CAPACITY BUILDING FOR INTEGRATED

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT AND

MANAGEMENT IN AFRICA

REPORT OF

THE REGIONAL CONSULTATION

30 -31 JANUARY 2001 LUSAKA, ZAMBIA

Partnership for African Environmental Sustainability (PAES)

Geoplan International

Capacity Development and Linkages for EIA in Africa (CLEIAA)

The World Bank, Africa Region

I::-ITJ.:R:-IATIONAL COI\Sl:LTAI'TS THE WORLD BANK

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

wb394321Typewritten Text63052

CAPACITY BUILDING FOR INTEGRATED

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT AND

MANAGEMENT IN AFRICA

REPORT OF

THE REGIONAL CONSULTATION

30 -31 JANUARY 2001

LUSAKA, ZAMBIA

CONTENTS

CONlENTS ................................................................................................................................... I

FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................ ill

ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................................. V

THE PAMODZI STA1EMENf ..................................................................................................... V

DAY ONE OF THE CONSULTATION - Tuesday 30th January 200 I

1. Official Opening of the Consultation ........................................................................................ 1

2 Integrated Environmental Risk Assessment and Management in Africa: Concept,

Relevance and Framework ........................................................................................................ 2

2.1 Overview of Issues ............................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Questions Raised ................................................................................................................ 5

2.3 Mozambique's Experience in Disaster Management ........................................................... 5

2.4 Working Groups Session I ................................................................................................. 6

2.5 Summary of Findings and Conclusions of Day One Session ............................................. 7

DAY TWO OF THE CONSULTATION - Wednesday 31 st January 200 1

3 Integrated Environmental Risk Management Approaches and Best Practices ....................... 7

3.1 Approaches, Tools and practices ....................................................................................... 7

3.2 Zambia's Experience in Disaster Management: Lessons for IERAM .................................. 9

3.3 Working Groups Session 2 ............................................................................................... 10

4 Capacity Building for Integrated environmental Risk

Assessment and Management: Basic Considerations ............................................................ 12

4.1 Lessons Learnt from the African EIA Capacity Building Initiative ................................... 12

4.2 Experiences of Environmental Networks and Initiatives in Capacity Building

Do's and Don'ts ..................................................................................................................... 13

4.3 Plenary Discussion ........................................................................................................... 14

4.4 Working Group Session 3 ................................................................................................. 14

5 Capacity Building for IERAM: the Next Steps ....................................................................... 15

6 Wrap Up Session: The Pamodzi Statement. ............................................................................ 15

7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 16

Annex I Programme Regional Consultation on IERAM,

Lusaka, Zambia, 30-31 January 2001 .......................................................................... 17

Annex II Statement of Welcome and Purpose of the Regional Consultation ........................... 19

Annex III Guest of Honour's Speech at the Official Opening of the Regional Consultation

on Intgrated Environmental Risk Assessment and Management in Africa ............... 23

Annex IV Toward Capacity Building for Integrated Environmental Risk Assessment and

Management In Africa: Background Discussion Paper ............................................ 25

Annex V Disaster Management and Preparedness In Mozambique: Lessons For

Integrated Enviromental Risk Management .............................................................. 49

Annex VI Approaches and Tools for Integrated Environmental Risk Assessment and Management: The Logical Framework Concept and Approach ............................... t6

Annex VII The Applicability ofFormal , Quantitative Risk Assessment for Natural Disaster Preparedness in Africa ................................................................................ (f)

Annex vrn Disaster Preparedness and Management in Zambia: Lessons for Integrated

Risk Management ...................................................................................................... 73

Annex IX Capacity Building for Environmental Management in SSA: A Review of

Networks' Experiences .............................................................................................. 81

Annex X List of Participants Regional Consultation on IERAM ............................................. 85

II

FOREWORD

The Regional Consultation on Capacity Building for Integrated Environmental Risk Assessment and Management in Africa (JERAM), 30-31 January 200 I, took place at the Taj Pamodzi Hotel, Lusaka, Zambia.

Today, a majority of Africans find themselves at environmental risk arising from drought, flood, ArDS epidemic, armed conflict, and policy and institutional failures. Interest in environmental risk assessment arose from the need to bring into light the impact of these risks on development and vice versa in an integrated manner. There is also a growing world-wide recognition of risk assessment as a vital tool to evaluate and solve a broad range of ecological and health problems. This Regional Consultation, therefore, sought to explore issues, methodologies, needs and options for integrated environmental risk assessment and management and promote capacity building and professional development of individuals and African institutions in the area.

The specific objectives of the Consultation were to:

Raise awareness among African decision-makers about IERA and its potential for reducing multifaceted environmental risks/threats;

t Contribute to developing an analytical framework for IERA and its integration in development policy decisions;

• Promote and initiate multifaceted capacity strengthening and building for integrated environmental risk assessment and management;

• Encourage public involvement in environmental risk assessment and management.

This Consultation brought together close to 30 scientists, engineers, medical doctors, economists, meteorologists, biologists, geographers, agriculturalists, foresters, and historians. All were invited in their personal capacity from all regions of Africa. Annex I shows a list of all those who participated in the consultation. The participants issued what is called "The Pamodzi Statement" that reflects their findings and recommendations. The Statement was called after the name of the hotel where the Regional Consultation was held. "Pamodzi" in the local Zambian language means, "working together".

The Consultation was preceded by a working dinner on 29 January, which enabled participants to get to know each other. Each participant was also asked to tell the group what they expect from the Regional Consultation. There was a remarkable convergence of opinion as almost all participants were eager to learn about environmental risk assessment and management. Some wanted to use it to improve their work, while many others wanted to go back home and influence decision makers. Annex II shows the Consultation programme in detail.

A background paper that sought to clarify concepts and identify key issues was distributed to participants two weeks prior to the Consultation. Each session started with a plenary presentation followed by working group discussions.

The Regional Consultation was made possible through the financial support provided by the World Bank - Africa Region from the Dutch Trust Fund. Partnership for African Environmental Sustainability (PAES) was made responsible for guiding and managing technical and organisational processes with the supervision of Geoplan International of Amsterdam. Capacity Development and Linkages for Environmental Impact Assessment in Africa (CLEIAA) provided the umbrella within which the Consultation took place.

Mersie Ejigu

President & CEO, PAES

111

ACRONYMS

ADB

AIDA

AMCEN

CEASSA

CLEIAA

DMC

ECA

EIA

ERA

EIS

IAIA

ICLEI

IEC

IERAM

LEAP

MDP

MELISSA

NEAP

NESDA

PAES

SAIEA

SEA

SSA

UEF

UMP

UNCED

UNDP

UNEP

UNIDO

African Development Bank

A wareness, Interest, Development, Achievement

African Ministerial Conference for the Environment

Capacity Development for EIA in Sub Saharan Africa

Capacity Development and Linkages for EIA in Africa

Drought Monitoring Centre

Economic Commission for Africa

Environmental Impact Assessment

Environmental Risk Assessment

Africa: Environment Information Systems-Africa

International Association for Impact Assessment

International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives

Information Education Communication

Integrated Environmental Risk Assessment and Management

Local Environmental Action Plan

Municipal Development Programme

Managing the Environment Locally in Sub-Saharan Africa

National Environmental Action Plan

Network for Environmentally Sustainable Development in Africa

Partnership for African Environmental Sustainability

Southern Africa Institute for Environmental Assessment

Strategic Environmental Assessment

Sub-Saharan Africa

Urban Environment Forum

Urban Management Programme

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

United Nations Development Programme

United Nations Environment Programme

United National Industrial Development Organisation

IV

THE PAMODZI STATEMENT

On Capacity Building for Integrated Environmental Risk Assessment and Management (IERAM) in Africa

We, the participants in the Regional Consultation on Capacity Building for IERAM in Africa, Pamodzi Hotel, Lusaka, Zambia, 30-31 January 200 I,

Recognising that:

IERAM encompasses a suite of tools that are complementary to, and enhance the rigour of

EIA and other environmental management tools;

IERAM has been successfully utilised elsewhere in the world, both as a stand-alone and

contributory tool in environmental management;

