EU Co-Chair, began by recognising the participation by Pacific OCTs as important observers in the Meeting. He observed that today marked the beginning of the real implementation of the PRIP. Much work remained to identify project activities to be done by sector and their costs. Acknowledging that the process of finalising the PRIP had been long, Mr Amilhat agreed on the need to make the next step shorter. The EU responded to the call for full ownership by the region and has

been working towards that end in ensuring a strong dialogue with the Pacific. The new EU budget cycle, the endorsed PRIP and the new regional governance arrangement for the PRIP offered an opportunity to increase regional ownership and dialogue. 14. Mr Amilhat explained that while the EU believed in regionalism it recognised that there was no universal recipe to achieve it. The EU had its own good and bad experiences with regionalism and could share with the Pacific the lessons it had learned. The EU also had some experience of cooperation with regional organisations. The latter were important drivers of regionalism while also recognising the important role to be played by the members of the organisations. The USP and Pacific fisheries agencies for example were good examples of regionalism and it is important for the EU and for future EU cooperation with the region to reinforce continuously its relations with PIFS and other drivers of regionalism in the Pacific. For regionalism to be successful there was a need for a strategic orientation and guidance not only in process but also in substance. There was also a need for monitoring and evaluation of activities that would be undertaken and the consideration by the EU s partners before the Commission engaged in its own internal processes. That consideration would be provided by the PIFS and the RSCP. 15. Implementation of the PRIP, stated Mr Amilhat, would be entrusted by the EU to partners best placed, most competent and equipped to do the job timely, effectively and efficiently. Depending on the subject matter, that might be the Duly-Mandated Regional Organisation (DMRO), other (EU-eligible) specialised agencies, Non-State Actors, any (EUeligible) institution or even PACP or EU Member States. Upstream coherence, supervision, monitoring and evaluation would be the task of the DMRO and the RSCP. In that regard, the EU was working in partnership with PIFS, the RSCP and the region, with no pre-cooked solutions. 16. The agenda for the day s Meeting was adopted (see Attachment 5). Session 2 11 th EDF PRIP Implementation Plan (IP) 17. The PIFS Acting Co-Chair explained that the objective of the session was for the RSCP to discuss implementation of the 11 th EDF PRIP, including processes and timelines for the development of PRIP projects. It was also necessary for there to be a clear understanding of the roles of the various stakeholders, including the RSCP, in the process. 18. The PIFS made a presentation to the Meeting based on the discussion paper before the Meeting, Effective Implementation of the Pacific Regional Indicative Programme. The discussion paper was not itself the Implementation Plan (IP) for the PRIP but rather dealt with the process for developing the IP and how EU assistance might be leveraged to support investment through the Investment Facility for the Pacific (IFP) and the Investment Co-financing Programme for the Pacific (ICPP). 19. The Meeting supported the proposal for there to be consolidated, strategic and sizeable actions that could have the biggest possible impact for the region. At the same time, caution was expressed about the needs of individual RSCP Member countries not to be lost or neglected in the design of PRIP projects given the differences between countries. Some support was expressed for the frontloading of projects as well as for the Technical Cooperation Facility (TCF) to be implemented through a central modality if that was to deliver better results for the region.

20. During the discussions, questions were also raised about forming consortia for the implementation of the PRIP, cooperation through the PRIP with other development partners (e.g., the private sector), whether the TCF might be used to fill gaps in technical capacity and what might be the role of the MSG in the IP? 21. In response to the queries from the Meeting, PIFS explained that, while there had been no final decisions taken on the matter, there were certain principles that would guide the formation of the various consortia proposed in the discussion paper. For example, with respect to the first two PRIP priority areas it was easy to identify certain technical agencies more directly involved in facilitating work in those areas. That could be the basis for a core group in each consortium. They could be expanded by other agencies that believed they could add value to the process, taking into account the regional nature of the project and the need for regional and sub-regional solutions. The possibility of co-lead roles in consortia was not ruled out at this stage. For example, the MSG could be a member of the consortia. While there were certain benefits in frontloading projects, it was also necessary to consider resource implications for the middle and latter years of the programming cycle as well as the absorptive capacities of national governments and the relevant technical agencies to handle and provide frontloaded assistance. 22. In response to queries regarding the functioning of the TCF, PIFS explained that detailed operating arrangements still needed to be worked out but that it might be possible for certain activities under the PRIP to be conducted in cooperation with other partners such as private sector organisations and for TCF resources to supplement resources in the identified priority areas where necessary and appropriate. 23. Addressing the various comments made, the EU explained that the intention was to use 3 million allocated for the TCF transparently and in the best way for the region.. The TCF was not, per se, intended as technical assistance for specific projects as technical assistance would be built into the projects themselves. The TCF was for other purposes, including e.g. programming, studies or coordination of development partners in the PRIP focal areas. While coordination between development partners in the region was useful, it should be for regional organisations and countries of the region to take the lead, eventually facilitated with EU support. As for leveraging investments and the use of non-eu finance institutions in IFP blending operations, the EU explained that the European Investment Bank (EIB) has been and will continue to be active in the region. It was indicated that the Asian Development Bank (ADB) nor any other non-eu financing institution was allowed to be a lead financier in (b)lending arrangements If the Pacific region would find it useful to open the possibility to non-eu financing institutions to lead this sort of operations under the the EU s IFP, it should indicate this. As for front-loading, the EU explained that although in certain cases that might be useful (e.g. assistance to Vanuatu in the case of Cyclone Pam); a systematic frontloading in the early stage of the programming could be a source of problems later in the period. With respect to the possibility of an additional amount of funding for regional activities, subject to availability of funds, the quality of the projects and satisfactory performance, a financial top-up later in the RIP period might be possible. The region should also seek to draw on the Intra-ACP instrument (e.g. for private sector development, access to finance, climate change, disaster risk management etc). The private sector and countries in this region would need assistance to prepare their projects to access Intra-ACP funds. The challenge was to ensure that those programmes were sufficiently regional specific so that the voice of the Pacific is heard.

