Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Participants’ Sourcebook: Environmental Compliance +
Environmentally Sound Design & Management in Project Implementation
(Health Focus)
A Workshop for USAID/Senegal Staff and Implementing Partners
Dakar, Senegal 19-21 February 2014
Host: USAID/ Senegal
Sponsor: USAID/Senegal
Prepared under: The Global Environmental Management Support Project (GEMS),
Award Number AID-OAA-M-11-00021.
The Cadmus Group, Inc., prime contractor (www.cadmusgroup.com). Sun Mountain International, principal partner (www.smtn.org).
DISCLAIMER
The views expressed in this document do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
Acknowledgement: Cover photo: David Fombot. PEPFAR IP picks up shipment of HIV test kits in Ethiopia.
Many of the training materials in this sourcebook were produced by The Cadmus Group, Inc. under contract to International Resources Group for USAID/AFR/SD’s ENCAP program, EPP-I-00-03-00013-00 Task Order 11. Others were adapted from those
developed (1) under the Environmental Management Capacity-Building Program of USAID/ME/TS EPIQ Task Order EPP-I-00-03- 00014-00; and (2) for the March 2009 trainings on “Environmental Management of Socioeconomic Development Programs in Post- Conflict Sierra Leone” sponsored by USAID/DCHA, USAID/Sierra Leone, and a number of implementing partners and facilitated by
Sun Mountain International.
AGENDA (version date: 7 February, 2014)
Environmental Compliance + Environmentally Sound Design & Management in Project Implementation—Health Focus
A Workshop for USAID/Senegal Staff and Implementing Partners
King Fahd Palace Hotel—Dakar, Senegal 19 – 21 February, 2014 Training Objective:
The overall goal of the workshop is to strengthen environmentally sound design and management (ESDM) of USAID‐funded activities in Senegal by assuring that participants have the motivation, knowledge and skills necessary to: (1) achieve environmental compliance over life‐of‐project; and (2) otherwise integrate environmental considerations in activity design and management through all aspects of implementation and close‐out to improve overall project acceptance and sustainability.
The workshop will be conducted in English, with limited ability for French‐language questions and follow‐up conversations. A limited number of training materials will also be provided in French.
Key Activities:
Day 1 Overview of ESDM and skill‐building in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). Explain USAID Environmental Procedures and compliance documentation; prepare for Day 2 site visits.
Day 2 Complete site visits and develop EMMPs; complete small‐group presentation of findings and recommendations.
Day 3 Clarify USAID and IP roles responsibilities, including environmental compliance reporting. Highlight key technical resources.
Day/Time Module Objective/Content Summary Presenter/Facilitator
Day 1 Motivation, Core Skills and Overview of Environmental Compliance over Life of Project
12:30‐13:00 Participant Registration
13:00‐13:15 Welcome and Opening Statements Highlight the value of workshop content and expected results.
USAID/Senegal Mission
13:15‐13:45 Session 1: Workshop Objectives and Logistics; Participant Introductions
Establish workshop objectives; brief the agenda and learning approach.
Review logistics.
Introduce participants; articulate expectations.
GEMS Trainer
13:45‐14:15 Session 2a: Environmentally Sound Design & Management (ESDM) as a Foundation for Environmental Compliance
Presentation and dialogue
Understand linkage between ESDM and project success, consider examples from Senegal.
Motivate the need to systematically address environmental considerations in development activities. View this process in the context of environmental compliance.
Oumou Ly, Mission Env. Officer USAID/Senegal
GEMS Trainer
14:15‐14:45 Session 2b: ESDM and Environmental Compliance in Senegal: A Regulatory Perspective
Understand the approach that the Government of Senegal (GOS) takes in promoting ESDM and the specific environmental management requirements that apply to USAID and its partners.
Guest presenter from Direction de l’Environnement et des Etablissements Classés (DEEC)
14:45‐15:00 Break
15:00‐16:00 Session 3: Sector‐Specific Environmental Management Challenges and Opportunities
Review and discuss environmental management in the health sector and for health care‐related programming in Senegal.
Guest Presenter(s)
Day/Time Module Objective/Content Summary Presenter/Facilitator
16:00‐17:00 Session 4: Fundamental Skills of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Technical presentation and dialogue
Define key terms—baseline, impact, activity—and learn essential classroom theory for baseline characterization, impact identification & mitigation design and how they apply in the EIA framework; the EIA framework is the basis for USAID Environmental Procedures.
GEMS Trainer
Day 2 Motivation, Core Skills and Overview of Environmental Compliance over Life of Project + Site Visit
8:00‐9:00 Session 5: Environmental Impact Assessment and “USAID Environmental Procedures”: the Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) and Beyond
Technical presentation and dialogue
Review USAID’s implementation of the EIA process and the preparation of project environmental compliance documents; understand how these documents establish environmental management criteria for USAID‐funded activities.
GEMS Trainer
9:00‐10:00 Session 6: The Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP)
Technical presentation and dialogue
Understand the EMMP concept and formats: Who develops them. Their role in “operationalizing” key elements of USAID Environmental Procedures and establishing and maintaining project environmental compliance. Introduce key guidance: EMMP Factsheet.
GEMS Trainer
10:00‐10:15 Break
10:15‐10:30 Session 7: Introduction to the USAID Sector Environmental Guidelines
Presentation
Deepen familiarity with environmental resources and guidelines, particularly the Sector Environmental Guidelines
GEMS Trainer
10:30‐11:30 Session 8a: Field Work Component— Briefing and Classroom Preparation
Presentation and small-group work
Gain a general awareness of the case study sites that will be visited in the field on Day 2. Divide participants and distribute reference materials.
Discuss potential adverse impacts of the case study sites. Review background and reference materials and discuss approach for EMMP development in small‐group format.
GEMS Trainer & Facilitation Team
11:30‐12:30 Lunch
12:30‐17:00
(includes return from field)
Session 8b Field Work Component—Experiential Practice Developing a Sector‐Focused EMMP
Site Visits:
1. Centre de Sante de Dalifort 2. Centre de Sante de Pikine 3. Hôpital Roi Baudoin
Build and apply the core Environmental Analysis skills briefed in previous day via a field visit and follow‐up group work to:
1) synthesize field observations; and 2) identify possible mitigation measures for
the top two issues/impacts of concern at each site, with reference to the Sector Environmental Guidelines.
Group Participants
Day 3 EMMP Development and Reporting, and Roles and Responsibilities
9:00‐11:00
(tea break taken at leisure)
Session 8c: Field Work Component— Develop EMMP and Prepare Small‐Group Presentation
Small group work
Advance discussions and compilation of field visit results into an EMMP format and a group presentation.
Group Participants
11:00‐12:00 Session 8d: Field Work Component— EMMP Group Presentations Group presentations in plenary
Articulate field visit findings, analysis, and EMMP development.
Group Participants
Facilitation Team
12:00‐13:00 Lunch
13:00‐14:00 Session 8d —cont’d See above
Day/Time Module Objective/Content Summary Presenter/Facilitator
14:00‐15:00 Session 9: Environmental Compliance Reporting
Technical presentation and dialogue
Guidance on EMMP‐related and other environmental compliance reporting, including integration with broader project M&E and PMP reporting requirements.
GEMS Trainer
15:00‐15:15 Break
15:15‐15:45 Session 10: Roles, Responsibilities & Resources
Technical presentation and dialogue
Summarize the various responsibilities of USAID staff and Implementing Partners (IPs); introduce additional key resources available to support environmental compliance and ESDM.
GEMS Trainer
15:45‐16:15 Session 11:General Q&A GEMS Trainer
16:15‐16:30 Session 12:Workshop Final Evaluations Participants complete evaluation form GEMS Trainer
16:30‐17:00 Closing Ceremony Conclude workshop and distribute certificates. USAID/Senegal Mission
Session 1. Workshop Objectives and Logistics; Participant Introductions
Summary This session briefs the workshop and its agenda, introduces us to each other, and establishes expectations. Specific elements of the session are:
• Overview of course objectives, learning approach, agenda and materials • Participant and facilitator introductions • Solicit expectations • Address logistical considerations • Create a “Parking Lot”
This workshop will provide intensive training in: (1) compliance with USAID’s environmental procedures over life-of-project, and (2) in the objectives of these procedures: environmentally sound design and management (ESDM) of USAID-funded activities.
Overall Goal: The overall goal of the workshop is to strengthen environmentally sound design and management of USAID-funded activities in Senegal by assuring that participants have the motivation, knowledge and skills necessary to (1) achieve environmental compliance over life-of-project, and (2) otherwise integrate environmental considerations in activity design and management to improve overall project acceptance and sustainability.
Approach to Learning: The workshop is intended to be highly participatory and field-based:
• Skills and processes briefed in the presentations will be built and practiced in hands-on exercises conducted in small working groups.
• The key, integrative exercises in EIA skill-building and LOP compliance are built around a half-day field visit.
• Even presentation-centered sessions are intended to be interactive. Please ask questions and—as importantly—share and discuss your own experiences and perspectives relevant to the topic at hand.
Everyone’s active participation is encouraged and needed to make this workshop a success!
Teamwork Principles: Working groups are where we will practice and apply the key skills and ideas of the workshop. Working groups provide the opportunity for detailed discussions, and for learning from experiences and views of fellow development professionals. Working groups are also emphasized because environmental compliance and environmentally sound design and management are intrinsically team efforts.
Successful working groups require effective teamwork. Here are teamwork principles to consider:
Twelve Essentials of Teamwork
VALUING DIVERSITY
COMFORTABLE ATMOSPHERE
ACTIVE PARTICIPATION
OF ALL MEMBERS
SHARED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
BALANCED APPROACH TO PROCESS AND
CONTENT WHAT
EFFECTIVE TEAMS NEED
EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION
SHARED LEADERSHIP
CONSTRUCTIVE CONFLICT
MANAGEMENT
ACTION ACCOUNTABILITY RESPONSIBILITY
MUTUAL TRUST
CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND
PROBLEM-SOLVING
A PREFERENCE FOR CONSENSUS
(Adapted from Rees, "How to lead work teams in facilitation skills”)
Session 2a. Environmentally Sound Design & Management (ESDM) as a Foundation for Environmental Compliance Technical presentation and dialogue
Summary This session will explain ESDM and illustrate its vital role in achieving and maintaining environmental compliance over the full project lifecycle. In order to establish this important relationship, we will:
• Develop a common understanding of the term “environment”
• Highlight some of the “big picture” environmental trends affecting human health and livelihoods in West and sub-Saharan Africa, including Global Climate Change, and show that much of USAID’s portfolio in the region is a direct response to—or directly affected by—these trends
• By example, demonstrate that “environment” and “development” are concepts further linked by the need to be:
o AWARE of the potential adverse impacts of development activities on ecosystems, environmental resources and environmental quality; and the need to
o PROACTIVELY seek to limit these adverse impacts, particularly where they affect health and livelihoods
This is Environmentally Sound Design & Management (ESDM)!
• Consider specific examples from Senegal of the linkage between ESDM and successful project outcomes
This session will also highlight the most common root causes of ESDM failures or lapses and set out the basic rules or principles for achieving ESDM.
While the session will introduce the concept and practice of environmental compliance, specific USAID regulations and requirements will be addressed in finer detail in Session 5.
Objectives • Achieve a common understanding of “environment”
• Understand Environmentally Sound Design & Management as a necessary and explicit objective for effective development
• Establish the basic principles for achieving ESDM
Envi
ronm
enta
lly S
ound
Des
ign
& M
anag
emen
t: a
Foun
datio
n fo
r Env
ironm
enta
l Com
plia
nce
GE
MS
Env
ironm
enta
l Com
plia
nce-
ES
DM
Tra
inin
g S
erie
sS
eneg
al, F
ebru
ary,
201
4
Envi
ronm
ent –
the
Big
Pic
ture
Wha
t is
Envi
ronm
ent?
W
ebst
er’s
def
ines
it a
s “T
he to
talit
y of
circ
umst
ance
ssu
rrou
ndin
g an
org
anis
m o
r gro
up o
f org
anis
ms,
esp
ecia
lly:
•Th
e co
mpl
ex o
f phy
sica
l, ch
emic
al, a
nd b
iotic
fact
ors
(e.g
. cl
imat
e, s
oil,
and
livin
g th
ings
) tha
t affe
ct a
nd in
fluen
ce th
e gr
owth
, de
velo
pmen
t, an
d su
rviv
al o
f an
orga
nism
or a
n ec
olog
ical
co
mm
unity
•
The
com
plex
of s
ocia
l and
cul
tura
l con
ditio
nsaf
fect
ing
the
natu
re
of a
n in
divi
dual
or c
omm
unity
.
U
SA
ID’s
env
ironm
enta
l pro
cedu
res
are
conc
erne
d w
ith th
e “n
atur
al a
nd p
hysi
cal e
nviro
nmen
t,” b
ut in
pra
ctic
e so
cial
and
cu
ltura
l iss
ues
are
ofte
n no
t sep
arab
le
Wha
t are
som
e “b
ig-p
ictu
re”
envi
ronm
enta
l tre
nds
affe
ctin
ghu
man
hea
lth a
nd li
velih
oods
in W
est A
fric
a?
Are
they
impo
rtan
t in
Sen
egal
?2
3
1. P
opul
atio
n gr
owth
UN
Pop
ulat
ion
estim
ates
:*
* All
data
: “m
ediu
m v
aria
nt” p
roje
ctio
n.
UN
Pop
ulat
ion
Div
isio
n (h
ttp://
esa.
un.o
rg/w
pp/u
npp/
pane
l_po
pula
tion.
htm
)
2015
2050
%
chan
geW
orld
**7.
28 b
n9.
31 b
n+2
8%
Afri
ca**
1.15
bn
2.19
bn
+90%
W. A
frica
**34
9 m
n81
4 m
n+1
33%
Sen
egal
15 m
n33
mn
+120
%
Less
-D
evel
oped
R
egio
ns**
6.03
bn
7.99
bn
+32.
5%
LDC
s93
1 m
n1.
73 b
n+8
6%
Incr
ease
d de
man
ds fo
r wat
er, l
and,
fish
&
tim
ber,
ener
gy, i
nfra
stru
ctur
e &
soc
ial
serv
ices
. Inc
reas
ed w
aste
pro
duct
ion.
LEA
DS
TO
**in
clud
es S
eneg
al
Incr
easi
ng
Popu
latio
n in
Se
nega
l
4
2. U
rban
izat
ion
Mos
t urb
an g
row
th in
the
next
35
year
s in
de
velo
ping
cou
ntrie
s
Urb
an p
op a
s %
of t
otal
% c
hang
e in
to
tal u
rban
po
pula
tion
2015
2050
Wor
ld**
53.9
%67
.2%
+59.
2%
Afri
ca**
41.1
%57
.7%
+169
%
W. A
frica
**46
.7%
60%
+200
%
Sen
egal
40 %
53.3
%+1
93%
Less
-Dev
elop
ed
Reg
ions
**48
.7%
64.1
%+7
4.5%
LDC
s30
.3%
49.8
%+2
05%
* U
N P
opul
atio
n D
ivis
ion
(http
://es
a.un
.org
/unp
d/w
up/u
nup/
inde
x_pa
nel1
.htm
l)
Incr
ease
d ur
ban
envi
ronm
enta
lhe
alth
haz
ards
(giv
en p
oor m
unic
ipal
sa
nita
tion,
was
te m
anag
emen
t cap
acity
).
LEA
DS
TO
**in
clud
es S
eneg
al
UN
Pop
ulat
ion
estim
ates
:*
Urb
an p
opul
atio
n w
ill g
row
mor
e th
an
2X a
s fa
st a
s ru
ral p
opul
atio
n fo
r the
fo
rese
eabl
e fu
ture
5
Glo
bal c
hang
e +
popu
latio
n gr
owth
=IN
CR
EASE
D W
ATE
R S
TRES
SG
reat
est i
mpa
cts
on p
oor,
subs
iste
nce
agric
ultu
re.
Envi
ronm
ent a
nd d
evel
opm
ent a
re n
ot s
epar
able
M
uch
of U
SA
ID’s
por
tfolio
in th
e re
gion
is a
lread
y a
dire
ct re
spon
se to
or d
irect
ly a
ffect
ed b
y th
ese
envi
ronm
enta
l tre
nds
B
ut g
ood
deve
lopm
ent d
oes
not s
impl
y re
spon
d to
ex
tern
al e
nviro
nmen
tal c
halle
nges
. Goo
d de
velo
pmen
t …
is A
WA
RE
of it
spo
tent
ial a
dver
se im
pact
s on
eco
syst
ems,
en
viro
nmen
tal r
esou
rces
and
env
ironm
enta
l qua
lity
and
PR
OA
CTI
VELY
seek
s to
lim
it th
ese
adve
rse
impa
cts,
pa
rticu
larly
whe
re th
ey a
ffect
hea
lth a
nd li
velih
oods
Why
?To
avo
id M
ISTA
KES
. . .
6
Why
are
“en
viro
nmen
tal m
ista
kes”
mad
e?
Som
etim
es o
bvio
us (p
revi
ous
exam
ples
).
But
ofte
n di
fficu
lt to
fore
see,
pre
dict
Des
igni
ng fo
r ave
rage
co
nditi
ons
Igno
ring
econ
omic
-en
viro
nmen
tal l
inka
ges
Failu
re to
pla
n fo
r the
effe
cts
of in
crea
sed
scal
e
!
Ofte
n ro
oted
in a
few
co
mm
on d
esig
n pr
oble
ms
7
Failu
re to
und
erst
and
syst
em
com
plex
ity
Com
mon
root
cau
ses
#1
Failu
re to
pla
n fo
r the
ef
fect
s of
incr
ease
d sc
ale
!
The
envi
ronm
enta
l effe
cts
of a
sm
all-s
cale
ani
mal
hus
band
ry
proj
ect m
ay b
e m
inor
BU
T if
the
proj
ect i
s su
cces
sful
, an
d m
any
mor
e in
divi
dual
s be
gin
to h
old
larg
er n
umbe
rs o
f ani
mal
s,
serio
us p
robl
ems
may
aris
e. .
.
Hea
lth h
azar
ds fr
om
anim
al w
aste
. . .
Fodd
er s
hort
ages
(m
ay le
ad to
ov
ergr
azin
g an
d er
osio
n an
d/or
land
con
flict
s)
Or,
failu
re to
pla
n fo
r suc
cess
!
8
Com
mon
root
cau
ses
#2
Des
igni
ng fo
r ave
rage
con
ditio
ns,
not e
xpec
ted
varia
bilit
y!
This
sch
oolh
ouse
is b
eing
rebu
ilt in
mak
eshi
ft fa
shio
n w
ith p
lank
wal
ls a
nd a
spl
it-ba
mbo
o ro
of.
Why
? St
rong
win
ds ri
pped
the
alum
inum
she
et
roof
ing
off t
he “
perm
anen
t” s
truc
ture
and
to
pple
d th
e la
ndcr
ete
wal
ls.
In th
is a
rea,
one
or t
wo
stor
ms
ever
y 5
year
s ty
pica
lly h
ave
win
ds o
f thi
s st
reng
th.
Oth
er “
aver
age
cond
ition
s” to
be
care
ful o
f:R
ainf
all,
tides
, wat
er ta
bles
. . .
Wha
t els
e?
Glo
bal c
hang
e w
ill a
ffect
bo
th a
vera
ge c
ondi
tions
&
expe
cted
var
iabi
lity
9
Com
mon
root
cau
ses
#3
Igno
ring
econ
omic
-en
viro
nmen
tal l
inka
ges
! Hou
seho
ld c
onsu
mpt
ion
depe
nds
on in
com
e.
Succ
ess
in ra
isin
g in
com
e in
a c
omm
unity
may
in
crea
se•d
eman
d fo
r bui
ldin
g m
ater
ials
(b
rick
& ti
mbe
r)•t
he n
umbe
r of l
ives
tock
, •d
eman
d fo
r wat
er•g
ener
atio
n of
was
te, i
nclu
ding
dis
posa
ble
pack
agin
g
Ano
ther
failu
re to
pla
n fo
r suc
cess
!
All
can
have
sig
nific
ant a
dver
se
envi
ronm
enta
l im
pact
s!
10
11
As
Ars
enic
74.9
216
33
Pho
to: U
NE
SC
O-IH
E
Com
mon
Roo
t Cau
se #
4:
Failu
re to
und
erst
and
syst
em
com
plex
ity
Pond
s ex
cava
ted
for f
ill to
bui
ld-u
p gr
ound
leve
l in
villa
ges
for f
lood
pr
otec
tion
Pond
s pr
ovid
ed a
so
urce
of o
rgan
ic
carb
on w
hich
set
tles
to b
otto
m o
f pon
d,
seep
s un
derg
roun
d an
d is
met
abol
ized
by
mic
robe
s
crea
tes
chem
ical
co
nditi
ons
that
cau
se
natu
rally
occ
urrin
g ar
seni
c to
dis
solv
e ou
t of
the
sedi
men
ts a
nd
soils
and
mov
e in
to
grou
ndw
ater
Cre
ated
con
ditio
ns fo
r m
ass
arse
nic
pois
onin
g w
hen
villa
ges
switc
hed
from
sur
face
wat
er to
“c
lean
er”
tube
wel
ls.
Toda
y ~3
000
Ban
glad
eshi
s di
e ea
ch
year
of A
s-in
duce
d ca
ncer
; 2 m
n liv
e w
ith c
hron
ic A
spo
ison
ing
How
can
we
avoi
d th
ese
envi
ronm
enta
l m
ista
kes
(and
m
axim
ize
envi
ronm
enta
l be
nefit
s)?
Envi
ronm
enta
lly S
ound
D
esig
n &
Man
agem
ent
(ESD
M)?
? In s
hort
, how
can
we
achi
eve
. . .
12
How
do
we
achi
eve
ESD
M?
3 ba
sic
rule
s:
Be
prev
entio
n-or
ient
ed
App
ly b
est
deve
lopm
ent
prac
tices
to
envi
ronm
enta
l as
pect
s of
the
activ
ity
Be
syst
emat
ic
12
3
13
Be
prev
entio
n-or
ient
ed1
Des
ign
Con
stru
ct/
impl
emen
tO
pera
te(m
ay in
clud
e ha
ndov
er)
Dec
omm
issi
on(in
som
e ca
ses)
Mak
e de
cisi
ons
abou
t si
te, t
echn
ique
and
op
erat
ing
prac
tices
to
min
imiz
e im
pact
s
1.Im
plem
ent &
mai
ntai
n pr
oper
op
erat
ion
2.M
onito
r the
act
ivity
and
its
impa
cts
1.Im
plem
ent d
esig
n de
cisi
ons
2.B
uild
cap
acity
for e
nviro
nmen
tally
sou
nd
oper
atio
n
Prev
entio
n oc
curs
acr
oss
the
proj
ect l
ifecy
cle—
but i
t sta
rts
with
de
sign
!
14
ESD
M is
pre
vent
ion-
orie
nted Im
prov
e ag
ricul
tura
l pr
oduc
tivity
Obj
ectiv
e
Poss
ible
mea
nsH
ow d
o w
e ch
oose
?