IERAM is useful in complementing the environmental impact assessment of development

projects as well as assessing the risks of broader, non-development activities such as

natural disasters;

considerable experience and expertise exists in the region in the assessment of

environmental risks;

such expertise is largely based on disparate and in many cases informal processes which are

difficult to collate, compare and analyse;

a common framework and methodology for IERAM in Africa would greatly assist and

benefit decision-making processes towards sustainable development

Appreciating:

the work done by the Partnership for African Environmental Sustainability (PAES), the World Bank, Africa Region, Geoplan International and Capacity Development and Linkages for Environmental Impact Assessment in Africa (CLEIAA) in organising this Consu Itation;

Recommend that:

IERAM methodology based on current international best practices be adopted and adapted

for use in African contexts;

a review and analysis of existing IERAM tools and their applicability to issues in Africa be

commissioned;

IERAM should not be limited to country level, but should also be applied at the

regional/trans-boundary levels:

adequate capacity at institutional, individual, policy and regulatory levels be built to

successfully utilise IERAM tools;

capacity be built in conjunction with and complementary to EIA and similar environmental

management capacity building initiatives;

capacity to implement IERAM be focused within existing institutions with responsibilities

for implementing national and regional development programmes; all possible efforts be

made to enhance the use of existing networks;

+ disseminate as widely as possible this Statement and the Proceedings of this Consultation; and an action plan for furthering IERAM be prepared through the Capacity Development and Linkages for Environmental Impact Assessment in Africa (CLEIAA)

ISSUED ON 31 JANUARY 200]

LUSAKA, ZAMBIA

v

DAY ONE OF THE CONSULTATION Tuesday 30th January 2001

1 OFFICIAL OPENING OF THE CONSULTATION

The Minister of Environment of Zambia officially opened the Regional Consultation. The Minister welcomed participants and thanked the organisers for choosing Lusaka as the venue. "Zambia is pleased to be associated with this Regional Consultation", the Minister said. In Zambia, the Disaster Management Co-ordinating Unit is vested in the Office of the Vice President. Guided by the overall disaster policy framework and concerned with the inadequacies of the existing structures, the Government of Zambia found it necessary to create a permanent unit within government to co-ordinate disaster management and risk assessment in collaboration with expert institutions, he further said. He concluded by expressing best wishes for a successful outcome of the Consultation. The full text of the Minister's speech can be found in annex IV.

Prior to the Minister, Mr. Lovemore Simwanda, PAES Technical Representative, welcomed participants to Lusaka and invited Mr. Mersie Ejigu to make introductory remarks.

Mr. Ejigu thanked the Minister of Environment for agreeing to officiate the Consultation. Mr. Ejigu paid tribute to the organisers of the Regional Consultation, notably, Mr. Arne Dalfelt of the World Bank for initiating the Regional Consultation, providing financial support and for passionately monitoring the day-to-day progress of technical and organisational processes. He also thanked the Capacity Development and Linkages for Africa (CLEIAA) for providing the umbrella within which the Consultation took place and Mr. Rolf H.M. Posthouwer of Geoplan International of Amsterdam for providing crucial technical advice and supervision. Finally, he thanked Mr. Lovemore Simwanda and Mr. Getachew lembere of PAES for their hard work in making the Consultation a reality.

Mr. Ejigu made a tour d' horizon of the conceptual and practical issues underpinning integrated environmental risk assessment and management. He said, "Environmental risk refers to risk to the population arising from environmental change as well as to risk to the environment arising from human activity. To understand environmental risk, one has to understand what risk is. Risk can be defined as the likelihood of something bad happening, or as a combination of the likelihood and consequences of an undesired event. Throughout human history, the perception of risk and the coping up mechanisms crafted has defined how society should be organised at the level of individuals, community, tribe, nation and region". Integrated Environmental Risk Assessment (IERA), Mr. Ejigu said, has the potential to be a unifying tool that helps to address wide ranging societal concerns like resource degradation, disease outbreaks, anticipated droughts or floods, and adverse ecological changes.

Mr. Ejigu explained that the Regional Consultation is not only about capacity building but also on capacity mobilisation and strengthening. There are areas where we need to mobilise existing capacity through providing forums and networking, whiles in others what we need only strengthening or fine tuning, while others need capacity creation or building through training. The full text of Mr. Ejigu's Statement ofWe1come is attached in Annex HI.

Mr. Arne Dalfelt, who spoke on behalf of the World Bank, said that the past five years saw progress in strengthening Africa's capacity for project environmental impact assessment through initiatives launched under the auspices of the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) and the African High-Level Ministerial Conference on Environmental Impact Assessment. This work is ongoing, but there is now an added need to address issues of environmental assessment in a broader perspective. He concluded by reaffirming the commitment of the World Bank to support outcomes of the Regional Consultation.

Prof. Raphael Mwalyosi, a member of the CLEIAA Board, spoke on behalf of Mr. Peter Acquah, Coordinator of the Capacity Development and Linkages for EIA in Africa. Prof. Mywalosi recalled the decision of the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN) and the African High-Level Conference on Environmental Impact Assessment promote capacity building for environmental impact assessment (EIA) in Africa. The project, Capacity Building for Environmental Assessment in Sub-Saharan Africa (CEASSA) supported by the World Bank emerged from that meeting. Through CEASSA, modest efforts were made to build Africa's EIA capacity. In 2000, CEASSA resulted into a permanent structure named Capacity Development and Linkages in Africa (CLEIAA), which is supported by several donors. The secretariat of CLEIAA is placed with the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) in Accra, Ghana. The CLEIAA Board will be meeting early February, thus giving it the opportunity to consider outputs of this Regional consultation.

2 TNTEGRATED ENV1RONMENTAL R1SK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT TN AFRICA: CONCEPT, RELEVANCE AND FRAMEWORK

2.1 Overview of Issues

Mr. Ejigu introduced the background paper "Towards Capacity Strengthening for Integrated Environmental Risk Assessment and Management", of which the full text can be found in Annex V. He raised and elaborated 10 key points:

What is environmental risk?

• Risk to the population arising from biophysical change;

Risk to the bio-diversity arising from human activity or development.

What is environmental risk assessment:?

• Involves identifYing the probability of harm occurring from an intended action or accidental event and determining the significance of estimated risks;

ERA is a tool for informed decision making.

Why environmental risk assessment?

It is anticipatory, integrative and upstream;

A tool for informed decision-making process;

• Forecasting and priority setting;

• A means for conflict resolution;

Improves cost efficiency.

How is Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) different from Environmental Impact Assessment (EtA)?

EIA seeks to analyse how human health and the natural environment could be impacted by a proposed development project;

• EIA estimates the range and magnitude of the adverse impacts including the number of people or geographic areas that could be affected.

• EIA is designed to deal only with development project proposals under consideration.

ERA deals with what frequency the adverse consequences might occur and the evidence available to judge their likelihood

• ERA involves identifying what risk management strategies can be put in place to minimize or control the risks.

2

ERA deals with risks associated with development and development projects (natural disasters, armed conflict, chemicals, disease outbreaks as well as policy and institutional failures), and

ERA has thus a much broader scope than EIA.

How do we identifY environmental risks?

The likelihood of that risk happening;

The magnitude of its consequence; and

The time frame within which it is happening.

What are the key environmental risk concerns in Africa?

Risks of natural disasters

Risks from cumulative or slow onset changes in the physical environment

Risk to the natural environment arising from development

From large scale mechanised agriculture

From chemicals

Risks to people from diseases outbreaks and spread of infectious diseases

Environmental risks arising from armed conflicts

How do we assess environmental risks?

The diagram below illustrates a typical framework for environmental risk assessment:

Consequence / likelihood analysis ~~ Identification of Risk ranking/

priority setting risk concerns PUBLIC

CONSULTATION/

COMMUNICATION\ )

Control/ Risk mitigation characterisation

How do we rank! prioritise the environmental risks?

Magnitude and intensity of risk

society's perception of risk

Economic factors.

How do we build capacity/or integrated environmental risk assessment and management?

Policy development

Institutions

Human resources

Regulatory mechanisms

3

What.framework is there to manage environmental risks?