24. While there was a general sentiment that progress was being made, there was also a strong desire for actual project development and implementation to be undertaken quickly, taking into account the actual situations on the ground in terms of capacity to implement projects etc. Having just seen the IP discussion paper, RSCP Members indicated their need for more time to consult with their national stakeholders before taking detailed positions. More information was sought on the specific composition of individual consortia as well as on the investment support mechanisms (IFP and ICPP) and how actions undertaken through the PRIP (including the capacity strengthening of regional organisations) would benefit individual national governments. The Meeting stressed the need for transparency in the use of funds. 25. The Meeting also supported the participation of CSOs in the consortia and in implementing the PRIP where they had the requisite expertise while stressing the need for them to use the relevant government systems. It also recognised the importance of the private sector and banks, including, where appropriate, central banks in the PRIP process. 26. The Meeting welcomed the EU s support for coordination with other development partners and credited PIFS for ensuring the development of common standards enabling the region to engage effectively with partners. The meeting recognised the need for specific PRIP initiatives to take into account, to the extent possible, the FPR priorities that are expected to be announced at the Forum Leaders Meeting. 27. The Meeting stressed the need for the consortia and their member organisations to work closely with RSCP Members to ensure the needs of individual countries are reflected in the PRIP projects being developed. The particular challenges of the smallest Members were also highlighted, especially in terms of capacities and economies of scale, vulnerability and climate change. Information was requested on the points of contact between RSCP Members and consortia during the PRIP formulation and approval process as well as the criteria required for designing action proposals so that the consultation process with RSCP could proceed smoothly. 28. The Meeting also supported the strengthening of synergies between the PACPS and the OCTs and sought advice on how that might be done. 29. In response to the various interventions by RSCP members, the PIFS assured the meeting that the PACPS would be fully consulted in the design of the actions and that the consortia to be established would respect the differing needs of the members, including in relation to absorptive capacities. PIFS would also work with and assist the consortia and members to facilitate the necessary linkages between the RIP and NIPs as well as with intra-acp instruments etc. No action proposals would be sent to the EU until considered by the RSCP. 30. The EU Co-Chair said that what was required was a good definition of criteria as to who should be on consortia. Decisions on composition should be a practical, technical exercise based on competence, capacity and guarantees of fiduciary ability. The consortia are facilitators and implementers, not new organisational institutions. While the use of government systems more often takes place in EU bilateral aid programmes, they might also be useful in respect of the PRIP. In principle, CSOs will be included in project implementation especially when they, together with governments and regional institutions might be well positioned to add value in the delivery of activities in well-designed projects. Inclusive diversity must be built into regional projects, reflecting the needs of individual

members. While programmes would have overarching activities, within those programmes there may well be 'country windows' which would support the efforts of certain members to catch up on certain activities (e.g. perhaps in relation to statistics). The EU's preference was to use either its own institutions (including EU MS institutions) or regional institutions or institutions that work in the region and were familiar with local circumstances. The Co- Chair explained that the EDF was not part of the EU's Budget and so was not subject to the annuality principle. For that reason it was much more flexible in the programming of funds which will be useful in implementing the PRIP. The EU was prepared to intensify its dialogue with the region in order to avoid any misunderstandings as to 'rules of the game', procedures, requirements, etc. Session 3 Support for Regional Investment Projects - Blending and Cofinancing Mechanisms in the 11th EDF PRIP 31. In opening the session, the EU Co-Chair explained that 'blending' was a relatively new 'tool' in the EU's toolbox of assistance. It grew from the understanding that even significant amounts of grant aid would be insufficient to fund in a significant way large projects, especially in infrastructure. Development banks had been interested in getting access to the EU's grant funds (e.g., to increase the concessional nature of the loan) and combining that grant money with the loan component facilitates approval of the loan by the bank. Blending would take place through a bottom-up process; i.e., financial institutions, partner countries, EU delegations would propose a list of projects which was put into a pipeline and analysed by the EU. An advantage was that the process would take place within an agreed set of rules. As not all countries (especially very small PACPS) may have access to loan finance (e.g. because of debt stress levels or the relative smallness of their economies), the EU was looking for a way of combining EU grant funds with other grant funds to leverage priority investment projects in countries in that situation. While much more structured, detailed discussions were required on blending (perhaps through a roadshow), this session did allow for some preliminary exchanges of views. 32. The EU then made a brief presentation on those key aspects in the above discussion paper (before the Meeting relating to the 46 million in the PRIP for blending and cofinancing through the Investment Facility for the Pacific (IFP) and the Investment Co- Financing Programme for the Pacific (ICPP). Based on its experience in the 10th EDF, the EU was learning a lot about how best to address the investment needs of the region. The basic intention was to leverage more money to assist in the development of the PACPS, particularly in the PRIP's first two priority focal sectors. So far, in other regions the EU's blending experience had been good, leveraging funds in sectors such as energy, transport and water. One of the problems in the Pacific was that there were few EU financial/aid institutions working in the region that could be the EU's partners beyond the EIB and the Agence francaise de development and that problem would need to be addressed. 33. During the subsequent discussion, a number of comments were made and points raised. For example, it was suggested that the EIB might usefully establish a physical presence in the PACPS so as to make its operations more direct and effective. Blending had been useful in some PACPS to date in assisting to carry out reforms although there was a need for a balanced approach in assuming lending obligations to ensure they responded to genuine development priorities..