Intr
oduc
e im
prov
ed c
rop
varie
ties?
Cha
nge
use
of
agric
ultu
ral
inpu
ts?
Cha
nge
culti
vatio
n pr
actic
es?
Pr
even
tion
star
ts w
ith
DES
IGN
D
ESIG
N s
tart
s w
ith th
e ch
oice
of m
eans
.
Envi
ronm
enta
l im
pact
s ar
e 1
fact
or c
onsi
dere
d
15
App
ly b
est p
ract
ices
App
ly g
ener
al b
est d
evel
opm
ent p
ract
ices
. . .
2
A te
chni
cally
so
und
desi
gn
To d
esig
n fo
r the
loca
l so
cial
& p
olic
y co
ntex
t
To b
uild
ben
efic
iary
cap
acity
&
stak
ehol
der c
omm
itmen
t
To a
djus
t wha
t we
do
as re
sults
com
e in
. . .t
o en
viro
nmen
tal
aspe
cts
of th
e ac
tivity
16
AN
D d
esig
n fo
r clim
ate
chan
ge
BP
#1: T
echn
ical
ly s
ound
des
ign
The
desi
gn m
ust b
e ap
prop
riate
for l
ocal
en
viro
nmen
talc
ondi
tions
…
.taki
ng in
to a
ccou
nt li
kely
cl
imat
e ch
ange
.
App
ropr
iate
ch
oice
of c
rops
or
tree
s??
App
ropr
iate
ch
oice
of s
iting
??
For e
xam
ple.
. .
… R
ainf
all,
tem
pera
ture
, soi
ls,
flood
, dro
ught
and
ear
thqu
ake
pote
ntia
l, th
e bu
ilt
envi
ronm
ent.
. .
Less
th
an 1
0m
Uns
cree
ned
sim
ple
pit
latr
ines
A ne
wly
co
nstr
ucte
d op
en-a
ir ki
tche
n
Envi
ronm
enta
l app
licat
ion:
17
BP
#2: D
esig
n fo
r the
pol
icy
and
soci
al c
onte
xt
with
nat
iona
l and
loca
l en
viro
nmen
tal l
aws
and
polic
ies
Com
plia
nce
Act
iviti
es u
tiliz
ing
land
and
ot
her n
atur
al re
sour
ces
mus
t be
com
patib
le w
ith
loca
l NR
M a
nd la
nd te
nure
NR
M a
nd la
nd te
nure
Env
ironm
enta
l m
anag
emen
t mea
sure
s m
ust b
e m
atch
ed to
ca
pabi
litie
s
Lang
uage
, lite
racy
land
and
reso
urce
righ
ts
are
ofte
n ge
nder
-spe
cific
Envi
ronm
enta
l ap
plic
atio
ns:
18
BP
#3: B
uild
sta
keho
lder
com
mitm
ent &
cap
acity
Loca
l ben
efic
iarie
s ne
ed to
be
trai
ned
and
com
mitt
ed to
:
envi
ronm
enta
lly s
ound
op
erat
ion.
m
aint
ain
the
equi
pmen
t/ st
ruct
ure
Prop
er m
aint
enan
ce a
nd
oper
atio
n ar
e cr
itica
l to
cont
rolli
ng e
nviro
nmen
tal
impa
cts.
!En
viro
nmen
tal a
pplic
atio
n:
Who
will
mai
ntai
n it?
Who
will
ope
rate
it?
19
Ethi
cs re
quire
it(e
nviro
nmen
tal j
ustic
e)
. . .
and
invo
lve
the
loca
l com
mun
ity
Loca
l res
iden
ts m
ust
live
with
the
envi
ronm
enta
l im
pact
s of
act
iviti
es!
•How
ofte
n do
es th
e riv
er
flood
?•H
ow o
ften
are
crop
s ro
tate
d?•I
s th
ere
a la
nd te
nure
pr
oble
m?
•Wha
t do
peop
le v
alue
and
ne
ed?
LOC
AL
KN
OW
LED
GE
is c
ritic
al
LIST
EN to
the
com
mun
ity
TALK
to b
oth
men
and
wom
en
20
BP
#4: A
djus
t wha
t we
do a
s re
sults
com
e in
If ou
r act
ivity
has
uni
nten
ded
envi
ronm
enta
l con
sequ
ence
s,
we
need
to D
O S
OM
ETH
ING
A
BO
UT
IT!
adju
stin
g im
plem
enta
tion
of
our a
ctiv
ity b
ased
on
resu
lts
from
the
field
Prac
tice
Ada
ptiv
e m
anag
emen
t –
•A p
roje
ct b
udge
t tha
t fu
nds
envi
ronm
enta
l m
onito
ring
•The
flex
ibili
ty to
ada
pt th
e pr
ojec
t in
resp
onse
to
unan
ticip
ated
adv
erse
im
pact
s •A
djus
ting
impl
emen
tatio
n of
our
pro
ject
bas
ed o
n th
e ex
perie
nces
of o
ther
s
Ada
ptiv
e en
viro
nmen
tal
man
agem
ent r
equi
res:
Com
mun
ities
are
ofte
n es
sent
ial t
o m
onito
ring
resu
lts fr
om th
e fie
ld
21
BP
#5: D
esig
n fo
r Clim
ate
Cha
nge
Alre
ady
men
tione
d:C
limat
e ch
ange
will
affe
ct fu
ture
bas
elin
e co
nditi
ons—
proj
ects
mus
t be
desi
gned
to b
e R
OB
UST
to th
ese
cond
ition
s
22
BU
T I
N
AD
DIT
ION
Whi
le i
ndiv
idua
l pro
ject
s ar
e ra
rely
si
gnifi
cant
con
trib
utor
s to
GC
C. .
.. .
.clim
ate
chan
ge is
driv
en b
y th
e su
m o
f man
y sm
all a
ctio
ns.
So e
ven
smal
l-sca
le p
roje
cts
shou
ld
seek
to re
duce
GH
G
emis
sion
s/in
crea
se s
eque
stra
tion/
re
duce
clim
ate
vuln
erab
ility
in th
e lo
cal a
rea
in a
man
ner c
onsi
sten
t w
ith th
eir d
evel
opm
ent o
bjec
tives
.
USA
ID
Polic
y!
Bes
t Pra
ctic
e: D
esig
n fo
r Clim
ate
Cha
nge
23
redu
ce G
HG
em
issi
ons
redu
ce c
limat
e vu
lner
abili
ty in
th
e lo
cal a
rea
incr
ease
se
ques
trat
ion
Use
alte
rnat
ive
ener
gy (P
V,
win
dmill
wat
er p
umpi
ng, e
tc)
Impr
ove
ther
mal
per
form
ance
in
build
ing
desi
gn
Buy
car
bon
offs
ets
for i
nt’l
trav
el.
Prio
ritiz
e w
ater
effi
cien
cy to
re
duce
a p
roje
ct’s
con
trib
utio
n to
th
e ar
ea’s
futu
re w
ater
str
ess
Tree
-pla
ntin
g.
Exam
ple
actio
ns in
sm
all-s
cale
pro
ject
s:
Soi
l car
bon
mea
sure
men
t by
han
d in
Sen
egal
Land
man
agem
ent (
sust
aina
ble
graz
ing,
cro
ppin
g)
Be
prev
entio
n-or
ient
ed
App
ly b
est
deve
lopm
ent
prac
tices
to
envi
ronm
enta
l as
pect
s of
the
activ
ity
Be
syst
emat
ic
12
3
Now
, rul
e 3
for a
chie
ving
ESD
M. .
.
24
Be
syst
emat
ic
Take a sy
stem
atic lo
ok a
t:•t
he p
ossi
ble
adve
rse
envi
ronm
enta
l im
pact
s of a
n ac
tivity
•way
sto re
duce th
ese
impa
cts.
The
best w
ay to
be
syst
emat
ic:
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact A
sses
smen
t (EI
A)!
3
25
Session 3. Sector-Specific Environmental Management Challenges and Opportunities
PLACEHOLDER
Session 4. Fundamental Skills of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Technical presentation and dialogue Summary This session will define Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as a formal process for identifying the likely effects of activities/projects on the environment, and on human health and welfare; and the means and measures to effectively mitigate these impacts.
Fundamental skills of the EIA process will also be introduced and explained, including:
1) characterizing the baseline situation;
2) identifying (and evaluating) the potential adverse impacts of planned development activities (issues of concern); and
3) developing a mitigation strategy to address these impacts.
The session will further illustrate how the EIA process aligns with ESDM and establish that this process is the internationally accepted standard framework for achieving ESDM in project-based development. The linkage between EIA and USAID Environmental Procedures will also be established.
Discussion of Fundamental EIA Skills
This session addresses the essential EIA skills of baseline characterization, impact identification and mitigation design. (A fourth “core” skill—monitoring—is addressed in a subsequent session). These skills will be put to practice in the workshop’s field-based activities.
Baseline Characterization & Identifying Impacts of Concern
This portion of the session explains the basic, logical process behind baseline characterization and identifying impacts (or issues) of concern. An example from a real and typical small-scale irrigation project will illustrate why the fundamental EIA skills of baseline characterization and issue identification are directly relevant to effective mitigation and achieving ESDM.
Depending on the size, complexity and context of the activity, sophisticated environmental models and other tools can be required to evaluate impacts in the context of a comprehensive EIA study. But for most small-scale activities and preliminary assessments (or USAID-mandated IEEs), the simple, logical process described here—supported by good judgment and the information contained in the Sector Environmental Guidelines or similar resources—is sufficient.
Mitigation Design
The purpose of the EIA process is not simply to identify and assess potential environmental impacts, but to change project design and implementation so that these impacts are mitigated—that is, avoided, reduced or offset.
As such, mitigation is a critical part of ESDM and the EIA process. Monitoring (addressed in a subsequent session) is its essential complement, required to verify whether the mitigation measures are sufficient, effective—and actually implemented.
This portion of the session:
• Defines mitigation
• Provides examples of basic mitigation approaches
• Explains the principles behind good mitigation design and practice
Objectives
• Achieve a basic understanding of the EIA process and how it is implemented
• Become familiar with core EIA skills and the technical approach to EIA activities
• Promote the EIA framework as the internationally accepted standard process for achieving ESDM in project-based development
• Establish EIA as the basis of USAID Environmental Procedures
Key Resources • “IV.1: Topic Briefing—Introduction to EIA” in the Environmental Guidelines for Small Scale
Activities. (USAID/AFR/SD; available at www.encapafrica.org/egssaa.htm) is a general resource for core EIA skills.
• The individual sector chapters of the Sector Environmental Guidelines are a key resource for: (1) identification of potential adverse environmental impacts; and (2) design of specific mitigation and monitoring measures.
Fund
amen
tal S
kills
of
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
Ass
essm
ent (
EIA
)
GE
MS
Env
ironm
enta
l Com
plia
nce-
ES
DM
Tra
inin
g S
erie
sS
eneg
al, F
ebru
ary,
201
4
Sess
ion
Obj
ectiv
es:
•D
efin
e E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct A
sses
smen
t (E
IA)
•E
xpla
in th
e E
IA p
roce
ss
•D
evel
op fu
ndam
enta
l EIA
ski
lls; l
earn
bas
ic a
ppro
ach
•Ill
ustra
te E
IA fr
amew
ork
as th
e in
tern
atio
nally
ac
cept
ed s
tand
ard
proc
ess
for a
chie
ving
ES
DM
•E
stab
lish
EIA
as
the
basi
s of
US
AID
Env
ironm
enta
l P
roce
dure
s
2
EIA
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
Ass
essm
ent i
s
3
A fo
rmal
pro
cess
for i
dent
ifyin
g:
•lik
ely
effe
cts
of a
ctiv
ities
or
proj
ects
on
the
envi
ronm
ent,
and
on h
uman
hea
lth a
nd
wel
fare
.
•m
eans
and
mea
sure
s to
m
itiga
te &
mon
itor
thes
e im
pact
s.
Wha
t is
an a
ctiv
ity?
4
AC
TIVI
TY:
incr
ease
so
rghu
m
prod
uctio
n
AC
TIO
NS:
•Pr
ovid
e in
puts
(see
ds,
fert
ilize
r, pe
stic
ides
)•
Des
ign
and
cons
truc
t irr
igat
ion
infr
astr
uctu
re•
Incr
ease
d ac
cess
to
finan
ce, l
endi
ng•
Roa
d re
habi
litat
ion
•C
apac
ity b
uild
ing
and
tech
nica
l ass
ista
nce
A de
sire
d ac
com
plis
hmen
t or
out
put.
A pr
ojec
t or p
rogr
am m
ay
cons
ist o
f man
y ac
tiviti
es.
An
activ
ity is
:
Acc
ompl
ishi
ng a
n ac
tivity
re
quire
s a
set o
f act
ions
The
EIA
pro
cess
exa
min
es th
e im
pact
s of
act
iviti
es.
Wha
t are
som
e of
you
r act
iviti
es?
4
The
EIA
pro
cess
5
•Sc
ope
•Ev
alua
te b
asel
ine
situa
tion
•Id
entif
y & c
hoos
e al
tern
ativ
es•
Iden
tify
and
char
acte
rize
pote
ntia
l im
pact
s of p
ropo
sed
activ
ity a
nd
each a
ltern
ativ
e•
Deve
lop
miti
gatio
n an
d m
onito
ring
•Co
mm
unic
ate
and
docu
men
t th
roug
hout
Phas
e I:
Initi
al in
quiri
esPh
ase
II:Fu
ll EI
A st
udy
(if n
eede
d)
Mos
t US
AID
act
iviti
es d
o N
OT
proc
eed
to a
full
EIA
stu
dy
•U
nder
stan
d pr
opos
ed
activ
ities
•S
cree
n ac
tiviti
es
•C
ondu
ct p
relim
inar
y as
sess
men
t (if
need
ed)
Phas
e I o
f the
EIA
pro
cess
6
Scre
en th
e ac
tivity
Bas
ed o
n th
e na
ture
of th
e ac
tivity
wha
t le
vel o
f en
viro
nmen
tal
anal
ysis
is
indi
cate
d?
Con
duct
a
Prel
imin
ary
Ass
essm
ent
A ra
pid,
si
mpl
ified
EIA
st
udy
usin
g si
mpl
e to
ols
(e.g
. the
U
SA
ID IE
E)
AC
TIVI
TY IS
O
F M
OD
ERAT
EO
R U
NK
NO
WN
RIS
K
SIG
NIF
ICA
NT
AD
VER
SE
IMPA
CTS
PO
SSIB
LE
SIG
NIF
ICA
NT
AD
VER
SE
IMPA
CTS
VE
RY U
NLI
KEL
Y
AC
TIVI
TY IS
LO
W
RIS
K(O
f its
nat
ure,
ve
ry u
nlik
ely
to h
ave
sign
ifica
nt a
dver
se
impa
cts)
AC
TIVI
TY IS
H
IGH
RIS
K(O
f its
na
ture
, lik
ely
to h
ave
sign
ifica
nt a
dver
se
impa
cts)
Pha
se II
Pha
se I
Und
erst
and
prop
osed
ac
tivity
Why
is th
e ac
tivity
bei
ng
prop
osed
?
Wha
tis
bein
g pr
opos
ed?
BEG
IN
FULL
EI
A ST
UD
Y
*app
rova
l is
CO
ND
ITIO
NA
L on
any
miti
gatio
nsp
ecifi
ed b
y th
e pr
elim
inar
y as
sess
men
t bei
ng
impl
emen
ted
Doc
umen
t &
sub
mit
for
appr
oval
*
Phas
e I:
Scre
en th
e ac
tivity
7
Scre
en e
ach
activ
ity
Bas
ed o
n th
e na
ture
of th
e ac
tivity
, wha
t le
vel o
f en
viro
nmen
tal
anal
ysis
is
indi
cate
d?
Ans
wer
ing
thes
e qu
estio
ns d
oes
NO
T:•r
equi
re a
naly
sis
•req
uire
det
aile
dkn
owle
dge
of th
e pr
opos
ed
site
s, te
chni
ques
or m
etho
ds
SCR
EEN
ING
ask
s a
very
bas
ic s
et o
f que
stio
ns
abou
t the
act
ivity
.
Exam
ple
scre
enin
g qu
estio
ns:
Doe
s th
e ac
tivity
invo
lve:
•Pen
etra
tion
road
bui
ldin
g?•L
arge
-sca
le ir
rigat
ion?
•Int
rodu
ctio
n of
non
-nat
ive
crop
or a
grof
ores
try
spec
ies?
•Res
ettle
men
t?
8
Con
duct
a
Prel
imin
ary
Ass
essm
ent
A ra
pid,
si
mpl
ified
EIA
st
udy
usin
g si
mpl
e to
ols
(US
AID
Initi
al
Env
ironm
enta
l E
xam
inat
ion
(IEE
)
Purp
ose
is to
pro
vide
do
cum
enta
tion
and
anal
ysis
that
:
Scre
enin
g de
term
ines
w
heth
er th
e pr
elim
inar
y as
sess
men
t is
nece
ssar
y
!
•A
llow
the
prep
arer
to d
eter
min
e w
heth
er o
r not
sig
nific
ant
adve
rse
impa
cts
are
likel
y
•A
llow
s th
e re
view
erto
agr
ee o
r di
sagr
ee th
ese
dete
rmin
atio
ns
•Se
ts o
ut m
itiga
tion
and
mon
itorin
g fo
r adv
erse
impa
cts
Phas
e I:
Prel
imin
ary
Ass
essm
ent
Phas
e I:
Prel
imin
ary
Ass
essm
ent
9
For e
ach
activ
ity it
cov
ers,
a
prel
imin
ary
asse
ssm
ent h
as 3
po
ssib
le fi
ndin
gs:
The
activ
ity is
. . .
•ver
y un
likel
y to
hav
e si
gnifi
cant
adv
erse
impa
cts.
•unl
ikel
yto
hav
e si
gnifi
cant
ad
vers
e im
pact
s w
ith
spec
ified
miti
gatio
n an
d m
onito
ring,
•l
ikel
yto
hav
e si
gnifi
cant
ad
vers
e im
pact
s (fu
ll EI
A st
udy
is re
quire
d)
Typi
cal P
relim
inar
y A
sses
smen
t out
line
1. B
ackg
roun
d (D
evel
opm
ent
obje
ctiv
e, li
st o
f act
iviti
es)
2. D
escr
iptio
n of
the
base
line
situ
atio
n
3. E
valu
atio
n of
pot
entia
l en
viro
nmen
tal i
mpa
cts
4. M
itiga
tion
& M
onito
ring
5. R
ecom
men
ded
Find
ings
Whe
n to
Pro
ceed
10
We
only
pro
ceed
to
Phas
e II
of th
e EI
A pr
oces
s
IFPh
ase
I ind
icat
es th
at
a FU
LL E
IA S
TUD
Y is
requ
ired
!
The
full
EIA
stu
dy h
as
very
sim
ilar o
bjec
tives
an
d st
ruct
ure
to a
pr
elim
inar
y as
sess
men
t.
How
ever
, the
full
EIA
st
udy
diffe
rs in
im
port
ant w
ays:
11
A fo
rmal
sco
ping
pro
cess
pr
eced
es th
e st
udy
to
iden
tify
issu
es to
be
addr
esse
d
Ana
lysi
sof
env
ironm
enta
l im
pact
s is
muc
h m
ore
deta
iled
Alte
rnat
ives
* mus
t be
form
ally
def
ined
. The
im
pact
s of
eac
h al
tern
ativ
e m
ust b
e id
entif
ied
&
eval
uate
d, a
nd th
e re
sults
co
mpa
red
Publ
ic p
artic
ipat
ion
is
requ
ired
A pr
ofes
sion
al E
IA te
am is
us
ually
requ
ired
!
*incl
udes
the
proj
ect a
s pr
opos
ed, t
he n
o-ac
tion
alte
rnat
ive,
and
at le
ast o
ne o
ther
real
alte
rnat
ive
Phas
e II:
Ful
l EIA
Stu
dyFu
ndam
enta
l EIA
Ski
lls
Ther
e ar
e “c
ore”
ski
lls th
at
are
cent
ral t
o en
viro
nmen
tal
impa
ct a
sses
smen
t:
•B
asel
ine
char
acte
rizat
ion
•Th
e id
entif
icat
ion
of
pote
ntia
l adv
erse
impa
cts
(or i
mpa
cts
of c
once
rn)
•D
evel
opin
g a
miti
gatio
n st
rate
gy
12
How
do
I app
roac
h th
e EI
A p
roce
ss?
!
13
Bas
elin
e C
hara
cter
izat
ion
Iden
tifyi
ng Im
pact
s of
Con
cern
Miti
gatio
n St
rate
gy*
Key
ski
ll fo
r av
oidi
ng a
dver
se
impa
cts
and
achi
evin
g ES
DM
Use
d to
pre
pare
pre
limin
ary
asse
ssm
ent—
but a
lso
criti
cal t
o m
akin
g m
itiga
tion
resp
onsi
ve to
lo
cal e
nviro
nmen
tal c
ondi
tions
Fund
amen
tal E
IA S
kills
* Mon
itorin
g is
the
esse
ntia
l com
plem
ent t
o m
itiga
tion;
it is
requ
ired
to
verif
y w
heth
er th
e m
itiga
tion
mea
sure
s ar
e su
ffici
ent,
effe
ctiv
e—an
d ac
tual
ly im
plem
ente
d.M
onito
ring
is a
ddre
ssed
in a
sub
sequ
ent s
essi
on.
Cha
ract
eriz
ing
the
base
line
situ
atio
n. .
.
14
The
envi
ronm
enta
l co
mpo
nent
sof
in
tere
st a
re th
ose:
•lik
ely
to b
e af
fect
ed b
y yo
ur
activ
ity
•up
on w
hich
you
r ac
tivity
dep
ends
fo
r its
suc
cess
Wat
er?
Qua
ntity
, qua
lity,
relia
bilit
y,
acce
ssib
ility
Soils
?E
rosi
on, c
rop
prod
uctiv
ity,
fallo
w p
erio
ds, s
alin
ity,
nutri
ent c
once
ntra
tions
Flor
a?C
ompo
sitio
n an
d de
nsity
of
natu
ral v
eget
atio
n,
prod
uctiv
ity, k
ey s
peci
es
Faun
a?P
opul
atio
ns, h
abita
t
Spec
ial
Key
spe
cies
ecos
yste
ms?
Env
Hea
lth?
Dis
ease
vec
tors
, pa
thog
ens
Whe
re d
o I o
btai
n in
form
atio
n on
the
base
line
situ
atio
n?
15
DIR
ECT
OB
SER
VATI
ON
:•
Go
to th
e si
te(s
)! Lo
ok u
p pu
blic
ly a
vaila
ble
sate
llite
im
ager
y be
fore
you
go.
YOU
R O
RG
AN
IZAT
ION
:
•TA
LKto
sta
ff w
ho
know
the
proj
ect,
and
know
the
site
s.