Building upon the risk assessment framework presented above, the diagram below shows a generic risk assessment framework:

PUBLIC PERCEPTION POLICIES AND OF RISK INSTITUTIONS

CO~L'ERNS

ecological risks

health risks

water and sanitation RISK BASEDhuman security risks

RISK CONCERf\iSi - socio-cu I tural - economic risks DECISION

RISK !'.1ANAGEMF.Nf

RISK ASSESSMEl'ff MAKING STRATEGIES

CONSEQUENCESPROCESSCONSEQUENCES - famine

- disease, infection

- personal threat, injury

• breakdown ofcultural

integrity

REGULAIDRY TOOLS

!\'lEL'HANl"iMS - cost effectiveness

- insurance - cost -benefit analysis - non-compliance liabilities - taxes and charges - standards - capital costs

Mr. Ejigu's presentation was followed by comments from three discussants. Ms. Bettina Genthe highlighted the importance of communication and the need to make communication an integral part of each stage of the ER assessment process. Mr. Mwanza, based on his experience in coordinating disaster responses in Zambia, underscored the never ending and overwhelming disaster relief activities and suggested that introducing integrated environmental risk assessment and management would help to better plan disasters and integrate disaster management in the development policy decision making process. Mr. Rolf Posthouwer stressed the cyclical nature of environmental risk assessment and management and the need to link environmental risk assessment to strategic environmental assessment.

In the Plenmy discussions that followed, the following common themes emerged:

• ERA and EIA must be seen as complimentary and not alternatives or competitive;

Risk communication is critical to the effective implementation of IERA and needs to be built into each step of the risk management process;

• ERA is a broad suite of tools varying according to type of risk, context and application requirements; the appropriateness needs to be tested for Africa's data-poor context;

4

http:1ANAGEMF.Nf

• [n Africa, with the prevalence of natural disasters, Early Warning Systems (EWS) are a particularly useful application and product of RA;

ERA is an important contributing tool to improve decision-making

2.2 Questions Raised

The following 14 questions were also raised regarding the usefulness of ERA and its suitability for Africa, mostly focused around appropriateness of ERA as a tool for Africa, at what level ERA should be applied and by whom, the complementarity of EIA and ERA, and how best to implement capacity building.

I. Is ERA deployed successfully elsewhere in the world?

2. If so, what are the contexts of successful deployments?

3. What is the appropriateness of deploying ERA in African contexts?

4. What are the questions that we currently cannot answer for which ERA is the proposed tool?

5. What are the specific tools that ERA provides which are different to ETA?

6. Are there any needs for marketing of ERA and its appropriateness, especially amongst politicians?

7. Is ERA appropriate in a data-poor environment and should capacity building focus first on data needs?

8. How do we strengthen existing institutions to enable them to implement ERA?

9. Is it possible to develop a generic framework for implementing the suite of ERA tools and applications?

10. At what levells in the decision-making process do we want to intervene by means of ERA? e.g. developmental activities versus policy, programmes and planning.

II. How do we ensure that ERA and ErA are seen and treated as complimentary, each with strengths and weaknesses in certain contexts and applications?

12. Whose responsibility is it to conduct ERA in the non-development arena e. g., natural disasters (floods, quakes), cumulative impacts (e. g., small-scale farming) and long-term insidious impacts (e.g., persistent organic pollutants (POPs)?

13. How do we ensure risk communication is conducted effectively?

14. How can we build the bridge between RA and RM?

2.3 Mozambique's Experience in Disaster Management

The presentation of Prof. Gerhard Uesegang on lessons learned from Mozambican highlighted the following:

• Mozambique is a country with a long experience in drought and famines linked to droughts (and underdevelopment), human, animal and plant diseases and recent floods.

Floods of the period 1997-2000 in Mozambique are results of natural systems very little influenced by human activities such as farming, wood extraction. In the Limpopo valley there were practically three flood waves following each other before the previous one had passed. Such a compaction of events as in the Limpopo seems to be very rare indeed and is very close to the worst possible case.

5

The Council of Ministers, headed by the Prime Minister, functions a Conselho Coordenador (Coordinating Council) for calamities and emergencies composed of Ministers (or in their absence National Directors), whose secretary is the Director of the Instituto Nacional de Gestao de Calamidadades (INGC). The INGC also organises a Conselho Tecnico (CTGC) in which its own staff collaborates with flood water specialists from INA, metereologists from INAM and health, transport, Public Works, Woman affairs, Micoa, Plan and Finance, State administration. It elaborates a weekly bulletin for the Conselho coordenador and Council of Ministers, in addition to contingency plans. The Conselho Tecnico has to operationalise the contingency plans.

• The INGC also forms Councils at provincial and district levels and cooperates with NGOS directly at this level as well. At the provincial level the Provincial Governor and at district level the district administrator coordinate the operations.

Mozambique forms part of international health warning systems that is generated by WHO (OMS) in the field of health. There is also an internal warning system and preparedness for possible Cholera epidemics, imports of drugs necessary there and for malaria controL The Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for animal diseases (e.g. in the moment control of foot and mouth epidemic which affected Eastern South Africa and Swaziland.

The communication system remains the weakest link in the disaster preparedness and prevention process. The public telephone network is being re-established, Red cross and sometimes other organisations have additional networks, but most of them only function during certain hours of the day and often not on weekends.

• A risk assessment system is valuable, but needs to take into account the physical, biological and sociocultural! human factors. Effective ERA at the national level includes: preparedness; understanding risks and how to explain them and their causes; and partnerships between governments and NGO's. This means building enormous capacity in the Mozambican setting.

Annex VI provides the full text of Mr. Liesegang's presentation.

2.4 Working Groups Session 1

Three working groups were created to discuss the 14 questions mentioned above as they relate to the issues the working groups address:

Working Group I; ERA concepts, relevance and benefits:

Working Group II: Identification and ranking ofER 's in Africa

Working Group //!: Developing a generic ERA fram ework for Africa

The results of the discussions in the working groups was as follows:

Group I: ERA concepts, relevance and benefits:

ERA has been successfully used on various problems around the world;

However, most appear to have been a component of broader EA although some standalone;

Appropriateness for Africa includes need for disaster prediction; toxic waste management and contributing to EIA's, SEA's etc;

• Risk Assessment and Risk Management are different components, but both are needed;

Are benefits, and need to raise awareness of these;

• EIA and ERA are complimentary.

6

Group II: Identification and ranking ofER 's in Africa:

The working group assigned to rank risks in Africa based on the definition of risk provided and set of questions raised in the Plenary came to the following results:

First: Environmental degradation (inc I, Flood, drought, fire, BD loss, famine) Second: Political instability and contlict Third: Disease including H IV' AIDS, malaria, intestinal diseases; Fourth: PollutioniUrban isation

Broad communicationimarketing strategy needed on acceptance of the concepts:

ERA could be used as a catalyst for standardising existing data and driving need for new

data gatheringigeneration;

General stakeholder consultation requires specific strategies depending on contexts.

Group III Developing a generic ERA framework for Africa:

Generic framework for ERA from current best practice is useful for Africa;

Use of the generic components is required in each ERA, but the actual implementation of each component may be very different;

Possible to come up with a generic framework for ERA based on the work done in other countries and taking into account African conditions;

• Communication is an important aspect of ERA and should thus be built into each stage of the ERA process; but in Africa likely to be very different to the developed world.

2.5 Summary of Findings and Conclusions of Day One Session

ERA can add an extra set of beneficial tools to the environmental management portfolio on

Africa;

However, it is not a separate initiative but a complimentary one that can assist decision

makers and add greater confidence to decisions;

• Capacity building is required in order to get ERA effectively integrated;

However, this should not be done at the expense of capacity building in other related areas such as EIA, but in conjunction with, and within existing institutions and structures;

• Key message is complementarity and integration between ERA and EIA

DAY TWO OF THE CONSULTATION - Wednesday 31st January 2001

3 INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT: APPROACHES AND BEST PRACTICES.

3.1 Approaches, Tools and Practices

The presentation by Rolf H.M. Posthouwer focussed on the principles of integrated planning and implementation, and the use of the Logical Framework as a universal approach for any kind of development irrespective of type, size, level or location, and with risk assessment and management being fully integrated:

• Every developmental activity undertaken has a cyclical character; knowledge and experiences gained during the process influence future decision-making and steps to be

7

taken. Mutual communication and stakeholder involvement are key for every phase of the development cycle;

• During the planning phase there should be a realistic relationship between the inputs (to be made) available and the objectives to be achieved. The availability of all inputs: material, financial and human should be guaranteed prior to starting the activities being part of the development;