34. A number of queries were posed to the EU for clarification relating, for example, to the criteria to be used in determining access to the IFP and ICPP mechanisms(e.g. would it be the debt criteria of the IMF/World Bank); would the EU play an active or passive role in the blending mechanism, taking the lead or relying on active participation by other development partners/financial institutions; would there be a Pacific representative on the IFB Board; what would be the ratio of grants to loans; would the blending mechanism be available to regional institutions such as the USP or to CSOs; in the context of the PRIP, who would make the decisions on financing and would the consortia have a role to play in that regard; were lending arrangements applicable to regional programmes; and where would PIPSO fit into overall PRIP implementation. 35. In response to the above interventions, the EU reiterated that blending would be a bottom-up process with PACPs discussing possibilities with their development partners and financial institutions and the EU facilitating, but the EU would not want to force countries to assume loan obligations. As for GDP-debt ratios, the EU was aware of the situation of certain PACPS in that regard. The EU collaborates very closely with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank but is not bound necessarily by the positions of the IMF and World Bank in making its lending decisions. On another issue raised, lessons learned from the 10th EDF were that there is scope for improvement in the identification of blending operations and this would be reflected in future decisions. On the ratio of loans to grants, in EU practice elsewhere the ratio had been as high as 20:1 although with large variations across regions. This matter needed to be studied further in the Pacific context. The TCF could possibly have as one of its objectives facilitating the actions required in the blending process, namely in the identification of a pipeline of operations. The EU would work with PIFS to refine and revise the assistance that might be provided to PACPS wishing to take up blending assistance and called for more pro-activity of all partners. As for lending arrangements and regional programmes, the EU explained that the PRIP would provide grants that would go with loans from other donors/financial institutions. Decisions on PRIP investment financing would ultimately be that of EU financial institutions but close consultation with RSCP will take place... A number of other questions raised during the discussion would be worked out and included in the IP currently being prepared for consideration by RSCP Members. Session 4 The Way Forward 36. The PIFS Co-Chair opened the Session by informing the Meeting that there would be a record of the proceedings issued out of session. However, to give direction on the way forward, the Co-Chair summarised a few of the main points highlighted during the discussion during Session 2 on the PRIP IP: The Meeting supported consolidation of PRIP assistance into a few major strategic actions; There was much interest in knowing how the composition of consortia was to be determined. The general proposal was for there to be a core group expanded to include other agencies with capacity to deliver the relevant outputs at the regional level. In that regard, there was a need to develop agreed criteria for consortia composition based on technical, managerial and fiduciary capacities; There was widespread support in the Meeting for a strong element of 'inclusive diversity' in the design of projects so that the projects catered fully for the different

circumstances of individual PACPS. 'Country windows' could also be built into the projects thereby enabling countries in need of special capacity-building assistance to obtain that assistance in order to benefit from the project's main deliverables; There was a need for all PACPS to be kept abreast of IP developments and draft project documents to be considered by the RSCP prior to their being sent to the EU for approval; Where other funding modalities were used (e.g. intra-acp funds) they should explicitly contain a Pacific regional dimension both in terms of substance (in view of assuring synergy and complementarity) and implementation (use through existing regional and national mechanisms and capacities); A key point made throughout the session was the need to begin implementing the PRIP as soon as possible. The Meeting agreed that the IP would be finalised by the end of July and the first meeting of each consortium would be held by the end of August. 37. The EU Co-Chair recalled that Session 3 was intended to clarify the EU's intentions with respect to investment financing, the nature of the EU s proposal and how it should work. Questions put during the meeting enabled the EC to clarify many important aspects of the proposal. At the same time, there were several challenges to be overcome. One is the capacity of the EU's partners to actually develop projects to enter the pipeline in a timely manner. For this to happen, the EU would work with PIFS to provide all the assistance that it could to partner countries to develop proposals. The EU noted that European financial partners were not present in numbers in the Pacific region and those that were should be invited to come closer to the heart of the region. The EU also noted that the region would welcome other financial partners (including non-eu partners) taking part in this exercise.. The EU was absolutely committed to support the PACPS to promote regionalism. While recognising the need to align the PRIP with the FPR, there was also a need to proceed quickly with implementation to make the PRIP tangible reality. Adjustments to take account of the FPR developments could then be reflected in the MTR of the PRIP. 38. The PIFS Co-Chair concluded the Meeting by confirming that lessons would be learned from the implementation of EDF 10 and stressing the importance of taking note of the priorities set by Pacific Leaders. The Meeting was then closed.

11th EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENT FUND (EDF) REGIONAL STEERING COMMITTEE FOR THE PACIFIC (RSCP) MEETING 16 17 June 2015, Suva, Fiji LIST OF PARTICIPANTS COOK ISLANDS 1. Mr Jim ARMISTEAD Director, Pacific Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Immigration Cook Islands jim.armistead@cookislands.gov.ck PACP NAOS 2. Mr Garth Teariki-Anga HENDERSON Financial Secretary Designated Ministry of Finance & Economic Management Cook Islands garth.henderson@cookislands.gov.ck FEDERATED STATES OF MIRONESIA (FSM) 3. HE Mr Gerson Alik JACKSON Ambassador FSM Embassy Suva, Fiji Islands fsmsuva@fsmsuva.org.fj; gajackson12@gmail.com; 4. Mr Gillian DOONE National Authorising Officer Office of the NAO FSM National Government gdoone@sboc.fm