•O
BTA
INpr
ojec
t do
cum
ents
and
in
form
atio
n
UTI
LIZE
OTH
ER L
OC
AL
TA
LEN
T &
KN
OW
LED
GE:
•co
mm
uniti
es, g
over
nmen
t, co
unte
rpar
ts
Wha
t abo
ut re
port
s by
do
nor o
rgan
izat
ions
and
in
tern
atio
nal a
genc
ies?
W
hat a
bout
gov
ernm
ent
stat
istic
s? G
IS
data
base
s?
All
thes
e so
urce
s ca
n be
us
eful
(and
som
etim
es
nece
ssar
y)
But
goo
d lo
cal
info
rmat
ion
is th
e m
ost
impo
rtan
t inp
ut
Are
n’t w
e fo
rget
ting
som
ethi
ng?
?1. 2. 3.
Iden
tifyi
ng im
pact
s of
con
cern
The
impa
ct o
f an
activ
ity is
the
chan
ge fr
om th
e ba
selin
e si
tuat
ion
caus
ed b
y th
e ac
tivity
.
16
To m
easu
re a
n im
pact
, yo
u m
ust k
now
wha
t the
ba
selin
e si
tuat
ion
is.
!
The
base
line
situ
atio
n is
the
exis
ting
envi
ronm
enta
l situ
atio
n or
con
ditio
n in
the
abse
nce
of th
e ac
tivity
.
Impo
rtant
: Ba
selin
e sit
uatio
n is
not
just
a “s
naps
hot i
n tim
e”
Wha
t is a
n im
pact
?
Type
s of
impa
cts
& th
eir a
ttrib
utes
17
•D
irect
& in
dire
ct
impa
cts
•S
hort-
term
& lo
ng-
term
impa
cts
•A
dver
se &
be
nefic
ial i
mpa
cts
•C
umul
ativ
e im
pact
s
The
EIA
pro
cess
is
conc
erne
d w
ithal
l typ
es o
f im
pact
s an
d m
ay d
escr
ibe
them
in a
nu
mbe
r of w
ays
•In
tens
ity•
Dire
ctio
n •
Spa
tial e
xten
t•
Dur
atio
n •
Freq
uenc
y •
Rev
ersi
bilit
y •
Pro
babi
lity
But
all
impa
cts
are
NO
T tr
eate
d eq
ually
.
ESSE
NTI
AL
to fo
cus
on th
e m
ost
sign
ifica
nt im
pact
s
Focu
s!
18
! You
defin
itely
do
not
have
tim
e an
d re
sour
ces
to a
naly
ze
and
disc
uss
in d
etai
l le
ss im
port
ant o
nes.
Impa
ct e
valu
atio
n pr
oces
s: T
HEO
RY
Und
erst
and
the
activ
ities
be
ing
prop
osed
Res
earc
hth
e po
tent
ial a
dver
se
impa
cts
typi
cal o
f the
se a
ctiv
ities
&
kno
w h
owth
ey a
rise
Bas
ed o
n th
e po
tent
ial i
mpa
cts,
id
entif
yw
hich
ele
men
ts o
f the
ba
selin
e si
tuat
ion
are
impo
rtant
Cha
ract
eriz
eth
ese
elem
ents
of
the
bas
elin
e
19
Giv
en:
1.th
e ba
selin
e co
nditi
ons,
2.
the
proj
ect
conc
ept/d
esig
n, a
nd
3.H
ow th
e ad
vers
e im
pact
s ar
ise,
deci
de w
hich
impa
cts
are
of c
once
rn
1 2 3 4
5
Impa
ct e
valu
atio
n pr
oces
s: E
XAM
PLE
Prop
osed
inte
rven
tion:
irrig
atio
n sc
hem
e(w
ing
dam
div
ersi
on ty
pe
wat
er-
inte
nsiv
e cr
ops
high
fert
ilize
r use
, un
lined
can
als
& o
pen-
chan
nel i
rrig
atio
n)
Key
pot
entia
l im
pact
s:•
Exc
essi
ve d
iver
sion
of w
ater
•S
alin
izat
ion
of s
oils
•C
onta
min
atio
n of
gro
undw
ater
&
dow
nstre
am s
urfa
ce w
ater
Key
ele
men
ts o
f bas
elin
e:•
Riv
er fl
ow v
olum
e, v
aria
bilit
y•
Soi
l & w
ater
cha
ract
eris
tics
&
grou
ndw
ater
dep
th•
Dow
nstre
am u
ses
20
1 2 3
Impa
ct e
valu
atio
n: E
XAM
PLE
Bas
elin
e ch
arac
teriz
atio
n•
Riv
er fl
ow v
olum
e, v
aria
bilit
y•
Will
div
ert 3
% o
f nor
mal
flow
•lo
w-y
ear f
low
s ar
e 50
% o
f nor
mal
•D
owns
tream
abs
tract
ion
is <
10%
of
tota
l flo
w v
olum
e.•
Soi
l cha
ract
eris
tics
& g
roun
dwat
er
dept
h•
Soi
ls a
re w
ell-d
rain
ed b
ut
rela
tivel
y hi
gh in
sal
ts;
grou
ndw
ater
2m
dep
th•
Dow
nstre
am u
ses
•K
ey w
ater
sou
rce
for c
omm
unity
do
mes
tic u
se &
live
stoc
k,
imm
edia
tely
dow
nstre
am.
21
Impa
cts
of
Con
cern
:Sa
liniz
atio
nD
owns
trea
m
cont
amin
atio
n
Littl
e C
once
rn:
Exce
ss
Div
ersi
on
Ther
efor
e:
Why
thes
e co
nclu
sion
s?
45
Miti
gatio
n D
esig
n
22
A cr
itica
l par
t of t
he E
IA p
roce
ss—
and
of E
SDM
Miti
gatio
n is
. . .
The
impl
emen
tatio
n of
mea
sure
s de
sign
ed to
elim
inat
e,
redu
ce o
r offs
et th
e un
desi
rabl
e ef
fect
s of
a p
ropo
sed
actio
n on
the
envi
ronm
ent.
How
doe
s m
itiga
tion
redu
ce a
dver
se im
pact
s?
Type
of
miti
gatio
n m
easu
reH
ow it
wor
ksEx
ampl
es
Prev
entio
n an
d co
ntro
l m
easu
res
Fully
or p
artia
lly p
reve
nt a
n im
pact
/redu
ce a
risk
by:
C
hang
ing
mea
ns o
r tec
hniq
ue
Cha
ngin
g or
add
ing
desi
gn
elem
ents
C
hang
ing
the
site
Sp
ecify
ing
oper
atin
g pr
actic
es
PR
EV
EN
T co
ntam
inat
ion
of w
ells
, by
SIT
ING
wel
ls a
saf
e di
stan
ce fr
om
pollu
tion
sour
ces
Add
was
tew
ater
trea
tmen
t sys
tem
to
the
DE
SIG
N o
f a c
offe
e-w
ashi
ng
stat
ion
and
train
in p
rope
r O
PE
RAT
ION
S
Com
pens
ator
y m
easu
res
Offs
et a
dver
se im
pact
s im
pact
s in
one
are
a w
ith im
prov
emen
ts
else
whe
re
Pla
nt tr
ees
in a
new
loca
tion
to
CO
MP
EN
SAT
E fo
r cle
arin
g a
cons
truct
ion
site
Rem
edia
tion
mea
sure
sR
epai
r or r
esto
re th
e en
viro
nmen
t afte
r dam
age
is
done
Re-
grad
e an
d re
plan
t a b
orro
w p
it af
ter c
onst
ruct
ion
is fi
nish
ed
… a
nd s
omet
imes
you
may
nee
d to
rede
sign
the
proj
ect t
o m
odify
or
elim
inat
e pr
oble
m c
ompo
nent
s23
Pote
ntia
lly s
erio
us
impa
cts/
issu
es
Mus
t EVE
RY
impa
ct b
e m
itiga
ted?
Envi
ronm
enta
l man
agem
ent c
riter
ia o
ften
requ
ire ju
dgm
ent i
n de
sign
ing
spec
ific
miti
gatio
ns. A
pply
the
follo
win
g pr
inci
ple:
24
Thes
e m
ust A
LWAY
S be
m
itiga
ted
to th
e po
int
that
the
impa
ct is
non
-si
gnifi
cant
Easi
ly m
itiga
ted
impa
cts
Then
, the
re m
ay b
e ot
her i
mpa
cts
for w
hich
m
itiga
tion
is e
asy
and
low
-cos
t
Prioritize!
Miti
gatio
n sp
ecifi
ed in
Pha
se I
or P
hase
II
of E
IA p
roce
ss m
ust b
e im
plem
ente
d
Prev
entio
n is
bes
t
25
Whe
re p
ossi
ble,
PR
EVEN
T im
pact
s by
ch
ange
s to
site
or t
echn
ique
.!
CO
NTR
OL
of im
pact
s w
ith
Ope
ratio
n &
Mai
nten
ance
(O&
M) p
ract
ices
is m
ore
diffi
cult
to m
onito
r, su
stai
n.
Thre
e ru
les
for E
nviro
nmen
tally
Sou
nd
Des
ign
& M
anag
emen
t (ES
DM
)
Be
prev
entio
n-or
ient
ed
App
ly b
est
deve
lopm
ent
prac
tices
to
envi
ronm
enta
l as
pect
s of
the
activ
ity
Be
syst
emat
ic
12
3
Prop
erly
impl
emen
ted,
the
EIA
proc
ess
mak
es th
em a
real
ity.
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
Ass
essm
ent:
a un
iver
sal r
equi
rem
ent
•Fr
om it
s be
ginn
ings
in th
e 19
70 U
S N
atio
nal
Env
ironm
enta
l Pol
icy
Act
. . .
•E
IA n
ow e
xten
ds b
eyon
d go
vern
men
t wor
ks
to •In
frast
ruct
ure
and
econ
omic
dev
elop
men
t pr
ojec
ts fu
nded
by
the
priv
ate
sect
or &
don
ors
•A
naly
sis
of p
olic
ies,
not
just
pro
ject
s
•In
man
y de
velo
ping
cou
ntrie
s, E
IA is
the
core
of
nat
iona
l env
ironm
enta
l reg
ulat
ion
•M
ost c
ount
ries
& a
lmos
t all
dono
rs
(incl
udin
g U
SAID
) now
hav
e E
IA
requ
irem
ents
27
Envi
ronm
enta
l Im
pact
Ass
essm
ent:
The
Wor
ld B
ank
28
“The
Ban
kre
quire
s en
viro
nmen
tal a
sses
smen
t (E
A) o
f pro
ject
s pr
opos
ed
for B
ank
finan
cing
to h
elp
ensu
re th
at th
ey a
re e
nviro
nmen
tally
sou
nd a
nd
sust
aina
ble,
and
thus
to im
prov
e de
cisi
on m
akin
g.”
Sene
gal
29
Sum
mar
y
•E
IA is
an
esta
blis
hed
proc
ess
that
pro
mot
es
sust
aina
ble
envi
ronm
enta
l man
agem
ent a
nd
succ
essf
ul d
evel
opm
ent o
utco
mes
.
•C
ore
skills
are
nee
ded
to im
plem
ent t
he E
IA p
roce
ss
and
to h
elp
achi
eve
ES
DM
; the
se a
re:
•B
asel
ine
char
acte
rizat
ion
•Id
entif
ying
impa
cts
of c
once
rn
•M
itiga
tion
desi
gn
•E
IA e
nabl
es E
SD
M-fo
cuse
d de
velo
pmen
t, an
d is
the
basi
s fo
r US
AID
Env
ironm
enta
l Pro
cedu
res
30
Session 5. Environmental Impact Assessment and USAID Environmental Procedures: the Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) and Beyond Technical presentation and dialogue Important note: Note that in this workshop, the term “USAID Environmental Procedures” does not refer only to 22CFR 216 (Reg. 216), but collectively to Reg. 216, relevant FAA requirements, and to the mandatory procedures and directives contained in the USAID-internal ADS.
Summary The preceding workshop sessions have:
• Described ESDM as a key objective for the ethical and effective practice of development
• Explained the EIA process and the fundamental skills of baseline characterization, impact identification, and mitigation design
• Highlighted EIA as the framework for achieving ESDM in project-based development activities, and as the basis for USAID Environmental Procedures
• Provided an opportunity to test and apply fundamental EIA skills in a field-based exercise
USAID is required by both court settlement and US law to utilize an EIA-based process to “fully take into account” environmental sustainability in the design and implementation of its development programs. USAID Environmental Procedures represent the Agency’s unique implementation of the EIA process, and seek to assure that USAID-funded projects effectively identify and mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. USAID Environmental Procedures also lay out an environmental compliance regime in which the Agency and Implementing Partners fulfill various environment-related requirements over the life of project.
Specifically, USAID Environmental Procedures dictate a process that must be applied to all activities before implementation. The output of this EIA process, defined by 22CFR216 (“Reg. 216”), is USAID-approved Reg. 216 environmental compliance documentation. This documentation includes:
• Requests for Categorical Exclusion (RCE)
• Initial Environmental Examinations (IEEs)—the USAID version of a preliminary assessment
• Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Programmatic Environmental Assessments (PEAs)
Most IEEs and all EAs/PEAs specify environmental management conditions, which are essentially mitigative measures. These measures—“IEE/EA conditions”—must be implemented and monitored over the life of the activity (or life of project, LOP). While implementation is the responsibility of the IP, USAID C/AORs are required to actively manage and monitor compliance with IEE/EA conditions. This process is the cornerstone of project environmental compliance. This session will introduce —but not go into detail regarding—the steps comprising this process and who is responsible for them: MEOs, CORs/AORs, Activity Managers, IPs, etc.
Although the pre-implementation, or “upstream compliance” aspect of USAID Environmental Procedures is well articulated via Reg. 216, specific requirements for the implementation of IEE/EA conditions and associated reporting—“downstream compliance”—are based primarily on Agency best practice, and vary somewhat by region. To strengthen downstream environmental compliance in Africa, IEEs and award documents are increasingly requiring IPs to develop, submit and implement environmental mitigation and monitoring plans (EMMPs) for their projects. The EMMP is a systematic vehicle to implement IEE and EA conditions.
More about Reg. 216 (22 CFR 216)
Reg. 216 is a US federal regulation that sets out USAID’s mandatory pre-obligation/ pre-implementation EIA process. The Regulation applies to all USAID programs or activities, including non-project assistance and substantive amendments or extensions to ongoing activities. No “irreversible commitment of resources” can occur to implement an activity unless the activity is covered by appropriate, approved Reg. 216 documentation.
When IEEs are approved with mitigation and monitoring conditions attached to one or more activities, those conditions become a required part of project design/implementation. (EAs always have such conditions.)
Across USAID programs, Reg. 216 documentation is developed both by Mission staff and Partners, depending on the situation. Title II Cooperating Sponsors, for example, are required to develop IEEs as part of their MYAPs, and other partners are often asked to develop Reg. 216 documentation for new project components. Reg. 216 documentation covering multiple projects at the sector program level is developed by Mission staff or 3rd-party contractors.
Reg. 216 is the best-known portion of USAID Environmental Procedures. However, Reg. 216 simply defines the pre-implementation EIA process. Unless the IEE and EA conditions that result from this process are actually implemented, (1) the activity is out of compliance; (2) the Reg. 216 process is largely meaningless; and (3) the objective of the environmental procedures (ESDM) is not achieved.
For this reason, the ADS requires C/AORs to REMEDY or HALT activities where IEE/EA conditions are not being implemented, or which are otherwise out of compliance.
Objectives • Understand the legal mandate of USAID Environmental Procedures, including 22CFR216
(“Reg. 216”).
• Link application of the EIA-based Environmental Procedures to the goals of ESDM and broader USAID development efforts.
• Gain familiarity with the environmental compliance requirements established by USAID Environmental Procedures, including IEEs and related documentation.
• Illustrate how the USAID IEE and related environmental compliance documents determine project environmental management requirements.
Key resource • The Environmental Procedures Briefing for Mission Staff is a succinct summary of LOP
environmental compliance. This training draws heavily from the Briefing. It is included in this Sourcebook and available at www.encapafrica.org/meoEntry.htm.
EIA
and
USA
ID E
nviro
nmen
tal P
roce
dure
s:
the
Initi
al E
nviro
nmen
tal E
xam
inat
ion
and
Bey
ond
GE
MS
Env
ironm
enta
l Com
plia
nce-
ES
DM
Tra
inin
g S
erie
sS
eneg
al, F
ebru
ary,
201
4
Sess
ion
Obj
ectiv
es:
•R
evie
w b
ackg
roun
d an
d pr
inci
ples
of E
nviro
nmen
tal
Impa
ct A
sses
smen
t (E
IA)
•R
evie
w E
IA p
roce
ss a
nd fu
ndam
enta
l ski
lls:
•B
asel
ine
char
acte
rizat
ion
•Id
entif
ying
impa
cts
of c
once
rn•
Dev
elop
ing
a m
itiga
tion
stra
tegy
•E
xpla
in U
SA
ID im
plem
enta
tion
of th
e E
IA p
roce
ss
•U
nder
stan
d pr
epar
atio
n of
US
AID
env
ironm
enta
l co
mpl
ianc
e do
cum
enta
tion
2
USA
ID E
nviro
nmen
tal P
roce
dure
s
•Sp
ecifi
es a
n A
genc
y-w
ide
appr
oach
to e
nviro
nmen
tal
man
agem
ent o
f USA
ID-fu
nded
ac
tiviti
es.
•“E
nviro
nmen
tal P
roce
dure
s”
Enco
mpa
ss:
•22
CFR
216
(“R
eg. 2
16”)
•Fo
reig
n A
ssis
tanc
e A
ct (F
AA
) Sec
tions
11
7, 1
18 &
119
. •
US
AID
-inte
rnal
Aut
omat
ed D
irect
ives
S
yste
m (A
DS
)•
Reg
iona
l Bes
t Pra
ctic
es
3
“USA
ID
Envi
ronm
enta
l Pr
oced
ures
” re
fers
ge
nera
lly to
all
rele
vant
law
s,
Age
ncy
guid
ance
, an
d pr
evai
ling
best
pr
actic
es.
!
App
lyin
g th
e EI
A p
roce
ss
•Th
e U
SAID
app
roac
h to
EIA
is
esta
blis
hed
in R
eg. 2
16
•R
eg. 2
16 d
efin
es a
pre
-im
plem
enta
tion
EIA
pro
cess
•Th
is p
roce
ss a
pplie
s to
:•
All
US
AID
pro
gram
s or
act
iviti
es,
(incl
udin
g no
n-pr
ojec
t ass
ista
nce.
)•
New
act
iviti
es•
Sub
stan
tive
amen
dmen
ts o
r ext
ensi
ons
to o
ngoi
ng a
ctiv
ities
4
Reg
. 21
6 (2
2 C
FR 2
16) i
s a
US
FED
ERA
L R
EGU
LATI
ON
. C
ompl
ianc
e is
m
anda
tory
.
!
Reg
. 216
=U
SAID
’s im
plem
enta
tion
of
gene
ral E
IA p
roce
ss. .
.
Con
duct
a
Prel
imin
ary
Ass
essm
ent
A ra
pid,
si
mpl
ified
EIA
st
udy
usin
g si
mpl
e to
ols
(e.g
. the
USA
ID
Initi
al E
nv.
Exam
inat
ion)
AC
TIVI
TY IS
O
F M
OD
ERA
TEO
R U
NK
NO
WN
RIS
K
SIG
NIF
ICA
NT
AD
VER
SE
IMPA
CTS
PO
SSIB
LE
SIG
NIF
ICA
NT
AD
VE
RS
E
IMP
AC
TS
VE
RY
UN
LIK
ELY
AC
TIVI
TY IS
LO
W
RIS
K(B
ased
on
its
natu
re, v
ery
unlik
ely
to h
ave
sign
ifica
nt
adve
rse
impa
cts)
AC
TIVI
TY IS
HIG
H
RIS
K(B
ased
on
its
natu
re, l
ikel
y to
hav
e si
gnifi
cant
adv
erse
im
pact
s)
Phas
eII
Phas
e I
BEG
IN
FULL
EIA
ST
UD
Y
Docu
men
t an
d su
bmit
for a
ppro
val
. . .t
hat
begi
ns th
e sa
me
way
as
any
EIA
pr
oces
s. .
.
5
Scre
en th
e ac
tivity
Bas
ed o
n th
e na
ture
of t
he
activ
ity, w
hat
leve
l of
envi
ronm
enta
l re
view
is
indi
cate
d?
Und
erst
and
prop
osed
ac
tivity
Why
is th
e ac
tivity
bei
ng
prop
osed
?
Wha
t is
bein
g pr
opos
ed?
The
USA
ID s
cree
ning
pro
cess
1. Is
the
activ
ity
EXEM
PT?
NO
2. Is
the
activ
ity
CAT
EGO
RIC
ALL
Y EX
CLU
DED
?
3. Is
the
activ
ity
HIG
H R
ISK
?
Prep
are
Initi
al E
nviro
nmen
tal E
xam
inat
ion
(IEE)
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
star
tPl
ain-
lang
uage
mea
ning
& im
plic
atio
n
“Em
erge
ncy
Act
iviti
es”
(as
defin
ed b
y 22
CFR
216
)N
o en
viro
nmen
tal r
evie
w re
quire
d, b
ut a
ntic
ipat
ed
adve
rse
impa
cts
shou
ld b
e m
itiga
ted
Very
low
-ris
k; n
o U
SAID
kno
wle
dge
or c
ontr
ol
(with
in c
ateg
orie
s de
fined
by
22 C
FR 2
16)
No
furth
er e
nviro
nmen
tal r
evie
w is
nec
essa
ry.
You
prob
ably
mus
t do
a fu
ll En
viro
nmen
tal
Ass
essm
ent (
EA) o
r rev
ise
the
activ
ity
(or n
ot y
et c
lear
)
Prep
are
Envi
ronm
enta
l A
sses
smen
t (fu
ll EI
A st
udy)
Allo
wed
by
Reg
. 216
But
not
usu
ally
reco
mm
ende
d re
com
men
ded
6
Scre
enin
g un
der 2
2 C
FR 2
16:
Exem
ptio
ns
7
“Exe
mpt
” act
iviti
es o
ften
have
si
gnifi
cant
adv
erse
impa
cts.
M
itiga
te th
ese
impa
cts
whe
re
poss
ible
.
1.In
tern
atio
nal d
isas
ter a
ssis
tanc
e
2.O
ther
em
erge
ncy
situ
atio
ns
requ
ires
Adm
inis
trat
or (A
/AID
) or
Ass
ista
nt A
dmin
istr
ator
(AA
/AID
) fo
rmal
app
rova
l
3.C
ircum
stan
ces
with
“ex
cept
iona
l fo
reig
n po
licy
sens
itivi
ties”
requ
ires
A/A
ID o
r AA
/AID
form
al
appr
oval
Und
er R
eg. 2
16
EXEM
PTIO
NS
are
ON
LY. .
.
!
NO
YES
star
t
1. Is
the
activ
ity
EXEM
PT?
