Final Report

FINAL REPORT

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT OF SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS IN POST CONFLICT SIERRA LEONE

March 9-13 and 16-20, 2009 Makeni, Sierra Leone

June 23, 2009

Organized and Facilitated by: Sun Mountain International

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page Number A. INTRODUCTION 3 B. WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES, EXPECTATIONS, CONCEPTUAL FLOWCHART AND AGENDA 4 C. TECHNICAL SESSIONS • OVERVIEW OF USAID ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES (22 CFR 13 216) • SIERRA LEONE ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION AND POLICY 15 • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: THE INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL 16 EXAMINATION • INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES FOR SMALL-SCALE 18 ACTIVITIES IN AFRICA (EGSSAA) • VIRTUAL FIELD TRIP AND GROUP ACTIVITY: ASSESSMENT OF AN IEE AND 18 REPORT-OUT • BASIC CONCEPTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND MONITORING 20 • CHOOSING INDICATORS FOR MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION 20 MEASURES • BREAKOUT SESSION: GROUP ¨BRAINSTORMING¨ SESSION ON 22 STRENGHTENING ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS • DEVELOPING ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANS (EMP) 24 • BREAKOUT SESSION: DESIGN A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTL MANAGEMENT PLAN 26 FOR ONE OR TWO PROJECT IMPACTS IN A KEY DEVELOPMENT SECTOR • GROUP PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF FIELD VISIT RESULTS 26 • NEW USAID FOOD FOR PEACE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY: ENVIRONMENTAL 45 CAPABILITY STATEMENT (ECS) • USAID PESTICIDE PROCEDURES 45 • KEY CONCEPTS REVIEW – PARKING LOT SESSION 47 • RAPID ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (REA) 48 • USAID PARTNERS PANEL – LESSONS LEARNED IN ENVIRONMENTAL 50 MANAGEMENT, MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF PROJECTS • ACTION PLANS BY ORGANIZATION AND INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL PRIORITIES 51 • DIRECTOR’S PANEL – ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION OF STRATEGIC 55 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN SIERRA LEONE: OBSTACLES AND SOLUTIONS TO PROGRAMMING CHALLENGES.

D. WORKSHOP EVALUATIONS 58 ANNEXES • Annex 1: Participant Lists (Week 1 and Week 2) 60 • Annex 2: Workshop Photo Collage 65

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

A. INTRODUCTION

On behalf of the Planning Team for the Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, held in Makeni, Sierra Leone, we are pleased to present this Workshop Final Report. The document and accompanying CD are a compilation of key information exchanged during the workshops, the main points of discussion addressed and the principal recommendations that emerged during the training.

These USAID Sierra Leone-supported workshops were jointly sponsored and co-hosted by the USAID Sierra Leone Mission, the USAID DCHA Bureau, World Vision, ACDI/VOCA, the Christian Children’s Fund (CCF), Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Africare, and CARE. The events drew a large participant group of nearly 100 development professionals and experts in key sectors over the two weeks. Other highlights of the workshops included: • Creation of a participant-designed draft list of critical environmental monitoring indicators for key sectors, which will be further refined for possible use as standard USAID environmental performance monitoring indicators; • Presentation and distribution of practical environmental tools, such as the USAID Environmental Guidelines for Small-Scale Activities in Africa, a framework for designing environmental management plans, and an inexpensive, user-friendly water quality testing tool, among others; • Productive discussion and group work sessions; practical, hands-on field site visits; • Workshop synthesis discussions on strategic environmental issues in Sierra Leone with almost all NGO Directors and Chiefs of Party from implementing partners, and key USAID staff. Dialogue also occurred on how to strengthen inter-institutional synergies for environmental management of programs in Sierra Leone.

The success of these workshops would not have been possible without the efforts of the presenters and the contributions made by each of the participants during the plenary and technical work group sessions. In particular, Sun Mountain would like to thank, US Ambassador to Sierra Leone - June Carter Perry, Deputy Chief of Mission – Glenn Fedzer, Ericka Clesceri, Eddie Benya, Tom Roberts, and each co-host organization for their significant technical, financial, and institutional support for this collaborative capacity-building initiative.

We hope that the knowledge and interest generated at these events will act as a further catalyst for this USAID environmental initiative and contribute to improved environmental quality and project design in all USAID-supported programs.

On behalf of USAID Sierra Leone, USAID Washington and the Workshop Planning Team, thank you!

Erika Clesceri Eddie Benya Scott Solberg Bureau Environmental Officer Mission Environmental Officer Director USAID/DCHA USAID/Sierra Leone Sun Mountain International

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

B. WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES, EXPECTATIONS, CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND AGENDA

Object ive : Outline central workshop objectives and identify participant expectations and learning objectives.

B.1. Workshop Objectives

Provide practical tools and training for environmental management of development programs in Sierra Leone.

Improve the capacity of USAID staff, their key partners and technical personnel to adopt best environmental practices and incorporate environmental monitoring indicators into existing project M&E systems.

Enhance collaboration, networking and exchange of ideas, lessons learned and technical solutions between cooperating sponsors and their local staff in the field, ministries, and USAID personnel.

B.2 Participant Objectives and Expectations

Participants’ expectations of the workshop were identified through a plenary exercise in which everyone stated key environmental issues in Sierra Leone as well as topics of interest and their usefulness:

The following expectations and objectives to be accomplished at the workshop were identified by participants:

To more clearly understand USAID environmental compliance procedures and Regulation 216, and how to incorporate these and best environmental practices into program design and management. To better environmentally manage Title II program activities. To learn about initial environmental examinations (IEEs) in general as well as incorporate mitigation, monitoring, and budgeting into project design and implementation. To collaboratively build environmental management systems by developing a framework that would allow for more efficient monitoring and evaluation of projects. To take away some useful tools to improve field work and assess environmental impacts.

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

B.3. Conceptual Flowchart

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

• USAID Environmental Procedures • Sierra Leone Environmental Legislation

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CONCEPTS, TOOLS AND EXPERIENCES • Environmental Impact Assessment (the IEE) • Environmental Guidelines • Basic Concepts of Environmental Mitigation, Monitoring and Evaluation • Strengthening Environmental Indicators and Management Systems • Designing Environmental Management Plans

CASE STUDIES IN THE LOCAL CONTEXT

• Agricultural production • Fish production • Small-scale infrastructure and water/sanitation

MAINSTREAMING ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

• Budgeting environmental mitigation and monitoring costs • Directors panel: Roundtable discussion of strategic environmental issues in Sierra Leone • Intra-institutional action plans and inter-institutional priorities

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

B.4. Agenda

Week 1:

Day/Time Module/Activity Objective Presenter/Facilitator Sunday Arrival in Makeni; Registration 4:00 Facilitators’ Arrival in Makeni 5:00 – 6:00 Participants’ Arrival 6:30 – 7:30 Organizational Meeting with Facilitators Monday Environmental Impact Assessment Concepts and Tools 8:00 – 9:30 Participant Registration 9:30 – 10:00 Opening Statements Highlight the needs in Abdulai Jalloh, country and the value USAID/Sierra Leone of the workshop content Erika Clesceri, USAID/DCHA Bureau Environmental Officer (BEO) Tom Roberts, WVI Scott Solberg, SMIC Dr. John Azu, SMIC 10:00 – 10:30 Workshop Objectives Clarify workshop Scott Solberg, SMIC Introductions and Expectations expected outcomes and Dr. John Azu, SMIC participants’ Agenda and Logistics expectations 10:30 – 11:00 Video: “Environmental Present an introductory Scott Solberg, SMIC Considerations: Toward a video on the importance Sustainable Future” of environmental considerations in development programming 11:00 – 11:15 Coffee Break 11:15 – 12:15 Session 1: USAID Environmental Understand why Erika Clesceri, Compliance Procedures (22 CFR 216) Regulation 216 exists and USAID/DCHA Bureau Legal Basis how USAID complies Environmental Officer (BEO) Summary of USAID Understand how Environmental Procedures responsibilities are distributed within Missions Role of MEOs, CTOs, and and partners. partners Only Week 2 Session 2 : Sierra Leone Introduce country-specific No Representative Environmental Legislation and Policy environmental policies and Available from procedures Ministries 12:15 – 1:15 Lunch 1:15 – 2:00 Session 3: Environmental Impact Understand the EIA Scott Solberg, SMIC Assessment: The Initial process and common Tom Roberts, WVI Environmental Examination (IEE) mistakes made in Dr. John Azu, SMIC writing IEEs

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

2:00 – 2:45 Session 4: Introduction to Present the Guidelines Sabinus Anaele, USAID Includes coffee Environmental Guidelines for Small- and their use in Regional FFP (Dakar) break scale Activities in Africa (EGSSAA) development projects Peter Baum, SMIC Familiarization Activity 2:45 – 5:00 Session 5: Virtual Field Trip Use EGSSAA to review Erika Clesceri, an IEE for activity USAID/DCHA presented in virtual field Group activity: assessment of an IEE trip and report-out 5:00 – 5:15 Parking lot session Answer key questions Dr. John Azu, SMIC not covered during the Scott Solberg, SMIC day Tuesday Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Concepts and Tools 8:30 – 9:15 Session 6a: Basic Concepts of Familiarize participants Erika Clesceri, Environmental Mitigation and with environmental USAID/DCHA BEO Monitoring mitigation and monitoring

Session 6b: Choosing Indicators Present real-world for Monitoring Environmental examples of good Mitigation Measures environmental monitoring indicators

9:15 – 10:00 Breakout session: Group Choose priority Erika Clesceri, “brainstorming” session on environmental USAID/DCHA BEO indicators by field site strengthening environmental Dr. John Azu, SMIC management systems and sector environmental indicators 10:00 – 10:15 Coffee Break 10:15 – 11:30 Session 7: Developing Present an Dr. John Azu, SMIC environmental Environmental Management Plans Scott Solberg, SMIC management plan

framework and a specific example

Address the importance of including environmental mitigation and monitoring costs into project design 11:30 – 12:30 Breakout session: Design a draft Use environmental Sector teams environmental management plan for guidance and expertise one or two project impacts in a key to develop a draft development sector environmental management plan, including costs, for one of 3 key sectors 12:30 – 1:30 Lunch

1:30 – 2:30 Group presentation and discussion Provide feedback on Sector teams environmental on draft environmental management Scott Solberg, SMIC plans management plans

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

2:30 – 2:45 Coffee break 2:45 – 4:45 Session 8a: Field Trip Briefings – Set the scene for the Scott Solberg, SMIC (Case Study Projects in the Local case study field work Ambrose Gaojia, CARE Context) Musa Sanu Konteh, CCF Working groups: Preparation for Identify issues to be Field Trip Activities. analyzed in the field, assign roles, review resource materials, screening tools, etc. 4:45 – 5:00 Parked Issues Discussion Address any questions Dr. John Azu, SMIC or unresolved issues Wednesday Case Study Field Visits 8:30- 15:00 Session 8b: Field visits to case Observe environmental Sector teams study sites. (Working groups of impacts of projects to Peter Baum, SMIC 8-12 participants travel to form recommendations Lunch in the separate sites; conduct initial for future efforts field assessments in the field.) Technical areas: 1. Fish Production 2. Agricultural Production 3. Small-Scale Construction/Water and Sanitation 15:00 – 17:00 Session 8c: Analysis and Compile and discuss Sector teams documentation of findings and results of field visits and recommendations from field visits develop presentations Thursday Field Visit presentation and discussion; special topics 8:30 – 10:30 Finalization of analyses and Compile and discuss Dr. John Azu, SMIC development of field visit results of field visits and Group work presentations prepare for presentation in plenary 10:30 – 10:45 Coffee Break 10:45 – 12:45 Session 8d: Plenary: Group Share with fellow John Azu, SMIC presentation and discussion of field participants the results Scott Solberg, SMIC visit results of the field exercise Erika Clesceri, USAID/DCHA BEO Sector Teams 12:45 – 2:00 Lunch 2:00 – 3:30 Session 9: New USAID Food for Present new ECS policy Ericka Clesceri, Peace Environmental Policy: and how it relates to USAID/DCHA BEO initial proposal Environmental Capability Statement (ECS) submission 3:30 – 3:45 Coffee Break 3:45 – 5:00 Session 10: USAID Pesticides Review PERSUAP and Dr. John Azu – SMIC Procedures other USAID pesticides procedures and

examples of best practices. Friday Environmental Action Plans by Organization; Workshop close

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

8:30 – 9:00 Session 11: Key Concepts Review Emphasize key concepts Dr. John Azu, SMIC Parking Lot Session presented during the workshop Address any questions or unresolved issues 9:00 – 10:00 Session 12: USAID partners panel – Present group Ambrose Ngaojia, CARE Lessons learned in environmental methodologies and management, monitoring and discuss solutions to Julia Roberts, Africare evaluation of projects. M&M issues in Sierra Leone development Musa Sanu Konteh, CCF Possible technical areas: programs / Munafa M’Patie 1. Watershed Management Federation 2. Deforestation and Resource Present lessons learned Extraction and recommendations Dr. Tom Roberts, WVI 3. Sustainable Agriculture: Agro- from USAID partners forestry Answer participants’ 4. Protected Areas Management questions through a panel of M&M experts 10:00 – 10:30 Session 13: Action Plans by Form plans to continue Scott Solberg, SMIC Organization and inter-organizational strengthening Dr. John Azu, SMIC priorities environmental - Emphasize Organizational Action capacities within/among Plans, program by program organizations 10:30 – 10:45 Coffee Break 10:45 – 12:15 Session 14: Director’s Panel – Exchange ideas, Brian Larson, CARE Roundtable Discussion of Strategic opportunities and Tom Roberts, WVI Environmental Issues in Sierra challenges on Daniel Kaindaneh, CCF Leone: obstacles and solutions to environmental programming challenges. What can management of Mohammed Conteh, USAID, NGOs and contractors do to development programs Africare mainstream environmental in Sierra Leone. Q&A Erika Clesceri – mitigation and monitoring within between directors and USAID/DCHA BEO food security programs? workshop participants, and exploration of interagency solutions to common problems 12:15 – 1:15 Lunch 1:15 – 1:30 Workshop Evaluations 1:30 – 2:15 Final Evaluation, Presentation of Conclude workshop Erika Clesceri, Certificates of Completion and Quiz USAID/DCHA BEO Results, Workshop Close Scott Solberg, SMIC Dr. john Azu, SMIC Abdulai Jalloh, USAID