11th EDF Pacific Regional Programming Consultative Workshop Provisional List of Participants 5. Mr Alan SEMENS Deputy NAO/Imprest Admin Office of the NAO FSM National Government asemens@sboc.fm asemens@sboc.fm FIJI 6. Mr Filimoni WAQABACA Permanent Secretary for Finance 7. Mrs Elina LOBENDAHN - VOLAVOLA Director Corporate Services 8. Mr Ledua VAKALOLOMA Acting Economic Planning Officer KIRIBATI 9. Mr Eriati Tauma MANAIMA Permanent Secretary and NAO Ministry of Finance & Economic Development Bairiki, Tarawa, Kiribati e_manaima@mfep.gov.ki 10. Mr Teriba TABE TA to NAO European Development Fund (EDF), National Authorising Office Ministry of Finance and Economic Development Bairiki, Tarawa, Kiribati teriba_tabe@mfep.gov.ki 11. Mr Arimaere TAMBWERETI Accountant General and Deputy NAO Ministry of Finance & conomic Development Bairiki, Tarawa, Kiribati a_tambwereti@mfep.gov.ki NAURU 12. H.E Jarden KEPHAS High Commissioner, Nauru High Commissioner Suva, Fiji Islands P a g e 2

11th EDF Pacific Regional Programming Consultative Workshop Provisional List of Participants jarden.kephas@nauru.com.fj 13. Mr Samuel GRUNDLER Director of Aid Ministry of Financae Nauru samuel.grundler@narugov.nr or samuel.grundler@gmail.com NIUE 14. Ms Pats SIONETAMA TA to NAO Government of Niue Pats.sionetama@mail.gov.nu 15. Ms Jazinta LEVI Project Support Officer Governmet of Niue jazinta.levi@mail.gov.nu PALAU 16. Mr Darren FRITZ Budget Officer/National Authorising Officer Ministry of Finance Government of Palau fritz.darren@gmail.com PAPUA NEW GUINEA 17. Hon Charles Kauvu ABEL Minister for National Planning Department of National Planning & Monitoring Papua New Guinea charles_abel@planning.gov.pg 18. Hon Wesley NUKNUNDJ Parliamentarian Papua New Guinea ministry@planning.gov.pg 19. Mr Koney SAMUEL Acting First Assistant Secretary Development Monitoring & Evaluation Division P a g e 3

11th EDF Pacific Regional Programming Consultative Workshop Provisional List of Participants Department of National Planning & Monitoring Papua New Guinea koney_samuel@planning.gov.pg 20. Mr Robert Yori THOMAS Programme Officer Department of National Planning Papua New Guinea Robert_thomas@planning.gov.pg or ryorithomas@gmail.com 21. Mr Haro Kauvu NOAH Liaison Officer Department of National Planning Papua New Guinea Haro_noah@planning.gov.pg 22. Ms Yvonne VAVINE Aid Coordinator-EU/Regionals NAO Support Unit - Department of National Planning Papua New Guinea Yvonne_vavine@planning.gov.pg or whyvee021@gmail.com 23. Mr Jonathan KENNETT Programme Manager-EUP Department of National Planning & Monitoring Papua New Guinea KennettJonathan2@gmail.com 24. Mr Wilco LIEBREGTS TA NAO Support Unit Papua New Guinea Ecoconsult@connect.com.fj; REPUBLIC OF TIMOR LESTE 25. Mrs Madalena Hanjam COSTA SOARES Deputy NAO Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Timor Leste mhsoares@mof.gov.tl 26. Mr Abel GUTERRES Ambassador of Temor Lester for Australia Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Cooperation, Canberra abelguterres@gmail.com P a g e 4

11th EDF Pacific Regional Programming Consultative Workshop Provisional List of Participants 27. Mrs Maria Auxiliadora DOS REIS Progamme Officer NAO Services Republic of Timor Leste mreis@mnec.gov.tl; lita.reis@gmail.com REPUBLIC OF MARSHALL ISLANDS (RMI) 28. Ms Radika KUMAR National Trade Adviser Ministry of Resources and Development radikakumar@gmail.com SAMOA 29. Ms Noumea SIMI Ministry of Finance Samoa Noumea.simi@mof.gov.ws 30. Mr Henry Tamotu AH CHING Acting CEO Ministry of Finance Samoa Henry.ahching@mof.gov.ws SOLOMON ISLANDS 31. Mr Shadrach FANEGA Permanent Secretary & Deputy NAO Minister of Development Planning and Aid Coordination & NAO Honiara, Solomon Islands sfanega@mdpac.gov.sb 32. Ms Rose Tungale KITUA Undersecretary NAO Projects Minister of Development Planning and Aid Coordination & NAO Honiara, Solomon Islands Rose.tkitua@snsp.org.sb or rtungale@gmail.com P a g e 5

11th EDF Pacific Regional Programming Consultative Workshop Provisional List of Participants 33. Mr Trevor UNUSU Assistant Secretary Europe and International Economic Cooperation Division Ministry of Development Planning & Aid Coordination Honiara, Solomon Islands tunusu@mfaet.gov.sb; trevor.unusu@gmail.com 34. Mr Andrew PRAKASH Diector, Economic Industries Ministry of Development Planning & Aid Coordination Honiara, Solomon Islands aprakash@mdpac.gov.sb TONGA 35. Mr Aholotu PALU Deputy CEO and Deputy NAO Ministry of Finance and National Planning Kingdom of Tonga apalu@finance.gov.to 36. Mrs Pilimilose Balwyn FA OTUSIA TA to the NAO Ministry of Finance and National Planning Kingdom of Tonga bfaotusia@finance.gov.to TUVALU 37. Ms Palipa LAUTI Acting Senior Assistant Secretary Ministry of Finance & Economic Development Tuvalu plauti@gov.tv 38. Ms Sunema MAHEU Government Accountant Treasury Department Tuvalu smaheu@gov.tv P a g e 6