• Risks and assumptions should be given due consideration during planning as well as implementation in order to avoid failure due to unexpected events;

• If certain risks are likely to affect the objectives to be achieved, the project/programme to be implemented should be modified to address and reduce the risk(s) identified;

• ERA, EIA, Cost-Benefit Analysis and other tools to be used for decision making should all be considered as being part of a management cycle;

The Logical Framework approach assists all stakeholders involved in clarifYing the various

roles and responsibilities;

Mankind has always practised risk assessment as part of its survival strategy

The following diagrams show when and where risks and assumptions should be considered:

PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION JndicatofS ~'1oV Assumptions

and Risks

More specifically when dealing with disaster prevention the following risk assessment and management cycle can be applied:

RISK ASSESS~IENT AND MA"IAGEMENT CYCLE

Continuous

Fonnal Evaluation

(also in case ofnonOCCllrencc of disasters)

r-- ··fl: Risk and Disaster i Management Plan i Development and ,

Implcmcntation

M&E - Stakeholder

consultation

Inventory Potential Preventive Measures

-'-----...~

Analyses F easability Potential Preventive

Measures GISO'PUill I-"":TER!',\T10Nf'.L COt\St;LT A)l"lS

8

As an example of Environmental Risk Assessment in Europe the management of the rivers Rhine, Meuse and their tributaries, all ending in the Netherlands was given. Already early in the 20th century the governments of Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Switzerland realised their interdependence with regard to these river systems and started to jointly assess all the risks associated with use of these river systems. Pollution as a result of industrialisation, changes in water levels as a result of deforestation, straightening of river segments, the impacts of dikes, sluices and locks etc. have since all been monitored closely and resulted in joint management programmes and mitigating actions.

As an example of risk assessment and management in Africa at grass roots level, the establishment of community funeral funds was given. It aimed at sharing the financial risk and consequences of community members passing away.

Annex VII provides more background information on the Logical Framework concept and approach. Annex VIII, prepared by Mr. Ryan Hill, shows the applicability of formal, quantitative risk assessment for natural disaster preparedness in Africa

3.2 Zambia's Experience in Disaster Management: Lessons for IERAM

The presentation of Mr. Lovemore Simwanda described the process that Zambia has gone through with regard to disaster management and mitigation and which lessons were learnt:

Over time, several bodies were established to deal with disaster preparedness and management in Zambia. At present, the Disaster Management and Mitigation Unit (DMMU) under the office of the Vice-President is the institution responsible for coordinating the activities in this field.

Under the DMMU an institutional structure has been established all the way down to grassroot level. Nonetheless, the mutual communication and information systems, and hence the disaster preparedness at the different levels still needs further strengthening.

Though the government bears the responsibility for protecting the lives and property of its citizens, the population itself should also be pro-active in avoiding and/or reducing risk, hazard and disaster. Areas of responsibility include sustainable agricultural practices e.g. soil erosion control, soil fertility, water use e.g. clean drinking water and water source protection.

Disaster vulnerability is strongly related to the poverty levels. The poorer, the lower the levels of risk reduction capacity, disaster preparedness and recovery capacity.

Training and other capacity building activities are required especially at the local levels of

government and society in order to improve on crises, disaster and recovery management,

communication systems and skills etc.

The paper presented by Mr. Simwanda, attached in Annex IX provides more information.

During the Plenwy discussions that followed the presentations by Posthouwer and Simwanda, participants raised a number of questions that focused on the extent to which IERAM has been applied in natural resource management in Europe and how log frame and project cycle management processes can be reconciled with ERA.

As regards the Zambian experience, questions focused on the extent of community involvement in disaster management, the decision-making processes, the degree of responsiveness of the system to new disasters, flow of information between the early warning system and decisionmakers, etc.

9

3.3 Working Groups Session 2

In order to enable pat1ieipants to share their experiences in the assessment and management of environmental risks in their respective countries and regions, four working groups were created, as per the ranking of environmental risks done in working group session l.

Working group I Land degradation (includingflood, drought, fire, etc)

Working group /I Disease including HIVIAIDS, malaria, intestinal diseases

Working group III Political instabilitylconf/ict

Working group IV Pollution/urhanisation

Each working group was expected to:

specify areas or themes;

share personal and country experiences; and

• indicate available documented information/knowledge

Group I: Environmental risks arising from land degradation (inc!. flood, drollght, fire, biodiversity loss, famine)

Most African countries are at risk of- and regularly experience disasters, mostly drought and in some countries floods, fire, etc.;

• Relief and rehabilitation programmes have advanced in some African countries, for example, in Ethiopia, but lack inter-sectoral co-operation;

• For most disasters, many African countries have made the necessary institutional arrangements to respond to these disasters, but unfortunately serious constraints are encountered including: - poor communication; - weak inter sectoral coordination; - inadequate logistics/infrastructure;

bureaucracy; and unwarranted political interference.

• There is wealth of knowledge well documented, [GAD for the Hom of Africa, the Drought Monitoring Centres of Nairobi and Harare, the Mali based drought early warning service for the Sahel ian belt;

Disaster preparedness and prevention strategies remain at the conceptual level, and the emphasis on integrated environmental risk assessment and management would facilitate their implementation and mainstreaming.

Group 11.' Environmental risks arisingfrom political Instability and Conflict

• The working group agreed that conflicts around political instability are those that are as a result of:

bad political decisions and misguided policies; weak governance systems; environmental degradation that reduces cultivable land and forces people to migrate, encroach on other communities cause political tension and conflict; armed conflicts, in turn, destroy the environment cause human suffering, destroy life and property, create refugees who indiscriminately start to clear forests;

• Examples of conflicts that resulted from bad economic and political decisions: Poorly defined land policy along the Senegal River basin caused deadly conflicts along the Senegal-Mauritania boarder causing almost political problems between the two countries;

10

Zambia Victoria Falls and Power Station (ZESCO). After a KA it was agreed that the power station be closed down to allow water to fill the falls; Opening of Kariba Dam flooded areas down stream. No adequate K.A. was done to ensure that communities down stream were protected. Dispute could have resulted in conflict.

Examples of conflicts that resulted in environmental degradation: Rwandan refugees in

Tanzania and Democratic Congo;

Senegal economic integration policy: Regional policy to ensure easy trade and integration

caused conflict;

Zambia 1995 Land Act: The Act sought to give land value, so as to boost Eco value and

marketability orland. This reduced conflicts that arise ONV degradation;

The group felt that environmental degradation may have triggered or exacerbated conflicts

in Africa:

Forced migration due to degraded environment may have caused the power

between Tutsi and Hutus, hence the armed conflict;

Group felt also that scarcity of natural resources could be one of the key factors in other

countries, e.g., Ethiopia.

Group agreed that knowledge is there and there are some organisations that are documenting information on such:

KATU . which has a Hand Book on Conflict Prevention; Regional NGO Network SADC, Water resource management protocol ONVS: Helping to manage natural resources; Zambezi River Action Plan

+ Group felt that there is need to improve documentation and facilitate flow of information into better practices to deter contl icts;

+ Group also felt that there is need to integrate issues related to cause and consequences of political instability into mainstream national development policy and programme formulation and implementation, and IERAM could be a helpful tool in this endeavor

Grollp III: Environmental risks associated with disease including HI VIA IDS, malaria, intestinal diseases:

Group established that in addition to epidemic and endemic diseases that have been present in Africa for a long(er) time such as AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria etc. new viruses such as Ebola are becoming more hazardous;

+ In the African health sector in general, the emphasis has been more on the curative end rather than being aimed at the disease prevention;

+ Some countries e.g. Uganda have extensive programmes on AIDS prevention, whereas other countries still deny or downplay its existence;

+ More emphasis on preventive health programmes could contribute significantly towards the reduction of disease and mortality rates, e.g. awareness programmes on the need for vaccinations, clean water, nutritional requirements etc;.

+ In combination with family planning and general education programmes, the standard of living of most people could hence be enhanced;

Group concluded that in many countries, health services related to pandemic diseases is provided by a variety of organizations government, NGOs (international and national), aid agencies, private sector, etc. in a scattered manner rather inadequately focusing on "treatment" and lERAM could playa role in improved health planning and management and greater effectiveness.

11

Group IV: Environmental risks arisingji'om pollution/urbanisation

Group agreed that the subject includes pollution in urban and rural areas; housing, epidemics; unemployment; chemicals; industrial pollution, etc.