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

Week 2:

Day/Time Module/Activity Objective Presenter/Facilitator Sunday Arrival in Makeni; Registration 4:00 Facilitators’ Arrival in Makeni 5:00 – 6:00 Participants’ Arrival 6:30 – 7:30 Organizational Meeting with Facilitators Monday Environmental Impact Assessment Concepts and Tools 8:00 – 9:00 Participant Registration 9:00 – 9:30 Opening Statements Highlight the needs in Scott Solberg, SMIC country and the value Dr. John Azu, SMIC of the workshop content 9:30 – 10:00 Workshop Objectives Clarify workshop Scott Solberg, SMIC Introductions and Expectations expected outcomes and Dr. John Azu, SMIC participants’ Agenda and Logistics expectations 10:15 – 10:45 Video: “Environmental Present an introductory Scott Solberg, SMIC Considerations: Toward a video on the importance Sustainable Future” of environmental considerations in development programming 10:45 – 11:00 Coffee Break 11:00 – 11:30 Session 1: USAID Environmental Understand why Scott Solberg, SMIC Compliance Procedures (22 CFR 216) Regulation 216 exists and Legal Basis how USAID complies Summary of USAID Understand how Environmental Procedures responsibilities are distributed within Missions Role of MEOs, CTOs, and and partners. partners 11:30 – 12:15 Session 2 : Sierra Leone Introduce country-specific John Solomon Kamara – Environmental Legislation and Policy environmental policies and Deputy Director, procedures Ministry of Lands, Country Planning, and the Environment 12:15 – 1:15 Lunch 1:15 – 2:00 Session 3: Environmental Impact Understand the EIA Dr. John Azu, SMIC Assessment: The Initial process and common Environmental Examination (IEE) mistakes made in

writing IEEs

2:00 – 2:45 Session 4: Introduction to Present the Guidelines Peter Baum, SMIC Includes coffee Environmental Guidelines for Small- and their use in break scale Activities in Africa (EGSSAA) development projects Familiarization Activity 2:45 – 5:00 Session 5: Virtual Field Trip Use EGSSAA to review Peter Baum, SMIC Group activity: assessment of an IEE an IEE for activity Dr. John Azu, SMIC presented in virtual field and report-out trip

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

5:00 – 5:15 Parking lot session Answer key questions Dr. John Azu, SMIC not covered during the Scott Solberg, SMIC day Tuesday Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Concepts and Tools 8:30 – 9:15 Session 6a: Basic Concepts of Familiarize participants Scott Solberg, SMIC Environmental Mitigation and with environmental Monitoring mitigation and monitoring

Session 6b: Choosing Indicators Present real-world for Monitoring Environmental examples of good Mitigation Measures environmental monitoring indicators

9:15 – 10:00 Breakout session: Group Choose priority Dr. John Azu, SMIC “brainstorming” session on environmental strengthening environmental indicators by field site management systems and sector environmental indicators 10:00 – 10:15 Coffee Break 10:15 – 11:30 Session 7: Developing Present an Dr. John Azu, SMIC Environmental Management Plans environmental management plan

framework and a specific example

1:30 – 2:30 Group presentation and discussion Provide feedback on Sector teams environmental on draft environmental management Scott Solberg, SMIC plans management plans Dr. John Azu, SMIC 2:30 – 2:45 Coffee break 2:45 – 4:45 Session 8a: Field Trip Briefings – Set the scene for the Scott Solberg, SMIC (Case Study Projects in the Local case study field work Alfred Kanu, CARE Context) Ahmed Sesay, CCF Working groups: Preparation for Identify issues to be Field Trip Activities. analyzed in the field, assign roles, review resource materials, screening tools, etc.

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

4:45 – 5:00 Parked Issues Discussion Address any questions Dr. John Azu, SMIC or unresolved issues Wednesday Case Study Field Visits 8:30- 15:00 Session 8b: Field visits to case Observe environmental Sector teams study sites. (Working groups of impacts of projects to Peter Baum, SMIC 8-12 participants travel to form recommendations Lunch in the separate sites; conduct initial for future efforts field assessments in the field.) Technical areas: 1. Fish Production 2. Agricultural Production 3. Small-Scale Construction/Water and Sanitation 15:00 – 17:00 Session 8c: Analysis and Compile and discuss Sector teams documentation of findings and results of field visits and recommendations from field visits develop presentations Thursday Field Visit presentation and discussion; special topics 8:30 – 10:30 Finalization of analyses and Compile and discuss Dr. John Azu, SMIC development of field visit results of field visits and Group work presentations prepare for presentation in plenary 10:30 – 10:45 Coffee Break 10:45 – 12:45 Session 8d: Plenary: Group Share with fellow Scott Solberg, SMIC presentation and discussion of field participants the results Dr. John Azu, SMIC visit results of the field exercise Sector Teams 12:45 – 2:00 Lunch 2:00 – 3:30 Session 9: USAID Pesticides Review PERSUAP and Dr. John Azu, SMIC Procedures other USAID pesticides procedures and examples of best practices. 3:30 – 3:45 Coffee Break 3:45 – 5:00 Session 10: Key Concepts Review Emphasize key concepts Dr. John Azu – SMIC Parking Lot Session presented during the Scott Solberg, SMIC workshop

Address any questions or unresolved issues Friday Environmental Action Plans by Organization; Workshop close 8:30 – 9:00 Session 11: Rapid Environmental Present methodology Scott Solberg, SMIC Assessment (REA) and use of REAs 9:00 – 9:30 Session 12: New USAID Food for Present new ECS policy Scott Solberg, SMIC Peace Environmental Policy: and how it relates to Environmental Capability Statement initial proposal (ECS) submission 9:30 – 10:30 Session 13: Action Plans by Form plans to continue Scott Solberg, SMIC Organization and inter-organizational strengthening Dr. John Azu, SMIC priorities environmental - Emphasize Organizational Action capacities within/among Plans, program by program organizations

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

10:30 – 10:45 Coffee Break 10:45 – 12:15 Session 14: Director’s Panel – Exchange ideas, Myles Harrison, WVI Roundtable Discussion of Strategic opportunities and Lindsay Kennedy, US Environmental Issues in Sierra challenges on Embassy / Sierra Leone Leone: obstacles and solutions to environmental Robert Delve, CRS programming challenges. What can management of Kenya USAID, NGOs and contractors do to development programs mainstream environmental in Sierra Leone. Q&A Paul McKee, CRS Sierra mitigation and monitoring within between directors and Leone food security programs? workshop participants, and exploration of interagency solutions to common problems 12:15 – 12:30 Workshop Evaluations 12:30 – 1:00 Final Evaluation, Presentation of Conclude workshop Scott Solberg, SMIC Certificates of Completion and Quiz Dr. john Azu, SMIC Results, Workshop Close Peter Baum, SMIC 1:00 – 2:00 Lunch

C. TECHNICAL SESSIONS

SESSION 1. OVERVIEW OF USAID ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES (22 CFR 216)

Objective : Understand basic concepts of environmental assessment. Provide an overview of USAID environmental procedures and Regulation 216. Understand how responsibilities are distributed among Missions and partners.

Presenters : Week 1: Erika Clesceri, USAID/DCHA BEO, Week 2: Scott Solberg, SMIC

Key Points: 22 CFR 216 and USAID’s environmental procedures exist to integrate environmental considerations into USAID-funded development projects and to assign responsibilities for evaluating and mitigating environmental impacts. The USAID Mission Environmental Officer helps to ensure that USAID-funded projects in the country are following Reg. 216 procedures. Evaluation of environmental impacts helps to reduce costs, propose alternatives, implement environmental mitigation when the activity begins, make balanced decisions, learn lessons for future projects, and make the project more sustainable & competitive (sound project design IEE EMP increased sustainability of projects and livelihoods of affected communities). Environmental impacts should be evaluated before AND during project implementation (i.e. monitoring), to ensure that mitigation is effective, and if not, so that adaptive measures can be taken to reduce impacts.

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

USAID’s environmental evaluation tool is the Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE), which proposes a “threshold decision” based on the level of environmental impact expected as a result of the project. Environmental determinations have to do with both the scope and scale of proposed activities; project proximity to protected areas also plays a role in determination. The threshold decision must be approved by the MEO, Mission Director, REA, SO Chief, and BEO. The following are possible threshold decisions and examples: o Categorical Exclusion – the nature of the project eliminates the possibility for any significant environmental impact to occur. Examples: scientific research, maternal and child health. o Negative determination with conditions – the project may have environmental impacts, but these can be reduced through proper mitigation and monitoring. Examples: small-scale potable water project, rehabilitation of 5 km of rural road. o Positive determination – the project will have significant environmental impacts. A formal environmental assessment is required. Some projects automatically require an environmental assessment, such as: development of watersheds, irrigation or water management projects (including dams), leveling of land for agriculture, drainage projects, construction or large-scale improvement of roads, large-scale sewage and potable water projects. Multi-Year Assistance Program (MYAP) procedures as they relate to IEEs and Environmental Status Reports (ESR) were introduced. Exemptions for writing IEEs and EMPs are granted for emergency situations (SYAP – Single Year Assistance Program). USAID Pesticide Procedures were briefly introduced by defining pesticide “use” and “supply.”

**REMEMBER: All USAID-financed activities require an environmental review and approval prior to obligation of funds.

Questions / Responses / Comments:

1) When it comes to pesticide use and purchasing, what are USAID 216 Regulations? a. There are no waivers when it comes to procuring pesticides, or pesticide treated seeds. Such proposed projects need to undergo rigorous evaluation and pesticides, or treated seed procurement can be approved upon such evaluations. Reg. 216 does not restrict use of fertilizers, only pesticides.

Additional resources on CD:

USAID Environmental Guidelines for Small-Scale Activities in Africa (EGSSAA, English – some chapters available in French)

USAID PERSUAP Guidance

A Cooperating Sponsor’s Field Guide to USAID Environmental Compliance Procedures. February 2000.

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

See also: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/compliance/index.html http://www.encapafrica.org/

Low-Volume Roads Engineering Best Management Practices Field Guide, US Forest Service, Gordon Keller

Agriculture and the Environment, 2004, WWF, Jason Clay (crop by crop guidance)

Aquaculture and the Environment, 2005, WWF, Katherine Bostic, (fish by fish guidance)

SESSION 2. SIERRA LEONE ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION AND POLICY

Objective: Understand principal aspects of Sierra Leonean environmental legislation and how it compares to USAID environmental procedures.

Presenter: Week 1: No presentation, no representative available from government ministries, Week 2: John Solomon Kamara – Deputy Director, Ministry of Lands, Country Planning, and the Environment

Key Points:

The Environmental Protection Act of 2008 is an amendment to the National Environmental Policy of 1994. It is a tool that gives Sierra Leone a strategic legal instrument for environmental protection as well as defining roles and responsibilities for different actors (State, NGOs, social organizations, etc.). More specifically, it establishes standards for environmental management by detailing environmental impact assessment and environmental licensing procedures.

The procedures for obtaining an environmental license require that an environmental impact assessment (EIA) and environmental management plan (EMP) be developed for development and industrial activities. AN EIA in the context of Sierra Leonean policy seems to be similar to the IEE and EIA required under 22 CFR 216, yet it seems as though there is less emphasis on mitigation and monitoring in the initial stages of the process.

Under Sierra Leonean policy, the processes and procedures for conducting environmental assessments and developing EMPs are similar to those of 22 CFR 216. As part of the process, an environmental and social impact study is conducted utilizing an “EIA Screening Form.” This helps to determine impacts and associated risks; once the overall risk level for a given activity is determined, then it is determined whether a full EIA needs to be conducted. If the risk of activities is determined to be high, then a full EIA is conducted in which a detailed mitigation plan is developed. The initial “screening” portion of the overall EIA process is similar to that of USAID’s IEE, however there is less emphasis on mitigation and monitoring.

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

Under Sierra Leonean Policy, the format for writing an EIA is as follows:

I. Executive Summary II. Project Description III. Description of the Environment IV. Description of Project Impacts V. Description of Alternatives Considered VI. Assessment of the legal implications of the Impacts VII. Description of Expected Benefits of the Project VIII. Description of Methodology IX. Evaluation of Impacts X. Mitigating Measures XI. Identification of Information Gaps XII. Other XIII. List of Prepares XIV. List of References

Questions / Comments / Responses:

1) How do we ensure compliance of EIA Regulations in Sierra Leone? a. We do so through the thorough review of organizations’ EMPs based on the found impacts and mitigation measures to ensure that proper monitoring is conducted. This will help ensure thorough compliance. b. After thorough review we give an environmental license, which is renewable every year. c. At the level of scoping, we go to the field to examine a projects present status before an EIA is actually conducted, then we develop measurable indicators at that stage to relate to the air, water quality, soil quality standards in order to ensure proper monitoring and evaluation.