11th EDF Pacific Regional Programming Consultative Workshop Provisional List of Participants VANUATU 39. Mr Johnson NAVITI Director General Prime Minister s Office Vanuatu jnaviti@vanuatu.gov.vu 40. Mr Lester Roan SUNGNK Policy Analyst, Economic Sector Prime Minister s Office Vanuatu rlester@vanuatu.gov.vu 41. Mr Victor RORY Prime Minister s Office Vanuatu vrory@vanuatu.gov.vu NEW CALEDONIA OVERSEAS COUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES 42. Dr Yves LAFOY Official Rep of New Caledonia to New Zealand Official Rep of New Caledonia to the Pacific Islands Forum Sec Delegation of New Caledonia in New Zealand, Embassy of France Wellington New Zealand yves.lafoy@diplomatie.gouv.fr FRENCH POLYNESIA 43. Mr Maurice LAU POUI CHEUNG Presidence de la Polynesia Francaise Delegation for International, European and Pacific Affairs French Polynesia maurice.laupouicheung@presidence.pf ASIAN DEVELOPMENT BANK 44. Mr Robert JAUNCEY P a g e 7

11th EDF Pacific Regional Programming Consultative Workshop Provisional List of Participants Regional Director Pacific Subregional Office ADB Lahyuk@adb.org; 45. Ms Maria PANIAGUA Head Project Administration Unit Pacific Subregional Office ADB fkotoitubou@adb.org EUROPEAN UNION 46. Mr Andrew JACOBS Ambassador - Head of Delegation Delegation of the European Union for the Pacific Andrew.JACOBS@eeas.europa.eu 47. Mr Neven MIMICA European Commissioner for International Cooperation and Development Neven.Mimica@eeas.europa.eu 48. Mr Pierre AMILHAT Director Asia, Central Asia, Middle East/Gulf and Pacific - Directorate General for International Cooperation and Development Pierre.Amilhat@eeas.europa.eu 49. Mr Renato MELE Head of Cooperation - Delegation of the European Union for the Pacific Renato.MELE@eeas.europa.eu 50. Mr Jerome PONS Head of Economic & Social Sector - Delegation of the European Union for the Pacific Jerome.PONS@eeas.europa.eu 51. Mr Jesús LAVIÑA Head of Infrastructure & Natural Resources- Delegation of the European Union for the Pacific Jesus.LAVINA@eeas.europa.eu 52. Mr Yvan PRUSINA Member of Cabinet Yvan.Prusina@eeas.europa.eu 53. Mrs Maud ARNOULD P a g e 8

11th EDF Pacific Regional Programming Consultative Workshop Provisional List of Participants Member of Cabinet Maud.Arnould@eeas.europa.eu 54. Mr Jos JONCKERS Deputy Head of Unit Geographical Coordination Asia Pacific Jos.Jonckers@eeas.europa.eu 55. Mr Adrien MOURGUES Deputy Head of Corperation in EU Office in PNG Adrien.Mourgues@eeas.europa.eu 56. Mr Jean-Christophe VIRIEU Cooperation Officer 57. Mr Pranil SINGH Project Manager - Delegation of the European Union for the Pacific Pranil.SINGH@eeas.europa.eu 58. Mrs Maggie TAWAKE Secretary Delegation of the European Union for the Pacific Maggie.Tawake@eeas.europa.eu 59. Mr Edouard OHLEYER Intern Operations Section Delegation of the European Union for the Pacific Edouard.Ohleyer@eeas.europa.eu AUSTRALIAN HIGH COMMISSION 60. Ms Solstice MIDDLEBY Regional Counsellor Australian High Commission Suva, Fiji Islands Solstice.Middleby@dfat.gov.au 61. Ms Melanie POWELL Second Secretary Regional Australian High Commission Suva, Fiji Islands Mel.Powell@dfat.gov.au 62. Ms Etita MORIKAO Program Manager Australian High Commission Suva, Fiji Islands Etita.morikao@dfat.gov.au P a g e 9

11th EDF Pacific Regional Programming Consultative Workshop Provisional List of Participants EMBASSY OF FRANCE 63. Mr Jules IRRMANN Embassy of France 7th Floor, Dominion House Suva, Fiji Islands jules.irrmann@diplomatie.gouv.fr 64. Ms Anne-Sophie GERNEZ BRITISH HIGH COMMISSION 65. Mr Daniel LUND Head of Climate Change and Regional Affairs British High Commisson Suva, Fiji Islands Daniel.Lund@fco.gov.uk EMBASSY OF THE REPUPBLIC OF INDONESIA 66. Mr Ambrosius THOMAS Second Secretary Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia Embrosius_t@yahoo.com GERMAN EMBASSY 67. Mr Schrod Juergan THOMAS Commissioner for Pacific Islands German Embassy, Wellington New Zealand Pol-10@well.auswaertiges-amt-de US EMBASSY/USAID 68. Mr Michael Denham Development Assistance Secretary US Embassy/USAID mdenham@usaid.gov NEW ZEALAND HIGH COMMISSION 69. Dr. Helen LESLIE P a g e 10