Experiences: Rapid urban Environment Assessment - by MELISSA in GHANA, SOUTH AFRICA and MADAGASCAR; Water Act of South Africa includes integrated Water Catchments Assessment; Industrial Risks Assessment of the HANN BAY of Dakar using APELL Guidelines developed by UNEP and UNIDO; Community Environmental Health Risk Assessment in Senegal, Mali and Niger; Environment Risk Assessment of Open Dumps of water disposal in West Africa; Industrial Pollution Assessment of KAFU E RIVER of Zambia.

+ Documentation - the basis for knowledge sharing Documentation of experiences related to water catchments Management in South Africa; Dissemination of the UNEP/UNIDO APELL Guidelines; Conduct Workshop on Pollution Management; Develop Internet - base environmental management system; Electronie Assessment Tools! Assessment; M ELISSA to produce a special Info Brief on Local Environmental Risk Assessment Document the experience of Victoria Lake management

4 CAPACITY BlIILDlNG FOR INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT: BASIC CONSIDERATIONS

4,] Lessons Learnt from the African EIA Capacity Building Initiative

Arne Dalfelt made a presentation on the above topic, which had two parts: Context and history and lessons learnt.

Context and histor.v:

+ Started in 1995 with a mandate from AMCEN/IAIA, which met in Durban, South Africa. The African Stakeholders Consultation, Nairobi, July 1998.

Donor! Stakeholder consultation, The Hague 2000; SADC consultation, Stellenbosch 2000

This Regional Consultation on Capacity Building for Integrated Environmental Risk Assessment and Management, Lusaka (present).

New organisations evolved from the process, notably SAIEA - Southern African Institute

for Environmental Assessment, CLEIAA Capacity Development and Linkages for Environmental Impact Assessment in Africa as well as MELISSA.

The World Bank is revisiting its support to NESDA in the light of these developments

Lessons learnt:

Should be African owned, (donor input to minimum); adapt to local priorities, interests, policies and build on existing institutions.

+ Assess needs; be flexible. work with multiple initiatives and use African expertise consu !tants.

Have reasonable expectations, be opportunistic, and develop a network of supporters.

12

Capacity building should be "hands on" and practical.

+ Concentrate on outcomes as opposed to outputs.

Plenal), discussion: The following were raised:

• Has the CEASSA Initiative been successful? Was an evaluation carried out?

• The Initiative has been going at a slow pace but it is still going on. There is still support. Most things take time to get rooted, anyway

There was disappointment that the Nairobi Action Plan took long to implement the report also came out late.

Lack of communication has been a major hindrance

Many good lessons as well as bad ones learned from the process

What needs to be avoided as we move forward, has now become clear

4.2 Experiences of Environmental Networks and Initiatives in Capacity Building Do's and Don'ts.

Dr Ousseynon Oiop made a presentation covering an overview of environmental networks in Africa, their shortcomings and the new opportunities that IERAM offers:

Overview ofenvironment related networks in Afi-ka:

Many networks established in the post UNCEO era, including networks and programmes NESOA, UMP, SCP, MOP, UEF etc.;

Objectives ofnetworks and programmes: Policy, institutional and regulatory development;

Human resource development - training.

Networking - electronic, conferences, study tours, IEC;

Need to review of capacity building experiences in environmental Sector.

Shortcomings ofexisting environment networks:

Most are donor driven. Generally, do not seem to address specific needs;

The activities and objectives are often poorly defined;

Capacity building, albeit long term, activities proposed are usually short term;

Activities are evaluated against inputs/outputs and not outcomes;

Most activities do not address problems;

+ Most activities remain sectoral;

+ Activities focus on technical and do not reach decision makers;

Community groups.

IERAM ~flers new opportunities towards a holistic approach to bllilding environmental management capacity:

Forecasting by linking capacity building (CB) to environmental management capacity

(emphasis on outcomes);

Setting priorities linking CB to the environmental priority issues;

Informed decision making linking CB to transparency of decision processes;

+ Reconciling different view points - linking CB to the multi stakeholders, cross institutional etc.;

13

Integrative risk assessment - linking CB to the learning processes and actions. Also integrate risks to human health, welfare co systems (poverty - environmental issues;

Setting environmental standards - linking CB to environmental monitoring and regulation (continuous improvement);

Extensive consultation process, improved communication and documentation;

Reduce costs linking CB to economic opportunities and social security (environmental economics).

Annex X provides the full text of Dr. Diop's presentation.

4.3 Plenary Discussion

What has CLEfAA done? The response was it is not functioning yet. Formed in May 2000.

There will be a steering committee in February 200 I;

Who should do ERA - communities or experts? Community should be empowered

through Capacity Building. Can't be done without CB. Ultimate goal empower

communities;

Empower the community to participate and influence political processes and decisions.

Building the capacity of communities will reduce vulnerability;

Support the community to benefit from sustainable environmental programmes;

Transparency and corruption are problems in most countries;

Donors should just provide means and not implement specific projects as sometimes they

duplicate efforts and contradict each other;

Efforts of organizations like the World Food Programme benetit communities in terms of

food as well as the improvement of the ecological environment. Collective ownership is

also a problem;

Capacity building projects should be integrated into national development plans to ensure

continuity. Examples cited were:

Water Act of South Africa includes integrated Water Catchments Assessment; Industrial Risks Assessment of the HANN BAY of Dakar using APELL Guidelines developed by UNEP and UNIDO; Community Environmental Health Risk Assessment in Senegal, Mali and Niger; Environment Risk Assessment of Open Dumps of water disposal in West Africa; Industrial Pollution Assessment ofKAFUE RIVER of Zambia.

As disasters are regional in nature, strengthen cooperation at the regional level;

Documentation and knowledge sharing: Well documented experiences related to water catchments Management in South Africa that needs to be shared; Need for wide dissemination of the UNEP/UNfDO APELL Guidelines.

4.4 Working Group Session 3

Participants formed two working groups in order to discuss in detail experiences and approaches with regard to capacity building.

Working Group I: Land degradation and political instability!conflict.

Working Group II: Diseases, pollution and urbanisation.

Both groups emphasised many of the points raised above and in particular highlighted:

14

The need to start networking at the regional level;

Government's need to be encouraged to build capacity in the policy and legislative areas,

although Working Group I wondered which should come first, capacity building, policy

development or introducing legislations;

Capacity building should focus at the local level and there is need for change in the way

training is conducted;

• In each country there is lots of trained person power capacity and priority should be mobilisation and wise use of this capacity;

• Major weakness in many countries is policy implementation as well as legislative enforcement, issues that merit priority in the capacity building process;

• Need to document the experience of cross- boundary water resource management programmes, for example, Victoria Lake management and widely disseminating it;

Need to conduct regional workshop on Africa's emerging serious problems, e.g., pollution management.

5 CAPACITY BUILDING FOR IERAM: THE NEXT STEPS

The following were raised at plenary meeting:

• Demand driven approach. Country ownership is necessary for a meaningful capacity building;

• Selectivity. Initiatives cannot be launched in all countries and at all places. There is need to be strategic. Do not try to do it all, rather concentrate on some developments and do them well;

• Mobilise political commitment, perhaps through (AMCEN);

• Keep donor input to a minimum, but develop a network of supporters;

Rather than assessing needs, assess the demands by the target groups. This reduces the risk of developments to be too much donor driven, and thus losing out on commitment and ownership;

Place strong emphasis on the link between poverty and the environment. Creating awareness only makes sense if it followed by Interest, Development and Achievement (the AIDA principle);

• Fight for transparency and against the intricate corruption as they are the biggest threats to sustainable development;

• Be critical towards Governmental as well as NGO's alike. The number of brief-case organisations in Africa is high, and detrimental towards further citizens interest and commitment

6 WRAP UP SESSION: THE PAMODZI STATEMENT

The Regional Consultation after a lengthy and thorough deliberation unanimously agreed to issue the Pamodzi Statement. The full text of the Statement is presented on page 3 of this document. The Statement summarises the spirit and substance of what transpired during the three days interaction among participants of the Consultation. As the next steps forward, participants recommended that:

• IERAM methodology based on cwrent international best practices be adopted and adapted for use in African contexts;

15

7

a review and analysis of existing IERAM tools and their applicability to issues in Africa be

commissioned;

IERAM should not be limited to country level, but should also be applied at the

regional/trans-boundary levels;

• adequate capacity at institutional, individual, policy and regulatory levels be built to successfully utilise IERAM tools;

capacity be built in conjunction with and complementary to EIA and similar environmental

management capacity building initiatives;

capacity to implement IERAM be focused within existing institutions with responsibilities

for implementing national and regional development programmes; all possible efforts be

made to enhance the use of existing networks;

disseminate as widely as possible the Pamodzi Statement and the Proceedings of this

Consultation; and

The participants agreed that the IERAM initiative under the CLEIAA umbrella and

recommended that an action plan for furthering IERAM be prepared through CLEIAA.