•E
duca
tion,
tech
nica
l ass
ista
nce,
or
train
ing
prog
ram
s (a
s lo
ng a
s no
ac
tiviti
es d
irect
ly a
ffect
the
envi
ronm
ent)
•D
ocum
ents
or i
nfor
mat
ion
trans
fers
•A
naly
ses,
stu
dies
, aca
dem
ic o
r re
sear
ch w
orks
hops
and
mee
tings
•
Nut
ritio
n, h
ealth
, fam
ily p
lann
ing
activ
ities
exc
ept w
here
med
ical
w
aste
is g
ener
ated
ON
LY a
ctiv
ities
fitti
ng in
a s
et o
f 15
spec
ific
cate
gorie
s M
AYqu
alify
for
cate
goric
al e
xclu
sion
s, in
clud
ing.
. .
Scre
enin
g un
der 2
2 C
FR 2
16:
Cat
egor
ical
Exc
lusi
ons
8
1. Is
the
activ
ity
EXEM
PT?
NO
YES
star
t
2. Is
the
activ
ity
CAT
EGO
RIC
ALL
Y EX
CLU
DED
?YE
S
NO
Why
wou
ld c
ateg
oric
al e
xclu
sion
s N
OT
appl
y if
USA
ID fu
nds.
. .
•A
tech
nica
l adv
isor
to th
e m
inis
try o
f en
viro
nmen
t & e
nerg
y w
ith c
o-si
gnat
ure
auth
ority
ove
r min
ing
conc
essi
on
awar
ds?
•M
idw
ife tr
aini
ng in
man
agem
ent
of 3
rd-s
tage
labo
r?
•C
redi
t sup
port
to la
rge-
scal
e ag
ro-
proc
essi
ng?
An
activ
ity m
ay “
fit”
into
a
cate
goric
ally
exc
lude
d cl
ass.
. .
. . .
but i
f adv
erse
impa
cts
are
reas
onab
ly
fore
seea
ble,
the
act
ivity
will
NO
T re
ceiv
e a
cate
goric
al e
xclu
sion
.
No
cate
goric
al e
xclu
sion
s ar
e po
ssib
le w
hen
an
activ
ity in
volv
es p
estic
ides
. (2
2 C
FR 2
16.2
(e))
Cat
egor
ical
Exc
lusi
ons:
LIM
ITA
TIO
NS
9
1. Is
the
activ
ity
EXEM
PT?
YES
star
t
2. Is
the
activ
ity
CAT
EGO
RIC
ALL
Y EX
CLU
DED
?YE
S
NO
!
NO
Scre
enin
g un
der 2
2CFR
216
“Hig
h R
isk”
(EA
Lik
ely
Req
uire
d)
“HIG
H R
ISK
” =
activ
ities
“fo
r whi
ch a
n EA
is
nor
mal
ly re
quire
d” p
er 2
2 C
FR 2
16
OR
othe
r act
iviti
es w
hich
cle
arly
pre
sent
hi
gh e
nviro
nmen
tal r
isks
•P
enet
ratio
n ro
ad b
uild
ing
or im
prov
emen
t•
Irrig
atio
n, w
ater
man
agem
ent,
or d
rain
age
proj
ects
•A
gric
ultu
ral l
and
leve
ling
•N
ew la
nd d
evel
opm
ent;
prog
ram
s of
rive
r bas
in
deve
lopm
ent
•La
rge
scal
e ag
ricul
tura
l mec
hani
zatio
n•
Res
ettle
men
t•
Pow
erpl
ants
& in
dust
rial p
lant
s•
Pot
able
wat
er &
sew
age,
“e
xcep
t sm
all-s
cale
”
10
1. Is
the
activ
ity
EXEM
PT?
YES
star
t
2. Is
the
activ
ity
CAT
EGO
RIC
ALL
Y EX
CLU
DED
?YE
S
NO
NO
3. Is
the
activ
ity
HIG
H R
ISK
?
NO
YES
Wha
t if m
y ac
tivity
is “
high
risk
”?
WH
Y a
prel
imin
ary
asse
ssm
ent?
An
IEE
will
:•
Allo
w y
ou to
det
erm
ine
if im
pact
s ca
n be
eas
ily c
ontro
lled
belo
w a
sig
nific
ant l
evel
—if
so,
an E
A is
not
nec
essa
ry
•G
athe
r inf
orm
atio
n ne
eded
to
jum
p-st
art t
he E
A pr
oces
s
Can
pro
ceed
dire
ctly
to a
n EA
(USA
ID’s
full
EIA
stud
y)
But
unl
ess
the
activ
ity is
VE
RY c
lear
ly “
high
risk
”,
do a
n IE
E (U
SAID
’s
prel
imin
ary
asse
ssm
ent)
inst
ead
11
Wha
t is
clea
rly “
high
risk
”?
EAD
EFIN
ITEL
Y R
EQU
IRED
NO
T C
LEA
R—
proc
eed
to IE
EN
ew 5
00H
a irr
igat
ion
sche
me
Reh
abili
tatio
n of
50H
a irr
igat
ion
sche
me
Maj
or e
xpan
sion
of a
100
MW
ther
mal
pow
er p
lant
&
con
stru
ctio
n of
new
tran
smis
sion
line
sM
ini-h
ydro
inst
alla
tions
of 5
00 k
w to
tal
Wid
enin
g 30
km o
f a 2
-lane
road
to
6-la
ne to
llway
thru
an
urba
n ar
eaR
ehab
ilita
tion
of m
ultip
le s
hort
segm
ents
of r
ural
feed
er ro
ad
Sect
ions
118
& 1
19 o
f the
For
eign
A
ssis
tanc
e A
ct R
EQU
IRE
an E
A fo
r. .
Act
iviti
es in
volv
ing
proc
urem
ent o
r use
of l
oggi
ng
equi
pmen
t
Act
iviti
es w
ith th
e po
tent
ial t
o si
gnifi
cant
ly d
egra
de
natio
nal p
arks
or s
imila
r pro
tect
ed a
reas
or
intro
duce
exo
tic p
lant
s or
ani
mal
s in
to s
uch
area
s
12
Onc
e ea
ch a
ctiv
ity h
as b
een
scre
ened
…
Activ
ity*
Exem
ptCa
tEx
IEE
Req’
dEA
Req
’d
1. Sm
all cl
inic r
ehab
ilitati
onX
2. Bo
reho
leIns
tallat
ions
X
3. Tr
aining
in pa
tient
reco
rd-ke
eping
X
4. Co
nstru
ctpr
ovinc
ial m
edica
l wa
ste di
spos
al fac
ility
X
*Use
a ta
ble l
ike th
is. It
help
s.
13
Dev
elop
you
r 22
CFR
216
doc
umen
tatio
n. .
.
Ove
rall
scre
enin
gre
sults
22 C
FR 2
16
docu
men
tatio
n re
quire
dA
ll ac
tiviti
es a
re
exem
ptS
tate
men
t of J
ustif
icat
ion
All
activ
ities
cate
goric
ally
exc
lude
dC
ateg
oric
alEx
clus
ion
Req
uest
+ F
ACE
SH
EET
All
activ
ities
requ
ire
an IE
EIE
Eco
verin
g al
l act
iviti
es +
FA
CE
SH
EE
T
Som
e ac
tiviti
es a
re
cate
goric
ally
ex
clud
ed, s
ome
requ
ire a
n IE
E
An
IEE
that
:
Cov
ers
activ
ities
for
whi
ch a
n IE
E is
re
quire
d A
ND
Ju
stifi
es th
e ca
tego
rical
ex
clus
ions
+ FA
CE
SH
EE
T
Hig
h-ris
k ac
tiviti
es
Initi
ate
scop
ing
and
prep
arat
ion
of a
n E
A
CAT
EGO
RIC
AL
EXC
LUSI
ON
REQ
UES
TVe
ry s
impl
e; 1
-2 p
ages
. D
escr
ibes
the
activ
ities
. C
ites
22 C
FR 2
16 to
ju
stify
the
cate
x.
Initi
al
Envi
ronm
enta
l Ex
amin
atio
n(U
SAID
’s
prel
imin
ary
asse
ssm
ent)
. . .a
s de
term
ined
by
the
outc
ome
of y
our s
cree
ning
pro
cess
14
Proj
ect D
esig
n Pr
oces
s
-Step
s 1-1
0-R
eview
-App
rove
/Disa
ppro
ve-if
yes t
hen S
tage 2
CD
CS
Stag
e 1:
Con
cept
Pap
er
Prog
ram
Cyc
le
Gend
er/ E
nv/S
ustA
nalys
is7.
Anal.
& S
ust. C
onsid
erati
ons
Anne
x b. L
og F
rame
Anne
x k. E
nvTh
resh
. Dec
ision
Anne
x m. W
aiver
s (AU
PCS)
Stag
e 2:
Ana
lytic
al (P
AD
)
AUPC
Smi
tigati
ng m
easu
res i
n the
PAD
Stag
e 3:
Pro
ject
A
utho
rizat
ion
Tim
ing
of 2
2 C
FR 2
16 d
ocum
enta
tion.
. .
USA
ID’s
pro
ject
des
ign
proc
ess
requ
ires
appr
oved
Reg
. 216
doc
umen
tatio
n as
an
nex
to th
e Pr
ojec
t A
ppra
isal
Doc
umen
t
15
Thre
shol
d D
ecis
ion
Env
ironm
enta
l Pl
anni
ng, F
AA
117,
11
8, 1
19
Bas
ic IE
E ou
tline
1.B
ackg
roun
d &
Act
ivity
Des
crip
tion
•P
urpo
se &
Sco
pe o
f IE
E•
Bac
kgro
und
•D
escr
iptio
n of
act
iviti
es
2. C
ount
ry &
Env
ironm
enta
l in
form
atio
n•
Loca
tions
affe
cted
•N
atio
nal e
nviro
nmen
tal p
olic
ies
and
proc
edur
es
3. E
valu
atio
n of
pot
entia
l env
ironm
enta
l im
pact
s
4. R
ecom
men
ded
thre
shol
d de
cisi
ons
and
miti
gatio
n ac
tions
•R
ecom
men
ded
thre
shol
d de
cisi
ons
and
cond
ition
s•
Miti
gatio
n, m
onito
ring
& e
valu
atio
n
Wha
t doe
s it
look
like
?
The
IEE
is
very
sim
ilar t
o pr
elim
inar
y as
sess
men
ts
requ
ired
by
othe
r don
ors
and
gove
rnm
ents
.
The
IEE:
USA
ID’s
pre
limin
ary
asse
ssm
ent
16
!
Purp
ose
of IE
E
Prov
ides
do
cum
enta
tion
and
anal
ysis
that
:
•Allo
ws
the
prep
arer
to d
eter
min
e w
heth
er
or n
ot s
igni
fican
t ad
vers
e im
pact
s ar
e lik
ely
•Allo
ws
the
revi
ewer
to a
gree
or d
isag
ree
with
the
prep
arer
’s
dete
rmin
atio
ns
•Set
s ou
t miti
gatio
n an
d m
onito
ring
for
adve
rse
impa
cts
17
Wha
t det
erm
inat
ions
resu
lt fr
om a
n IE
E?
For e
ach
activ
ity a
ddre
ssed
, the
IEE
mak
es o
ne o
f 4
reco
mm
enda
tions
rega
rdin
g its
pos
sibl
e im
pact
s:If
the
IEE
anal
ysis
find
s. .
.Th
e IE
E re
com
men
ds a
. . .
Impl
icat
ions
(if IE
E is
app
rove
d)N
o si
gnifi
cant
adv
erse
en
viro
nmen
tal i
mpa
cts
NEG
ATIV
ED
ETER
MIN
ATIO
NN
o co
nditi
ons.
Go
ahea
d.
With
spe
cifie
d m
itiga
tion
and
mon
itorin
g, n
o si
gnifi
cant
en
viro
nmen
tal i
mpa
cts
NEG
ATIV
ED
ETER
MIN
ATIO
NW
ITH
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
Spe
cifie
d m
itiga
tion
and
mon
itorin
g m
ust b
e im
plem
ente
d
Sig
nific
ant a
dver
se
envi
ronm
enta
l im
pact
s ar
e po
ssib
le
POSI
TIVE
DET
ERM
INAT
ION
Do
full
EA
or re
desi
gn a
ctiv
ity.
Con
ditio
ns im
pose
d by
the
EA
mus
t be
impl
emen
ted.
Not
eno
ugh
info
rmat
ion
to e
valu
ate
impa
cts
DEF
ERR
AL
You
cann
ot im
plem
ent t
he
activ
ity u
ntil
the
IEE
is a
men
ded
PLU
S, th
e IE
E w
ill a
ddre
ss a
ny C
ATEG
OR
ICA
L EX
CLU
SIO
NS
carr
ied
over
from
the
scre
enin
g pr
oces
s.
18
Cle
aran
ces:
•C
OR
/AO
R o
r Tea
m le
ader
•M
issi
on E
nviro
nmen
tal O
ffice
r (fo
r M
issi
ons)
•R
egio
nal E
nviro
nmen
tal A
dvis
or
(dep
endi
ng o
n m
issi
on)
•M
issi
on D
irect
or
or W
ashi
ngto
n eq
uiva
lent
*
Con
curre
nce
•Bu
reau
Env
ironm
enta
l Offi
cer*
App
rova
l•
Gen
eral
Cou
nsel
(rar
ely)
Who
sign
s?IM
POR
TAN
CE:
N
o ac
tiviti
es m
ay b
e im
plem
ente
d w
ithou
t AP
PR
OV
ED
Reg
. 216
en
viro
nmen
tal d
ocum
enta
tion
in
hand
.
APP
RO
VED
=
Mis
sion
Dire
ctor
(o
r Was
hing
ton
equi
vale
nt) &
B
urea
u En
viro
nmen
tal O
ffice
r (B
EO) s
igna
ture
s
BE
O c
oncu
rren
ce n
ot a
utom
atic
or
guar
ante
ed
Dia
logu
e is
som
etim
es re
quire
d*r
equi
red
by R
eg 2
16
Reg
. 216
doc
umen
tatio
n &
app
rova
l
19
The
IEE
is p
oste
d to
USA
ID’s
en
viro
nmen
tal c
ompl
ianc
e da
taba
se*
Whe
n th
e IE
E is
dul
y ap
prov
ed. .
.
Rec
omm
ende
dde
term
inat
ions
&
cate
goric
al e
xclu
sion
s be
com
e TH
RES
HO
LD D
ECIS
ION
S
Con
ditio
ns b
ecom
e R
EQU
IRED
el
emen
ts o
f pro
ject
impl
emen
tatio
n &
mon
itorin
g (A
DS
204
.3.4
(b))
Con
ditio
ns a
re w
ritte
n in
to o
r re
fere
nced
in s
olic
itatio
n &
aw
ard
docu
men
ts (A
DS
204
.3.4
(a)(6
))
AO
Rs/
CO
Rs
over
see
impl
emen
tatio
n(A
DS
204
.3.4
(b))
*www
.usaid
.gov/o
ur_w
ork/e
nviro
nmen
t/com
plian
ce/da
tabas
e.htm
l
20
IEE
cond
ition
s pr
ovid
e th
e be
droc
k on
whi
ch li
fe-o
f-pro
ject
miti
gatio
n an
d m
onito
ring
crite
ria a
re
esta
blis
hed.
Wha
t if I
nee
d to
do
an E
nviro
nmen
tal
Ass
essm
ent*
?
•Fi
rst s
tep:
a fo
rmal
sco
ping
pro
cess
(2
2 C
FR 2
16.3
(a)(4
))
•S
copi
ng S
tate
men
t mus
t be
appr
oved
by
Mis
sion
Dire
ctor
, B
urea
u E
nviro
nmen
tal O
ffice
r.
•In
form
s th
e S
OW
for t
he
Env
ironm
enta
l Ass
essm
ent i
tsel
f.
•E
As
are
far m
ore
deta
iled
than
IEE
s.
They
mus
t add
ress
alte
rnat
ives
to th
e pr
opos
ed a
ctiv
ities
. Pub
lic
cons
ulta
tions
are
requ
ired.
21
*If a
pro
pose
d ac
tion
may
affe
ct th
e US
env
ironm
ent o
r the
glob
al co
mm
ons,
an E
IS is
requ
ired,
not
an
EA. (
EIS
= En
viron
men
tal
Impa
ct S
tate
men
t, pe
r the
US
Natio
nal E
nviro
nmen
tal P
olicy
Act
(NEP
A)).
This
is RA
RE. (
22 C
FR 21
6.7.)
Wha
t abo
ut h
ost-c
ount
ry E
IA
proc
edur
es?
•M
ost h
ost c
ount
ries
have
dom
estic
EIA
requ
irem
ents
;
•U
SA
ID p
roje
cts
mus
t als
o co
mpl
y w
ith th
ese
requ
irem
ents
;
•S
o, d
urin
g sc
reen
ing,
als
o sc
reen
aga
inst
hos
t cou
ntry
cat
egor
ies.
•If
a ho
st-c
ount
ry p
relim
inar
y as
sess
men
t or f
ull E
IA is
requ
ired,
th
e ob
ject
ive
is to
cre
ate
one
docu
men
t tha
t sat
isfie
s bo
th
syst
ems.
22
Sum
mar
y
•R
eg. 2
16 e
stab
lishe
s th
e pr
e-im
plem
enta
tion
US
AID
en
viro
nmen
tal r
evie
w p
roce
ss•
This
refle
cts
the
gene
ral E
IA m
etho
dolo
gy•
It be
gins
with
a s
yste
mat
ic s
cree
ning
and
dec
isio
n-m
akin
g pr
oces
s w
ith m
ore
deta
iled
revi
ew, i
f nee
ded
•U
SA
ID d
ocum
enta
tion
and
appr
oval
pro
cess
es a
re
clea
r and
man
dato
ry•
Reg
. 216
doc
umen
ts d
efin
e pr
ojec
t env
ironm
enta
l m
anag
emen
t crit
eria
, mos
t fre
quen
tly a
s IE
E
cond
ition
s
23
Session 6.
The Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP)
Technical presentation and dialogue Summary Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plans (EMMPs) provide a framework for specifying and organizing mitigation and monitoring, and assuring that it responds systematically to IEE/EA conditions. In its most basic form, the EMMP is a simple table that sets out:
• ALL the mitigation measures being implemented in response to IEE/EA conditions;
• The monitoring that will determine whether the mitigation is sufficient and effective; and
• Who is responsible for both mitigation and monitoring.
EMMPs may also include budgeting information for mitigation and monitoring and a monitoring log section where monitoring results can be recorded. We illustrate the EMMP concept at the end of the session with an extended example.
Note that EMMPs are also known as EMPs (Environmental Management Plans), EMPRs (Environmental Mitigation Plan and Report), and similar acronyms.
EMMP is the most widely used term. EMMP formats likewise vary. IEEs or awards sometimes specify an EMMP format, but more often the IP has flexibility in designing/adopting/adapting a format that meets the needs of the particular project. The formats discussed in this training are the most common and are acceptable in most contexts.
USAID Environmental Procedures require that environmental mitigation required by IEEs and EAs is implemented and monitored, but do not require EMMPs per se. However, most new IEEs do require that EMMPs be developed and implemented. This requirement can be operationalized either as technical direction from the COR/AOR, or as a provision of new contracts and agreements.
Title II Cooperating Sponsors are required to develop EMMPs by the Agency’s MYAP guidance.
EMMPs are being required because a key lesson learned from 40 years of EIA experience worldwide is that it is almost impossible to systematically carry out the mitigation measures that result from the EIA process unless an EMMP exists, and is incorporated into a project’s workplan and budget.
Environmental Compliance Language (ECL)
For new awards and significant modifications to existing awards, USAID Missions and Bureaus are increasingly requiring EMMPs in the language of award instruments. This is part of a broader trend within USAID to use “best practice” environmental compliance language in solicitations and awards.
This language goes beyond the minimum requirement established by the ADS that mitigation measures be incorporated into “implementation instruments.” It requires that:
1. a complete EMMP be developed;
2. workplans and budgets integrate the EMMP; and
3. project reporting tracks EMMP implementation.
The source of this “best practice language” is the Environmental Compliance: Language for Use in Solicitations and Awards (ECL) tool. This tool is a non-mandatory part of the ADS, and combines step-by-step guidance and “boilerplate” language. The BEOs and REAs strongly encourage its use.
EMMP Submission and Approval
EMMPs should be approved by the COR/AOR; sometimes there is additional review by the MEO or REA. COR/AORs should require that EMMPs are submitted together with the project’s workplan or PMP.
Title II Partners sometimes submit them as part of the IEE, itself a part of the MYAP package.
Objectives • Brief the EMMP concept.
• Establish that EMMPs are critical to effective and systematic implementation of IEE/EA conditions.
• Explain the mechanisms by which USAID is requiring IPs to develop and implement EMMPs.
Key resources • Simple EMMP template (included in sourcebook)
• EMMP Template with Monitoring Log and Budget (included in Sourcebook)
• EMMP Factsheet (included in Sourcebook—see Annexes)
• Environmental Compliance: Language for Use in Solicitation and Awards (ADS 204 Help Document) (included in Sourcebook)
Envi
ronm
enta
l Miti
gatio
n &
Mon
itorin
g Pl
ans
(EM
MPs
)
GE
MS
Env
ironm
enta
l Com
plia
nce-
ES
DM
Tra
inin
g S
erie
sS
eneg
al, F
ebru
ary,
201
4
Sess
ion
Obj
ectiv
es
2
•U
nder
stan
d th
e U
SA
ID re
quire
men
t for
ong
oing
m
itiga
tion
and
mon
itorin
g of
env
ironm
enta
l im
pact
s
•Le
arn
how
to “o
pera
tiona
lize”
IEE
and
EA
con
ditio
ns
as p
art o
f pro
ject
impl
emen
tatio
n
•D
iscu
ss a
dapt
ing
IEE
/EA
con
ditio
ns in
resp
onse
to
spec
ific
field
act
iviti
es a
nd e
nviro
nmen
ts
•R
evie
w fo
rmat
and
pre
para
tion
of th
e E
nviro
nmen
tal
Miti
gatio
n an
d M
onito
ring
Pla
n (E
MM
P) v
ia c
ase
stud
y
3
Cong
ratu
latio
ns…
W
e ar
e al
l exp
erts
in E
IA a
nd U
SAID
En
viro
nmen
tal P
roce
dure
s!
N
ow, w
e m
ust a
pply
our
kno
wle
dge
of
impa
ct a
sses
smen
t and
miti
gatio
n in
a
real
pro
ject
set
ting
IE
Es
(and
EA
s) a
re u
sele
ss u
nles
s th
e co
nditi
ons—
envi
ronm
enta
l man
agem
ent
crite
ria—
they
est
ablis
h ar
e im
plem
ente
d!
U
SAID
Env
ironm
enta
l Pro
cedu
res
ther
efor
e re
quire
impl
emen
tatio
n
4
Team
Lea
ders
and
Act
ivity
M
anag
ers
or C
OR
/AO
Rs
mus
t ac
tivel
y m
anag
e an
d m
onito
r co
mpl
ianc
e w
ith a
ny IE
E/EA
co
nditi
ons,
mod
ifyin
g or
end
ing
activ
ities
not
in c
ompl
ianc
e.