11th EDF Pacific Regional Programming Consultative Workshop Provisional List of Participants First Secretary Regional Development New Zealand High Commission Suva, Fiji Islands Helen.Leslie@orange.mfat.govt.nz 70. Mrs Vamarasi MAUSIO Development Programme Coordinator New Zealand High Commission Suva, Fiji Islands Vamarasi.mausio@mfat.govt.nz FORUM FISHERIES AGENCY (FFA) 71. Mr Michael John BATTY Director Fisheries Development Forum Fisheries Agency Mike.batty@ffa.int CROP AGENCIES PACIFIC POWER ASSOCIATION 72. Mr Gordon CHANG Deputy Executive Director Pacific Power Association Suva, Fiji Islands gordonc@ppa.org.fj; SECRETARIAT OF THE PACIFIC COMMUNITY (SPC) 73. Dr Colin TUKUITONGA Director- General Secretariat of the Pacific Community New Caledonia ColinT@spc.int 74. Mr Cameron DIVER Deputy Director-General Secretariat of the Pacific Community CameronD@spc.int 75. Ms Patricia SACHS-CORNISH Chief of Staff Secretariat of the Pacific Community PatriciaSC@spc.int P a g e 11

11th EDF Pacific Regional Programming Consultative Workshop Provisional List of Participants 76. Mr Cameron BOWLES Director of Strategic Engagement, Planning and Policy Facility Secretariat of the Pacific Community New Caledonia cameronb@spc.int 77. Mr Oliver AUGIN SPC EDF Hubb/Programme Suport Unit Secretariat of the Pacific Community olivera@spc.int UNIVERSITY OF THE SOUTH PACIFIC (USP) 78. Professor Rajesh Chandra Vice-Chancellor USP, Suva, Fiji Islands 79. Mr Jaindra KARAN Director Development, Marketing and Communications USP, Suva, Fiji Islands Karan_j@usp.ac.fj 80. Dr. Anjeela JOKHAN Dean Faculty of Science, Technology and Environment USP, Suva, Fiji Islands Anjeela_jokhan@usp.ac.fj SOUTH PACIFIC REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME (SPREP) 81. Mr Stuart CHAPE Director of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Management Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) Apia, Samoa stuartc@sprep.org 82. Mr Michael F. DONOGHUE Threatened and Migratory Species Adviser Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) Apia, Samoa michaeld@sprep.org 83. Dr David HAYNES Director Waste Management & Pollution Control SPREP P a g e 12

11th EDF Pacific Regional Programming Consultative Workshop Provisional List of Participants Apia, Samoa davidh@sprep.org SOUTH PACIFIC TOURISM ORGANISATION (SPTO) 84. Mr Christopher COCKER PRTCBP Project Manager SPTO Suva, Fji Islands ccoker@spto.org OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TRADE ADVISER (OCTA) 85. Mr Adeshola ODUSANYA Legal Adviser Office of the Chief Trade Adviser (OCTA) Air Vanuatu House, Rue de Paris PO Box 561, Port Vila, Vanuatu T +678 25003 F +678 25003 MELANESIAN SPEARHEAD GROUP (MSG) 86. Mr Peni SIKIVOU Director Programme MSG Secretariat Vanuatu p.sikivou@msg.int 87. Mr John LICHT Programme Manager Trade & Investment MSG Secretariat Vanuatu j.licht@msg.int 88. Mrs Eleni TEVI Capacity Development Advisor MSG Secretariat e.tevi@msg.int SPC/GIZ Coping with Climate Change in the Pacific Island Region [CCCPIR] 89. Dr Wulf KILLMANN Program Director & Senior Adviser SPG/GIZ Wulf.killmann@giz.de P a g e 13

11th EDF Pacific Regional Programming Consultative Workshop Provisional List of Participants NON STATE ACTORS WORLD VISION 90. Mr David HESAIE Regional Manager David_Hesaie@wvi.org LOCALLY MANAGED MARINE AREA NETWORK (LMMA NETWORK) 91. Mr Etika RUPENI Technical Adviser LMMA Network Etika.qica@iucn.org 92. Mr Alifereti TAWAKE Council Chair LMMA Network Alifereti@livingwealthsolutions.com 93. Mr Scott RADWAY Executive Director Strategic Communications Advisor LMMA Network _sraway@seawebap.org PACIFIC CONFERENCE OF CHURCHES 94. Mr Murray ISIMELI Ecumenical Animator Pacific Council of Churches mrisimeli@gmail.com PACIFIC CENTRE FOR PEACEBUILDING 95. Mrs Florence SWAMY Programme Manager Pacific Centre For Peacebuilding Florence@pcpfiji.org P a g e 14

11th EDF Pacific Regional Programming Consultative Workshop Provisional List of Participants PACIFIC ISLNDS PRIVATE SECTOR ORGANISATION (PIPSO) 96. Ms Mereia VOLAVOLA Chief Executive Officer Pacific Islands Private Sector Organisation Suva, Fiji Islands mereiav@pipso.org.fj 97. Ms Anna GIEBELS Volunteer Pacific Islands Private Sector Organisation Suva, Fiji Islands annag@pipso.org.fj 98. Ms Winifred GAUNA Programme Officer Pacific Islands Private Sector Organisation Suva, Fiji Islands winifredg@pipso.org.fj 99. Ms Alisi TUQA Programme Officer Pacific Islands Private Sector Organisation Suva, Fiji Islands alisit@pipso.org.fj PACIFIC YOUTH COUNCIL 100. Mr Manasa VATANITAWAKE Board Member - Pacific Youth Council Suva, Fiji Islands Manasa.vatanitawake@gmail.com 101. Ms Tarusila BRADBURG Coordinator - Pacific Youth Council Suva, Fiji Islands tarusilab@spc.int; pacificyouthcouncil@gamil.com; INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF RED CROSS 102. Ms Laura Michelle HOLBECK Regional Program Coordinator International Federation of Red Cross (IFRC) P a g e 15