This in line with the emphasis the Statement placed on the use of existing institutions and

networks before creating new ones.

The participants urged the World Bank to transmit the Pamodzi Statement to CLElAA Board, which is meeting for the first time, the 7-8 February 2001. They also suggested that participants of the Regional Consu Itation form the in itial network of experts and be kept informed about activities and developments. In this regard, Partnership for African Environmental Sustainability (PAES) has volunteered to facilitate this network until the World Bank and the CLEIAA Board work out follow up actions.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Mersie Ejigu thanked participants for their hard work in making the Regional Consultation a huge success. He also thanked Mr. Arne Dalfelt of the World Bank for initiating this Regional Consultation and through him to managers of the Dutch Trust Fund.

Mr. Ejigu paid tribute to the Government of Zambia, in particular the Minister of Environment, for all the support extended and for officiating the Regional Consultation. My thanks also go, said Mr. Ejigu, to the management of the Taj Pamodzi Hotel who showed understanding and cooperation throughout the Consultation. The fact that the Statement of the Regional Consultation has been given the name Pamodzi is an ample testimony of that appreciation.

Mr. Arne Dalfelt thanked Partnership for African Environmental Sustainability (PAES), Geoplan International of Amsterdam and CLEIAA for the job well done. He vowed to take up the issues raised by the Consultation to CLEIAA board and expressed continued support of the World Bank.

The Regional Consultation was closed at 6:00 p.m. 31 January 2001.

16

L

Annex I: Programme Regional Consultation on !ERAM, Lusaka, Zambia, 30-31 January 2001

Monday 29 January

19:00 Introductory Dinner

Tuesday 30 January

Official Opening of the Regional Consultation

9:00 Welcome by Mr. Lovemore Simwanda, PAES Regional Technical Director

9:05 Purpose of the Regional Consultation and introduction of participants by Mr. Mersie Ejigu, President and Chief Executive Officer, Partnership for African Environmental Sustainability (PAES)

9:30 Opening of the Regional Consultation by H.E. the Minister for the Environment of the RepubJ ic of Zambia

9:45 Statement by the World Bank

9:50 Statement by CLEIAA

10:00-10:30 COFFEE BREAK

II. Environmental Risk Assessment and Integrated Management in Africa: an Overview

10:30-11:15 Environmental risk analysis, assessment and integrated management in Africa: methodological and policy issues, Mr. Mersie Ejigu, PAES

Discussants: Mr. James L.K. Mwanza, DMMU Dr. Bettina Genthe, CSIR Mr. Rolf H.M. Posthouwer, Geoplan International

11 :15-12:00 Discussion, Facilitator: Dr. Nicholas King

12:00-13:30 LUNCH BREAK

13:30-14:15 Managing Flood in Mozambique: What Have We Learned? - Prof. Dr. Gerard Liesegang. Presentation and discussion.

Ill. Working Group Discussions

14: 15-1430 Plenary meeting on the organisation and agenda of Working Groups.

14:30-16:00 Participants break out in three working groups

Group I. Environmental Risk Assessment: concept, relevance and benefits Group 11. Identification and Ranking of Environmental Risks in Africa Group III Developing a Generic Environmental Risk Assessment Framework for Africa

16:00-16:30 COFFEE BREAK

16:30-17:30 Plenary presentation and discussion

18:30 RECEPTION

17

IV

V

! i

Wednesday 31 January

Integrated Environmental Risk Management

8:30-10:00

10:00-10:15

10: 15-12:00

12:00-13:30

Approaches and best practices in integrated environmental risk management, Mr. RolfH.M. Posthouwer, Geoplan International

Zambian Experience in Disaster Preparedness: Lessons for Integrated Risk Management, Mr. Lovemore Simwanda, PAES

COFFEE BREAK

Working group discussions on participants experiences with environmental risks and disasters in Africa Facilitator: Dr. Alex Weaver

LUNCH BREAK

Capacity Strengthening and Building for Integrated Environmental Risk

13:30-13:45

13:45-14:30

14:30-14:45

14:45-15:30

15:30-16:00

16:00-16:15

16:15-17:00

17:00-17:30

17:30 Closure

Assessment and Management

Lessons learned from the African EIA Capacity Building Initiative, Mr. Arne DaJfelt, World Bank

Experiences of other environmental networks and initiatives in capacity building: Do's and Don'ts, Dr. Ousseynou Eddje Diop, Coordinator, MELISSA

Questions and clarifications on the presentations Facilitator: Mr. Rolf H.M. Posthouwer

Participants break into three working groups to discuss elements of capacity building

Group 1 Policy and institutional development Group II Human resources Group III Networking

Working Group Presentation and discussion

COFFEE BREAK

Discussion of next steps in capacity building for integrated environmental risk assessment and management and role of governments, NGOs and funding agencies.

Wrap up and reports Facilitator: Mr. Mersie qjigu

18

Annex II: Statement of Welcome and Purpose of the Regional Consultation

by: Mr. Mersie Ejigu, PAES

On behalf of the organisers, the Capacity Development and Linkages for Environmental Impact Assessment in Africa (CLEIAA), the World Bank Africa Region, Geoplan International of Amsterdam and Partnership for African Environmental Sustainability (PAES), I wish to welcome you all to Lusaka and to this first Africa wide Regional Consultation for Capacity Strengthening on Integrated Environmental Risk Assessment and Management.

I would like to express my profound gratitude to H.E. the Minister of Environment for sparing his valuable time and be with us to open our meeting. This is a clear testimony of the commitment of the Government of Zambia to issues of regional concern. We all recognize the pioneering role Zambia played in the creation of COMESA. I have no doubt that we will continue to count on your support and guidance, Sir, as we implement decisions of this Regional Consultation.

May I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to organisations and their staff, which made this Consultation possible. First, is Mr. Arne Dalfelt of the World Bank, who initiated this Regional Consultation, provided financial support and passionately followed up the day-to-day progress. Capacity Development and Linkages for Africa (CLEIAA) provided the umbrella within which this the Consultation took place. Geoplan International of Amsterdam has provided crucial technical advice and has ably executed the role of supervision bestowed on it. My colleagues at the PAES Lusaka Office, Lovemore Simwanda and Getachew Jembere, made the whole thing happen. Without their hard work, this consultation would not have been a reality.

Mr. Minister,

We are gathered here to talk about "risk", specifically about "environmental risk". To understand environmental risk, we need to have some kind of understanding of what "risk" itself IS.

Risk management is a part of our every day life. When we decided to organise this Consultation here in Lusaka, we took risks. When we decided to fly here, we took risks. When farmers decide to plant seeds and when they decide to apply fertilisers, they take risks. When Joseph Kabila decided to succeed his father, he took risks. Every exposure, every activity, every product we come in contact with including eating food involves risk. Thus risk is an integral part of our dai Iy I ives. Because it is an integral part of our Ii ves, the nature and magnitude of the risk, the coping up mechanisms we come up with would depend on our perception of risk. Our perception of risk, in turn, is influenced by our religion, culture, health condition, past experience, etc. For this reason, people have always found it difficult to come up with a common definition of risk.

An emerging consensual definition of risk is "the likelihood of something bad happening, or as a combination of the likelihood and consequences of an undesired event." We cannot talk about it with certainty because our knowledge is imperfect. Despite progress achieved in science and technology, making predictions about the future remains highly risky. Thus risk is expressed in terms of percentages and ratios. For this reason, risk analysis has become highly quantitative and highly abstract but an absolute necessity.

Through out human history, risk and its management have defined what we do and how we carry out our daily activities and how society should be organised. Indeed, we as individuals, community, tribe, nation and region organise ourselves around risk aversion or minimisation.