(AD
S 20
2.3.
6 , 2
04.3
.4 a
nd 3
03.2
.f
Wha
t doe
s th
e A
DS
say?
USA
ID re
quire
men
ts a
re s
peci
fic
USA
ID is
requ
ired
to
impl
emen
t and
mon
itor
IEE/
EA c
ondi
tions
.
5
Impl
emen
tatio
n of
IEE/
EA c
ondi
tions
Prac
tical
ly, i
mpl
emen
tatio
n &
m
onito
ring
of m
it. &
mon
. co
nditi
ons
requ
ires
that
: 1.
US
AID
com
mun
icat
es a
pplic
able
IE
E/E
A c
ondi
tions
to th
e IP
*
2.A
Com
plet
e En
viro
nmen
tal
Miti
gatio
n an
d M
onito
ring
Plan
(EM
MP)
exi
sts
3.P
roje
ct w
orkp
lans
and
bud
gets
in
tegr
ate
the
EMM
P
4.P
roje
ct re
porti
ng tr
acks
im
plem
enta
tion
of th
e EM
MP
EMM
Ps a
re
criti
cal.
Wha
t are
they
?
*Exc
ept T
itle
II pa
rtne
rs, w
ho w
rite
thei
r ow
n IE
Es.
•A
LLth
e m
itiga
tion
mea
sure
s re
quire
d by
the
IEE
or E
A
•In
dica
tors
or
crite
ria fo
r m
onito
ring
thei
r im
plem
enta
tion
& e
ffect
iven
ess
•w
ho is
re
spon
sibl
e fo
r m
itiga
tion
and
mon
itorin
g
An
EMM
P se
ts o
ut:
Act
ivity
Adv
erse
Im
pact
sM
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
Mon
itorin
g In
dica
tors
/C
riter
ia
Mon
itorin
g &
R
epor
ting
Sche
dule
Res
pons
ible
Pa
rty(
ies)
Car
ry o
ver f
rom
the
IEE
onl
y th
ose
activ
ities
with
con
ditio
ns
(e.g
., “n
egat
ive
dete
rmin
atio
n w
ith c
ondi
tions
”)
To d
eter
min
e if
miti
gatio
n is
in p
lace
and
effe
ctiv
e
(e.g
., vi
sual
insp
ectio
n fo
r lea
kage
aro
und
pit
latri
ne; s
edim
enta
tion
at
stre
am c
ross
ing,
etc
.)
If w
ell s
peci
fied,
exc
erpt
di
rect
ly fr
om th
e IE
E;
If no
t wel
l spe
cifie
d in
IE
E, d
efin
e in
bet
ter
deta
il
(e.g
., m
onito
r wee
kly,
re
port
in q
uarte
rly
repo
rts a
nd m
ore
frequ
ently
und
er
spec
ified
con
ditio
ns)
For m
itiga
tion,
and
for
mon
itorin
g an
d re
porti
ng.
(may
diff
er)
See
EMM
P te
mpl
ate
prov
ided
in
trai
ning
m
ater
ials
Bas
ic E
MM
P te
mpl
ate
The
EMM
P: a
sim
ple
tool
6
7
Mor
e so
phis
ticat
ed E
MM
P fo
rmat
s ca
n in
clud
e:1.
Bud
getin
g in
form
atio
n
•H
ow m
uch
will
a m
itiga
tion
or
mon
itorin
g m
easu
re c
ost?
•W
hat i
s th
e LO
E in
volv
ed?
2.A
Mon
itorin
g Lo
g se
ctio
n
•W
here
miti
gatio
n im
plem
enta
tion
info
rmat
ion
or m
onito
ring
resu
lts
are
reco
rded
3.O
ther
Sug
gest
ions
?
We
will
revi
ew a
n EM
MP
form
at w
ith
thes
e fe
atur
es
The
EMM
P: a
flex
ible
tool
8
Th
e EM
MP
mus
t spe
cify
pr
actic
al m
itiga
tion
mea
sure
s
Th
e EM
MP
ofte
n “t
rans
late
s”
IEE
cond
ition
s th
at a
re
writ
ten
in v
ery
gene
ral t
erm
s
Im
plem
entin
g th
ese
cond
ition
s re
quire
s fir
st
tran
slat
ing
them
into
sp
ecifi
c m
itiga
tion
actio
ns
How
do
we
do th
is?
For e
xam
ple,
WA
SH-r
elat
ed
IEE
cond
ition
s m
ight
sta
te:
“wel
ls s
hall
be s
ited
to
min
imiz
e th
e po
ssib
ility
of
cont
amin
atio
n.”
Or e
ven
mor
e ge
nera
lly:
“wel
ls s
hall
be s
ited
cons
iste
nt
with
goo
d pr
actic
es.”
An
effe
ctiv
e EM
MP
is s
peci
fic +
real
istic
9
Det
erm
inin
g sp
ecifi
c m
itiga
tion
actio
ns s
tart
s w
ith re
view
of
appr
opria
te s
tand
ards
or b
est
prac
tice
guid
ance
For o
ur w
ell e
xam
ple:
Id
entif
y an
d ad
opt s
iting
crit
eria
fr
om re
leva
nt re
sour
ces
Th
e sp
ecifi
c m
itiga
tion
actio
n/
mea
sure
in th
e EM
MP
is:
“C
ompl
ianc
e w
ith p
roje
ct w
ell-s
iting
cr
iteria
”
A
ttach
siti
ng c
riter
ia to
EM
MP;
mak
e ch
eckl
ist f
or u
se b
y fie
ld te
ams
and
Mon
itorin
g &
Eva
luat
ion
(M&
E) s
taff
Sphe
re s
tand
ards
Sect
orEn
viro
nmen
tal
Gui
delin
esE
TC.
EMM
Ps b
uild
on
stan
dard
s &
bes
t pra
ctic
e
Hos
t cou
ntry
sta
ndar
ds
10
MIN
IMU
M d
ista
nces
from
pot
entia
l sou
rces
of
cont
amin
atio
n fo
r wel
l siti
ng:
45
m fr
om a
pre
para
tion
or s
tora
ge a
rea
for
agro
chem
ical
s, fu
els,
or i
ndus
tria
l che
mic
als
25
m fr
om c
essp
ools
, lea
chin
g pi
ts, a
nd d
ry
wel
ls
15
m fr
om a
bur
ied
sew
er, s
eptic
tank
, su
bsur
face
dis
posa
l fie
ld, g
rave
ani
mal
or
poul
try
yard
or b
uild
ing,
latr
ine
pit,
or o
ther
co
ntam
inan
ts th
at m
ay d
rain
into
the
soil
M
ore
than
45m
from
a s
eptic
tank
leac
h fie
ld
Let’s
discu
ss an
other
exam
ple:
Bes
t pra
ctic
e gu
idan
ce: w
ell s
iting
crit
eria
11
IEE
stip
ulat
es th
at:
“Cap
acity
bui
ldin
g an
d po
licy
deve
lopm
ent
supp
ort t
o pu
blic
hea
lth d
eliv
ery
and
man
agem
ent s
yste
ms
mus
t inv
olve
all
feas
ible
effo
rts to
ass
ure
that
thes
e sy
stem
s:
ad
dres
s an
d su
ppor
t pro
per w
aste
m
anag
emen
t (in
clud
ing
hand
ling,
labe
ling,
tre
atm
ent,
stor
age,
tran
spor
t and
dis
posa
l of
med
ical
was
te);
ad
dres
s an
d su
ppor
t the
cap
acity
of m
edic
al
faci
litie
s fo
r was
te m
anag
emen
t;
pr
iorit
ize
envi
ronm
enta
l hea
lth
cons
ider
atio
ns.”
To “
tran
slat
e” th
ese
IEE
cond
ition
s, th
e EM
MP
will
nee
d to
:•
iden
tify
an
appr
opria
te w
aste
m
anag
emen
t st
anda
rd; a
nd•
spec
ify w
hat i
s re
alis
tic, g
iven
th
at th
e pr
ojec
t w
ill n
ot h
ave
dire
ct c
ontr
ol
over
thes
e sy
stem
s
Hea
lth s
ervi
ces
capa
city
& p
olic
y
12
A ke
y “l
esso
n le
arne
d” fr
om 4
0 ye
ars
of w
orld
-wid
e EI
A ex
perie
nce
…im
plem
enta
tion
of e
nviro
nmen
tal
cond
ition
s re
quire
s EM
MPs
that
are
in
corp
orat
ed in
wor
kpla
ns
and
budg
ets
!Thre
e m
echa
nism
s:
1.Te
chni
cal d
irect
ion
from
CO
R o
r AO
R
2.R
equi
red
by c
ontra
ct/a
gree
men
t
3.R
equi
red
by M
YA
P g
uida
nce
(Titl
e II
only
)
More
abou
t thi
s…
How
are
EM
MPs
bei
ng re
quire
d?
13
AD
S re
quire
s“i
ncor
pora
ting.
. .
miti
gativ
e m
easu
res
iden
tifie
d in
IEEs
[and
] EA
s in
to im
plem
enta
tion
inst
rum
ents
for p
rogr
ams,
pr
ojec
ts, a
ctiv
ities
or
amen
dmen
ts.”
(204
.3.4
.a.6
;als
o 30
3.3.
6.3e
)
USA
ID is
requ
ired
to
writ
e IE
E/EA
con
ditio
ns
into
aw
ards
.
USA
ID re
quire
men
ts a
re s
peci
fic: P
art I
I
Wha
t doe
s th
e A
DS
say?
14
USA
ID is
incr
easi
ngly
usi
ng
best
-pra
ctic
e en
viro
nmen
tal
com
plia
nce
lang
uage
that
goe
s be
yond
the
AD
S m
inim
umN
ew a
war
ds a
nd s
igni
fican
t m
odifi
catio
ns a
re re
quiri
ng
that
: 1.
The
partn
er v
erifi
es c
urre
nt a
nd
plan
ned
activ
ities
ann
ually
ag
ains
t the
sco
pe o
f the
R
CE
/IEE
/EA
2.Th
e ne
cess
ary
mec
hani
sms
and
budg
etfo
r par
tner
im
plem
enta
tion
of IE
E/E
A co
nditi
ons
are
in p
lace
To a
ssur
e th
at p
roje
cts
do n
ot “
cree
p”
out o
f com
plia
nce
as a
ctiv
ities
are
m
odifi
ed a
nd a
dded
to o
ver t
heir
life
Spec
ifica
lly:
1.C
ompl
ete
EMM
P e
xist
s/is
dev
elop
ed2.
Wor
kpla
nsan
d bu
dget
s in
tegr
ate
the
EMM
P3.
Proj
ect r
epor
ting
trac
ks E
MM
P im
plem
enta
tion
And
new
sol
icita
tions
requ
ire th
at
Pro
posa
ls a
ddre
ss q
ualif
icat
ions
an
d pr
opos
ed a
ppro
ache
s to
co
mpl
ianc
e/ E
SDM
for
envi
ronm
enta
lly c
ompl
ex a
ctiv
ities
.
Cur
rent
bes
t pra
ctic
e ex
ceed
s re
quire
men
t
15
A
n A
DS
“Add
ition
al H
elp”
do
cum
ent
Ea
sy s
tep-
by-s
tep
guid
ance
an
d “b
oile
rpla
te”
lang
uage
Fo
r RFA
s/ R
FPs/
ag
reem
ents
/ gra
nts/
co
ntra
cts
O
ptio
nal…
bu
t its
is u
se b
eing
st
rong
ly e
ncou
rage
d
Har
dcop
y in
you
r tr
aini
ng m
ater
ials
.
Als
o av
aila
ble
from
w
ww
.usa
id.g
ov/p
olic
y/ad
s/20
0/20
4sac
Envi
ronm
enta
l Com
plia
nce:
La
ngua
ge fo
r Use
in
Solic
itatio
ns a
nd A
war
ds (E
CL)
Sour
ce o
f bes
t-pra
ctic
e la
ngua
ge
16
Ben
efits
bot
h M
issi
on S
taff
& p
artn
ers:
USA
ID M
issi
on S
taff
Impl
emen
ting
Part
ners
Prov
ides
cla
rity
rega
rdin
g en
viro
nmen
tal c
ompl
ianc
e re
spon
sibi
litie
s
Prev
ents
“un
fund
ed m
anda
tes”
—re
quire
men
ts to
impl
emen
t m
itiga
tion
and
mon
itorin
g af
ter
activ
ity h
as c
omm
ence
d an
d w
ithou
t add
ition
al b
udge
t.
Ass
ures
that
env
ironm
enta
l m
onito
ring
and
repo
rtin
g is
in
tegr
ated
into
rout
ine
activ
ity
mon
itorin
g an
d re
port
ing;
redu
ces
the
cost
and
effo
rt o
f USA
ID
verif
icat
ion/
over
sigh
t.Av
oids
the
effo
rt, c
osts
and
loss
of
goo
d w
ill th
at c
ome
from
im
posi
ng “
corr
ectiv
e co
mpl
ianc
e”
mea
sure
s af
ter i
mpl
emen
tatio
n ha
s st
arte
d.
Mis
sion
s and
cen
tral
ly fu
nded
pro
gram
s are
incr
easi
ngly
us
ing
the
EC
L. P
artn
ers s
houl
d ex
pect
that
futu
re
solic
itatio
ns a
nd a
war
ds w
ill in
corp
orat
e E
CL
-bas
ed
envi
ronm
enta
l com
plia
nce
lang
uage
.
!
ECL
prom
otes
com
plia
nce
+ ES
DM
, and
…
17
EM
MP
mus
t be
appr
oved
by
the
proj
ect C
OR
or A
OR
EM
MP
is u
sual
ly s
ubm
itted
an
d ap
prov
ed w
ith th
e pr
ojec
t wor
kpla
n or
PM
P
EM
MP
may
als
o be
sub
mitt
ed
with
the
proj
ect I
EE (t
ypic
al
for T
itle
II pa
rtne
r MYA
P IE
Es)
So
met
imes
add
ition
al re
view
by
the
MEO
or R
EA
How
are
EM
MPs
app
rove
d?
Syst
em re
cons
truc
ted
in
early
198
0s
Abs
trac
ts w
ater
from
hig
h-le
vel r
iver
sou
rce
and
irr
igat
es 1
40 H
a (2
par
cels
; va
lley
& h
illsi
de la
nds)
One
dam
is m
ade
of b
rush
, st
raw
, soi
l, an
d st
one
Oth
er d
am is
mad
e of
sto
ne
and
soil
Wat
er s
ourc
e is
low
in s
alts
; ris
k of
soi
l sal
iniz
atio
n is
m
inim
al
18
PRO
JEC
T B
RIE
FIN
G:
Div
ersi
on w
orks
at
the
head
of t
he s
yste
mEM
MP
exam
ple:
Irr
igat
ion
Reh
abili
tatio
n
Exis
ting
cana
ls u
sed
for m
any
purp
oses
: irr
igat
ion,
bat
hing
, dr
inki
ng w
ater
, lau
ndry
. . .
At e
nd o
f the
dry
sea
son,
not
en
ough
wat
er fo
r all
plot
s
Dur
ing
heav
y ra
ins,
can
als
fill
with
sed
imen
t fro
m h
illsi
de
eros
ion—
resu
lt: n
ot e
noug
h w
ater
for a
ll pl
ots
No
adja
cent
wet
land
nor
cr
itica
l wild
life
habi
tat
19
PRO
JEC
T B
RIE
FIN
G:
Doi
ng la
undr
y in
the
cana
l
EMM
P ex
ampl
e:
Irrig
atio
n R
ehab
ilita
tion
Can
als
are
hand
mad
e an
d
carr
y op
en w
ater
from
up
stre
am
Roa
ds a
re in
poo
r con
ditio
n—di
fficu
lt to
get
cro
ps o
ut
Syst
em m
aint
enan
ce
com
mitt
ee is
not
func
tiona
l
Allo
catio
n: la
nd re
gist
ratio
n to
re
ceiv
e irr
igat
ion
wat
er w
as
done
in e
arly
198
0s; n
o ne
w
plot
s ca
n be
regi
ster
ed
(but
thef
t fro
m th
e sy
stem
is
poss
ible
)
20
PRO
JEC
T B
RIE
FIN
G:
Surr
ound
ing
hills
ide
is
com
plet
ely
defo
rest
ed
Ther
e ar
e m
any
base
line
issu
es
that
are
not
impa
cts
of th
e re
habi
litat
ion,
but
sho
uld
be
addr
esse
d in
the
EMM
P
!
EMM
P ex
ampl
e:
Irrig
atio
n R
ehab
ilita
tion
21
Sub-
activ
ity o
r co
mpo
nent
Des
crip
tion
of A
dver
se
Impa
ct/B
asel
ine
Issu
eM
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
s#
Dam
& p
rim
ary
cana
ls r
e-co
nstr
ucti
on
/rep
lace
men
t &
su
bseq
uent
op
erat
ion
Floo
ding
of i
rriga
ted
area
s/
dam
age
to s
yste
m d
urin
g
hi
gh-fl
ow e
vent
s
Des
ign
so th
at e
xces
s of
wat
er w
on’t
dam
age
syst
ems
(exc
ess
flow
div
ersi
on, r
emov
able
dam
etc
….)
1
Soi
l ero
sion
from
hills
ides
and
se
cond
ary/
terti
ary
cana
lsIn
stal
l &
pro
perly
ope
rate
flow
regu
latio
n st
ruct
ures
for
seco
ndar
y ca
nals
2
Pro
tect
upp
er s
lope
with
frui
t tre
es (m
ango
es, c
itrus
, av
ocad
o) a
nd n
ativ
e fo
rest
tree
s3
Wat
er lo
sses
(fro
m e
vapo
ratio
n an
d le
achi
ng b
ut a
lso
from
can
al
bloc
kage
from
dirt
, deb
ris e
tc…
.)
Line
prim
ary
cana
ls w
ith c
oncr
ete
4
Trai
n w
ater
com
mitt
ee o
n he
avy
rain
afte
r-mai
nten
ance
5
Hea
lth is
sue
(drin
king
irrig
atio
n w
ater
bec
ause
it a
ppea
rs c
lean
er)
Com
mun
ity e
duca
tion
on w
ater
qua
lity/
use/
man
agem
ent
Wat
er c
omm
ittee
to e
nfor
ce u
se re
stric
tions
6
Wat
er c
onta
min
atio
n fro
m
anim
als,
con
stru
ctio
nP
rovi
de s
epar
ate
wat
er p
oint
s fo
r con
stru
ctio
n w
ashi
ng
stat
ions
and
ani
mal
wat
erin
g7
Soc
ial i
mpa
ct o
f ine
qual
ity o
f w
ater
use
incr
easi
ng #
of p
eopl
e us
ing
the
wat
er
-Exi
stin
g w
ater
com
mitt
ee re
info
rcem
ent
-Lan
d R
egis
tratio
n8
Road
re
habi
litat
ion:
br
idge
s &
dr
aina
ge w
orks
Incr
ease
d D
efor
esta
tion
(due
to in
crea
sed
ease
of a
cces
s)W
ork
with
loca
l offi
cial
s to
con
trol d
efor
esta
tion
9
Incr
ease
d se
dim
enta
tion
from
enh
ance
d ro
ad d
rain
age
Sed
imen
tatio
n co
ntro
l (si
lt sc
reen
and
hay
bai
ls-l
ocal
w
eeds
)10
Exce
rpt o
f Im
pact
s/B
asel
ine
Issu
es a
nd M
itiga
tions
EMM
P ex
ampl
e:
Irrig
atio
n R
ehab
ilita
tion
22
And
fina
lly. .
.the
EM
MP
itsel
f
(Use
s a
Title
II fo
rmat
tha
t inc
lude
s a
mon
itorin
g re
sults
log.
)
23
Miti
gatio
nM
easu
re
Res
pons
ible
Pa
rty
Mon
itorin
g Sc
hem
eEs
t. C
ost
Mon
itorin
g Lo
gIn
dica
tors
Dat
a so
urce
/ M
etho
d
How
O
ften
Dat
eR
esul
tFo
llow
-up
2. In
stal
l &
prop
erly
op
erat
e ca
nal-
leve
l flo
w
regu
latio
n st
ruct
ures
Pro
ject
ag
ricul
tura
l te
chni
cian
•# o
f doo
rs a
nd o
ther
flow
-co
ntro
l stru
ctur
es in
stal
led
% o
f Ha.
und
er fl
ow c
ontro
l%
of
seco
ndar
y &
terti
ary
cana
ls s
how
ing
sign
ifica
nt
eros
ion
dam
age
afte
r eac
h gr
owin
g se
ason
Rep
orts
Fiel
d vi
sit
Qua
rterly
3. P
rote
ct
uppe
r slo
pe
with
frui
t (m
ango
es,
citru
s,
avoc
ado)
and
fo
rest
tree
s
Pro
ject
ag
ricul
tura
l te
chni
cian
# of
tree
s pl
ante
d an
d su
rviv
ed
% o
f at
-ris
k up
per s
lope
la
nd p
rote
cted
to
tal m
3 of
sed
imen
t re
mov
ed fr
om c
anal
s ov
er
each
rain
y se
ason
.
Rep
orts
Fiel
d vi
sit
Com
paris
on
with
bas
elin
e in
form
atio
n
Qua
rterly
/A
nnua
l
4. L
ine
prim
ary
cana
ls w
ith
conc
rete
Engi
neer
ing
C
ontra
ctor
•%
of p
rimar
y ca
nals
line
d w
ith c
oncr
ete.
•#
of a
dditi
onal
hec
tare
s irr
igat
ed
Rep
orts
Fiel
d vi
sit
Com
paris
on
with
bas
elin
e in
form
atio
n
Qua
rterly
EMM
P ex
ampl
e:
Irrig
atio
n R
ehab
ilita
tion
Exce
rpt o
f EM
MP
and
Mon
itorin
g Lo
g
Environmental Compliance: Language for Use in Solicitations and Awards
An Additional Help for ADS Chapter 204
Revision Date: 05/19/2008 Responsible Office: EGAT File Name: 204sac_051908
Environmental Compliance: Language for Use in Solicitations and Awards
ABOUT THIS LANGUAGE The following recommended language is for use by Cognizant Technical Officers (CTOs), Activity Managers, Contracting Officers (COs), Mission Environmental Officers (MEOs), Program Officers, Bureau Environmental Officers (BEOs), and other USAID staff involved in solicitations, awards, and activity design and management.
Its purpose is to ensure adequate time is provided for environmental review and that environmental factors and mitigative measures identified in approved environmental impact assessment documentation are incorporated in the design and approval of each program and activity before the Operating Unit, Team, Activity Manager or CTO makes an irreversible commitment of resources for the program or activity. It also is intended to help improve application of USAID’s environmental procedures (22 CFR 216 or Regulation 2161) to create more sustainable and successful implementation of activities, projects and programs.
- By explicitly enumerating the environmental compliance responsibilities of project implementers, use of this recommended language can help ensure that environmental compliance requirements stemming from the Regulation 216 process are fully integrated into project designs, workplans, and implementation of activities.