SESSION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: THE INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXAMINATION

Objective : Understand the EIA process and common mistakes made in writing IEEs

Presenter: Week 1: Scott Solberg, SMIC; Tom Roberts, World Vision; Dr. John Azu, SMIC Week 2: Dr. John Azu, SMIC

Key Points:

The IEE is the first step in responding to USAID environmental compliance and is the basis for the environmental management plan. The IEE is a tool to evaluate environmental impacts of development activities. With such analysis, an environmental management plan is developed to mitigate possible impacts and ensure proper monitoring of project sustainability.

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

The following information needs to be contained in the IEE: identification of background information, country and environmental information, locations affected, national environmental policies and procedures, evaluation of potential environmental impacts, indicators, recommended threshold decisions for each project sub-activities, and mitigation, monitoring, and evaluation methods and issues. Lastly, budgeting of mitigation and monitoring needs to be included as part of the EMP. When developing the environmental management plan, mitigation measures should be clearly matched and commensurate to each impact; responsibilities for implementing mitigation measures and monitoring of them need to be clearly delineated and defined.

When writing the IEE, it is important to contextualize the contents to local conditions. In addition it is recommended to use clear and concise language as the overall goal of the IEE is to be successful and effective.

Questions / Responses / Comments:

1) For how long is an IEE to be carried out? How does the level of effort and intensity differ between the IEE and EIA? a. An IEE is like a mini-EIA that generally takes a few weeks to complete, while an EIA can take from a few weeks to a couple of months and is much more in depth. b. Few days of scoping in the field for an IEE 2) Food for Peace programs, do not need to send IEE in proposal before funding is granted, instead you send environmental statement, and then IEE needs to be done after funding is granted. 3) What is the difference between an EIA and an EMP? a. The EIA details impacts – how the project will affect the environment both positively and negatively. The EMP addresses the mitigation measures, monitoring, and is essentially the response to reduce the EIA’s impacts that are listed. b. The EMP details: what, when, how, where, who, and what resources will be used to implement mitigation and monitoring. 4) We need budgeting resources to do all of this; therefore it all must be planned for in project design.

Additional Resources: www.encapafrica.org

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

SESSION 4. INTRODUCTION TO ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES FOR SMALL-SCALE ACTIVITIES IN AFRICA (EGSSAA)

Objective: Present environmental guidance tools and resources and their use in development programs.

Presenter: Week 1: Sabinus Anaele, USAID Regional FFP (Dakar); Peter Baum, SMIC Week 2: Peter Baum, SMIC Summary:

Several environmental guidance resources exist which can assist development professionals in program design and in identifying environmental impacts and mitigation measures. USAID has developed environmental guidelines for development programs: • “Environmental Guidelines for Small-Scale Activities in Africa” – EGSSAA • “Environmental Guidelines for Development Activities in Latin America and the Caribbean” – LAC Guidelines

Participants formed groups and played “Environmental Guidelines Bingo” to familiarize themselves with the EGSSAA guidelines and how to use them to find answers to key environmental questions in different development sectors.

SESSION 5. VIRTUAL FIELD TRIP AND GROUP ACTIVITY: ASSESSMENT OF AN IEE AND REPORT-OUT

Objective : Use EGSSAA to review an IEE for the activity presented in the virtual field trip

Presenters : Week 1: Erika Clesceri, USAID/DCHA BEO Week 2: Peter Baum, SMIC; Dr. John Azu, SMIC

Key Points :

In this session, a presentation was shown with photos depicting both a rice irrigation and health clinic project. The slides showed both positive and negative aspects of each of the projects. After showing the presentation, participants where split into groups and given excerpts from the IEEs that were written for the projects depicted in the slides. With the information from the excerpts and the photos, participants where asked to provide both positive and negative feedback of the projects as well as recommendations on what could be improved upon in the projects themselves and the IEEs written for them.

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

Comments / Recommendations:

Rice Irrigation Project

Key Recommendations: 1) Participatory monitoring systems should be put in place. Participatory in the sense that project implementers work with community members. 2) Do not agree with the some of the recommended categorical exclusions. 3) Need a contingency plan in IEE. 4) A dam should be constructed with a drainage pipes to account for flooding. 5) Timeframe for project is just one season, this is very short. 6) The project is at a government owned site, this could cause political conflicts. 7) There is a health risk of water born diseases which was not mentioned. 8) An education campaign about not using irrigation water for other purposes should be conducted. 9) A potable water project should be done in conjunction. 10) The livelihood of the people living downstream of the irrigation duct should have been taken into account as the water level is affected by irrigation system. 11) Need to work community members through the process so that they feel and are involved.

Health Clinic

Key Recommendations: 1) Disposal of waste should be taken into account; waste water should be more responsibly disposed of and/or treated. 2) Old septic tanks need to be filled in, it was not addressed – this could exacerbate the spreading of illnesses. 3) Patient education needs to be mentioned and detailed in the IEE. 4) Kitchen location needs to be planned and needs to be upstream of medical waste incinerator. 5) Waste dump needs to be placed in a strategic location away from school and human populations. Remove dump site and place it farther away from hospital / school. Increase use of incinerators. 6) TB ward in hospital should be placed away from schools. 7) Septic tank needs to be covered to prevent spreading of disease. 8) Need to work community members through the process so that they feel and are involved. 9) Instead of a categorical exclusion for waste management, this should have been a negative determination with conditions. However, for mitigation, the positive side is that they did identify who should be responsible for implementation plans. 10) The language of the IEE was cluttered and should have been clearer and more concise.

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

SESSION 6A. BASIC CONCEPTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION AND MONITORING SESSION 6B. CHOOSING INDICATORS FOR MONITORING ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION MEASURES

Objective : Familiarize participants with environmental mitigation and monitoring. This will help e nsure that environmental concerns are integrated into planning. Review the mitigation and monitoring process and what it means for development projects. Differentiate between types of indicators and learn which are the best types to use under different circumstances.

Presenter: Week 1: Erika Clesceri, USAID/DCHA BEO Week 2: Scott Solberg, SMIC

Summary:

Environmental mitigation and monitoring is intended to prevent the potential detrimental impacts of a project. It also helps to ensure project sustainability.

The Four Key Principles of Environmental Management are: - Integration: ‘Ensuring that environmental concerns are integrated with planning is essential to the welfare and safety of beneficiaries.’ - Prevention before Cure: ‘Taking action as early as possible to minimize potentially large scale problems and irreversible effects. - Cost Effectiveness: ‘With limited resources we must strive to maximize the efficiency. Especially with environmental issues where a long-term approach is often required to support sustainable use and management of natural resources.’ - Local Participation: ‘Involving local people with the development and management of environmental activities is fundamental to managing natural resources in a sustainable manner

There are three kinds of mitigation: 1. Prevention - avoiding the problem through sound design, choosing alternatives that will have the least impact; 2. Compensatory - if detrimental impacts are created in one location, the environment is preserved or restored in another; and 3. Remediation – fixing the problem after it already occurred.

**Mitigation through prevention is the best strategy**

Monitoring involves two phases: Part 1 includes identifying indicators to monitor possible detrimental impacts from an activity. Part 2 includes defining a control site for your monitoring activities. Another important part of this phase of monitoring is the interpretation of data. Project managers do not want scientific data in raw form.

Mitigation minimizes or avoids adverse environmental impacts. Monitoring tells you if your mitigation measures are completed and effective and it is an integral process of Environmental Competitiveness and “continual improvement.”

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

The differences between process (output), effect (outcome) and impact indicators were discussed so that participants would better understand when to use them. In addition, the differences between program indicators and environmental mitigation indicators were elaborated upon and the importance of incorporating environmental mitigation into program indicators was stressed.

As part of the presentation, the types of indicators and characteristics of what constitutes a good indicator were discussed. Types of indicators include: - Output: Performance, goods and services produces. Ex. # of wells rehabilitated using established Standards - Outcome: Immediate results of the activity. Ex. % of water sources with no fecal coliforms per 100 ml - Impact: Long-term results of the activity. Ex. 75% decrease in diarrheal disease.

SMART Objectives and Indicators are: Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Time-bound

Questions / Comments / Responses:

• Discussions occurred on the relationship among environmental concerns, conflict and security linkages, which was very appropriate because of the relevance of this topic in post-conflict Sierra Leone. Such questions came up as “Could mitigation shift power dynamics and interests?” It was discussed how under such conditions conflict resolution is a big part of environmental mitigation. For instance, the implementation of water committees in irrigation projects could cause certain unforeseen social conflicts, however the importance of community participation in natural resource management to avoid conflicts was also stressed. • Dialogue also occurred about the importance of providing alternative livelihood to communities if their interests are affected and helping them to come up with the comparative analysis of the trade-off • There was debate about mainstreaming environmental issues into program indicators; one of the main questions were “How do we streamline these two types of indicators? What does it take to do this?” One of the conclusions agreed upon was that in cases where the indicators have been specified and we cannot change them, we may need to look at those that are discretionary at the program management level so they will guide in the decision- making function of the program managers.

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

BREAKOUT SESSION: GROUP ¨BRAINSTORMING¨ SESSION ON STRENGHTENING ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS

Objective: Brainstorm and choose priority environmental indicators by field site sector. Discuss challenges.

Presenters: Week 1: Erika Clesceri, USAID/DCHA BEO; Dr. John Azu, SMIC Week 2: Dr. John Azu, SMIC

Summary:

Participants formed groups by key development sectors to evaluate and improve upon environmental indicators that were brainstormed in the workshop “Environmental Management of Small-Scale Development Programs in Haiti” in February 2009. As part of this, participants assessed the quality and feasibility of the indicators was and discussed how to include these indicators into programming and reporting.

Questions / Comments / Recommendations:

• The way we define our indicators helps us to improve upon them. • We need to have clearly spelled out indicators; some of them from the Haiti workshop seem ambiguous. • How do we define “appropriate” techniques in our indicators? • Need to add time components to our indicators • By planting trees we are creating forest cover, but we need to define the utility of such forest cover – for example, in the case of flooding control, are the trees planted in the upper areas of the watershed? • Our indicators need to reinforce accountability for our projects. • We can use proxy types of indicators – i.e. Farmers opiniones of how much relative erosion they have now compared to the past • We are talking about output – when you are planting and maintaining, mitigating and monitoring, we cannot have one indicator to try to measure all of these things. We need to have separate indicators for such activities. • We need to ensure we are not using the words “and,” “or” or other ambiguous words into indicators as it make it unclear what is being measured. • Need to spell out the types of NRM practices that we are implementing and their corresponding indicators

Brainstormed/Suggested Indicators:

Agriculture / Natural Resources Management 1. Number of hectares planted with fruit trees under controlled management (OUTPUT) 2. Number of linear meters of soil conservation structures installed (OUTPUT) 3. Number of linear meters of “wind break” trees planted 4. Number of farmers trained in natural resource management techniques (OUTPUT)

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

5. Number of farmers adopting NRM techniques (OUTCOME) – however, we need a clear definition NRM for such an indicator 6. Number of people supported through training in NRM and/or biodiversity (OUTPUT) – this seems too similar to number 3 above. 1. Number of people who adopt at least 3 improved NRM practices (OUTCOME) COST? 7. Number of tree nurseries established (OUTPUT) 1. Number (%?) of trees which survive transplantation after 3 years (OUTCOME) 2. Number of trees surviving which provide income (IMPACT) 3. Decreased incidence of flooding (IMPACT) 8. Number of hectares under improved NRM (OUTCOME) 1. Decrease in flooding (IMPACT) - how to measure?? 2. Decrease in sedimentation (IMPACT) – how to measure?? 3. Decrease in erosion (IMPACT) – how to measure??

Sustainable Agriculture 1. Number of hectares protected on slopes steeper than 20 degrees (OUTPUT) 2. Number of beneficiaries trained and equipped to run economic activities (OUTPUT) 3. Number of beneficiaries practicing perennial crops instead of annual crops 4. Number of land use plans developed (OUTCOME) 5. Number of land use plans implemented 6. Number of training and support provided to beneficiaries (OUTPUT) 7. Increase in beneficiary income (IMPACT) 8. Number of irrigation systems rehabilitated (OUTPUT) 1. Is water sufficient for irrigation for the whole area? 2. Is irrigation water available for 12 months out of the year? 3. Is irrigation water well managed?

Infrastructure 1. Number of kilometers of road rehabilitated in a proper way – needs to be more clearly defined. 1. Gully plugs/Check dams (erosion barriers) 2. Dry walls 3. Tree planting along roadside 4. Drainage system dimensions correct 5. Sidewalk properly built 2. % increase in vehicle traffic 3. % Increase/decrease in transportation time (OUTCOME) 1. % decrease in post-harvest loss for transportation reasons – although too difficult to measure 4. # of public markets properly built (OUTPUT) – but what is a properly built market? 1. # of permanent water points existing in market 2. # gender-specific restrooms 3. # people trained in business management at end of project 4. Percentage of public market managed privately by end of project (OUTCOME)

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

Water and Sanitation 1. Number of people using safe drinking water (OUTCOME) 2. % increase of total population with access to drinking water (OUTCOME) 3. % of decrease in water-related infectious diseases (IMPACT) 4. Number of protected water collection structures built (water catchment, wells, rainwater harvest) – needs to be described relative to a certain timeframe. 5. % reduction in vector-borne diseases from wastewater disposal (IMPACT) 6. Number of latrines constructed, used and properly managed after 3 years 7. Number of kilometers of physical structures protecting springs 8. Number of kilometers of biological structures protecting springs 9. Number of wells drilled and fenced to separate human use from livestock (OUTPUT) 10. Number of wells drilled that have proper drainage canals (OUTPUT) 11. % of households with access to appropriate latrines (OUTCOME) 12. Number of wells established with local management committee receiving watsan training (OUTPUT) 1. # of local committees implementing such trainings 13. Number of latrines and fenced livestock located downstream from wells (OUTPUT)

SESSION 7. DEVELOPING ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLANS (EMP)

Objective: Present an environmental management plan framework as well as a specific example. Address the importance of including environmental mitigation and monitoring costs into project design.