11th EDF Pacific Regional Programming Consultative Workshop Provisional List of Participants Suva, Fiji Islands Laura.holbeck@gmail.com PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM SECRETARIAT (PIFS) 103. Ms Meg TAYLOR, DBE Secretary General Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat 104. Ms Andie FONG TOY Deputy Secretary General, Economic Governance & Security Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat andieft@forumsec.org 105. Mr Shiu RAJ Director, Economic Governance Programme Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat shiur@forumsec.org 106. Ms. Desna SOLOFA Director, Political Governance and Security Programme Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat desnas@forumsec.org 107. Mr Alex KNOX Director, Strategic Partnerships & Coordination Programme Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat alexk@forumsec.org 108. Dr Scott HOOK Economic Infrastructure Adviser Economic Governance Programme scotth@forumsec.org.fj 109. Dr Raymond PRASAD Economic Adviser Economic Governance Programme raymondp@forumsec.org.fj 110. Mr. Alfred SCHUSTER Development Cooperation Adviser Strategic Partnership & Coordination Programme alfreds@forumsec.org.fj 111. Dr Jim GOSSELIN Trade Consultant Economic Governance Programme P a g e 16

11th EDF Pacific Regional Programming Consultative Workshop Provisional List of Participants jimgosselinpifs@yahoo.com 112. Mr Zarak KHAN Acting Trade Policy Adviser (ACP/EU) Economic Governance Programme zarakk@forumsec.org 113. Ms Veniana QALO Trade Policy Adviser Economic Governance Programme venianaq@forumsec.org 114. Mr Jerry HUEKWAHIN Trade Policy Officer (AFT) Economic Governance Programme jerryh@forumsec.org. 115. Ms Nikola KOMAILEVUKA Research Assistant (ACP/EU) Economic Governance Programme nikolak@forumsec.org 116. Ms Rave TUATOKO Personal Assistant to the DSG (EGS) Ravet@forumsec.org 117. Ms Lillian MITCHELL Administrative Assistant (Trade Policy) Economic Governance Programme lillianm@forumsec.org 118. Ms Titilia ULUIVITI Secretary to the Director Economic Governance Programme titiliau@forumsec.org Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, Suva, Fiji 29 June 2015 P a g e 17

PACIFIC ISLANDS FORUM SECRETARIAT & THE DELEGATION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR THE PACIFIC 11 th EDF Regional Steering Committee for the Pacific Tuesday, 16 June 2015, Suva, Fiji OPENING STATEMENT Meg Taylor,DBE Secretary General, Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat and Regional Authorising Officer Commissioner of European Commission, Mr Neven Mimica Honourable Ministers of Planning, Mr Charles Abel of PNG and Mr Danny Philip of Solomon Islands Excellencies and Heads of Delegations Director of the Asia, Central Asia, Middle East/Gulf and Pacific in EuropeAid at the European Commission, Mr Pierre Amilhat Heads of the CROP Agencies and development partner representatives National and Territorial Authorising Officers Non-State Actors representatives Senior Officials, Colleagues, Ladies and gentlemen 1. It is my pleasure to welcome you to the Forum Secretariat Headquarters and to the launching of the 11 th European Development Fund Pacific Regional Indicative Programme (PRIP) 2014-2020 and the Regional Steering Committee for the Pacific (RSCP) Meeting. 2. In particular, I would like to warmly welcome and thank Mr Neven Mimica, for his personal attendance and personal involvement to officiate at the launching and signing of the 11 th EDF PRIP 2014-2020 3. Today, we have a strong, very committed presence of both European Union officials and Pacific representatives. Our European Union colleagues have come from afar from Brussels and possibly from elsewhere, and the delegations in the Pacific demonstrating the EU s commitment to assist the Pacific region in their engagement in the identification and implementation of the areas of development for the region over the next 7 years under the European Development Fund. 4. Our regional stakeholders have also turned up in numbers to be part of this consultation and I am pleased to see such a significant commitment and interest by all of you. 5. The support that the Pacific region has received from the European Union is a matter of public record, and fundamental to Pacific development in both volume and range. Key regional institutions have also played their part in ensuring that these development projects are implemented in a coordinated manner to benefit the Pacific island countries. 6. The process of developing the 11 th EDF PRIP 2014-2020 which is worth 166 million started through the two consultative programming meetings in held in October 2012 and later in February 2014, of which most of you who are present here attended. Your intelligent