- Use of the language also alerts USAID staff and implementing partners early on to the need for a budget to implement environmental compliance measures and to the importance of providing sufficient Regulation 216 technical capacity to implement, monitor, and report on environmental compliance. Doing so is intended to ensure that compliance is maintained throughout design and implementation—over the entire life of a project or program.
- Further, the language contributes to mainstreaming of environmental concerns by integrating environmental compliance into USAID’s typical project design and implementation processes.
The language can be used in any type of procurement instrument (contracts, cooperative agreements, grants, etc.). Although not explicitly required by ADS 305 for Host Country Contracts, this language also can be used for Host Country solicitations and in Implementation Letters and is especially appropriate when contracting for construction services and technical or professional services.
For greatest benefit, Technical Teams and other USAID staff should review and discuss the recommended language during project design, and modify it, as may be necessary, so it is well-integrated with the program description. Together the CTO, CO, and MEO should identify where and which language to insert based on the type of solicitation and award. For activities that are designed and managed out of AID/Washington (in Pillar or Regional Bureaus), the BEO would serve a similar technical role as the MEO does at the Mission level. The MEO, REA, BEO, or other trained staff may be able to provide staff training or guidance, if necessary, on use of the language in solicitations and contracting documents.
1 Full text of 22 CFR 216 can be found at http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/environment/compliance/reg216.pdf
2
HOW TO ASSEMBLE COMPLIANCE LANGUAGE To assemble the compliance language for a particular solicitation or award, the following table should be used as guidance. Multiple situations can apply to a single procurement; if this is the case, use all indicated language. You may need to revise and/or renumber the language depending on which elements you select and where you place them in the award or solicitation. [Bracketed text] in the model language indicates that you must select the appropriate option or provide other input.
When the situation is that. . . Use these environmental compliance language paragraphs from the Model Language. . .
Approved Regulation 216 documentation2 exists and it contains. . .
Categorical Exclusions and Negative Determinations only
1a through 1c 4a through 4c
at least one Negative Determination with conditions
1a through 1c 24a through 4c 5a through 5d 8a through 8d (optional: to be used when project will involve environmental compliance expertise; collaborate with MEO, or BEO for projects originating out of AID/W, for guidance, as needed)
at least one Positive Determination 1a through 1c 34a through 4c 5a through 5d 8a through 8d
The contractor/recipient will be required to prepare Regulation 216 documentation (an EA or IEE)
1a through 1c 4a through 4c 5a through 5d 6a through 6c 8a through 8d 2 If there is also an existing IEE that contains a Negative Determination with conditions 3 If there is also an existing IEE that contains a Positive Determination
2 Note: “Approved Regulation 216 documentation” refers to a Request for Categorical Exclusion (RCE), Initial Environmental Examination (IEE), or Environmental Assessment (EA) duly signed by the Bureau Environmental Officer (BEO).
3
The project includes a sub-grant fund To any of the above language/situations that apply, add: 7a and 7b8a through 8d
(Paragraphs 7 and 8 are optional, based on the nature of the grant fund and potential environmental impacts; coordinate with MEO or BEO for projects originating out of AID/W for guidance, as needed)
4
MODEL LANGUAGE
1. Insert paragraphs 1a, 1b, and 1c in all solicitations and resulting awards:
In RFAs, insert in the Program Description or in the RFA’s instructions regarding Technical Application Format
In RFPs, insert in the appropriate section, often the “Special Contract Requirements” 1a) The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, Section 117 requires that the impact of
USAID’s activities on the environment be considered and that USAID include environmental sustainability as a central consideration in designing and carrying out its development programs. This mandate is codified in Federal Regulations (22 CFR 216) and in USAID’s Automated Directives System (ADS) Parts 201.5.10g and 204 (http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/), which, in part, require that the potential environmental impacts of USAID-financed activities are identified prior to a final decision to proceed and that appropriate environmental safeguards are adopted for all activities. [Offeror/respondent/contractor/recipient] environmental compliance obligations under these regulations and procedures are specified in the following paragraphs of this [RFP/RFA/contract/grant/cooperative agreement].
1b) In addition, the contractor/recipient must comply with host country environmental regulations unless otherwise directed in writing by USAID . In case of conflict between host country and USAID regulations, the latter shall govern .
1c) No activity funded under this [contract/grant/CA] will be implemented unless an environmental threshold determination, as defined by 22 CFR 216, has been reached for that activity, as documented in a Request for Categorical Exclusion (RCE), Initial Environmental Examination (IEE), or Environmental Assessment (EA) duly signed by the Bureau Environmental Officer (BEO). (Hereinafter, such documents are described as “approved Regulation 216 environmental documentation.”)
2. If the approved Regulation 216 documentation includes any Negative Determinations with conditions, insert 2.
This language stipulates that the activity(ies) must be implemented in compliance with the conditions specified in the Negative Determination.
2) An Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) [(insert IEE # and download reference here, if available)] has been approved for [the Program(s)/Project] funding this [RFA/RFP/contract/grant/cooperative agreement (CA)]. The IEE covers activities expected to be implemented under this [contract/grant/CA]. USAID has determined that a NegativeDetermination with conditions applies to one or more of the proposed activities. This indicates that if these activities are implemented subject to the specified conditions, they are expected to have no significant adverse effect on the environment. The [offeror/applicant/contractor/recipient] shall be responsible for implementing all IEE conditions pertaining to activities to be funded under this [solicitation/award].
5
3. If the approved Regulation 216 documentation includes a Positive Determination, insert 3.
This language specifies that an approved Environmental Assessment (EA) must exist prior to implementation of the activity(ies), and that the activity(ies) must be implemented in compliance with the conditions in the approved EA.
3) An Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) has been approved for the [Program or project funding] this [RFA/RFP/contract/agreement] and for activities to be undertaken herein [(insertIEE # and download reference here, if available)]. The IEE contains a Positive Determinationfor the following proposed activities: [(specify)]. This indicates that these activities have the potential for significant adverse effects on the environment. Accordingly, the [contractor/recipient] is required to [comply with the terms of*/prepare and submit**] an Environmental Assessment (EA) addressing the environmental concerns raised by these activities. No activity identified under this Positive Determination can proceed until Scoping as described in §216.3(a)(4) and an EA as described in §216.6 are completed and approved by USAID (Note that the completed Scoping Statement is normally submitted by the MEO to the BEO when the project originates in a Mission. The Statement may be circulated outside the Agency by the BEO with a request for written comments within 30 days and approved by the BEO subsequently. Approval of the Scoping Statement must be provided by the BEO before the EA can be initiated.)
[*]If an EA already exists, and the contractor/recipient will not be required to prepare the EA, but will be required to comply with the terms of an existing EA.
[**]If contractor/recipient must prepare and submit an EA, also insert 6a through 6c.
Note: If the contractor is to prepare an EA, then this should be specified in the RFP/RFA instructions. The final negotiation of the EA will be incorporated into the award. Paragraphs 8a through d will always apply when the approved environmental documentation includes a Positive Determination, whether the contractor/recipient is preparing the EA or simply required to comply with an existing EA.
4. Insert for all solicitations and awards
The language requires that the contractor/recipient must ensure all activities, over the life of the project, are included in the approved Regulation 216 documentation.
4a) As part of its initial Work Plan, and all Annual Work Plans thereafter, the [contractor/recipient], in collaboration with the USAID Cognizant Technical Officer and Mission Environmental Officer or Bureau Environmental Officer, as appropriate, shall review all ongoing and planned activities under this [contract/grant/CA] to determine if they are within the scope of the approved Regulation 216 environmental documentation.
4b) If the [contractor/recipient] plans any new activities outside the scope of the approved Regulation 216 environmental documentation, it shall prepare an amendment to the documentation for USAID review and approval. No such new activities shall be undertaken prior to receiving written USAID approval of environmental documentation amendments.
4c) Any ongoing activities found to be outside the scope of the approved Regulation 216 environmental documentation shall be halted until an amendment to the documentation is submitted and written approval is received from USAID.
6
5. If the approved Regulation 216 documentation contains one or more Negative Determinations with conditions and/or an EA, insert 5a through 5d. (These paragraphs should also always be used when the contractor/recipient is writing an IEE or EA.)
The language requires the contactor/recipient to integrate mitigation measures and monitoring into project work plans.
5 When the approved Regulation 216 documentation is (1) an IEE that contains one or more Negative Determinations with conditions and/or (2) an EA, the [contractor/recipient] shall:
5a) Unless the approved Regulation 216 documentation contains a complete environmental mitigation and monitoring plan (EMMP) or a project mitigation and monitoring (M&M) plan, the [contractor/recipient] shall prepare an EMMP or M&M Plan describing how the [contractor/recipient] will, in specific terms, implement all IEE and/or EA conditions that apply to proposed project activities within the scope of the award. The EMMP or M&M Plan shall include monitoring the implementation of the conditions and their effectiveness.
5b) Integrate a completed EMMP or M&M Plan into the initial work plan.
5c) Integrate an EMMP or M&M Plan into subsequent Annual Work Plans, making any necessary adjustments to activity implementation in order to minimize adverse impacts to the environment.
6. For solicitations, if the Proposal Instructions specifies that the [contractor/recipient] will be required to prepare Regulation 216 documentation (IEE or EA) for some or all activities, insert 6a through 6c.
6a) Cost and technical proposals must reflect IEE or EA preparation costs and approaches.
6b) [Contractor/recipient] will be expected to comply with all conditions specified in the approved IEE and/or EA.
6c) If an IEE, as developed by the [contractor/recipient] and approved by USAID, includes a Positive Determination for one or more activities, the contractor/recipient will be required to develop and submit an EA addressing these activities.
Note: In this case, always insert paragraphs 8a through 8d, as well.
7. For solicitations and awards when sub-grants are contemplated, and the IEE gives a Negative Determination with conditions that specifies use of a screening tool for sub-grants, insert 7a and 7b.
7a) A provision for sub-grants is included under this award; therefore, the [contractor/recipient] will be required to use an Environmental Review Form (ERF) or Environmental Review (ER) checklist using impact assessment tools to screen grant proposals to ensure the funded proposals will result in no adverse environmental impact, to develop mitigation measures, as necessary, and to specify monitoring and reporting. Use of the ERF or ER checklist is called for when the nature of the grant proposals to be funded is not well enough known to make an informed decision about their potential environmental impacts, yet due to the type and extent of activities to be funded, any adverse impacts are expected to be easily mitigated. Implementation of sub-grant activities cannot go forward until the ERF or ER checklist is completed and approved by USAID. [Contractor/Recipient] is responsible for ensuring that mitigation measures specified by the ERF or ER checklist process are implemented.
7
7b) The [contractor/recipient] will be responsible for periodic reporting to the USAID Cognizant Technical Officer, as specified in the Schedule/Program Description of this solicitation/award.
8. For solicitations ONLY: Insert 8a through 8d when:
the approved Regulation 216 documentation is a Positive Determination or an EA; or when the contractor/recipient will be expected to prepare Regulation 216 documentation; or when there is a sub-grant fund that requires use of an Environmental Review Form or Environmental Review checklist; and/or when there is a Negative Determination with conditions that will require environmental compliance expertise to prepare and/or implement an EMMP or M&M Plan, as determined in collaboration with the MEO or BEO for projects originating out of AID/W.
8a) USAID anticipates that environmental compliance and achieving optimal development outcomes for the proposed activities will require environmental management expertise. Respondents to the [RFA/RFP] should therefore include as part of their [application/proposal] their approach to achieving environmental compliance and management, to include:
8b) The respondent’s approach to developing and implementing an [IEE or EA or environmental review process for a grant fund and/or an EMMP or M&M Plan].
8c) The respondent’s approach to providing necessary environmental management expertise, including examples of past experience of environmental management of similar activities.
8d) The respondent’s illustrative budget for implementing the environmental compliance activities. For the purposes of this solicitation, [offerors/applicants] should reflect illustrative costs for environmental compliance implementation and monitoring in their cost proposal.
202sac_051908
8
Review DRAFT: 22 July 2011
Download this factsheet at: www.encapafrica.org/meoentry.htm [see mitigation and monitoring topics]
To submit comments or for more information, email the ENCAP core team at: encapinfo@cadmusgroup com
ENCAP FACTSHEET
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIGATION & MONITORING PLANS (EMMPs) CONTENTS 1. Introduction 12. What is an EMMP? 13. Why EMMPs? 24. How are EMMPs Required? 25. EMMP Formats 26. Steps in EMMP Development 37. Pitfalls to Avoid
ENCAP FACTSHEET: EMMPs 16 MAY 2011 PG 1/10 The factsheet was prepared by The Cadmus Group, Inc. for International Resources Group (IRG) under USAID Africa Bureau’s Environmental Compliance and Management Support (ENCAP) Program, Contract Number EPP-I-00-03-00013-00, Task Order No. 11. It is currently under review by the Africa Bureau Environmental Officer and USAID’s Africa-based Regional Environmental Advisors. It is not a statement of agency policy, and its contents do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
4
55
6
7
8. EMMPs & Compliance Reporting 5 29. EMMP Review and Approval10. Implementing EMMPs11. ENCAP Resources for
Mitigation and Monitoring DesignAcronyms 6 3ANNEX: EMMP Examples
1. INTRODUCTION Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plans (EMMPs) are now required for most USAID-funded projects in Africa.
Specifically, EMMPS are required when the Reg. 216 documentation governing the project is either an IEE or an EA that imposes conditions on at least one project activity. (See box at right if these terms are unfamiliar.)
Responsibility for developing the EMMP usually lies with the implementing partner (IP), though it may be assigned to the C/AOTR. In either case, the responsible party can develop the EMMP directly, or engage a consultant. (The C/AOTR could also seek assistance from the Mission Environmental Officer (MEO).)
This factsheet describes the EMMP concept and its role in life-of-project environmental compliance for USAID-funded activities. It provides practical guidance and examples to inform EMMP development. It is intended for IPs, A/COTRs, MEOs, Monitoring and Evaluation
(M&E) Officers, and consultants who may be engaged to develop EMMPs for USAID projects in Africa.
2. WHAT IS AN EMMP? An EMMP is a document that sets out:
1. Mitigation actions. The EMMP specifies the actions that will be taken to satisfy the IEE or EA conditions.
. Monitoring actions. The EMMP sets out the indicators or criteria that will be used to monitor (1) whether the mitigation actions have been implemented, and (2) whether they are effective and sufficient.
. Responsibility and schedule for mitigation, monitoring, and reporting. The EMMP specifies the parties responsible for these actions and the schedule for these tasks.
USAID’s Environmental Procedures
USAID’s mandatory environmental procedures apply to all USAID-funded and USAID-managed activities. They consist of 22 CFR 216 (“Reg. 216”) and related mandatory provisions of USAID’s Automated Directives System (ADS)—especially, but not only, ADS 201.3.12.2.b and 204).
In summary, these procedures mandate (1) a pre-implementation environmental impact assessment (EIA) process, and (2) implementing and reporting on any environmental conditions (required mitigation measures) that result from this review.
The pre-implementation environmental review is documented in a Request for Categorical Exclusion (RCE), Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) or an Environmental Assessment (EA). Each of these Reg. 216 documents must be approved by both the Mission Director and Bureau Environmental Officer (BEO). Most IEEs and all EAs impose conditions on some or all of the activities they cover.
For more information see ENCAP’s USAID Environmental Procedures Briefing for Mission Staff.
EMMPs may also include a log of monitoring results and budget estimates for mitigation and monitoring activities.
EMMPs may also be called Mitigation and Monitoring Plans and Environmental Management Plans.
3. WHY EMMPs? EMMPs provide a basis for systematic implementation of IEE and EA conditions: In addition to establishing responsibilities and schedules, EMMPs are a vehicle for translating IEE conditions (which are often very general) into specific, implementable, verifiable actions. For example:
An IEE for a water and sanitation project may require that wells and latrines be sited “consistent with good practices.”
The EMMP would specify the site-specific standards that the project must follow, e.g., wells must be located at least 50 meters from any pesticide or chemical store, and 25m from any cesspool, leaching pit, septic field, latrines, poultry yards, or livestock watering point..
EMMPS also provide a framework for environmental compliance reporting. (See section 5)
Without EMMPs, experience shows that IEE and EA conditions will not be implemented systematically, if at all. This defeats the purpose of the pre-implementation EIA process as documented by the IEE or EA, increasing the probability that well-intentioned activities will result in needless adverse impacts on beneficiaries, communities, environmental resources and ecosystems.
For USAID activities, failure to implement IEE or EA conditions puts the activity in non-compliance. The AOTR or COTR is REQUIRED to compel compliance or end the activity.
4. HOW ARE EMMPs REQUIRED? EMMPs are not specifically required by Reg. 216 or the ADS. However, they ARE required by (1) contract and award language, (2) the IEE and/or (3) A/COTR technical direction:
Increasingly, contracts and awards specifically require that an EMMP be developed and implemented. (This is part of a broader trend within USAID to use “best practice” environmental compliance language in solicitations and awards.)
Most recent and all new sector-level IEEs (e.g. an IEE covering a Mission’s health or economic growth portfolio) require that an EMMP will be developed for each individual project.
For new project-level IEEs, the BEO will typically require that an EMMP be submitted as part of the
IEE. If not, the IEE will require that the EMMP be submitted with the project workplan or performance management plan (PMP).
For projects conducted under older IEEs, A/COTRs can issue technical direction requiring EMMPs.
In addition, Title II Cooperating Sponsors are required to develop IEEs by the Agency’s MYAP guidance and these IEEs must include an EMMP.
5. EMMP FORMATS EMMPs are usually in table form. Critical elements of a basic EMMP are captured in the illustrative format below. For detail, see examples in the Annex to this Factsheet.
------------------
EMMP for Project XXX
Person Responsible for Overseeing EMMP: [name, contact information]
Activity 1: [name of activity] [briefly describe activity & summarize potential adverse environmental impacts]
IEE or EA Condition
(reproduced or summarized from the IEE or EA)
Mitigation Specific actions to be taken to comply with the condition.
(if an IEE or EA condition is already specific to the project/ activity and implementation actions self-evident, this “translation step” can be omitted)
Monitoring
How will the project verify that mitigation is being implemented and is both effective and sufficient?
Timing and Responsible Parties
Who is responsible for mitigation, monitoring, reporting?
Timing/frequency of these actions
[add rows for additional conditions] [ repeat table for additional activities] ----------------- If an EMMP will contain cost information, a separate column can added. An example of an EMMP with a monitoring log, where monitoring results can be recorded, is included in the Annex.
More advanced EMMP formats can serve as both a detailed monitoring log and a management/field guide to implementing mitigation. EMMP example #3 (Small Facilities Construction) in the Annex is an example of such an “advanced format.” Such advanced formats are not required, but in some circumstances they can make it easier for project management and field supervisors to oversee and implement mitigation.
ENCAP FACTSHEET: EMMPs REVIEW DRAFT 22 JULY 2011 PG 2/10
ENCAP FACTSHEET: EMMPs REVIEW DRAFT 22 JULY 2011 PG 3/10
6. STEPS IN EMMP DEVELOPMENT EMMP development consists of 5 basic steps.
1. Review the governing IEE or EA to understand the conditions that apply to your project.
2. Translate IEE or EA conditions into specific mitigation actions.
3. Specify monitoring measures.
4. Specify timelines and responsible parties.
5. Determine who will have overall responsibility for EMMP implementation/environmental compliance.
Each is addressed below.
1. Review the governing IEE or EA to understand the conditions that apply to your project.
If the IEE governing your project is sector-level, the IEE usually describes activities in a high-level, general way without matching or “mapping” them to particular projects.
For example, your project might be working with agro-processors to improve product quality. In the IEE, this might be described as a “value chain strengthening” activity.
In this case, your first step in EMMP development is to match the activities in the project SOW to the general activity descriptions in the IEE, and on that basis determine which IEE conditions apply to your project activities
Even if you are developing a project-specific IEE with annexed EMMP as a package for submission (see Section 9), re-read the IEE conditions you have developed before beginning development of the EMMP.
2. Translate IEE conditions into specific mitigation actions.
(see resources for mitigation and monitoring design, at end.)
If an IEE condition is well-specified, the necessary actions to implement the condition may be self evident. However, often IEE/EA conditions are very general and they must be “translated” into well-specified, implementable, and verifiable mitigation actions.
This translation is a key purpose of the EMMP, and a key step in developing one.
Implementation, monitoring, and reporting on IEE conditions will be easier if mitigation measures are as specific as possible.
Factors to consider in translating conditions to actions include:
the specifics of the site or sites
the extent of project control
Site specifics. IEE conditions are often written without knowledge of the specific project site. You need to determine how and whether the conditions apply given the specifics of your site.
For example, an IEE might impose the following conditions on construction activities:
a. No construction permitted in protected areas or relatively undisturbed ecosystem areas.
b. Construction & facilities operation may not result in significant adverse impacts on ecosystem services
If your proposed site is in a peri-urban area already undergoing and zoned for development, condition (a) poses little concern.
But what if a seasonal stream draining several square kilometers traverses your site? In that case, a major “ecosystem service” provided by your site is drainage. So to comply with the IEE, your design must assure that there is no reduction in stream capacity or alteration to local drainage patterns.
Extent of Project Control. Often IEE conditions are phrased as “to the greatest extent practicable,” or “to the degree feasible the project shall. . .”
This language is used to accommodate different levels of control over on-the-ground activities.
For example, the IEE for an agricultural project may require that an IP “assure availability, and require use and maintenance of appropriate personal protective equipment specified by the pesticide label to the greatest degree feasible.”
What is “feasible” will depend on the level of project control over on-the-ground crop protection activities. For example:
On a project-run demonstration farm, that control is essentially complete.
By contrast, if a project is providing training to strengthen government extension services, the project has full control over content of the training, limited control over the recommendations made by Extension Agents, and no control over the farmers’ actions. (However, other components of the project may provide closer control over farmer’s actions).
The EMMP examples in the Annex illustrate this issue.
Retaining General Language in an EMMP. In some cases, it may not be possible to fully specify mitigation
actions in an EMMP, and the EMMP may include language such as “if feasible,” “as practicable,” or “as necessary.”
For example, the EMMP for a health activity might read:
In all plans, strategies, and other relevant documents, the need for environmentally sound collection, management, and disposal of healthcare waste, will be incorporated, as appropriate; and a budget for implementation must be included.
However, if such language is used, the need for specificity does not disappear. It is simply transferred to the person responsible for overseeing EMMP implementation. In the above case, this party would review documents and report on inclusion of healthcare waste management in these documents— and on instances where the issue was not incorporated, and why.
3. Specify Monitoring Measures. (see resources for mitigation and monitoring design, at end.)
The EMMP should specify monitoring that will ascertain BOTH:
(1) whether mitigation was implemented.
(2) whether mitigation was sufficient and effective.
For example: To safeguard water quality, a water and sanitation IEE might require that water points be sited well away from sources of contamination and that livestock be physically excluded from the water points.
A visual inspection would show whether the mitigation was implemented. But showing that the mitigation was sufficient and the water safe to drink would require water quality testing.