Presenter: Week 1: Dr. John Azu, SMIC; Scott Solberg, SMIC Week 2: Dr. John Azu, SMIC

Summary: • The framework for developing an EMP was presented to participants to equip them with the tools to produce them effectively and efficiently. In addition, an example of and EMP from an agricultural irrigation project was shown to give participants a better idea of how to conduct and format them.

Key Points: • A good environmental management plan includes: o Prioritized environmental impacts for each activity o Mitigation measures for the most significant impacts o A monitoring plan to measure the effectiveness of the mitigation, including indicators o Estimated costs for implementation of the plan!! • Effective Budgeting of Mitigation and Monitoring: o Helps to ensure long-term project sustainability on economic and environmental levels o Lowers risk of project failure and costly future corrective measures o Helps prevent projects from going over budget o Protects livelihoods and security of inhabitants o Makes project management more efficient

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

• When budgeting for mitigation measures and monitoring do so early in project design and work closely with both the program and finance departments. • Many mitigation and monitoring systems cost approximately 3-5% of total project budget.

EMP Framework:

Identifying Potential Impacts and Associated Mitigation Measures

# Sub-activity or Description of Mitigation Measures component Impact

1 Component 1 2 Component 2 3 4

Environmental Monitoring and Evaluation Tracking Table

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

BREAKOUT SESSION: DESIGN A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ONE OR TWO PROJECT IMPACTS IN A KEY DEVELOPMENT SECTOR

Objective: Use environmental guidance and expertise to develop a draft environmental management plan, including costs, for one of three key development sectors.

Presenters: Week 1 and 2: Sector Teams

Summary:

After a brief presentation of the EMP framework, participants formed groups by key development sectors (agriculture, water and sanitation, and rural roads). In order to motivate participants and liven up the workshop, the facilitators received a pretend “phone call from the new US President Obama,” who informed them that funding is available for a multi-year, multi-sectoral development program in Sierra Leone, and that he needed them to develop an environmental management plan in order to include mitigation and monitoring costs into the budget by COB. Once the participants formed teams, they developed a draft environmental management plan for one or two project impacts in one of the three development sectors.

Results:

Participants learned that they must think critically, practically, and work in interdisciplinary teams to produce effective EMPs. In forming them, participants learned how budgeting of mitigation and monitoring during project design helps to prevent projects from going over budget. Before thoroughly budgeting out each example in the team setting, most participants had different ideas of project costs. However, after the group activity, participants commented that they were able to develop more realistic cost estimates when working in an interdisciplinary team setting. They also touched on the need to be precise and take time when budgeting in order to cover all possible costs.

SESSION 8D: PLENARY: GROUP PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF FIELD VISIT RESULTS

Objective: Apply the concepts and tools presented during the workshop to case studies relevant to the

Sierra Leone context. Share with fellow participants the results of issues analyzed in the field.

In the Field Visit presentations, the groups gave background information on the project sites that they visited, analyzed environmental impacts, designed an environmental management plan, and made recommendations as to how to improve environmental management of the projects.

Week 1:

Water and Sanitation Field Visit: • Objective: to develop an Environmental Management Plan for Mayawlaw small-scale construction/water and sanitation project. • Methodology:

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

• Planning - The workgroup was comprised of eleven participants, members identified a leader, spokesperson, photographer, water sample collector, interviewers, and a monitoring and evaluation specialist. Before going to the field, the team reviewed all documents in the field guide. • Field techniques – to begin they held a community meeting with the chief and other community members to discuss the objectives of their visit. After the community meeting, the team used the following techniques to gather information: observation; photography; interviews with youth, women, and men; site visit to water sources and sanitation facilities; and water sample collection. • Observations: • The well is enclosed by a local fence with lock and key. • Waste water from well is controlled by a constructed drainage system (apron) around well. The suck away pit has been blocked with debris. • Well is located uphill (approximately 50 m) form the pit latrine • Water table is reduced in mid-dry season • A water Management Committee was formed, which has established rules and regulations for usage of the well. • Well was chlorinated every three months (when chlorine was available), pumps are cleaned every two months. • An open rock spring (original source of drinking water) is still being used by the community. • No running water for school with three hundred children; existing water tap is not functional • Open fifteen feet deep abandoned well with poor fencing near school building • Erosion along school building foundation • Site Specific Recommendations: • Strengthen hygiene practices at point of use for drinking water at household level • Addition of proper drainage system for primary school and improved water supply system • Strengthen community’s awareness of reforestation and forestry protection • Broader Recommendations: • Adequate Budget needed for effective monitoring of environmental and programme wide impacts

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

Week 1: Water and Sanitation - Environmental Management Plan

# Sub-activity or Description of Impact Mitigation Measures component 1 Site selection Economic tress were cut Relocation/replanting of trees with down (mango and an old ground cover (if possible) Mahogany (‘ronko’) tree Water Management Committee set up Habitat loss to supervise and monitor well use.

Well location (close to main motor road)

2 Excavation Soil erosion Avoid the cutting of trees

Expose inhabitants to the Construct drainage around well to risk of falls and injuries in prevent runoff water entering well excavation pits Place fence around excavation site Stagnant water can become breading sites for Filling of open abandoned pits vectors

Disruption to groundwater movement

Possibility for contamination of well 3 Source of local Damage aquatic Identify the most environmentally building materials ecosystems through sound source of material (Sand and stone erosion and siltation extraction) Fill in or cover up dug out pits Harm terrestrial ecosystem through harvesting of timber, excavating of sand, stones

Spread waterborne diseases when stagnant water accumulates in active or abandoned quarries or borrow pits and breeds insect vectors 4 Well construction Depletion of groundwater Determine safe and sustainable yield. resources Establish system for regulating use

Spread diseases with Test seasonal water quality and pathogenic contaminants examine historical water quality and quantity data before building facility Cause groundwater contamination 5 Latrine construction Discharge untreated or Do not site in wetland or next to insufficiently treated stream, river, swamp, lake or well sewage that: Do not site up-gradient from potable Contaminates drinking water sources such as wells, if possible

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

Week 1: Water and Sanitation - Environmental Management Plan

Week 1: Fish Pond Field Visit • Objectives: To identify the impact of the Makamba fish production project on the environment; identify and improve mitigation measures adopted during the construction of the fish pond; examine adopted indicators; share lessons learned and best practices on the implementation process; track the level of community involvement; and determine the sustainability of the project. • Methodology: community briefing, interviews, debriefing, community feedback, compiling of findings • Results / Findings • A functioning community pond management committee is in place (4 men, 3 women) • Project complements existing community development projects • Project provided opportunity for knowledge transfer to community • Outlet channels used to prevent flooding • Have routine maintenance procedures in maintaining physical structures of pond • Child labor is minimized • Community lets grass grow long around pond to provide shade for fish • Recommendations: • Constant maintenance of bunds – planting of cover crops on bunds • Refrain from using child labor • Necessity for adding value to harvested fish through smoking, drying, etc • Incorporate integrated agricultural approach (growing rice in ponds, poultry and piggery rearing – droppings are a food source for fish)

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

• Train selected community members on fish culture and roll-out to other communities • Use appropriate fish species (ie. tilapia) • Irrigate pond when the water level is low or when the fish are pepping (when fish are jumping) • Periodic stirring of water to help replace O2 loss • Transport fingerlings in plastic containers; store in holding pond before restocking • Recommended / Possible Mitigation Methods • Train community members on inlet / outlet pipe maintenance • Adequate sensitization and compensation of affected land owners • Conduct training on child rights violations • Conduct training on fish preservation methods • Recommended / Possible Indicators • % pipes functional on a quarterly basis • Number of sensitization sessions conducted • # of affected land owners relocated and compensated • % of people trained on child rights violation issues • # of communities using by-laws on child rights violation • # of trainings conducted and % of trainees adopting preservation methods

Week 1: Fish Pond Field Visit – Environmental Management Plan – Identifying Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures Sub-activity

or Description of Impact Mitigation Measures # component 1 Site selection • Inadequate water supply • Sensitize and plan with community before • Land Tenure systems selecting site • Community conflicts and tension • Site selection criteria should be community based and owned • Adequate compensation for affected land owners 2 Pond • Tree clearing • Construct Outlet / Inlet pipes to prevent Construction • Possible loss of biodiversity flooding • Disruption of water ecosystems • Use bamboo canes as pipes • Erosion • Planting of cover crops around pond • Flooding • Utilize abandoned termite hills as construction • Could prevent water conservation material • Construct adequate drainage systems to permit free flow of water • Provide pond with waste pipes to prevent water overflows 3 Stocking • Loss of natural fish population from natural • Stock should be carefully source from habitat (where we get fish from), thereby recognized fish centers , Fisheries-MAFFS reducing fish stock from primary source, thus • Pond stocking to be done by trained and impacting protein intake and general qualified personnel taking into account the livelihood patterns. recommended stocking ratio. Also, the • Overcrowding of fish, thus leading to participating community members should be predation and cannibalism trained on stocking techniques. • Loss of stock as a result of poor handling, • Proper and appropriate handling and stress and transportation transportation methods should be used. • Low water table in pond will lead to potential • Maintain adequate and appropriate water level. loss of fingerlings • Avoid shallow areas and maintain aquatic • Stock from primary source could possibly vegetation.

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

include foreign elements-diseases that would • Ensure fingerlings are screened from primary affect the needed stock. source before stocking.

4 Management • Siltation – where do we put debris and mud • Use mud as fertilizer in integrated farming / • Feeding – could take away from human food system Maintenance source

Environmental Monitoring and Evaluation Tracking Table

Description of Responsible Monitoring Methods # Party Estimated Cost Mitigation Measure Indicators Methods Frequency 1 -Construct outlet / Extension Measure Measur Daily Construction Cost- 50 USD inlet pipes to prevent agents and water e level flooding – use community level in using a Training Costs – bamboo cane as pond meter pipes stick Fuel – (10 gallons @ $5) = $50 - 2 people train from the community members same Food for trainees – for 3 days in consiste $300 ($100/day) measurement nt techniques location Honorarium ($100/ person) - $200

Accommodation – $120

Stationary- $30

Total Cost: $750 2 Planting of cover Extension % of Photogr Quarterly Assorted viable local Seeds:$20 crops around pond Staff. project selected aphs participants area for and Assorted Tools $500 vegetatio monitori n growth ng Training for P parts.$600 records Monitoring $400 for four quarters

Exchange visits $500 for two exchange visits

Evaluation $500

Total $2,500

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

Week 1: Agriculture Field Visit

1) Objectives: to analyze environmental impacts and produce an environmental management plan for the agriculture project site, which focuses on production and processing of cassava, rice, groundnuts, maize, and dry season vegetables. 2) Methodology: conducted field visit planning meeting; elected leader, spokesperson, recorders, photographers and water tester; educated community on purpose of visit, expectations, clarifications and received permission from chief; conduct activities such as field observation and interviews. 3) Results / Findings – Summary of Activities Conducted to Realize Project a. Acquiring land b. Land clearing - slash and burn, stumping, plowing/preparing seed beds, etc… c. Crop protection – fencing, trap setting, weeding, applying pesticides, scaring thieves d. Harvesting e. Food Processing f. Marketing g. Managing funds h. Managing waste 4) Recommendations a. Community leadership in the mitigation of impacts should be promoted b. Community education in understanding and applying causes, prevention and management of mitigation should be integral or program/project management. c. IEE should be institutionalized and not just regarded as a requirement for funding. d. EMP should be integrated to program M&E plans e. Educate community on Family Planning and adopt the practice to reduce stress on limited national resource f. Support the Makaray community to develop the IVS around the community and make temporal water way across the road to minimize flooding during the rains. g. Community establish by-laws to help minimize wild bush fire incidence. h. Sensitize community to establish forest reserves/wood lots i. Develop and implement effective sanitation and hygiene promotion in the community targeting children, women and men. j. Work with the water and sanitation committee to improve on source of well.

Week 1: Agriculture Field Visit – Environmental Management Plan – Identifying Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures

# Sub-activity or component Description of Mitigation Measures Impact 1 Cassava cultivation: Erosion Training farmers on appropriate planting methods Land clearing and preparation. Inter-crop cassava with beneficial crop

Adopt suitable land use plan.

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

# Sub-activity or Description of Mitigation Measures component Impact 2 Cassava cultivation: Deforestation Train farmers in tree crop establishment.

land clearing and Support farmers to develop their Inland Valley Swamps preparation. Encourage farmers to maximize their cultivation in low lands (Inland Valley Swamp, Boli Land etc)

Minimize farming activities on the up land.

Environmental Monitoring and Evaluation Tracking Table

Description of Monitoring Methods Responsible # Mitigation Estimated Cost Party Measure Indicators Methods Frequency 1 Training of Field Agent 1. # of farmers 1a. 1. At the end of Le 35, 200,000 farmers on Field Supervisor trained. Training report. training. improved farming M & E Officer 1b. methods. Field visit. Cropping 2. # of farmers reports. adopting improved Quarterly and techniques. annual reports. Annual report

2 Intercrop Field Agent 2. 2a. 1. At the end of Le 23,000,000 cassava with Field Quarterly and training. other crops Hectare of cassava annual reports. (beneficial) Supervisor farm inter cropped with M & E Officer beneficial crops. 2b: Cropping Field visit, reports.

Data analysis Annual report report.