contributions in identifying the three priority areas of the 11 th EDF PRIP is commendable. This is a significant contribution of regional collective actions that promotes regional integration in its truest sense. 7. Regional Economic Integration, Sustainable Management of Natural Resources Environment and Waste Management, and Inclusive and Accountable Governance are the 11 th EDF PRIP priorities which I am sure addresses the regional initiatives of the Framework for Pacific Regionalism. The 11 th EDF PRIP also includes blending mechanisms for Regional Investment Projects which will assist Priority areas 1 and 2. And this allocation will be channelled to specifically address the Investment Facility for the Pacific (IFP) and the investment co-financing programme for the Pacific (ICPP). 8. Your invaluable input, feedback and comments has helped guide the finalisation of the 11 th EDF PRIP document which today we are all gathered hereto to witness the signing of this higher level strategic document which will address significant development issues and challenges and eradicate poverty in the Pacific. 9. The RSCP meeting is a follow up on the earlier consultations on the 11 th EDF PRIP programme meeting held in February 2014 and discuss and endorse the related implementation plan and the modalities of implementation. We hope to seek a consensus and greater understanding amongst all of us through the meeting and chat a way forward with the modalities of implementation of the 11 th EDF PRIP. 10. I am pleased to announce that a fully dedicated team at the Forum Secretariat, the duly mandated regional organisation will be solely responsible for effective and efficient coordination of the implementation of the 11 th EDF PRIP. Strengthened relationship through effective communication and connection with the implementation agencies and countries on 11 th EDF will be one of the priorities of this dedicated team. 11. At our meeting, we will seek your advice, guidance and direction not on implementation only but we look forward to discussing strategic priority issues and broad areas of engagement and indicators of success. 12. May I urge all member countries, implementing agencies, development partners and all stakeholders to also work towards a strengthened coordination mechanism and deepen the dialogue and cooperation among all concerned to deliver on the development objectives of the our region and deliver the required services for the people of this region. 13. May I also thank the Ambassador and Head of Delegation of the European Union for the Pacific and your staff for the continued assistance and support provided through the consultation process in ensuring that the 11 th EDF PRIP is finalised and that we are here today to witness the signing of this special strategic document. 14. May I wish you productive discussions and every success in this important meeting. Thank you. 2

EU COMMISSIONER NEVEN MIMICA'S SPEECH AT THE JOINT SIGNATURE WITH DAME MEG TAYLOR OF THE REGIONAL INDICATIVE PROGRAMME, PIFS Dear Secretary General, Distinguished Representatives from the Pacific countries and territories, representatives of regional and international organisations, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, Distinguished guests. It is a great pleasure and privilege for me to be with you in Suva, my first mission to the Pacific and attend this important event. I will have the honour/pleasure to sign together with Secretary General Dame Meg Taylor the Regional Indicative Programme of the 11 th European Development Fund for the Pacific region. The European Union has been and will remain a reliable partner to the Pacific.We value the strong foundations of our partnership and remain committed to contribute to the wellbeing of the citizens of the Pacific through our work as one of the region's key development partners. The European Union is the largest donor in the world, and on a per capita basis the Pacific receives more support from us than any other region in the world. Overall volumes of the European Union development assistance to the Pacificwill increase significantly under the eleventh European Development Fund for the period from 2014 to 2020. Compared to the 10th EDF, the 11th EDF regional programme envelope has been increased by 45%, to a total of EUR 166 million. But we are not only committed to providing more aid to the Pacific. We are committed also to providing better aid, more effective aid. We can do this is by working more closely with you both at regional and national level, with your regional organisations and civil society and with other development partners and combining our efforts. The new governance arrangements which we have put in place for our regional cooperation including the important role assigned to this Regional Steering Committee should enable us to maximise the value added and impact of our assistance. I would like to highlight the importance of this programme. Our ambition is to support the sustainable development of opportunities and resources in the Pacific region. I sincerely hope that in pursuing this in complementarity with other EU instruments our joined endeavours will address the many challenges faced by the people of the Pacific. This includes climate and disaster risk, which will be a cross-cutting priority in all our cooperation with the Pacific. The COP 21 conference in Paris at the end of this year will no doubt give us the opportunity to discuss this further and explore how we may support SIDS further. The Pacific RIP will target three priority areas: regional economic integration;sustainable management of natural resources, environment and management ofwaste; as well as inclusive and accountable governance and the respect of Human Rights. Our extensive consultation process to shape the regional programme has assuredthat it responds to your priorities and expectations, most importantly the orientations of the Framework for Pacific Regionalism.. The new governance arrangement with the Steering Committee will make it possible to involvepacific countries more closely in the programming, design, implementation,monitoring and evaluation of programmes.

Recommendations of the Strategic evaluation of the European Union's cooperation with the Pacific Region (2006-2012) have also been taken on board.it is important that regional cooperation helps to reduce poverty and promote inclusive growth in Pacific countries. Trade and private sector development can contribute to this. That is why the 11th EDF programme gives more emphasis on trade facilitation and private sector development. We have agreed that cooperation in the field of fisheries will remain a priority of the new RIP, and rightly so. During the previous RIP our cooperation has helped especially in modernizing the scientific monitoring and increasing economic return for Pacific countries. Cooperation under the new RIP can build on this to strengthen the fisheries governance and sustainable management of your fisheries resources, especially tuna resources. You can count on the EU to be a best ally in your efforts to preserve, sustainably manage, control and maximise long term economic and social benefits from your fisheries resources especially in the context of increasing demand and pressures on your fisheries resources. Besides the three priority areas of the Pacific RIP - regional economic integration, sustainable management of natural resources and inclusive and accountable governance - support will be available to strengthen the important role of Civil Society Organisations and Non- Governmental Organisations. Theirengagement, expertise and voice can improve the definition and responsivenessof public policies and the transparency and accountability of their implementation. They may also play an instrumental role in promoting Gender empowerment and reducing gender violence in the Pacific region. La présence des Ordonnateurs Territoriaux et Régional en tant qu observateurs permanent du Comité de pilotage, permettra le partage d information. Mais c est au moment de la phase d identification et de formulation des programmes que l articulation avec les programmes des PTOM pourra se faire en particulier dans le domaine de la gestion durable des ressources naturelles et del environnement. (ENDS)

11 th European Development Fund (EDF) Pacific Regional Indicative Programme (RIP) Meeting of the Regional Steering Committee for the Pacific (RSCP) Session 2: 11 th EDF Pacific RIP Implementation Plan 16-17 June 2015 Ryoichi Jinnai Conference Centre, Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) Suva, Fiji