The ENCAP training presentation “Principles of Environmental Monitoring” provides an introduction to environmental monitoring design. Examples of monitoring measures are found in the Annex to this factsheet.
Environmental compliance monitoring should be integrated into project M&E. See section 6.5, below & section 10, implementing EMMPs.
4. Specify timelines and responsible parties
EMMPs not only specify the mitigation and monitoring actions themselves, but who is responsible for them, and on what timeline or schedule.
This is not always possible for the EMMP preparer to do—s/he may be a consultant or specialist without detailed knowledge of project management and staffing. In this case, specifying timelines and responsible parties can be handed off to the individual responsible for
overseeing EMMP implementation. (See immediately below).
5. Determine who is responsible for overseeing EMMP implementation/environmental compliance.
Once the EMMP is drafted, the COP or responsible senior project manager must review it and determine who will be assigned responsibility for overseeing EMMP implementation.
Overseeing EMMP implementation means having overall responsibility for verifying that mitigation measures are being implemented and for other aspects of monitoring, as well as reporting (see Section 8 below). Note that while one individual is typically responsible for oversight, individual mitigation and monitoring actions must be integrated into the implementation of core project activities and M&E. As such, they will be carried out by a number of project staff.
If mitigation and monitoring are complex or extensive, a project may hire a dedicated environmental compliance manager. This would often be appropriate, for example, for road rehabilitation projects—which tend to involve complex, technical mitigation and monitoring—and for agricultural projects involving pesticides or encroachment issues.
If the EMMP is fairly simple, responsibility for overseeing EMMP implementation can be assigned to the M & E Specialist, or a training or technical specialist.
Regardless, EMMP implementation oversight must be included in the job description of the individual who is assigned this responsibility.
7. PITFALLS TO AVOID Good EMMPs avoid a set of common pitfalls. They do NOT:
Use unclear, ambiguous, non-actionable and/or non-verifiable mitigation measures. For example, Good EMMPs do NOT include mitigation measures that simply state “good practices will be implemented per Chapter X of the Environmental Guidelines for Small-Scale Activities in Africa (EGSSAA). They DO specify which practices and which guidance from the EGSSAA will be implemented.
Include “extra” mitigation. All mitigation measures must respond to a specific IEE or EA condition.
Use language like “as feasible,” “as appropriate,” etc. unless doing so is absolutely unavoidable. (See discussion of “retaining general language in an EMMP” at the top of this page.)
ENCAP FACTSHEET: EMMPs REVIEW DRAFT 22 JULY 2011 PG 4/10
8. EMMPs & ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE REPORTING To enable C/AOTRs to fulfill their mandated responsibility to “actively manage and monitor” compliance with IEE/EA conditions, IP quarterly or semi-annual progress reports must provide an auditable record of environmental compliance—and especially of implementation of IEE/EA conditions. EMMPs provide the framework for this “environmental compliance reporting.”
Sometimes the governing IEE or the C/AOTR specifies compliance reporting requirements and formats. If so, these requirements must be met.
If the reporting requirements are not specified, follow the guidance in the table below:
ENCAP FACTSHEET: EMMPs REVIEW DRAFT 22 JULY 2011 PG 5/10
Situation Environmental Compliance Reporting Content and Format
EMMP is fairly simple & contains a monitoring log section
Update EMMP with most recent monitoring data & annex to quarterly or semi-annual progress report.
EMMP is fairly simple but does not contain a monitoring log section
Consider adding a monitoring log to the EMMP and proceed as above.
OR: Develop a simple table-based reporting format that lists activities, planned mitigation, and mitigation status/issues encountered.
EMMP is longer and more complex
Provide a text summary of EMMP implementation and issues encountered and resolved.
Maintain a full monitoring log on file and provide to USAID upon request.
9. EMMP REVIEW AND APPROVAL For project-specific IEEs (including IEE Amendments and Amendments with PERSUAPs), the EMMP will usually be developed with and submitted as an annex to the IEE. In this case, the EMMP is reviewed and approved as a part of the IEE. (Note that IEEs receive final clearance with the signature of the BEO.)
Otherwise, the EMMP will be developed together with the project workplan, budget, and performance management plan (PMP). In this case, the EMMP will be submitted together with the workplan and/or PMP to the C/AOTR, who is responsible for reviewing and approving it.
The C/AOTR may involve the MEO in this review, especially for environmentally sensitive activities. The IEE/EA will sometimes specify that the REA must review and approve the EMMP as well.
10. IMPLEMENTING EMMPS Experience shows that systematic EMMP implementation requires:
Establishing accountability. As noted in section 5.5, oversight responsibility for EMMP implementation must be assigned to an appropriate, qualified project staff member, and this responsibility must be part of their job description.
Workplan integration. Where the EMMP requires discrete actions, these must be entered into the project workplan. Examples of discrete actions include, e.g. “train staff and partners in environmental compliance,” “develop a PERSUAP,” “undertake pollution prevention/cleaner production assessments,” etc.
By contrast, some mitigations do not result in separate workplan actions per se. For example, an EMMP could require that “all plans, strategies, and other relevant documents address environmentally sound collection, management, and disposal of healthcare waste.”
Environmental compliance monitoring should be a workplan item.
Environmental Compliance and Project Core Performance Indicators
For new projects, Africa Bureau best practice is that at least one core project performance indicator should be “environmentalized”— that is measure the extent to which core project activities are being executed with attention to environmental soundness and compliance.
For example, in a water point provision project, the IP might use the indicator “number of protected water points established with zero fecal coliform after 6 months” rather than “number of water points established.”
In a road rehabilitation project, the IP might use the indicator “km or road rehabilitated under environmentally sound practices” rather than “km of road rehabilitated.”
It is NOT necessary or appropriate to “environmentalize” every core indicator, or to capture every mitigation measure in core project reporting.
Budget integration. Workplan items must be reflected in the project budget. However, even EMMP requirements that do not result in discrete actions can have cost implications. Continuing the example above, a consultant or home office technical support might be needed to assure that a plan or strategy properly addresses “environmentally sound collection, management, and disposal of healthcare waste.”
ENCAP FACTSHEET: EMMPs REVIEW DRAFT 22 JULY 2011 PG 6/10
The best way to make sure that cost implications of the EMMP are captured is to develop mitigation and monitoring cost estimates as part of EMMP development.
If this is not possible, budget notes should be developed for mitigation items that have cost implications, and these notes passed on to the budgeting team.
Management commitment & staff awareness. Project management must communicate to all staff and partners its commitment to environmental compliance as a means to strengthen development outcomes.
All staff should be aware in general terms of the core environmental conditions that apply to the project, and of the existence of the project EMMP.
11. ENCAP RESOURCES FOR MITIGATION AND MONITORING DESIGN Per the table below, ENCAP has developed a set of resources to support mitigation and monitoring design.
Topic Recommended Resource
Mitigation and Monitoring Principles
Principles of Environmental Mitigation
Principles of Environmental Monitoring
ENCAP training presentations; convey key principles with multiple visual examples. Include slide notes www.encapafrica.org/meoentry.htm (access via mitigation & monitoring topic)
Sectoral mitigation and monitoring guidance
Environmental Guidelines for Small-Scale Activities in Africa. (EGSSAA)
Covers more than 20 common development sectors, and provides mitigation and monitoring guidance in table format.
On-line annotated bibliographies provide links to detailed resources.
www.encapafrica.org/egssaa.htm
Field Monitoring for non-specialists
ENCAP Visual Field Guides
A supplement to the EGSSAA, these photo-based field guides allow non-specialists to quickly identify key, common environmental management deficits in small-scale activities in the following sectors:
Water supply, sanitation, health care (waste), and roads.
www.encapafrica.org/egssaa.htm#Guides
ACRONYMS ADS Automated Directives System
A/COTR AOTR and/or COTR
AOTR Agreement Officer’s Technical Representative
AFR/SD USAID Bureau for Africa, Office of Sustainable Development
BEO Bureau Environmental Officer
CFR Code of (US) Federal Regulations
COP Chief of Party
COTR Contract Officer’s Technical Representative
EA Environmental Assessment
EGSSAA USAID Environmental Guidelines for Small-Scale Activities in Africa
ENCAP Environmental Compliance and Management Support for Africa (AFR/SD project)
EMMP Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan
IEE Initial Environmental Examination
IP Implementing Partner
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MEO Mission Environmental Officer
PERSUAP Pesticide Evaluation Report & Safer Use Action Plan
PMP Performance Management Plan
REA Regional Environmental Advisor
USAID United States Agency for International Development
ENCAP FACTSHEET: EMMPs REVIEW DRAFT 22 JULY 2011 PG 7/10
ANNEX: EMMP EXAMPLES This annex contains 3 EMMP examples for typical activities and IEE conditions in the health, agriculture, and construction sectors. The examples are real, though project names and some details have been changed for the purpose of this factsheet:
1. “The Health Improvement Program “ (THIP)
2. “Agricultural Services Project” (ASP)
3. “Small Facilities Construction Project” (SFC)
The first two examples use the general EMMP format presented in section 5. In each of these examples, a monitoring log column could be added to the far right of each table. The 3rd example is an alternate EMMP format.
Note that the examples are for a few REPRESENTATIVE ACTIVITIES within projects of this type. Most projects would have more activities, and the EMMPs would therefore be longer.
EXAMPLE 1: THE HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (THIP)
THIP Activity 1: Prepare strategies and action plans to increase the import and internal distribution of pharmaceuticals
Potential Environmental Impact: Strategies and action plans could indirectly result in larger and more widely distributed in-country stocks of pharmaceuticals. These may expire prior to being distributed and/or used, and will need to be disposed of. Unsafe disposal could affect aquatic and terrestrial resources and human health.
IEE Condition Specific mitigation actions to implement the condition
Person responsible for implementing mitigation
Timing
How implementation will be verified (monitoring indicator)
Responsible party & Timing
Contractor shall provide advice for safe storage and disposal of expired pharmaceuticals.
In all strategies and action plans for which THIP provides assistance, include measures for:
a) storage in accordance with labels;
b) disposal of expired and unused pharmaceuticals; and
c) a budget to implement these safeguards.
Responsible Party: THIP Policy Technical Advisors
Timing: During preparation phase of all strategies and action plans
Review of all strategies and action plans to ensure they include information about safe disposal of pharmaceuticals and a budget
Responsible Party: THIP Policy Director
Timing: During preparation of drafts and final documents
THIP Activity 2: Procure pharmaceuticals from US companies.
Potential Environmental Impact: Procurement of pharmaceuticals could generate unused/expired drugs that if not disposed of safely, could affect aquatic and terrestrial resources and human health.
IEE Condition Specific mitigation actions to implement the condition
Person responsible for implementing mitigation
Timing
How implementation will be verified (monitoring indicator)
Responsible party & Timing
Advise at MOH and district levels on the storage of the product according to the information provided on the manufacturer’s Materials Safety Data Sheet (MSDS)
Responsible Party: THIP Policy Technical Advisors
Timing: When meeting with appropriate MOH & district staff
Check storage practices are in compliance with MSDS
Responsible Party: THIP M & E Advisor
Timing: Semi-annually
Contractor shall provide advice for safe storage and disposal of expired pharmaceuticals.
Train MOH and local level health practitioners and management staff on aspects of medicine supply chain management, including estimating demand, distribution constraints, and storage issues of time and temperature.
Responsible Party: THIP Training Advisor
Timing: Two times/year
1) Training is implemented:
M & E Advisor; monitor semi-annually;
2) Supply chain has improved (constraints/bottlenecks have decreased)
THIP Policy Advisor; monitor annually
THIP Activity 3: Train healthcare workers on use of new medical procedures.
Potential Environmental Impact: As an indirect result of training, healthcare waste (HCW) will be generated. If not collected and disposed of safely, aquatic and terrestrial resources and human health could be adversely affected
IEE Condition Specific mitigation actions to implement the condition
Person responsible for implementing mitigation
Timing
How implementation will be verified (monitoring indicator)
Responsible party & Timing
Training of healthcare workers should include best practices in disposal of HCW as described in the EGGSAA Healthcare Waste chapter:
Training courses should incorporate the following items, which should be included in all training on implementing new medical procedures:
How to Prepare an HCW Plan
Developing a Waste Segregation System
Minimize, Reuse, Recycling Procedures
Incorporating Good Hygiene Practices
Responsible Party: Training Advisor
Timing: When course material is being developed; when training is delivered
Course material includes these topics; when course material is developed; M & E Advisor
Trainings include these topics; when trainings are delivered; M & E Advisor
EXAMPLE 2: AGRICULTURAL SERVICES PROJECT (ASP)
ASP Activity 1: Training Ministry of Agriculture extension officers to provide sound crop production advice to ASP-supported farmers
Potential Environmental Impact: MOA extension officers could provide advice to farmers which results in expansion of agricultural land into natural areas; or that results in the unsafe use of pesticides.
IEE Condition Specific mitigation actions to implement the condition
Person responsible for implementing mitigation
Timing
How implementation will be verified (monitoring indicator)
Responsible party & Timing
Training shall not result in direct or indirect effects on the environment.
Training of MOA extension officers shall incorporate conservation agriculture; information on ecosystem services; and measures to minimize impacts to natural ecosystems.
Responsible Party: ASP Crop Production Specialist
Timing: Curriculum Development; During trainings
Review of curricula; attend various trainings
Responsible Party: ASP Training Officer
Timing: At time curricula are being developed; when trainings are provided
Trainings shall not recommend pesticides without first preparing a PERSUAP that is approved by the Bureau Environmental Officer.
Note: these mitigation measures are from the PERSUAP approved by the BEO on [xxx date]: 1) Only PERSUAP-approved pesticides shall be included in training for extension officers. 2) Trainings shall include safeguards for health and safety of workers, and measures to protect the environment (Annexes A and B of the PERSUAP). 3) Trainings shall include monitoring the efficacy of pesticides as described in Annex C of the PERSUAP.
ASP Crop Production Specialist
During trainings
Review of curricula; attend various trainings
Responsible Party: ASP Training Officer
Timing: At time curricula are being developed; when trainings are provided
ENCAP FACTSHEET: EMMPs REVIEW DRAFT 22 JULY 2011 PG 8/10
ENCAP FACTSHEET: EMMPs REVIEW DRAFT 22 JULY 2011 PG 9/10
EXAMPLE 3: SMALL FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION PROJECT (SFC)
NOTE: This example uses an alternate EMMP format. In this case, a project-specific IEE existed with highly specific conditions regarding siting, design requirements, and construction management practices for the small facilities (training centers, community centers) to be constructed by the project. These conditions were translated into table form (below), and for each condition a compliance process was specified. This EMMP format serves both as a detailed monitoring log and a management tool and guide to implementing mitigation.
IEE Condition 1: Siting Requirements for New Construction
Compliance process. At the time of initial site selection, SFC must answer the questions below for each proposed site. If a proposed site meets one of the below-listed criteria, the site must be changed OR an Africa Bureau Environmental Review Form (www.encapafrica.org/documents/AFR-EnvReviewForm-20Dec2010.doc) must be completed and approved by USAID prior to the start of construction. SFC must then implement the environmental conditions specified by the ERF.
Note: completed ERFs include an EMMP. SFC will maintain the ERF EMMPs as an annex to this project EMMP and report on their implementation to USAID.
Compliance record. The table below documents the compliance process. Note: all table entries must be dated & initialed.
Is/Does the site. . .
ProposedSite
GPSCoordinates
Within 30m of a permanent or seasonal stream or water body?
Have existing settlement /inhabitants?
Have an average slope in excess of 5%?
Heavily forested?
If yes to any question, indicate ERF status or note site change; add additional row for new site.
Village AVillage B(add sites as necessary)
--------------------------------- IEE Condition 2: Design Requirements for Small Facilities
Compliance process: (1) Design elements specified by the IEE will be incorporated into the final technical/contract specification that governs the general contractor’s work. SFC will verify this for each mandated design element. (2) SFC will verify via field inspection that the final works meet these specifications, requiring remedy or otherwise resolving any non-compliant elements.
Compliance record. The table below lists all design elements mandated by the IEE and serves to document compliance status.
Required Design Elements—Training and Community Centers A. Latrine/septic tank design prevents in-and-out access for insects or other disease vectors from the pit or holding tank. B. Latrines are accompanied by handwash stations. C. All sources of gray water (kitchen sinks and handwash stations) discharge to either (1) a seepage pit or sump at least 15m from any
source of groundwater or surface water tapped for domestic use, or (2) to an impermeable pump-out tank. D. Latrines or the terminus of any septic leach field must be at least 30m from any source of shallow groundwater or surface water tapped
for domestic use, OR discharge to an impermeable pump-out tank. E. Siting, grading and/or drainage structures prevent runoff from the compound from creating standing water on the compound or adjacent
land during the rainy season (instances of generalized flooding excepted.) F. Septic pump-out point, if any, shall feature a concrete apron and drain with return to the septic tank. G. Concrete aprons with berms or gutters/sumps shall be placed under generators, fuel storage, and fuel pump-in point (if different) sufficient
in each case to capture at least a 20 liter spill.
Incorporated in Final Technical Specifications? (Y/N; reference to list above)
Built as-specified? (confirmed by field inspection) (Y/N; reference to list above) Site
A B C D E F G A B C D E F G
Notes (issues and resolution)
ENCAP FACTSHEET: EMMPs REVIEW DRAFT 22 JULY 2011 PG 10/10
Village A
Date confirmed & initials
Date of inspection & initials
Village B
Date confirmed & initials
Date of inspection & initials
Addsites as needed Date confirmed
& initials Date of inspection & initials
---------------------------- IEE Condition 3: Construction Management
Compliance process: (1) Construction management practices specified by the IEE will be incorporated into the final technical/contract specification that governs the general contractor’s work. (2) SFC will verify that each construction management practices is being implemented via at least one field inspection during the construction process. (3) SFC will require remedy or otherwise resolve any deficits identified.
Compliance record. The table below lists all construction management practices mandated by the IEE and documents compliance status.
Required Construction Management Elements—Training and Community Centers A. During construction, prevent sediment-heavy run-off from cleared site or material stockpiles to any surface waters or fields with berms, by
covering sand/dirt piles, or by choice of location. (Only applies if construction occurs during rainy season.) B. Construction must be managed so that no standing water on the site persists more than 4 days. C. SFC must require its general contractor to certify that it is not extracting fill, sand or gravel from waterways or ecologically sensitive areas,
nor is it knowingly purchasing these materials from vendors who do so. D. SFC must identify and implement any feasible measures to increase the probability that lumber is from legal, well-managed sources.*
Incorporated in Final Technical Specifications? (Y/N; reference to list above)
Implemented as-specified? (confirmed by field inspection) (Y/N; reference to list above) Site
A B C D A B C D
Notes (issues and resolution)
Village A
Date confirmed & initials
Date(s) of inspection & initials
Village B
Date confirmed & initials
Date of inspection & initials
Addsites as needed Date confirmed
& initials Date of inspection & initials
*MEASURES IDENTIFIED, IF ANY, REGARDING SUSTAINABLE SOURCING OF TIMBER: [FILL IN]
Session 7. Introduction to the Sector Environmental Guidelines Brief presentation + demonstration Summary This session will familiarize participants with the ESDM and environmental compliance resources available through various USAID project Web sites. This includes the legacy ENCAP project Web site, as well as the newer GEMS project Web site: www.usaidgems.org.
These resources include:
• The Sector Environmental Guidelines
• Visual Field Guides (VFGs)
• Training Materials
• MEO Resource Center
• Other sector-specific resources
The session also summarizes the environmental compliance and ESDM support services available to Missions and implementing partners via the USAID GEMS project.
Objective Review the key ESDM/environmental compliance resources introduced during the workshop.
Key Resources • As referenced above
• GEMS Factsheet (attached)
This factsheet was prepared by The Cadmus Group, Inc. for USAID under the USAID Global Environmental Management Support project (GEMS II), Award Number AID-OAA-M-13000018. This draft is under review by the GEMS II COR.
IMPLEMENTING MECHANISM FACTSHEET
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SUPPORT (GEMS II)
CONTENTS 1. GEMS Overview
2. Implementers
3. Period of Performance
4. Scope of Services
5. Accessing GEMS Services
6. Pricing
7. Award Details
8. Contacts
1. GEMS OVERVIEW GEMS II is a global program implemented under a USAID E3 Bureau contract which provides on-demand environmental compliance, management, and sound design support to USAID’s Environmental Officers, individual agency operating units and their projects and programs.
Subject to available ceiling, GEMS services are available to any bureau or operating unit that elects to incrementally fund the contract.
2. IMPLEMENTERS GEMS was awarded in late September 2013 to The Cadmus Group, Inc. under the GSA Multiple Award Schedules (MAS) program.
The core team consists of Cadmus (prime contractor), Sun Mountain International and The Cloudburst Group, who together provide the primary USAID environmental compliance/environmentally sound design and management expertise. Other core team members are Eurasia Environmental Associates, Neptune and Company, Mott MacDonald, World Education and Battelle Memorial Institute.
A number of on-call local partners may be engaged depending on the location of programmed activities.
3. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE 30 September 2013–29 September 2018.
4. SCOPE OF SERVICES A broad range of environmental compliance, management, and sound design support services are available under GEMS, including but not limited to:
A. TRAINING. Planning, design and delivery of general and sector-specific training in environmental compliance and environmentally sound design and management; development of training curricula and materials; and development and delivery of online/distance learning on these topics.
B. GUIDANCE, TOOLS AND SYSTEMS. Development and review of environmental compliance/best practice guidance for individual projects or sector programs. Development of software/IT and other tools and systems to support environmental compliance, management and M&E from mission portfolio to project level.
C. 22 CFR 216 DOCUMENTATION. Development and review of documentation prepared under USAID Environmental Procedures (22 CFR 216), including Initial Environmental Examinations (IEEs), scoping statements, and Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Programmatic Environmental Assessments (PEAs), including health, gender and social impacts analyses.
D. EMMPs/EMPRs. Development and review of Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plans (EMMPs) and Environmental Mitigation Plans and Reports (EMPRs) and TA to support to field implementation of such plans.
E. COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS, FIELD MONITORING AND EVALUATION. Environmental compliance assessments, from mission
18 Nov 2013
GEMS II FACTSHEET VERSION 18 NOV 2013 PG 2/2
portfolio to project and site-level. Field monitoring and evaluation of environmental compliance/management.
F. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT IN DISASTER ASSISTANCE. Support to environmental management of disaster assistance, including rapid environmental assessments (REAs).
G. BEO, REA AND MEO SUPPORT & BACKSTOPPING. Screening and quality control of submitted 22 CFR 216 documentation and advice/TA for IPs and USAID staff developing this documentation.
H. OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES. Scoping, development and review of FAA 118/119 analyses, climate vulnerability assessments, health and social impact assessments, among others.
I. HOST COUNTRY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT CAPACITY. Capacity-building of host country environmental management systems and professionals.
J. KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT, LEARNING & COMMUNICATIONS. Web-based and hardcopy dissemination of environmental management guidance, strategic and high-impact environmental communications, environmental management community-of-practice development and support.