EMP Budgeting Details:

Budget for training of farmers on improved farming methods: Trainers fees – 250,000 x 2 x 4days = Le 2,000,000 DSA (driver, participants, staff & trainers) = Le 1,250,000 Fuel = 20gallons x 12,500 = Le 250,000 Refreshment: = Le 1,800,000 Training materials – = Le 1,500,000 Transport refunds – 40 x 10,000 x 2days = Le 800,000 Total = Le 17,600,000 Total: 2 trainings per year = Le 35, 200,000

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

Budget on Inter-Cropping: Train farmers in cropping – 20 people x 100,000 = Le 10,000,000 Seedlings/seeds = Le 11,250,000 Transportation = Le 2,000,000.00 Total = Le 23,000,000

Week 2:

Water and Sanitation Field Visit 1) Objective: the purpose of the field trip was to identify CARE WATSAN activities and determine their potential environmental impact and develop an EMP. 2) Background Info –main livelihood activities are subsistence farming, vegetable gardening, petty trading and stone mining. This community was displaced during the civil war and resettled in 2006. The main source of drinking water before the intervention of CARE WATSAN project was an unprotected borehole pump. The objective of the project was to improve access to WATSAN facilities and sustained livelihood of returnees and local community. 3) Methodology - informal focus group discussion (women, men and youth), key informal interviews, informal meetings, observation/site visits. 4) Results / Findings a. Water well i. Positive finding (Good): 1. Well fenced using bush sticks with proper door lock. 2. Pulley system in place as remedial system when hand pump is faulty. 3. Specified and regulated water collection time. ii. Negative finding (Bad): 1. Shallow lining which allows spilling of water on the sides 2. Full soak-away with standing water. 3. Compost pit close to the well. 4. Intermittent supply of water during dries due to high demand. b. Toilet i. Positive finding (Good): 1. Availability of toilet facility. 2. Appropriate distances (house –Toilet) ii. Negative finding (Bad): 1. Broken Doors 2. No Vent 3. Uncovered drop holes 4. No hand washing Facilities 5. Dirty and bushy surroundings 5) Recommendations: a. Follow standard guideline on construction of wells and VIP latrines b. Refresher training on proper use of toilets and wells

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

Week 2: Water and Sanitation Field Visit – Environmental Management Plan – Identifying Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures

# Sub-activity or Description of Impact Mitigation Measures component 1 Construction of drain Shallow lining allows spillage which will Reconstruct the drainage. cause soil erosion. 2 Soak-away Standing water provides breeding sites Reconstruction of soak-away for mosquitoes

3 Compose pit close to the Provides breeding ground for flies, Relocation of compose pit well rodents that leads to water contamination 4 Shortage of water supply Leads community to fetch water from Re -dipping and use of additional unprotected sources. pipes 5 Vent pipes Lack of vent pipes causes air pollution Installation of vent pipes leading to the spread of air borne diseases 6 Proper door with locks Provides danger to children and animals. Repairs of doors Possibility of contamination of food and water. 7 Proper use of toilet Causes flies, and rodent to access pit Training communities on proper with feces that leads to food use of toilet. contamination. 8 Hand Washing Facilities Leads to spread of communicable (feco – Provision of hand washing facilities Oral) diseases on food stuff and and appropriate training on the household utensils. use

Environmental Monitoring and Evaluation Tracking Table

Description of Responsible Monitoring Methods # Estimated Cost Mitigation Measure Party Indicators Methods Frequency 1 Reconstruct the Contractor Drainage Field visit Weekly Le 1.4m drainage. reconstructed 2 Reconstruction of Community Soak-away Field visit Weekly Le 900,000 soak-away reconstructed 3 Relocation of Community Compose pit Field visit Weekly Le 290,000 compose pit relocated 4 Re -dipping and use Contractor Well Re -deepened Field visit Weekly Le 1.8m of additional pipes and pipe lengths increased

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

Description of Responsible Monitoring Methods # Mitigation Estimated Cost Party Measure Indicators Methods Frequency 5 Installation of vent Contractor vent pipes installed Field visit Weekly Le 577,500 pipes 6 Repairs of toilet Community Toilet doors repaired Field visit Weekly Le 1.8m doors 7 Training Community Training conducted for Field visit Weekly Le 409,500 communities on communities on proper proper use of use of toilet toilet. 8 Provision of hand Contractor Hand washing facilities Field visit Weekly Le 2.2m washing facilities provided and and appropriate appropriate training on training on the use the use

Budgeting Details for EMP (all costs are listed in Leones)

BUDGET FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF DRAINAGE SN ITEM DESCITION UNIT QTY UNIT COST FRY TOTAL COST 1 Cement Bag 5 35,000.00 1 175,000.00 2 Sand Trip 1 80,000.00 1 80,000.00 3 Stone Trip 1 90,000.00 1 90,000.00 4 Iron Rods 1/4" Psc 3 40,000.00 1 120,000.00 5 Binding Wire Roll 1 60,000.00 1 60,000.00 6 Board Psc 4 20,000.00 1 80,000.00 7 Nails Pks 2 3,000.00 1 6,000.00 8 shovel Psc 2 25,000.00 1 50,000.00 9 Headpan Psc 2 20,000.00 1 40,000.00 10 Pickaxe Psc 1 15,000.00 1 15,000.00 11 Contractile fee site 1 500,000.00 1 500,000.00 12 Unskilled labour Person 5 5,000.00 3 75,000.00 13 Fuel for coordination Gallon 10 12,500.00 1 125,000.00 TOTAL COST 1,416,000.00

BUDGET FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF SOAK AWAY SN ITEM DESCITION UNIT QTY UNIT COST FRY TOTAL COST 1 Stone Trip 1 90,000.00 1 90,000.00 2 shovel Psc 2 25,000.00 1 50,000.00 3 Headpan Psc 2 20,000.00 1 40,000.00 4 Pickaxe Psc 1 15,000.00 1 15,000.00 5 Contractile fee site 1 500,000.00 1 500,000.00

Unskilled labour(Community 6 Contribution) Person 5 5,000.00 3 75,000.00 7 Fuel for coordination Gallon 10 12,500.00 1 125,000.00

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

TOTAL COST 895,000.00

BUDGET FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF COMPOST PIT SN ITEM DESCITION UNIT QTY UNIT COST FRY TOTAL COST 1 Match/cutlass Psc 1 10,000.00 1 10,000.00 2 shovel Psc 2 25,000.00 1 50,000.00 3 Headpan Psc 2 20,000.00 1 40,000.00 4 Pickaxe Psc 1 15,000.00 1 15,000.00

Unskilled labour(Community 6 Contribution) Person 5 5,000.00 2 50,000.00 7 Fuel for coordination Gallon 10 12,500.00 1 125,000.00 TOTAL COST 290,000.00

BUDGET FOR RE-DEEPENING AND USE OF ADDITIONAL PIPES SN ITEM DESCITION UNIT QTY UNIT COST FRY TOTAL COST 1 Cement Bag 5 35,000.00 1 175,000.00 2 Sand Trip 1 80,000.00 1 80,000.00 3 Stone Trip 1 90,000.00 1 90,000.00 4 Iron Rods 1/4" Psc 3 40,000.00 1 120,000.00 5 Binding Wire Roll 1 60,000.00 1 60,000.00 6 Pipes Psc 1 100,000.00 1 100,000.00 7 Board Psc 4 20,000.00 1 80,000.00 8 Nails Pks 2 3,000.00 1 6,000.00 9 shovel Psc 2 25,000.00 1 50,000.00 10 Headpan Psc 2 20,000.00 1 40,000.00 11 Pickaxe Psc 1 15,000.00 1 15,000.00 12 Hiring Pump (hydratect) Day 2 150,000.00 1 300,000.00 13 Contractile fee site 1 500,000.00 1 500,000.00 14 Unskilled labour Person 5 5,000.00 3 75,000.00 15 Fuel for coordination Gallon 10 12,500.00 1 125,000.00 TOTAL COST 1,816,000.00

BUDGET FOR INSTALLATION OF VENT PIPE FOR 10 LATRINES SN ITEM DESCITION UNIT QTY UNIT COST FRY TOTAL COST 1 Cement Bag 3 35,000.00 1 105,000.00 2 4" PVC Pipes Psc 5 40,000.00 1 200,000.00 3 Cawl Psc 10 10,000.00 1 100,000.00 4 Solvent Tin 2 30,000.00 1 60,000.00 5 Contractile fee site 1 50,000.00 1 50,000.00 6 Fuel for coordination Gallon 5 12,500.00 1 62,500.00 TOTAL COST 577,500.00

BUDGET FOR REPAIRS OF DOORS FOR 10 LATRINES SN ITEM DESCITION UNIT QTY UNIT COST FRY TOTAL COST 1 Timber (2"x12"X14") Psc 20 20,000.00 1 400,000.00 2 Timber (1"x12"X14") Psc 30 20,000.00 1 600,000.00 3 Nails 3" Pks 20 3,000.00 1 60,000.00 4 Nails 4" Pks 10 3,000.00 1 30,000.00

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

5 Hinges Pairs 20 5,000.00 1 100,000.00 6 Tower Bolt Psc 20 5,000.00 1 100,000.00 7 Staple Psc 10 3,000.00 1 30,000.00 8 Wood Preservation (Dark) Gallon 3 40,000.00 1 120,000.00 9 Contractile fee site 10 30,000.00 1 300,000.00 10 Fuel for coordination Gallon 5 12,500.00 1 62,500.00 TOTAL COST 1,802,500.00

BUDGET FOR TRAINING COMMUNITIES ON PROPER USE OF TOILET SN ITEM DESCITION UNIT QTY UNIT COST FRY TOTAL COST 1 Flip Chart Psc 1 35,000.00 1 35,000.00 2 Marker Pks 1 18,000.00 1 18,000.00 3 Cello tape Roll 1 4,000.00 1 4,000.00 4 Reference Materials Person 20 2,000.00 1 40,000.00 5 Meal support Person 22 10,000.00 1 220,000.00 6 Facilitation Fee Person 1 30,000.00 1 30,000.00 7 Fuel for coordination Gallon 5 12,500.00 1 62,500.00 TOTAL COST 409,500.00

BUDGET FOR PROVISION OF HAND WASHING FACILITIES AND APPRPRIATE TRAINING ON USE SN ITEM DESCITION UNIT QTY UNIT COST FRY TOTAL COST 1 Cement Bag 30 35,000.00 1 1,050,000.00 2 Sand Trip 1 80,000.00 1 80,000.00 3 Stone Trip 1 90,000.00 1 90,000.00 4 Tap Head Psc 10 10,000.00 1 100,000.00 5 Thread Tap Roll 20 3,000.00 1 60,000.00 6 Solvent Tin 10 3,000.00 1 30,000.00 7 1" PVC Pipe Psc 1 30,000.00 1 30,000.00 8 Soap and Dish Psc 21 3,000.00 1 63,000.00 9 Hand Brush Psc 21 1,000.00 1 21,000.00 10 Towel Psc 21 4,000.00 1 84,000.00 11 Ruber Kettle Psc 20 8,000.00 1 160,000.00 12 Flip Chart Psc 1 35,000.00 1 35,000.00 13 Marker Pks 1 18,000.00 1 18,000.00 14 Cello tape Roll 1 4,000.00 1 4,000.00 15 Reference Materials Person 20 2,000.00 1 40,000.00 16 Meal support Person 22 10,000.00 1 220,000.00 17 Facilitation Fee Person 1 30,000.00 1 30,000.00 18 Fuel for coordination Gallon 5 12,500.00 1 62,500.00 TOTAL COST 2,177,500.00 4,967,000.00

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

Week 2: Fish Pond Field Visit 1) Objectives: to employ the tools and skills acquired from the environmental management training workshop, to analyze the impact and further produce an Environmental Management Plan. 2) Methodology: The group paid a courtesy call to community elders and seek permission to carry out site visit to the project area. Various techniques were used to gather information for analyzing the environmental impact of the project: focus group discussion, key informant interviews, observation, photography, and water sample collection. 3) Results / Findings: 1. Water supply is guaranteed through out the year 2. The ditches for the borrowed soil used in the construction are still left open 3. Bonds are not properly/regularly maintained 4. Part of proceeds of fish sold is used to support the construction of the community school 5. The source of the water for the swamp is also used for activities like cooking and drinking and is unprotected and gets contaminated when there is flooding. 6. There is cultivation around the catchments area. 7. Drainage between fish ponds offered habitat for mosquitoes and vipers and also impedes the flow of water 8. Vegetables are grown in the neighborhood utilizing the outlet of the fish pond 9. The sizes of catch continue to reduce 10. The large-space nets they use to harvest allows the escape of finger-lings 4) Recommendations: 1. Line bottom and sides of ponds, levees and canals with impervious materials to prevent seepage into surrounding soils and ground water 2. Construct and maintain storm-water bypasses around the area of the pond 3. Dig ponds deep enough to control weed growth 4. Plant vegetation on the surface of slopes 5. Maintain water quality with aeration, sustainable stocking rate and controlled feeding rate. 6. Ensure that species of fish used for stocking is the fast growing type. 7. Pond rehabilitation after every harvest. 8. Alternate fresh water ponds where possible and allow ponds to dry out, lie fallow or grow a crop to reduce the need for sludge and nutrient removal. 9. Training for fish pond committee on environmental management is highly recommended.