19

Risk defines what we are. The division of labour between men and women is largely dependent on the perception of risk, because women are not supposed to perform certain riskier tasks.

Today, risk assessment and management appear in almost all facets of professional discipline. It should not be surprising if an increasing number of scientists who would have once introduced themselves as biologists, chemists, physicists, or toxicologists now call themselves risk assessors. Risk assessment describes a professional activity, a job or a social function. It also represents an ideology; a belief that a society should make use of objective scientific analysis in setting its agenda and in managing its hazards.

Our task today is simpler, because we have to deal with only one area of risk, that is "environmental risk". Environmental risk refers to risk to the population arising from environmental change, on the one hand, and to risk to the environment arising from human activity, on the other.

Over the past two weeks, the world news has been dominated by two significant events: the oil spill in the Galapagos Islands and the earthquake in Western India. The oil spill from a sick ship called Jessica wrecked havoc to the marine biodiversity in the Galapagos Islands, Ecuador, South America. As some of you may know, the Galapagos Islands is designated a world heritage site. Although the magnitude and extent of the damage may not be as apocalyptic as feared, undoubtedly Ecuador as well as the world has lost many rare marine species and ecosystems.

The Earthquake in western India has claimed the lives of over 20,000 people and the latest estimate made by the Ministry of Defence of India is that the number of deaths could reach 100,000. Buildings and infrastructure have also been destroyed and would take years and massive resources to rebuild. Astonishingly, all this destruction occurred in less than a minute. It is extremely frightening.

Coming closer to home, some months ago, we have witnessed the severe effects of the flood in Mozambique and drought in Ethiopia, which also reached apocalyptic proportions.

Daily, a huge number of Africans die as the result of AIDS and malaria, typhoid, etc .. Daily a huge number of Africans are dying due to armed conflict in West Africa, Great Lakes, and Horn of Africa. Daily, bush fires destroy immense life and property.

The good news is that many of these damages could have been avoided or at least mitigated through putting in place an environmental risk assessment system and a risk based decisionmaking process.

William Shakespeare once said, "Out of this nettle, "danger", we pluck this flower, "safety"." Our anticipation of risk, the assessment of that risk, and measures we take to mitigate that risk, would enable us to live in peace, guarantees our safety, ensures economic prosperity, social stability and protection of the environment. In a word, environmental risk assessment is a tool for the attainment of sustainable development. Nevertheless, there is a long journey to travel between understanding a "danger" and making sure that it is "avoided".

This Regional Consultation on Capacity Strengthening for Integrated Environmental Risk Assessment and Management is the first footfall in a long journey that would help African countries to put systems, policies, and institutions for effective and responsible decision-making process.

Let me conclude my remarks by highlighting five obvious truths about this Regional Consultation:

20

Obvious Truth no. 1.

Our gathering here today is neither a seminar nor a workshop but a consultation. It is called Consultation to underscore the informal nature of the meeting and to highlight the fact that we are here to brainstorm. Each participant is a resource person and brings with him or her many years of knowledge and experience.

Obvious Truth no. 2

This Regional Consultation brings together a mUltidisciplinary team of expertise of scientists, engineers, medical doctors, economists, meteorologists, biologists, geographers, agriculturalists, foresters, and historians, etc. We have also participants from all regions of Africa. No single discipline dominates the Consultation, nor does a single region dominate it.

Obvious Truth no. 3

This Regional Consultation is not only about capacity building and not only about capacity strengthening but also about capacity mobilisation. You may have been wondering why we have used the term "capacity building" in some documents and "capacity strengthening" in others. Both are correct. In fact, there is a third aspect: capacity mobifisation. There are areas where we need to mobilise existing capacity through providing forums and networking, while in others what we need could be only capacity strengthening or fine tuning, while others need capacity creation or building through training.

Obvious Truth no. 4

The Regional Consultation seeks to address both environmental risk assessment and management in an integrated manner. This is a highly debatable issue. Because many experts argue that 'risk assessment" and "risk management" be kept as separate disciplines. They argue that environmental risk assessment is objective and scientific and that the risk assessor should be able to do the job without worrying about economic, social and economic considerations. There are many others, however, including myself with dissenting opinion and argue that risk managers to be effective should have good understanding of risk assessment and vice versa. Hence, we say, it is foolish to make a distinction between environmental risk management and assessment. Conventional wisdom suggests that, many managers often focus on issues they understand. These include public relations, process, meetings, micro-management, mission statements, community relations, politics and economics. If this is the general case, it is important to make sure that managers are most knowledgeable risk assessment and about how management activities will influence risk.

Obvious truth no. 5

Environmental risk assessment (ERA) and environmental impact assessment (EIA) are complementary but different. We need to build capacities for both EIA and ERA. There are two distinguishing features:

(i) EIA seeks to analyze how human health and the natural environment could be impacted by a proposed development project. It estimates the range and magnitude of the adverse impacts including the number of people or geographic areas that could be affected. Environmental risk assessment, on the other hand, deals with what frequency the adverse consequences might occur, the evidence available to judge their likelihood, and what risk management strategies can be put in place to minimise or control the risks.

(ii) EIA is designed to deal only with development project proposals under consideration. However, development or development projects are only one source of environmental risk.

2\

There are risks associated with natural disasters, armed conflict, chemicals, disease outbreaks as well as policy and institutional failures. ERA has thus a much broader scope than EIA.

To say anything about the future is a risky undertaking, but given eminence of the people gathered here I am certain that the Consultation will come up with recommendations that would inspire and guide us in the years to come.

With those remarks, it is now by greatest pleasure to invite H.E. the Minister of Environment to formally open the meeting.

22

Annex III: Guest of Honour's Speech at the Official Opening of the Regional Consultation on Integrated Environmental Risk Assessment and Management in Africa

Mr. Chairman, Distinguished Participants,

On behalf of the Government of Zambia and that of my own, r would like to welcome you and the sponsors of this Regional Consultation namely the World Bank Africa Region (ASPEN/AFTEr), the Capacity Development and Linkages for EIA in Africa (CLEIAA), Geoplan International and Partnership for African Environmental Sustainability (PAES) to Zambia. My special tribute goes to the President and Chief Executive Officer of PAES and his regional staff for organising this Regional Consultation in Lusaka and for the partnership that is being forged with the Government of Zambia.

Distinguished ladies and gentlemen,

To-day Zambia is pleased to be associated with this regional consultation of African experts that seeks to address environmental and development matters and brings together more than 30 senior experts and officials from Sub-Saharan Africa. Its main aim is to seek and explore issues, methodologies, needs, and options for integrated environmental risk assessment and management and to promote capacity building and professional development of individuals and African Institutions in the area.

Zambia has been an active participant of the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN). As can be recalled, the African high level Ministerial Conference on Environmental Impact Assessment organized under the auspices of AMCEN and held in Durban 1995, South Africa, had called for the promotion of capacity building for environmental impact assessment EIA in Africa. The project, Capacity Building for Environmental Assessment in Sub-Saharan Africa (CEASSA) supported by the World Bank project, emerged from that meeting.

Mr. Chairman, I'm informed that through CEASSA modest efforts have been made to build Africa's EIA capacity. Environmental risk assessment, although a separate discipline, has been considered as a component of environmental impact assessment. In fact, the World Bank defines environmental assessment as a tool designed to " inform decision (like ourselves) makers on the future of environmental risks such as human health effects, habitat loss, pollution of nature, scale, and potential impact of a proposed project.

I'm also reliably informed Mr. Chairman, that risk Assessment is an amazing wide topic. Its application stretches from the smallest administrative unit or individual to national and global levels and also from agriculture to space science. There appears to be no sector of human involvement where risk analysis is not required. In the African context, interest in risk assessment stemmed from two developments: first, the growing world-wide recognition of risk assessment as a tool to evaluate and solve a broad range of ecological and health problems. Secondly, with a majority of Africans finding themselves at risk arising from droughts, floods, AIDS pandemic, armed conflicts, policy and institutional failures. conventional EIA lacks the potency and dynamism to capture the impact of these risks on development and vice versa.

