Environmental assessment in Africa : final project report

We have addressed five issues in this project. First, the work has looked at the "traditional" situation -- how environmental reviews are carried out under 22 CFA Ch.II Part 216, better known as Reg. 16. The report identifies the main problems in the current application of those regulations, which relate primarily to environmental considerations being given short shrift during project or program design. It suggests an analytical process through which this could be addressed, and recommends that each design team include a full member responsible only for environmental evaluation. It also discusses the common misconception in Missions that Reg. 16 is a "balancing test," and that a project that has some beneficial impact on the environment, or that has more beneficial than harmful aspects, will receive a negative determination. The report then looks at the new problems posed by the increase in importance of nonproject assistance and local currency funding. The Africa Bureau Guidance on nonproject assistance (NPA) under the Development Fund for Africa (DFA) essentially calls for Reg. 16 procedures to be followed in the design of NPA; this report therefore recommends that those design teams follow the same procedures as were recommended for projects. The report also considers the requirement that missions protect against long-term environmental harm from policy reform under the DFA, and recommends a review of current knowledge about the impacts of macro policy reform on the environment, to serve as a base for developing guidelines for Mission action in this area. Finally, it considers the problems of encouraging African governments to take responsibility for their own environmental protection, and assesses the viability of conditions precedent as a way to do this. The third chapter looks at monitoring. It stresses the importance of understanding what questions must be answered, why, and how the results will be used as the framework for thinking about monitoring. In this context it defines four types of monitoring -- tracking, impact monitoring, research monitoring, and problem identification -- and considers how each is important in the context of Africa Bureau projects. It then considers the management questions which must be addressed by the Bureau and the Missions in order to ensure effective environmental monitoring in the future. The fourth chapter looks specifically at pesticide monitoring. It recommends that monitoring be required for all A.I.D. projects or NPA which involve pesticide use, following the procedures set out in Chapter III. It also considers the development of international databases on the sale and use of pesticides, and recommends a short project to scope out what this could involve. The fifth chapter considers the National Environmental Action Plans (NEAPs) launched by the World Bank in many African countries. After an assessment of what is unique and interesting about those plans, it considers how A.I.D. should be involved with them. The strategies suggested include supporting international efforts to coordinate both donor and African country work on NEAPs. They also include the roles which missions can play in both supporting and following the NEAPs in their host countries. The last chapter discusses a set of institutions which could play a useful role in implementing the environmental assessment and monitoring tasks recommended in the previous chapters. There is no ideal institutional mechanism which will be the best solution in every country. Rather, there are many possible solutions, each of which has both advantages and disadvantages. The discussion in Chapter VI is designed to give Mission personnel an understanding of the options, so they can assess what makes the most sense for their projects and NPA, in the context of their host countries and their funding and management constraints. (Author abstract)