Week 2: Fish Pond Field Visit – Environmental Management Plan – Identifying Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures Sub-activity or Description of Impact Mitigation Measures component Land Clearing Excavation will lead to soil erosion Excavating and stabilizing the Excavation Bond and water pollution down stream bonds sequentially and not leaving Construction Death trap to human live and the soil loose. fixing of valves livestock Find appropriate material from a Flooding/filling Breeding ground for mosquitos hill side to backfill the hole Stocking which increases causes of malaria

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

Environmental Monitoring and Evaluation Tracking Table

Description of Responsible Monitoring Methods Estimated # Mitigation Measure Party Cost Indicators Methods Frequency 1 Excavating and M&E Officer Time interval Field Visits 2 $1000 stabilizing the bonds between sequentially and not excavation and leaving the soil loose. stabilization

Find appropriate % of ditches material from a hill side backfill during to backfill the hole and after pond construction

Week 2: Agriculture Field Visit: 1) Objectives : the environmental assessment field visit exercise focused on the activities of cassava and vegetable crop cultivation in Makare; the emphasis was on analyzing environmental impacts and developing an EMP. 2) Project Background Information: The project’s objective is to reduce food insecurity in vulnerable populations by contributing to the reduction of national level risks and addressing the needs of the chronically food insecure and highly vulnerable. Through farming this project also provides youth with marketable products and skills combining community development with establishing small businesses. The goal of the youth in agriculture project is to promote an integrated community development through fostering sustainable agriculture and economic growth. 3) Methodology: transect walk, face-face interview of key informants; observation, photographs, and collection of water samples. 4) Results / Findings: 1. Good Practices: a) The plant population per plot is set to a standard and the space between the plants is adequate which helps the soil to recoup faster and allow for air circulation and efficient nutrient use. b) Mixed cropping was done for the vegetable food crop in the IVS farm/garden. This also helps the refixing of nutrients. c) Hand picking methods of pest control 5) Recommendations: a) There is serious concern for the community practice of slash and burn agriculture. The practice without the use of belts can pose danger to the air, water, soil and flora and fauna significantly. This practice should be abolished. Training on eliminating and alternatives to this practice should be implemented.

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

b) Since project activities include the economic development facilitation of access to markets, the needed road rehabilitation aspects should be carefully monitored to avoid its environmental damages. c) As dependence on fuelwood is high, deforestation is a potential threat to the continued existence of the forests. It is advised that training is implemented with communities on the harm caused by fuelwood use, alternatives should be recommended.

Week 2: Agriculture Field Visit – Environmental Management Plan – Identifying Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures

# Sub-activity/ Description of Impact Mitigation Measures component 1 Site selection This activity has no major known No need for measures environmental impact 2 Brushing Leads to decrease in wild plant and Use ecoagricultural techniques (eg. Intercropping) animal species -revegetate areas around fields to create habitat 3 Burning -loss of soil nutrients Soil microbes and NFT (early cropping), cover -erosion crops -mild water pollution -training on harmful effects of slash and burn -mild carbon emission practices and best practices 4 Clearing Exposure to termite pest Leave some logs on farm -erosion Conduct training on harmful effects of mass clearing 5 Digging/heap Destroys soil structure exposing it to -use of compost manure making erosion -train in improved ridging

6 Harrowing Destroys soil structure exposing it to -use of compost manure erosion -train in improved ridging 7 Planting No adverse impact None 8 Watering -excavation leads to stagnation of -fencing around wells water, and mosquito breeding -alternative irrigation methods -unprotected pits pose danger to children

9 Pest control Danger of causing human harm due Train/sensitise in traditional / indigenous methods to use of chemicals of pest control

10 Farm-market Potential for ongoing rehabilitation Train project/community participants in the design road work on the feeder road to cause and construction of road drainages and culverts rehabilitation drainage blockage, flooding and activities downstream water pollution.

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

Environmental Monitoring and Evaluation Tracking Table

Description of Monitoring Methods Estimated # Mitigation Responsible Party Cost Measure Indicators Methods Frequency 1 -Intercropping Agric supervisor -# of acreage that have at Observe: Once $2,500 -revegetate areas least 3 legumes (or other count annually (See budget around fields to crops) in the midst of the for details) create habitat main crop -# of acreage with Site visit- Six monthly ongoing revegetation Count activities around fields 2 Soil microbes Agric supervisor -# of acreage covered Field Report Once at $3,500 and NFT (early with NF trees. review start cropping), cover -# of farmers (targeted) Survey- crops practicing NFT planting in Measure Once at end their farms 3 -Leave some logs Agric supervisor # of hectare covered with Observe- Once at $2,000 on farm logs count start

-Conduct training CCF /MUNAFA # of farmers leaving logs Site visit- Once at on harmful on their farms count start effects of mass clearing -# of farmers trained on Review Once after effects of mass clearing Training training report

4 Train/sensitise in CCF /MUNAFA -no. of farmers trained Training Twice $2,000 traditional / Project manager -no. of less harmful report annually indigenous practices farmers accept review methods of pest control Interview of Six monthly farmers

5 - Train Agric supervisor # of farmers Training Once $1,600 project/commun /stakeholders trained in report annually at ity participants in proper road maintenance review - end of the design and CCF /MUNAFA Count training construction of road drainages and culverts

Budgeting Details of EMP:

BUDGET - MONITORING AND PROVISION FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MITGATION Unit % to No cost Freq project Total(USD) Salaries and Benefits

CCF M&E manager 1 2,000 12 15% 3,600

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

Project M&E coordinator 1 500 12 25% 1,500

Monitoring visits 1 200 8 100% 1,600

Monitoring visits- indicator measurements tools/kits 1 1,000 1 100% 1,000

Total Salaries 6,700

Workshops/Training/Supplies

Train community members in best practices in environment per diem and allowances 50 10 1 100% 500 hall fee 1 50 1 100% 50 fuel 1 200 1 100% 200 vehicle maintenance 1 300 1 50% 150 facilitator's fees 1 500 2 100% 1,000 stationary 1 100 1 100% 100

2,000

Conduct training on harmful effects of mass clearing per diem and allowances 50 10 1 100% 500 hall fee 1 50 1 100% 50 fuel 1 200 1 100% 200 vehicle maintenance 1 300 1 50% 150 facilitator’s fees 1 500 2 100% 1,000 stationary 1 100 1 100% 100

2,000

Train/sensitize in traditional / indigenous methods of pest control per diem and allowances 50 10 1 100% 500 hall fee 1 50 1 100% 50 fuel 1 200 1 100% 200 vehicle maintenance 1 300 1 50% 150 facilitator’s fees 1 500 2 100% 1,000

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

stationary 1 100 1 100% 100 2,000

Train project/community participants in the design and construction of road drainages and culverts per diem and allowances 50 10 1 100% 500 hall fee 1 50 1 100% 50 fuel 1 200 1 100% 200 vehicle maintenance 1 300 1 50% 150 facilitator’s fees 1 300 2 100% 600 stationary 1 100 1 100% 100

1,600

Intercropping & revegetate areas around fields to create habitat facilitator's training fees 1 500 1 100% 500 supplies- (nursery etc) 1 1,000 2 100% 2,000

2,500

Soil microbes and NFT (early cropping), cover crops 130 1 100% - facilitator’s training fees 1 1,500 1 100% 1,500 supplies- (nursery etc) 1 1,000 2 100% 2,000

3,500

GRAND TOTAL 20,300

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

SESSION 9 (WEEK 1), SESSION 12 (WEEK 2): NEW USAID FOOD FOR PEACE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY: ENVIRONMENTAL CAPABILITY STATEMENT (ECS)

Objective: Present new ECS policy and how it relates to initial proposal submission.

Presenters: Week 1 – Erika Clesceri, USAID/DCHA BEO Week 2 – Scott Solberg, SMIC

Summary: 1) Instead of submitting an IEE with an initial MYAP proposal, organizations now have to submit what is known as the Environmental Capability Statement (ECS). If your organization is selected, then you must develop and secure USAID clearance of IEE prior to funding. 2) The overall goal of the ECS is for organizations to present their approach to achieving environmental compliance and management. In addition it should show that the organization has necessary environmental management expertise, including examples of past experience of environmental management of similar activities. Lastly, the ECS should be as concise as possible and needs to include anticipated costs for implementing and monitoring environmental compliance activities in the budget. 3) The IEE is then submitted after the initial MYAP proposal is submitted. This is to make it more efficient for organizations in the initial proposal stage.

Additional Resources:

• Food For Peace (FFP) Environmental Website – www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/environment • Food For Peace (FFP) Environmental Policy – “Annex D FY09 Title II Environmental Review and Compliance August 2008” – http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/annexd_erc.doc

SESSION 10 (WEEK 1), SESSION 9 (WEEK 2): USAID PESTICIDE PROCEDURES

Objective: Review PERSUAP and other USAID pesticides procedures and examples of best practices.

Presenters: Week 1 and 2: Dr. John Azu, SMIC

Summary:

Under USAID Pesticide Policy, pesticide use is considered a last resort. Instead, Integrated Pest Management (IPM) should be used whenever possible, this includes using biological controls, traps, and better cultural practices such as crop rotation and improved soil management techniques.

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

USAID Regulation 216 helps to ensure that proper environmental regulations are being used in countries that do not have strict environmental laws or enforcement of them. As part of this, a tool known as the PERSUAP, Pesticide Evaluation Report – Safer Use Action Plan, is used to help ensure environmental compliance, mitigate environmental impacts, and properly manage the risk of using pesticides in cases where they will be “used” or “supplied.” All proposed projects which involve procurement or use of pesticides must complete an IEE as well as a PERSUAP.

At USAID, “pesticide use” is broadly interpreted as “procurement, transportation, storage, mixing, loading, application, and disposal” and/or “technical assistance in pesticides application.” “Pesticide supply” is broadly interpreted as “not only direct purchases but also: special payments, donations, free samples, and other forms of subsidies; credit provisions to beneficiaries - or a guarantee of this credit to banks or other credit providers – for pesticides purchase.”

A PERSUAP shows us all of our pest management choices and which ones will be used in order to reduce negative impacts. The twelve topics that should be researched for developing a PERSUAP are: a. US Environmental Protection Agency and host country registration status of requested pesticide. b. Basis for Selection of pesticide, including active ingredient, efficacy, price, availability, safety, formulation, and packaging. c. Extent of use of pesticide w/in IPM Program d. Proposed method of application and safety equipment e. Toxicological hazards (human and environmental) and measures available to minimize them. f. Effectiveness of pesticide for its proposed use g. Compatibility w/ target (pest) and non-target (i.e. bees) species h. Conditions under which used (flora, fauna, hydrology) i. Availability and effectiveness of non-chemical control methods j. Host country ability to control (distribution, storage, use, & disposal) the pesticide k. Provision for training of users and applicators l. Provisions for monitoring the use & effectiveness of the pesticide

The Safer Use Action Plan (SUAP) should assure accessibility of protective clothing and equipment; provide training on handling, use, storage, and disposal at all levels; provide translation into local languages and use picture cues in training; and integrate mitigation measures.

Questions / Comments / Responses:

If pests are not creating any real economic trouble, then it may not truly be necessary to use pesticides.

We know the diseases, pests, and possible herbicides and pesticides to use; however this is not enough to effectively and safely manage pesticide use. Such things as literacy issues play a huge role in the safety of pesticides. Being able to effectively communicate with community members (especially if they are illiterate – ie. a field tool such as a flipchart, etc) regarding pesticide dangers is essential to the effectiveness of the PERSUAP.

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

Am I allowed to import pesticides from Nigeria using USAID funding? a. You cannot import directly if a pesticide you want is not available in the host country, you need to look for alternatives that are in country.

In Sierra Leone, the new EPA exists (Environmental Protection Agency), they now have the power to prosecute and hold people accountable for actions.

SESSION 11 (WEEK1), SESSION 10 (WEEK 2): KEY CONCEPTS REVIEW – PARKING LOT SESSION

Objective: Emphasize key concepts presented during the workshop as well as address any questions or unresolved issues.

Presenters: Week 1: Dr. John Azu, SMIC Week 2: Dr. John Azu, SMIC; Scott Solberg, SMIC

Summary:

In this session, participants and facilitators discussed questions that had come up during the workshop and made any further clarifications that were needed.

Key Points Discussed: 1) Deforestation is paramount to the devastation of Sierra Leone’s natural resources. Charcoal production causes deforestation of certain kinds of trees and they are not being replanted. Timber production targets other types of trees. To combat this there is little or no reforestation. 2) A significant percentage of people rely on fuel-wood in Sierra Leone. Charcoal is a luxury. 3) Logging is a commercial business, there are regulations regarding logging, however they law is not enforced. The tax system needs to be fortified as a means of controlling such deforestation. 4) John Azu - who writes in the newspapers? Do any of you write about environmental issues in the newspapers? If you all begin writing in the papers and putting photos in them, people will learn. This could be a problem though because 80% of people cannot read or do not have access to newspapers. 5) Biological controls in agriculture – using crickets as fertilizer is an option, but it is a long and difficult process to undertake – could present community buy-in issues. 6) Cassava production – the timing of the planting is integral to yield. In addition, depending upon when planting occurs other time can be dedicated to planting other crops. 7) Supposedly, charcoal placed on top of plants can act as a pesticide to reduce the occurrence of pests destroying crop yields. a. What is the timetable for doing such an activity? How does this affect the yield? b. Carbon in the humus is directly related to soil productivity. 8) Are there any NGOs that are policy advocates here in Sierra Leone? NO. 9) CARE has a component called NSES that may be involved in policy advocacy.

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

10) Ministries are supposed to ensure that what is said is actually done. Ministries generally hold forums to discuss issues. The Ministry of Health for instance has health forums where policies are discussed. In these forums, NGOs are able to verify whether or not they are following policy and bring up other issues that they are facing in Sierra Leone. It seems a little unclear as to how easy it is for NGOs to be able to inform themselves of new policy change. 11) For NGOs, when they invite civil society organizations to these forums they help to uncover more useful information. However, cost is a factor in inviting civil society orgs to such forums. Individual organizations have the capacity to bring civil society organizations into these issues; however, again cost is a factor. 12) What is the difference between and EIA and EMP? a. An EIA is the assessment that is done to thoroughly assess impacts and come up with mitigation measures, monitoring, an environmental management plan, contingency plan, etc… b. An EMP can be considered a part of the EIA – it described the mitigation methods, indicators, and budgeting for such actions in depth. 13) Screening helps us to assess environmental risk. 14) The use of charcoal is on the increase in Sierra Leone - forests are getting thinner and deforestation is on the rise. a. What is the technical difference between using charcoal and firewood? There is a shift from firewood to charcoal. Charcoal provides longer burn and more energy supposedly. b. What is the root problem causing this? i. People don’t have alternative livelihoods

SESSION 11 (WEEK 2): RAPID ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (REA)

Objective: Present methodology and the use of rapid environmental assessments (REAs).