In view of the continuous disaster threats experienced and associated risks in the country, The Zambian Government has been putting together permanent response mechanisms to address such threats or risks. For example during the 1991/92 drought year that affected most parts of Southern Africa, a major relief operation was put in place that involved four major Ministries who formed an ad-hoc (Agriculture, Health, Energy & Water and Community Development) committee for managing different aspects of response.

23

The 1991/92 drought management programme though, ad-hoc, was successful, food prices were stabilised, famine was averted and there were no reports of deaths associated with food shortages. However, the food prices established during the 1991/92 droughts period tended to have a depressing effect on the market prices on the ensuing agriculture season's maize crop and farmers suffered losses due to the excess relieffood.

The Disaster Management Coordinating Unit is vested in the Office of the Vice President. It is very clear from the overall disaster policy framework, and the inadequacies of the existing structures, the government felt it was important to create a permanent unit within government to coordinate disaster management and risk assessment in collaboration with expert institutions.

There are also observed risks of deliberate distortions especially by interest groups bent on swinging disaster relief resources to areas of personal or political interest, which this government is serious working towards curbing. This is also common among NGOs involved in disaster relief, as there is a tendency to exaggerate the relief needs to boost the NODs operations.

Mr. Chairman. I'm told environmental risk assessment is an evolving methodology that considers risks to human health, welfare and ecosystems that result from adverse impacts of development and impacts on the natural environment. Today, the majority of Africans find themselves at environmental risk arising from pervasive poverty, drought, famine, floods, the AIDS pandemic, armed conflict and policy and institutional failures.

Integrated Environmental Risk Assessment has a potential to be a unifying tool that helps to address a wide range of societal concerns like resource degradation, disease outbreaks, anticipated droughts or floods and adverse ecological changes.

It is gratifying and strengthening to learn from the Zambian government point view that the Partnership for African Environmental Sustainability (PAES) Southern Africa region office Technical Division is headed by a Zambian, who has been and is involved extensively in Environmental and Developmental issues in the country and the region as a whole. I hope this opportunity will gives us as a country a window to contribute much more effectively from the country's experiences and expertise in the subject under consideration.

[ once again would like to welcome all our visitors to Zambia "the real Africa" as it is known in the tourism circles and that you will have the two day of serious deliberations to come up with the intended results of this regional consultations. The Government of Zambia will continue to extend its support and encouragement as you launch this rather timely initiative of building capacity for integrated environmental risk assessment and management.

With these few words, I now declare this Regional Consultation open.

Thank you

24

Annex IV: Toward Capacity Building for Integrated Environmental Risk Assessment and Management In Africa: Background Discussion Paper *

By: Mr. Mersie Ejigu**

Partnership for African Environmental Sustainability (PAES)

CONTENT

I. FOREWORD ........................................................................................................................... 2

II. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 3

III. CONCEPT OF RISK ............................................................................................................... 4

IV. BENEFITS OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................. 5

V. LEADING ENVIRONMENTAL RISK CONCERNS AND CONSEQUENCES IN

AFRiCA ................................................................................................................................... 6

VI. ASSESSING ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS: A GENERIC FRAMEWORK.......................... 12

vn. INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL RISK MANAGEMENT: PRACTICES AND

GAPS........................................................................................................................................ 16

VIII. CAPACITY BUILDING FOR INTEGRATED ENVIRONMENTAL RISK

ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT: KEY ELEMENTS ................................................ 20

IX. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 21

X. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 22

• Peer reviewed by:

Mr. Arne Dalfelt, Task Manager, Africa Region, The World Bank and Mr. Rolf. H.M.

Posthouwer, Managing Director, GeopIan International, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

** Mr. Ejigu is President & Chief Executive Officer of Partnership for African Environmental Sustainability (PAES). He is former Assistant Director General for Policy and Programmes of IUCN-The World Conservation Union based in Gland, Switzerland and prior to that Minister of Planning and National Development as well as Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources of Ethiopia.

Partnership for African Environmental Sustainability (PAES) is a non-governmental and nonprofit organization established by a group of concerned African experts, academicians and practitioners to promote sustainable development in Africa. It is headquartered in Kampala with offices in Lusaka, Zambia and Washington, D.C.

25

I. FOREWORD

This paper is designed to provide background information on integrated environmental risk assessment and management. It seeks to highlight key issues with the view to stimulating discussions of the Regional Consultation on Capacity Building for Integrated Environmental Risk Assessment and Management in Africa to be held in Lusaka 30-31 January 2001.

The first sections of the paper make an attempt to clarifY the concept of risk assessment and establish a case for capacity building for environmental risk assessment and management in Africa. Subsequent sections endeavor to shed some light on generic risk assessment and management frameworks that the Regional Consultation can build upon or develop alternative models. The paper makes also effort to identifY key environmental risk concerns in Africa based on studies done by recognized institutions as well as media reports.

Writing a short, meaningful and useful paper on environmental risk assessment and management in Africa, however limited its purposes, is a risky undertaking for a number of reasons. First, the topic of risk assessment and management is wide and complex. Second, there is no specific geographic focus as there was desire to cover the entire Africa region. Third, as the Regional Consultation seeks to have a brainstorming character, there was fear that a background paper might limit the scope of discussion. On the other hand, there was a strong feeling that the paper could provide a valuable framework for the Consultation, as its duration is rather short (two days).

The paper has benefited a lot from comments made on an earlier draft by the Peer Reviewers: Arne Dalfelt and Rolf H. M. Posthouwer. Comments of my colleagues in the Partnership for African Environmental Sustainability (PAES) and its Network have also been most invaluable. For any errors, omissions and misjudgements, I alone stand responsible. I bear the consequences of the risk taken.

Mersie Ejigu

26

"The topic of risk can be likened to an onion. [t is composed of many layers, each subsuming the underneath layers. It is fascinating, however, to find that it is a topic in which each single layer of the onion believes to be the whole onion." J

II. INTRODUCTION

Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) is a tool for informed decision making. [t is a relatively new discipline. The origins of risk assessment could be traced to military operations research during World War II and later to efforts made to avoid chemical and nuclear failure in developed countries.2 Today, the application of risk assessment stretches from the smallest administrative unit or individual to national and global levels and also from agriculture to space science. There appears to be no sector of human involvement where risk assessment is not required. Environmental risk assessment owes its ascendancy to the Adoption of Agenda 21 in Rio in 1992 and to the subsequent prominence given to environmental impact assessment.

In the African context, interest in environmental risk assessment stemmed from two developments: first, the growing worldwide recognition of risk assessment as a tool to evaluate and deal better with a broad range of environmental and health problems. Secondly, with a majority of the African population finding themselves at risks arising from droughts, flood, AIDS epidemic, armed conflicts, policy and institutional failures, conventional cnvironmental impact assessment models lack the potency and dynam ism to capture the impact of these risks on development and vice versa.

Not long ago, under the aegis of the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (AMCEN), an African High-Level Conference on Environmental Impact Assessment was held in 1995 in Durban, South Africa. The meeting, the first of its kind, has called for the promotion of capacity building for environmental impact assessment (ErA) in Africa. The project, Capacity Building for Environmental Assessment in Sub-Saharan Africa (CEASSA) supported by the World Bank emerged from that meeting. Through CEASSA, modest efforts were made to build Africa's EIA capacity. In 2000, CEASSA resulted into a permanent structure named Capacity Development and Linkages in Africa (CLEIAA), which is supported by several donors. The secretariat of CLEIAA is placed with the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) in Accra, Ghana.

Many institutions consider environmental risk assessment as a component of environmental impact assessment. For example, the World Bank defines environmental assessment as a tool designed to "inform decision makers on the nature of environmental risks such as human health impacts, climate change, habitat loss, pollution, as well as the scale and potential impact of a proposed project." In a later publication, the Bank has more clearly defined environmental risk assessment as a tool that involves identitying hazards (sources of potential harm) and evaluating actual and perceived risks associated with development projects.) Today, environmental risk assessment is emerging as a separate discipline.

Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) is an evolving methodology that considers risks to human health, welfare and ecosystem that result from adverse impacts of development on the natural environment. The usage of ERA has been expanded to include risks arising from natural and man-made calamities, disease outbreaks, impact of changes in the physical environment on development, and risks associated with tradition, culture and political processes. Risks arising

1 Beer and Ziolkowski, 1995. 2 Environmental Assessment Sourcebook Update, The World Bank, 1997 3 Ibid, p.2

27

from pol icy,