Environmental monitoring, evaluation, and mitigation plans : an assessment of six years experience

This study assesses the implementation of EMEMPs in four countries: Madagascar, Malawi, Uganda, and Ghana. EMEMP implementation in the four countries varied widely. In Madagascar, the EMEMP focused on the environmental impacts of road rehabilitation. In Malawi, by contrast, it involved in-depth research on the water quality and soil erosion implications of expanded tobacco cultivation; however, the monitoring program proved too difficult to implement, so alternatives, including an effort to link EMEMP to development of an environmental information systems (EIS), were attempted. In Uganda, the concern was the environmental impacts of new export crops and expanded production of traditional crops. The Ghana EMEMP was never implemented, since the government, to which its implementation was entrusted. never fulfilled its responsibility. The case studies yield no simple answers, but show a number of different models for Mission consideration. (1) Take a very narrow focus in a rapid monitoring project, as in the case of the village studies in Malawi. Such studies may be a cost- effective way to answer questions of interest to USAID, as long as they are not linked to broader capacity-building, EIS work, or other government or USAID activities that could make them less efficient. (2) Conduct in-depth research to identify causal links between USAID activity and the environment. This strategy -- implemented in Malawi and proposed in Ghana -- seems too cumbersome to address USAID interests, yet not focused enough on government interests to induce the latter to commit to implementation. (3) Link USAID research questions to ongoing EIS development. This was proposed in Ghana, but not tried anywhere. If the national EIS is already operational, it may be an effective way to take advantage of existing government capacity; otherwise, it may raise the same management problems as in-depth research. (4) Undertake the EMEMP as part of a mission-wide monitoring activity. This may raise questions of how to hold those whose activities harm the environment accountable. It may also raise the question of whether it is reasonable to make a significant investment in EMEMP information systems, yet target them solely at USAID rather than government information needs. (5) Support development of a national EIS. This will not provide immediate answers to USAID questions, but will help build infrastructure that will prove helpful in the long run. (6) Simply mitigate. This avoids efforts to establish elusive causal relationships, and focuses simply on ensuring that environmental harm is not occurring. The risk is that mitigation activities may become totally disconnected from the suspected environmental harm that led to them, and so may lose their focus.