Presenter : Scott Solberg, SMIC

Summary and Key Points:

The REA is a tool to use in disaster situations to assess environmental impacts of disaster situations and potential impacts of relief activities. With the results of the analysis, it is easier to mitigate potential impacts and ensure that disaster relief activities do not exacerbate any existing negative environmental conditions or cause new ones.

Disasters can and often do result in negative environmental impacts and existing environmental conditions often exacerbate them. When responding to disasters, something that is often overlooked is that relief aid can have positive or negative environmental impacts, depending on intervention design.

An REA is a tool to identify, define, and prioritize potential environmental impacts in disaster situations. More specifically, it is designed to be used in natural, technological, or political

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009 disasters to examine the direct and indirect effects of disasters and the environment. This helps to better understand potential costs of ignorance of environmental impacts of disaster response and facilitates to incorporation of “good practices” into designing environmentally-sound disaster responses.

How is an REA different from Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)?

EIA REA • Designed For Development • Designed For Immediate Projects Emergency Response • Evaluation of potential ENV • Evaluation of potential ENV impacts impacts • Developed in response to legal • Developed in response to mandate, negligent pesticide perceived need, NOT legal use (1970s) mandate • Required for all USAID • NOT Required by USAID or Projects & FFP EMER > 1 Year Other Donors • Sustainability is Priority • Priority: Lives > Welfare > ENV • Intended to be Comprehensive • Timing >>> Perfection • Still Often Underutilized • Approach Far Underutilized

The REA methodology is based on modules, each with specific tasks focused on: (1) disaster context, (2) disaster-related factors which may have an immediate environmental impact, (3) nature and scope of environmental impacts of disaster, (4) unmet basic needs of disaster survivors that could produce adverse impacts on the environment, and (5) negative environmental impacts of relief efforts.

The relevance of the REA to food security/development programs is enlightening since disaster situations shed light on critical social, economic and environmental issues. In addition, the REA provides baseline information on these issues and informs actions to help beneficiary populations recover more quickly. This also helps ensure good planning so that relief efforts don’t cause “problems that development will have to fix.” Lastly, conducting an REA highlights the need to build resilience and disaster mitigation efforts into development programs.

The main benefits of conducting an REA in disaster situations is that it enables for faster and more coordinated response efforts while aiding to prevent future environmental and economic problems that could result from such efforts. The findings of an REA can also help to shed light on disaster mitigation efforts that need to be built into development plans.

Questions / Comments / Responses: 1) When you do an environmental assessment in a disaster situation, your number one priority is to save lives. We need to look at downstream effects. In terms of scope, how do you define your scope?

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

a. You can’t just give one blanket answer, that’s why you need a small interdisciplinary team to assess the situation – then you can better assess the scope from out in the field.

Additional Resources:

1. Kelly C. Guidelines for Rapid Environmental Impact Assessment in Disasters. Benfield Hazard Research Center, University College London and CARE International. April 2005. 2. A Comparison of IEE to Rapid Environmental Assessment for Disasters. Erika J. Clesceri USAID/DCHA/FFP. 3. www.usaid.gov 4. http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/disaster_assistance/publicatio ns/prep_mit/

SESSION 12 (WEEK 1): USAID PARTNERS PANEL – LESSONS LEARNED IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF PROJECTS

Objective: Present group methodologies and discuss solutions to mitigation and monitoring issues in

Sierra Leone development programs. Present lessons learned and recommendations from USAID partners. Answer participants’ questions through a panel of mitigation and monitoring experts.

Presenters: Ambrose Ngaojia, CARE; Julia Roberts, Africare; Musa Sanu Konteh, CCF/Munafa M’Patie Federation; Dr. Tom Roberts, WVI

Summary and Key Themes:

In this session workshop participants discussed challenges in mitigation, monitoring and evaluation of development programs. Participants were able to learn from each other’s points of view and experiences.

Challenges in Monitoring and Evaluation 1) WATSAN – Communities are still going to their old ways although Community Health Clubs have been formed. This complicates the M&E of the program. a. They must understand the ultimate goal of the program so that they will go along with the program implementers 2) Community-based Planning, Implementation and M&E is a good model to follow. 3) The basics in monitoring are there from design to implementation. The communities must be involved in all these phases so that they become aware of the implications of their non- compliance not only from the M&E standpoint but also in improving their livelihood through health maintenance. There is a need for active participation of the community. 4) There should be strengthened integrated (multi-sector) collaboration among CORAD partners doing different things in the same area or community. 5) Investing in the community leadership will help ensure accountability and create good partnerships at the local level.

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

6) Do communities understand the complexity of development situations and how they affect their livelihood or socio-economic situation? Tying the environmental impact to the industry value chain could be helpful. This approach allows everyone to understand the extent of the loss that accrues to them as a people for not doing the right thing. Success of every participant in the chain ensures the survival of the industry. That is why the value- chain approaches that show the interrelationships among various participants of every industry very important. 7) Using the powerful tool of the media to show the communities their situation as compared with other successful communities could give them a comparative analysis in order to encourage people to get involved in environmental management and to take actions. 8) How do we ensure that the environmental management practices that have been put in place will continue and remain sustainable? One way to do this is to encourage local NGOs to be engaged with the International NGOs so that when the International NGOs leave, the local groups could help maintain the programs and continue to monitor and improve on performance. 9) NGOs should not see the communities as theirs. All NGOs are there to help the people and we must stop the practice of saying this is a CARE group or this community belong to us and others cannot operate from there. We must learn to work together and also strive to work through existing structures so that monitoring will be uniform and we will get the participation of the communities while ensuring sustainability. 10) We should harmonize systems and collaborate. It should be the communities that should own the programs. In this case, we will get the communities benefiting from the synergies arising from our corporate involvement. 11) We must strive to learn from other organizations in order to benefit from the lessons that others have generated. 12) Highlight: Dr. Erica Clesceri (USAID/DCHA BEO) – The USAID Haiti Environmental Vulnerability Report should be made available as a follow-up to this workshop. There could be lessons and similarities to the situation in Sierra Leone.

SESSION 13: ACTION PLANS BY ORGANIZATION AND INTER-ORGANIZATIONAL PRIORITIES

Objective: Form plans to continue strengthening environmental capacities within and among organizations. Emphasize organizational action plans, program by program.

Facilitators: Scott Solberg, SMIC; Dr. John Azu, SMIC

Summary:

In this session, organizations discussed and briefly presented ideas on how they plan on incorporating environmental management into their organizational frameworks.

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

CARE Action Plan

Activity Tasks Period Expected Responsible Results / Indicators Training 1. Training of CARE partner staff July-September 1.Increased knowledge APMs 2. Training of other CARE staff 09 of environmental 3. Training of district council stake management and holders. planning 4. Training of community groups 2.Training Report

Information 1. Secure email addresses of staff of April-June Increase awareness on APMs IT networking other organizations and share. environmental issues coordinator 2. Filing of environmental Publication in resource centre. 3. Share information though CARE portals 4. Article on environmental issues in the health bulletin of CARE – S/L Mainstream 1. Future Proposal development. FY 10 Future programs with ACD Program environmental environmental management management consideration components into future program

CCF Action Plan CCF will implement the IEE into their framework to be conducted in every project, they plan on doing so by the end of the month. The results of the IEEs will allow them to develop and integrate EMPs by July 2009. EMPs will be developed for each program. By Sept. 20 th , they will try to share the plan with all staff. CCF will train program and M&E staff on EMP framework. In addition, they will engage Ministries as much as possible in project design and management.

ACTIVITY TASKS PERIOD EXPECTED RESPONSIBLE RESULTS/INDICATORS Training in • Step down Training on • Half • No. of Management, • CCF Regional main Environmental Management yearly technical, field Staff and Managers streaming Plan for the following communities trained on persons (Management, EMP technical, field Staff and communities)

• Training on budgeting for • Half • No. of Management, • CCF Regional the following persons yearly technical, field Staff on Managers (Management, technical, budgeting and field Staff) • No. of trainings conduced • CCF Regional • Training on Monitoring • Half for Management, Managers (Management, technical, yearly technical, field Staff and field Staff and communities) communities

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

Planning • Departmental meetings • Monthly • No. of departmental • CCF Regional meetings held. Managers

• Meeting with communities • Quarterly • No. of meeting with • CCF Regional communities held. Managers

• Review of programmes • Half • No. of review of • CCF Regional yearly programmes held. Managers

• Preparation of project • Yearly • No. of preparation of • Federation designs. project designs Program conducted. Managers.

Networking • Inter-Agency meetings • Quarterly • No.. of Inter-Agency • CCF Regional (External) meetings held. Managers

• Exchange visits • Quarterly • No.. of exchange visits • CCF Regional conducted. Managers

• Advocacy • Yearly • No. of projects funded • CCF NO

World Vision Action Plan World Vision Sierra Leone will try to coordinate with other organizations and ministries in projects during all stages. They would also like to incorporate capacity building for program staff and communities on environmental management. World Vision would also like to train all employees on the EMP framework. Lastly, they will work to incorporate environmental management indicators into their projects.

Activity Task Period Expected Responsible Results/indicators Planning Sessions: 1. Brief the MQ/OL 23 rd – 27 th March All members of the MQ Paul /Koi To discuss teams on the lessons 2009 team aware of the lessons mainstreaming of learned from the EM learned from the environmental issues Workshop. workshop into existing DME processes. 2. MQ team to Design tool kit reflects incorporate relevant environmental Royston Wright environmental issues March – September issues. into the design tool 2009 kit. 3. Brief SMT on EM. Training of staff on NO and Base level Ongoing -No. of staff trained Paul/Koi environmental training sessions to -% of staff who can management provide for articulate environmental environmental issues management -Increased environmental awareness raising. capacity in the organization

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

Review existing Existing project and Ongoing New and Redesigned MQ Team Leader. programming with an programme reviews projects have a sound environmental lens to also focus EMP. . environmental management issues.

Africare Action Plan a. Will establish an interagency task force. b. Engage communities in EMPs by organizing meetings, focus groups, and action plans on a monthly basis – this will raise awareness of environmental management. c. Develop an outreach through radios and writing in newspapers to educate. d. Engage local government in environmental issues – to be done on a quarterly basis. e. Incorporate environmental issues into sound project design. This will help improve project effect and monitoring of them as well. f. Build staff capacity in M&E – staff needs assessment, training.

Activity Tasks Period Expected Result / Indicator Reponsible

Train other staff Capacity building of staff April # of program staff trained on Trainers (M&E, (internal) in environmenatal issues environmental issues Health, Agriculture) Program Planning Planning Meeting May # of quarterly plans reflecting M&E, Finance, (internal) Preparation of budget environmental monitoring plan Program, Admin Develop Agenda

Strengthen M&E Recruitment of M&E April # of M&E enumerators recruited Admin Assistant Unit (internal) enumerators Internal Agency Inter-agency meetings Monthly # partner agencies sensitized on Project collaboration at environmental issues supervisors & district level M&E

Sensitization of Conduct, monthly, Monthly # project beneficiaries sensitized Field Staff beneficiaries / meetings at chiefdom stakeholders level in program operation

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

CRS Action Plan g. Set up EMP system committee h. Organize integration plan to integrate i. Build capacity of staff on use of M&E tools – identify best practices, training materials, and train. j. Collaborate and coordinate with other local and other NGOs – host meetings and share information. k. Set up system to improve community ownership of programs themselves

Activity Task Period Expected Responsible Results/indicators Carry out step- • Train staff at all • Between Increased knowledge of APM/ Agric down training levels. June & Sept staff in the importance on ENCAP • Train communities, of environmental DC and partners. issues. Incorporate • Should be included • by • Capacity HOP & PMs Environmental in new project November statement Monitoring in design. 2009 incorporated in budget • Incorporate into project design. planning existing projects. • July to • EMP/tracking August table developed.

Play an • Review/improve • Within the • Existing bylaws AM advocacy role existing bylaws. next 6 improved/existed in • Guide/Facilitate months . AO Communities- the development after staff • Bylaws in formulating of bylaws for the training. developed. bylaws that will protection of the protect the environment environment Net working • Facilitate • September • Coordination AM /AOs coordination 2009 meetings meetings with DCs, instituted partners & the communities.

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

SESSION 14: DIRECTOR’S PANEL – ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION OF STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES IN SIERRA LEONE: OBSTACLES AND SOLUTIONS TO PROGRAMMING CHALLENGES.

What can USAID, NGOs and contractors do to mainstream environmental mitigation and monitoring within food security programs?

Objective: Exchange ideas, opportunities and challenges on environmental management o f development programs in Sierra Leone. Question and answer session between directors and workshop participants as well as an exploration of inter-agency solutions to common problems.

Panelists: Week 1: Brian Larson, CARE; Tom Roberts, World Vision; Daniel Kaindaneh, CCF; Mohammed Conteh, Africare; Erika Clesceri, USAID/DCHA BEO.

Week 2: Myles Harrison, World Vision; Lindsay Kennedy, US Embassy/Sierra Leone; Robert Delve, CRS Kenya; Paul Mckee, CRS Sierra Leone

Summary:

In this session panelists shared ideas on strategic environmental issues relevant to development programs in Sierra Leone and Kenya. Panelists and participants brainstormed how to best mainstream environmental management into food security programs. Key Topics:

Week 1 Notes: 1) Brian (CARE) - We are putting out a technical solution for environmental problems that are much bigger than technical problems. We all have high expectations and visions for the future, but how do we find these solutions that will take time? We need to put away technical solutions sometimes and think where are we going to change this within our organization? Who do we need to go to? How de we better integrate all of the different departments within our own organizations when it comes to implementation of EMPs and monitoring and evaluation. We need to have dialogue on these issues. This is a process of changes, not just one quick fix. 2) Daniel (CCF) – sponsorship consortium provides an outlet for exchange between organizations. We can better utilize this to gain a better understanding of where to start. 3) Mohammed (Africare) – when he first started at Africare, he looked at the IEE and realized that none of his staff knew anything about it. This training has been a great way for Africare staff to learn how to implement the IEE and EMP framework. Apart from this - here in Sierra Leone, policy cannot just be written, it also has to be enforced. In the 1990s there was more coordination with ministries, but since the war there has been less. 4) Erika – we need to be continuously involved in environmental policy implementation. This requires constant vigilance. The best way to implement change is to change your organizations own internal policies. We all need to look for opportunities – for instance, Food for Peace has a new environmental policy, this creates new opportunities – the implementation of submitting an environmental capability statement instead of an IEE in

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

the first round of application will streamline the process for FFP project funding. In your budgets, you need to incorporate mitigation measures and monitoring so that you will ensure sound project design and have a better chance of receiving funding as well. In order to implement change within your organizations, you need to find people within departments who are supporters of incorporating EMP ideas and framework and get them on board first. 5) What will the ECS do to proposal submission and likelihood of project funding? What if we submit an IEE with the initial proposal? a. Proposals are read by many people in a democratic process. If you begin the IEE before project funding approval, then you need to assess whether that is an efficient thing to do. 6) In the context of Sierra Leone, the USAID Mission is funded through DAG funds. Hence, not every IEE will have to go through DCHA since the funding source is different.

Questions / Comments / Responses: 1) Largely, the issues presented are technical in nature. On an organizational level, this is a great forum for technical ideas to flourish; we have the organizational foundations, but we just need to work the technical information into them. 2) Brian – we have to be prepared to be frustrated with this process of change – mainstreaming anything takes time. 3) Tom – co-management is a growing concept, we should bring environmental management into the co-management framework. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. We just need to think how can we tie all of this with the co-management framework? 4) There are ongoing discussions in the consortium and the way it works in implementing projects. Will it continue to work together in the future? It is possible that outside organizations will begin to take a role in coordinating with the consortium or becoming a part of it. In the past NGOs thought of themselves as rivals, now that approach is changing and they are taking more of the teamwork approach. 5) Last month, CCF and other partner organizations decided to form a task force on teenage pregnancy, they did so without asking for another cent to do so. This initiative led to a forum being held on the topic and further education with communities. 6) Without collaboration, any good that is done could be undone. Good partnerships are formed out of collaboration.

Week 2 Notes: 1) If you don’t protect what you have, then in the future the environmental degradation will take hold and impact the livelihoods of the people. What do we do to ensure that change occurs? We don’t want to take on so much that nothing gets done. 2) How can networking help us to combat environmental degradation and subsequent household livelihoods? a. Since multiple organizations came here, you can network and combine your skills and new knowledge to follow-up and improve upon organizational planning and actions on intra and inter levels. 3) If we are going to have networking, let it be for concrete reasons and practical solutions, many networking meetings result in little. Sometimes we are very accountable with our money, but not with our time. Let’s use our time wisely.

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

4) We need to really get communities on board for proper environmental management. One of the key ways to do so is to explain to communities that good environmental practices will benefit them economically. Without effective community buy-in and knowledge of the issues that we are talking about, then the projects loose their sustainability.

Questions / Comments / Responses: 1) Making people understand the economics behind environmentalism is key. 2) How do you discuss environmental issues with communities? How do we motivate them to take action? 3) In the CORAD projects – the communities thank CORAD for teaching them about such things as proper hygiene and other benefits that they are receiving from project implementation. 4) One other area where we need to pay more attention is the areas of danger and risk. We need to inform communities of the dangers and risks of their community development activities on their livelihoods. 5) We need to get out of our normal programming mode and change our mindsets when we implement these changes.

D. WORKSHOP FINAL EVALUATION - WORKSHOP QUALITATIVE EVALUATION

At the end of the workshops participants completed an evaluation form where presentations and overall quality of the workshop were graded on a scale from 1-5. The evaluation forms also invited participants to share what they enjoyed about the workshop and any improvements that could be made.

Most of the participants commented that the course utilized an effective and innovative methodology and that the approach to the main topics was interesting, in addition, they enjoyed the participatory nature of the sessions. They said that during the sessions, the information provided had an appropriate technical level. The participants have acquired essential knowledge and the topics they were already familiar with were clarified.

Participants considered themselves to be better prepared and stated that the tools they acquired are useful for the process of developing environmental management plans. However, it is necessary to continue learning and sharing information between colleagues and communicate lessons learned.

The most common criticism of the workshop was that it could have been longer as there was a lot of material covered in five days. A few participants also stated that more time in the field would have been better. However, the field trip was evaluated as one of the most useful learning tools because participants were able to apply concepts addressed during the workshop to field analysis as well as exchange ideas with colleagues from different organizations.

Overall, participants were satisfied with the workshop and with the knowledge they acquired.

Sample comments from evaluations: “The workshop enabled me to know USAID regulation 216 and how it works.”

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

“Very useful and relevant to my daily program activities.” “It was excellent, some theory sessions were long and more time would have been good in the field.” “The workshop was very satisfactory, educational, and informative.” “[The workshop] has made environmental (IEE) work easier for me and also equipped me with the skills to monitor.” “Workshop was very well organized.” “Very much participatory” “The workshop was very educational and challenging to all NGOs present. The way forward depends on us. Thanks.”

WORKSHOP QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION

In the following matrix, we show up the average rankings from evaluations carried out by the participants on a scale of 1-5, regarding the presentations and other activities of workshop.

General Evaluation of Logistics and Organization Total

Overall satisfaction with the workshop – week 1 4.80 Overall satisfaction with the workshop – week 2 4.5

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

ANNEX 1: Participant Lists

Week 1 Participant List: Final Participant List Workshops on Environmental Management for Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post-Conflict Sierra Leone MARCH 9TH - 13TH, 2009

# Name Organization Telephone Office/Cell Email 1 Jim Dean ACDI VOCA / PAGE 076-611-313 [email protected] 2 Amara B. Mansaray Africare 076-655-428 [email protected] 3 Simeon S. Jambawai Africare 076-792-829 [email protected] 4 Julia Roberts Africare 076-864-952 [email protected] 5 Ahmed Sombie Africare 076-891-130 6 Mohammed Conteh Africare 076-464-180 [email protected] 7 James B. Kemoh Africare 076-902-953 / 077-287-812 8 Ambrose S.R. Ngaojia CARE 078-340-506 / 077-234-822 [email protected] 9 Michael B. Turay CARE 076-705-573 mike [email protected] 10 Brian Larson CARE 22-234-337 / 076-672-193 [email protected] 11 Umaro S. Kamara CARE / MADAM 076-887-841 [email protected] 12 Joseph Komeh CARE / MADAM 076-223-525 / 077-254-402 [email protected] 13 Ibrahim M Sillah CARE / RODA 076-684-480 [email protected] 14 Augustine Bockarie CARE / RODA 076-522-618 [email protected] 15 Musa Sesay CCF 076-763-063 / 077-433-624 [email protected] 16 Samuel A. Mason CCF 076-637-185 [email protected]

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

17 Bai S. Dawo CCF 076 077-609-066 [email protected] 18 Daniel Kaindaneh CCF 22-236-206 / 076-651-597 [email protected] 19 Sallieu K. Sesay CCF / Daindemben Federation 076-757-341 / 077-260-077 [email protected] 20 Lansana C. Marah CCF / Daindemben Federation 076-911-182 [email protected] 21 Musa Sanu Konteh CCF / Munafa - M'Patie Federation 076-740-469 [email protected] 22 Abie Tholley CCF / Munafa M'Patie 076-661-602 [email protected] 23 Anthony A. Foday CRS 076-978-224 24 Leonard Bairoh CRS 076-604-428 [email protected] 25 Osman Fofanah CRS 076-987-383 [email protected] 26 Yayah Mansaray CRS 076-708-864 [email protected] 27 Daniel Williams CRS 076-697-809 [email protected] 28 Sanira Dean EDS / CEMMATS 076-653-453 [email protected] 29 Joseph Bangara MAFFS 076-929-350 30 Scott Solberg SMIC 593-2-292-2625 [email protected] 31 Peter Baum SMIC 593-2-292-2625 [email protected] 32 John Azu SMIC 233-208-131-201 [email protected] 33 Abdul Gbessay Sesay SMIC 033-873-648 [email protected] 34 Erika Clesceri USAID Washington 1-202-712-0453 [email protected] 35 Sabinus Anaele USAID West Africa 221-331-869-6100 [email protected] 36 Abdulai K. Jalloh USAID/ Sierra Leone 076-708-150 [email protected] 37 Bintu T. Moseray World Vision 076-521-790 [email protected] 38 Solomon S. Leigh World Vision 076-602-367 [email protected]

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

39 Simeon Tuker World Vision 076-484-550 [email protected] 40 Sulaiman J.Bah World Vision 076-546-475 / 077-969-310 [email protected] / [email protected] 41 Alpha Nabie World Vision 076-784-103 [email protected] 42 Ibrahim Jalloh World Vision 076-865-510 [email protected] 43 Moses Joe Libby World Vision 076-711-168 / 077-834-138 [email protected] / [email protected] 44 Tom Roberts World Vision / PAGE 076-715-655 [email protected]

Week 2 Participant List:

Final Participant List Workshops on Environmental Management for Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post-Conflict Sierra Leone MARCH 16TH - 20TH, 2009 # Name Organization Telephone Office/Cell Email 1 Elizabeth T. Jalloh ACDI/VOCA 076-619-735 [email protected] 2 Andrew Kutubu ACDI/VOCA 076-671-273 [email protected] 3 Veronica Angela Smith Africare 033-453-131 [email protected] 4 Francis Jaiah Kangafua Africare 076-840-354 5 Joseph S. Jusu Africare 076-677-342 [email protected] 6 Francis Massaquoi Africare 077-441-855 7 Vicki Johnson Africare 022-233-340 [email protected] 8 Florence Kaindairoh ARD / PAGE 076-620-838 [email protected] 9 Ibrahim A. Turay CAD 076-260-705 / 077-970-509 [email protected] 10 Tamba-Torjia Kassoh CARE 076-250-008 [email protected]

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

11 Josephine Mustapha CARE 076-959-704 /033-210-163 [email protected] 12 Alfred M. Kanu CARE 076-682-870 [email protected] 13 Maurice Kallon CARE 076-648-835 [email protected] 14 Edmond Kposowa CARE / FIOH 076-505-839 [email protected] 15 David M. Pyne CCF 076-581-403 [email protected] 16 Momodu Ishmail CCF / MMFHP 076-603-736 [email protected] 17 Hassan A. Sheraff CCF / MMFHP 076-257-569 18 Ahmed I. Sesay CCF / MMFHP 076-564-567 19 Clifford K. Kamara CCF / MMPFHP 076-324-330 [email protected] 20 Ahmed S. Kamara CCF / N'domakeh 077-833-410 / 076-763-891 [email protected] 21 Francis Kakpindi Musa CCF / N'domakeh 076-794-952 / 077-560-904 [email protected] 22 Vandi Amara CCF / N'domakeh 076-724-997 / 077-553-531 [email protected] 23 Joseph B. Dominic CCF / N'domakeh 076-668-400 /077-840-054 [email protected] 077-430-120 / 088-911-475 / 24 Sheku Abdulai CCF / N'domakeh 076-746-737 [email protected] 25 John Kargbo CDHR 076-465-678 / 077-587-656 [email protected] 26 Ibrahim S. Tarawally CRS 076-605-399 [email protected] 27 Bintu J. Korome CRS 076-641-104 [email protected] 28 Richard Cortu CRS 076-606-798 richard [email protected] 29 Moses J. Momoh CRS 076-642-487 / 033-459-680 [email protected] 30 Dave Hareen CRS 076-610-430 31 Robert Delve CRS [email protected]

32 Paul McKee CRS [email protected]

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

33 John K. Sisay Estate 076-777-438

34 Daniel Gbondo FESS 076-536-367 [email protected] Ministry of Lands, Country Planning, 35 John S. Kamara & Environment 076-866-768 [email protected] 36 Mustapha M. Kanneh Munafa M'Patie 076-775-165 [email protected] 37 Scott Solberg SMIC 593-2-292-2625 [email protected] 38 Peter Baum SMIC 593-2-292-2625 [email protected] 39 John Azu SMIC 233-244-176-418 (Ghana) [email protected] 40 Abdul Gbessay Sesay SMIC 033-873-648 [email protected] 41 Lindsay Kennedy US Embassy 022-515-000 / 076-515-000 42 Royston Wright World Vision 076-623-623 [email protected] 43 Daniel Amara World Vision 076-819-793 44 Daniel Lahai World Vision 076-607-603 [email protected] 45 Dusu Sesay World Vision 077-455-678 / 033-407-295 [email protected] 46 George M. Masuba World Vision 076-703-088 [email protected] 47 Tamba J. Lebbie World Vision 077-553-289 48 Dorance Cooper World Vision 076-663-111 [email protected] 49 Paul Massaquoi World Vision 076-605-256 [email protected] 50 Mattia Koi Dimoh World Vision 076-634-165 [email protected] 51 Myles Harrison (PT) World Vision 022-230-725 [email protected] 52 Osman M. Bagme

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009

ANNEX 2: PHOTO COLLAGE

Workshops on Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post Conflict Sierra Leone, March 2009