5. ACCESSING GEMS SERVICES Bureau Environmental Officers (BEOs) from participating Bureaus serve as Activity Managers for GEMS activities within their region/sector. In this capacity, they are “gatekeepers” for the GEMS work plan, in consultation with the COTR.
Operating units interested in accessing GEMS services, whether funded by the participating Bureaus or with their own buy-in funds, should first contact the relevant BEO/Activity Manager. See contact list at right.
The Activity Manager will work with the requesting operating unit and the prime contractor to reach an agreed scope of work, staffing, scheduling and budget.
6. PRICING GEMS II is a time and materials (T&M) contract. Categorical, fully burdened T&M labor rates are set by the award based on Cadmus’ and Cloudburst’s GSA price schedules. Travel, logistics and materials costs are treated on a reimbursable basis. Please request the GEMS II pricing and ordering guide for more information.
7. AWARD & GLAAS DETAILS
Award # AID‐OAA‐M‐13‐00018
Issued under GSA Multiple Award Schedule (Cadmus GSA Multiple Award Schedule Contract No.: GS‐10F‐0105J)
Period of Performance
30 Sept 2013–29 Sept 2018
No option years.
Ceiling $37.87mn (5‐years)
Lead Requisition Contact COR for most current code
Group Requisition Contact COR for most current code
8. CONTACTS
Contract Officer Kevin Sampson [email protected]
Contract Specialist Marcus Barnes [email protected]
COR Teresa Bernhard, E3 [email protected]
Deputy COR Brian Hirsch, AFR [email protected]
Bureau Activity Managers (Bureau Environmental Officers)
AFR Brian Hirsch [email protected]
Asia/Middle East John Wilson [email protected]
LAC Victor Bullen [email protected]
DCHA Erika Clesceri [email protected]
E3 Teresa Bernhard [email protected]
EE Will Gibson [email protected]
GH Rachel Dagovitz [email protected]
Chief of Party (Program Manager)
Mark Stoughton The Cadmus Group, Inc. [email protected]
USAID Environmental Compliance and Environmentally Sound Design & Management Resources online: www.usaidgems.org.
Session 8. Field Work Component— Briefing and Classroom Preparation
PLACEHOLDER
Session 9.
Environmental Compliance Reporting
Technical presentation and dialogue
Summary CORs and AORs are required by ADS 204 to monitor and evaluate on an ongoing basis whether the environmental mitigation required by the governing IEE(s)/EA is being implemented and is effective.
In other words, COR and AOR oversight responsibilities extend to environmental compliance, just as they do to other elements of project implementation. Practically, this requires that IPs not only systematically comply with IEE/EA conditions by developing and implementing EMMPs, but that they report to USAID on this implementation.
Regional best practice for IP environmental compliance reporting consists of two elements:
1. Project reporting should provide an auditable record of environmental compliance.
Generally, IPs’ quarterly or semi-annual reports should contain a separate environmental compliance section. The section must provide sufficient information on the status of EMMP implementation for USAID to effectively fulfill its oversight and performance monitoring role.
If the EMMP contains a “monitoring log” section, then the EMMP itself—updated with current monitoring results—can simply be appended to the report.
For larger projects, or those with complicated EMMPs, a text summary/short analysis of EMMP implementation is needed. This should highlight key mitigation activities underway in the reporting period, any significant issues encountered, and corrective actions/adjustments made.
Any specific reporting requirements imposed by the IEE or EA must also be satisfied.
2. One or more key project performance indicator(s)—“project results framework”—should reflect overall environmental soundness/environmental compliance.
In other words, the most critical elements of environmental soundness/compliance should be integrated, or “mainstreamed” into the project results framework. For example:
• In a water point provision project, the IP might use the indicator “number of protected water points established with zero fecal coliform after six (6) months” rather than simply “number of water points established.”
• In a road rehabilitation project, the IP might use the indicator “km of road rehabilitated under environmentally sound practices” rather than simply “km of road rehabilitated.”
In both cases, the “environmentalized indicator” demonstrates that core project activities are being executed with attention to environmental soundness/compliance. However, it is NOT expected or appropriate to “environmentalize” every key indicator, or to capture every mitigation measure.
(This best practice applies to new awards; where EMMPs are developed after the PMP is established, it may not be possible to change key performance indicators.)
Missions should not rely on IP progress reports alone to track environmental compliance. Field visits at minimum should include a quick check for significant environmental design/management problems (for certain activities, the Visual Field Guides [VFGs] may be used). For environmentally complex activities, specific field visits should be made to verify EMMP implementation.
In summary, IP and USAID environmental compliance roles and responsibilities are as follows:
Project stage Implementing Partner USAID
Workplan & PMP Development
Develops EMMP
Integrates EMMP into budget and workplan
Determines environmental compliance reporting
Review and approval of: 1. the EMMP (for responsiveness to IEE/EA
conditions and sufficiency of monitoring);
2. The budget/workplan (to verify that EMMP implementation is planned and funded); and
3. The reporting framework to assure that environmental reporting requirements are met.
Implementation Implementation of EMMP
Reporting on EMMP implementation
Ongoing review of partner progress reports to monitor EMMP implementation
Field visits—at a minimum, all visits should integrate a quick check for significant environmental design/management problems. For environmentally sensitive activities, specific visits should be made to verify EMMP implementation.
Objectives Achieve a common understanding of the two basic elements of IP environmental compliance reporting:
(1) providing USAID with an auditable record of IP environmental compliance; and
(2) "mainstreaming" critical elements of environmental soundness/compliance into one or more core program performance indicators.
GE
MS
Env
ironm
enta
l Com
plia
nce-
ES
DM
Tra
inin
g S
erie
sS
eneg
al, F
ebru
ary,
201
4
Envi
ronm
enta
l Com
plia
nce
Rep
ortin
g
Sess
ion
Obj
ectiv
es:
•U
nder
stan
d U
SA
ID c
riter
ia fo
r env
ironm
enta
l co
mpl
ianc
e re
porti
ng
•R
evie
w ro
le o
f EM
MP
in th
e re
porti
ng p
roce
ss
•D
iscu
ss “m
ains
tream
ing”
of p
roje
ct e
nviro
nmen
tal
perfo
rman
ce fo
r rep
ortin
g pu
rpos
es
•Le
arn
how
to “e
nviro
nmen
taliz
e” k
ey p
roje
ct
indi
cato
rs
2
3
Let’s
look
at #
1 fir
st:
Now
that
EM
MP
is
bein
g im
plem
ente
d,
USA
ID n
eeds
to k
now
.1.
Pro
ject
repo
rting
mus
t pr
ovid
e an
aud
itabl
e re
cord
of
env
ironm
enta
l co
mpl
ianc
e.2.
One
or m
ore
key
proj
ect
perfo
rman
ce in
dica
tor(
s)
(pro
ject
resu
lts fr
amew
ork)
sh
ould
refle
ct o
vera
ll en
viro
nmen
tal s
ound
ness
/ en
viro
nmen
tal c
ompl
ianc
e.
The
EMM
P is
in p
lace
… n
ow w
hat?
Team
Lea
ders
and
Act
ivity
M
anag
ers
or C
/AO
Rs
mus
t ac
tivel
y m
anag
e an
d m
onito
r co
mpl
ianc
e w
ith a
ny IE
E/EA
co
nditi
ons,
mod
ifyin
g or
end
ing
activ
ities
not
in c
ompl
ianc
e.
(AD
S 20
2.3.
6 , 2
04.3
.4 a
nd 3
03.2
.f
Wha
t doe
s th
e A
DS
say?
4
Envi
ronm
enta
l com
plia
nce
repo
rtin
g ca
n be
inte
grat
ed a
s pa
rt o
f ‘re
gula
r’ pr
ojec
t rep
ortin
g
Qua
rter
ly o
r sem
i-ann
ual p
roje
ct
repo
rts
shou
ld c
onta
in a
sep
arat
e se
ctio
n ad
dres
sing
env
ironm
enta
l co
mpl
ianc
e.
Th
e se
ctio
n m
ust p
rovi
de
suffi
cien
t inf
orm
atio
n on
the
stat
us
of E
MM
P im
plem
enta
tion
for
USA
ID to
effe
ctiv
ely
fulfi
ll its
ov
ersi
ght a
nd p
erfo
rman
ce
mon
itorin
g ro
le.
Title
II C
Ss m
ust s
ubm
it an
A
nnua
l Env
ironm
enta
l C
ompl
ianc
e St
atus
Rep
ort
Prep
arin
g “a
n au
dita
ble
reco
rd”
of c
ompl
ianc
e
Any
spe
cific
repo
rtin
g re
quire
men
ts c
onta
ined
in th
e IE
E m
ust a
lso
be a
ddre
ssed
5
Desig
n re
quire
men
t
Inco
rpor
ated
in fi
nal
tech
nica
l spe
cifica
tions
Built
-as s
pecif
ied?
(confi
rmed
by fie
ld ins
pec.)
Note
s(Is
sues
& re
solu
tion)
Date
Confi
rmed
Initia
lsY/
NDa
te of
inspe
ction
Initia
ls
GRAD
ING,
SEP
TIC
& DR
AINA
GE.
If con
struc
tion r
esult
s in s
ubsta
ntiall
y inc
reas
ed
slope
of an
y lan
d with
in 10
m of
the st
ream
, that
slope
mus
t be p
rotec
ted w
ith be
rms,
planti
ngs,
etc.)
Site
grad
ing an
d dra
inage
shall
be de
signe
d an
d con
struc
ted to
prev
ent a
ccum
ulatio
n of
stand
ing w
ater
Apro
ns m
ust b
e ins
talled
and d
raina
ge
prov
ided a
t wate
r sup
ply po
int(s)
—no
stan
ding
water
allow
ed.
No di
rect
gray
or br
own-
water
disc
harg
e to
strea
m is
allow
ed. A
ll dra
inage
with
the
exce
ption
of st
orm
runo
ff and
wate
r poin
t dr
ainag
e mus
t be c
hann
eled t
o the
septi
c sy
stem.
If sep
tic ta
nk de
sign i
s a pu
mp-o
ut tan
k with
out
leach
field,
assu
re im
perm
eable
tank
co
nstru
ction
or m
in 30
m se
para
tion b
etwee
n tan
k and
stre
am an
d nea
rest
shall
ow w
ell.
If th
e E
MM
P c
onta
ins
a “m
onito
ring
reco
rd” s
ectio
n, a
ttach
the
EM
MP
—up
date
d w
ith c
urre
nt m
onito
ring
resu
lts—
to th
e re
port.
Exc
erpt
of E
MM
P w
ith
mon
itorin
g re
cord
for m
ediu
m-
scal
e co
nstru
ctio
n pr
ojec
t.
Use
EM
MP
to s
trea
mlin
e re
port
ing
6
Miti
gatio
nM
easu
re
Res
pons
ible
Pa
rty
Mon
itorin
g Sc
hem
eEs
t. C
ost
Mon
itorin
g Lo
gIn
dica
tors
Dat
a so
urce
/ M
etho
dH
ow
Ofte
nD
ate
Res
ult
Follo
w-u
p
3. In
stal
l &
prop
erly
op
erat
e ca
nal-
leve
l flo
w
regu
latio
n st
ruct
ures
Pro
ject
ag
ricul
tura
l te
chni
cian
•# o
f doo
rs a
nd o
ther
flow
-co
ntro
l stru
ctur
es in
stal
led
% o
f Ha.
und
er fl
ow c
ontro
l%
of
seco
ndar
y &
terti
ary
cana
ls s
how
ing
sign
ifica
nt
eros
ion
dam
age
afte
r eac
h gr
owin
g se
ason
Rep
orts
Fiel
d vi
sit
Qua
rterly
4. P
rote
ct
uppe
r slo
pe
with
frui
t (m
ango
es,
citru
s,
avoc
ado)
and
fo
rest
tree
s
Pro
ject
ag
ricul
tura
l te
chni
cian
# of
tree
s pl
ante
d an
d su
rviv
ed
% o
f at
-ris
k up
per s
lope
la
nd p
rote
cted
to
tal m
3 of
sed
imen
t re
mov
ed fr
om c
anal
s ov
er
each
rain
y se
ason
.
Rep
orts
Fiel
d vi
sit
Com
paris
on
with
bas
elin
e in
form
atio
n
Qua
rterly
/A
nnua
l
The
irrig
atio
n re
habi
litat
ion
EM
MP
from
the
ses
sion
on
EM
MP
s
EMM
P m
onito
ring
log
can
sim
plify
repo
rtin
g
If th
e E
MM
P c
onta
ins
a “m
onito
ring
reco
rd” s
ectio
n, s
impl
y at
tach
th
e E
MM
P to
the
quar
terly
or s
emi-a
nnua
l rep
ortin
g do
cum
ent.
7
Larg
er p
roje
cts,
or t
hose
with
co
mpl
icat
ed E
MM
Ps m
ay re
quire
m
ore
deta
iled
repo
rtin
g to
cre
ate
an a
udita
ble
reco
rd.
A
text
sum
mar
y or
sho
rt a
naly
sis
of
EMM
P im
plem
enta
tion
is n
eede
d:
Hig
hlig
ht k
ey m
itiga
tion
activ
ities
un
derw
ay in
the
repo
rting
per
iod;
A
ny s
igni
fican
t iss
ues
enco
unte
red;
and
C
orre
ctiv
e ac
tions
/adj
ustm
ents
mad
e.
St
and-
alon
e En
viro
nmen
tal C
ompl
ianc
e re
port
s m
ay a
lso
be w
arra
nted
(e
.g.,
quar
terly
or s
emi-a
nnua
l).
Now
on to
requ
ireme
nt #
2:
Com
plex
EM
MPs
requ
ire d
etai
led
repo
rtin
g
8
Envi
ronm
enta
l iss
ues
can
be
inte
grat
ed, o
r “m
ains
trea
med
”in
to th
e pr
ojec
t res
ults
fram
ewor
k fo
r rep
ortin
g pu
rpos
es.
This
doe
s N
OT
mea
n th
at:
•Ev
ery
miti
gatio
n m
easu
re m
ust b
e ca
ptur
ed in
cor
e in
dica
tors
•Ev
ery
core
pro
gram
indi
cato
r mus
t be
“en
viro
nmen
taliz
ed”
This
IS to
say
that
ove
rall,
pro
ject
su
cces
s m
ust b
e pa
rtly
mea
sure
d on
the
mos
t crit
ical
ele
men
ts o
f en
viro
nmen
tal s
ound
ness
/ co
mpl
ianc
e
This
app
lies
to n
ew a
war
ds.
Whe
re E
MM
Ps
are
deve
lope
d af
ter t
he P
MP
is
esta
blis
hed,
it m
ay n
ot b
e po
ssib
le to
cha
nge
key
prog
ram
indi
cato
rs.
“Mai
nstr
eam
ing”
env
ironm
enta
l per
form
ance
Wha
t is
Rep
ortin
g R
equi
rem
ent #
2 ag
ain?
…
“One
or m
ore
key
proj
ect
perfo
rman
ce in
dica
tor(
s)
(pro
ject
resu
lts fr
amew
ork)
sh
ould
refle
ct o
vera
ll en
viro
nmen
tal s
ound
ness
&
com
plia
nce.
”
This
inte
rven
tion
will
NO
T sh
ow g
ood
perf
orm
ance
. . .
Key
Pro
gram
Indi
cato
rs:
Pr
otec
ted*
wat
er p
oint
s es
tabl
ishe
d
# be
nefic
iarie
s re
ceiv
ing
wat
er
from
pro
tect
ed w
ater
poi
nts
%
of w
ater
poi
nts
with
no
feca
l col
iform
s pe
r 100
ml
%
of w
ater
poi
nts
esta
blis
hed
that
are
cle
an a
fter 6
mon
ths
EXA
MPL
E:
Wat
er P
oint
Pro
visi
on
9
*Pro
tect
ed =
fenc
ed a
gain
stliv
esto
ck, d
rain
ed
Brin
ging
env
. iss
ues
into
resu
lts fr
amew
ork
How
muc
h fir
ewoo
d do
es a
typi
cal F
ood
for
Pea
ce (F
FP) p
rogr
am u
se?
~1 k
g fir
ewoo
d/pe
rson
/day
x 70
,000
be
nefic
iarie
s x
365
d~3
0,00
0 M
T of
fire
woo
d/yr
Miti
gatio
n:
Impr
oved
coo
k st
oves
and
coo
king
pra
ctic
es
Add
ed to
key
pro
gram
indi
cato
rs :
A
mou
nt o
f fue
l sav
ed b
y im
prov
ed
prac
tices
A
mou
nt o
f tim
e sa
ved
by im
prov
ed
prac
tices
NO
T ju
st n
umbe
r of s
tove
s di
strib
uted
Fuel
Woo
d &
D
efor
esta
tion
EXA
MPL
E:
Food
for P
eace
10
Brin
ging
env
. iss
ues
into
resu
lts fr
amew
ork
Typi
cal I
ndic
ator
:
Km
of r
oad
reha
bilit
ated
Stre
ngth
ened
, “En
viro
nmen
taliz
ed”
indi
cato
r:
Km
of r
oad
reha
bilit
ated
und
er
envi
ronm
enta
lly s
ound
pra
ctic
es.*
*pro
vide
def
initi
on o
f env
ironm
enta
lly s
ound
pr
actic
es fr
om E
MM
P
EXA
MPL
E:
Roa
d re
habi
litat
ion
“Env
ironm
enta
lizin
g” p
roje
ct in
dica
tors
11
As
with
all
othe
r asp
ects
of t
he
proj
ect,
the
CO
R o
r AO
R is
the
prim
ary
revi
ewer
. B
ut th
e M
EO a
nd M
&E
func
tion
may
al
so b
e in
volv
ed.
Who
revi
ews E
MM
Ps &
envi
ronm
enta
l com
plia
nce
repo
rtin
g ins
ide U
SAID
?W
ill en
viro
nmen
tal
com
plia
nce c
heck
s be p
art o
f M
ission
M&E
?
USA
ID re
view
of e
nviro
nmen
tal r
epor
ting
1. P
rior r
evie
w/a
ppro
val o
f par
tner
-dev
elop
ed:
EM
MP
ensu
re re
spon
sive
to IE
E/EA
con
ditio
ns
Proj
ect b
udge
ts a
nd w
orkp
lans
ensu
re E
MM
P im
plem
enta
tion
plan
ned
and
fund
ed
Proj
ect R
epor
ting
Fram
ewor
ken
sure
env
ironm
enta
l com
plia
nce
repo
rtin
g re
quire
men
ts a
re m
et
2. O
ngoi
ng re
view
of p
artn
er p
rogr
ess
repo
rts
to m
onito
r EM
MP
impl
emen
tatio
n
3. F
ield
vis
its:
at
a m
inim
um, a
ll vi
sits
inte
grat
e a
quic
k ch
eck
for
sign
ifica
nt e
nv. d
esig
n/m
anag
emen
t pro
blem
s
Fo
r env
ironm
enta
lly s
ensi
tive
activ
ities
, spe
cific
vi
sit(s
) to
audi
t aga
inst
EM
MP
13
Prim
ary
resp
onsi
bilit
y fo
r en
surin
g IP
com
plia
nce
lies
with
CO
R/A
OR
.
ME
O w
ill a
lso
revi
ew/c
lear
w
here
act
iviti
es a
re
envi
ronm
enta
lly s
ensi
tive
and/
or IE
E/E
A co
nditi
ons
are
com
plex
.
ME
O o
n di
strib
utio
n lis
t for
IP
’s q
uarte
rly/s
emi-a
nnua
l pr
ojec
t rep
orts
.
Mos
t fie
ld v
isits
are
by
CO
R/A
OR
or M
&E
Offi
cer.
ME
O s
houl
d vi
sit t
he m
ost
envi
ronm
enta
lly s
ensi
tive
activ
ities
(RE
A m
ay a
ssis
t).
USA
ID e
nviro
nmen
tal c
ompl
ianc
e ov
ersi
ght
Session 10. Roles, Responsibilities & Resources Technical presentation and dialogue Summary This session brings together information that has been introduced throughout the workshop, in addition to addressing some new topics. All concern the processes, roles and responsibilities for environmental compliance in missions and operating units.
Key topics are:
• How environmental compliance is mainstreamed (integrated throughout) Agency operations by the Automated Directives System (ADS).
• The roles and responsibilities of USAID staff and IPs with respect to the environmental compliance of USAID projects.
• The importance of incorporating best-practice Environmental Compliance Language (ECL) in solicitations and awards and the benefits of using the ECL tool for this purpose.
• Resources available to support environmental compliance and environmentally sound design and management.
IP and USAID environmental compliance roles and responsibilities post-award are summarized in the following table:
Project stage Implementing Partner USAID
Workplan & PMP Development
Develops EMMP
Integrates EMMP into budget and workplan
Determines environmental compliance reporting
Review and approval of:
1. the EMMP (for responsiveness to IEE/EA conditions and sufficiency of monitoring);
2. the budget/workplan (to verify that EMMP implementation is planned and funded); and
3. the reporting framework to assure that environmental reporting requirements are met.
Implementation Implementation of EMMP
Reporting on EMMP implementation
Ongoing review of partner progress reports to monitor EMMP implementation
Field visits—at a minimum, all visits should integrate a quick check for significant environmental design/ management problems. For environmentally sensitive activities, specific visits should be made to verify EMMP implementation.
Objective Understand environmental compliance roles and responsibilities of USAID staff and IPs and the tools and resources available to facilitate environmental compliance.
Envi
ronm
enta
l Com
plia
nce:
Rol
es, R
espo
nsib
ilitie
s&
Res
ourc
es
GE
MS
Env
ironm
enta
l Com
plia
nce-
ES
DM
Tra
inin
g S
erie
sS
eneg
al, F
ebru
ary,
201
4
Envi
ronm
enta
l Com
plia
nce
&
the
Aut
omat
ed D
irect
ives
Sys
tem
(AD
S)
•U
SAID
’s A
utom
ated
D
irect
ives
Sys
tem
(AD
S)
sets
out
man
dato
ry
proc
edur
es, r
oles
&
resp
onsi
bilit
ies
for:
•“U
pstre
am c
ompl
ianc
e:”
Des
ign
& 2
2 C
FR 2
16 p
roce
ss•
“Dow
nstre
am c
ompl
ianc
e:”
impl
emen
ting
IEE
& E
A
cond
ition
s
2
Envi
ronm
enta
l Com
plia
nce
& th
e A
DS
Com
plia
nce
Req
uire
men
tR
espo
nsib
le P
artie
sA
DS
Ref
eren
ce
Env
ironm
enta
l co
nsid
erat
ions
in
act
ivity
pla
nnin
gTe
am L
eade
rs,
Act
ivity
Man
ager
s20
1.3.
8.3.
a20
1.3.
15.3
.b20
4.3.
3
No
activ
ity im
plem
ente
dw
ithou
t app
rove
d R
eg. 2
16
envi
ronm
enta
l doc
umen
tatio
n
CO
R/A
OR
/A
ctiv
ity M
anag
er20
1.3.
1120
4.3.
120
4.3.
3.b
303.
2.f
IEE
& E
A co
nditi
ons
inco
rpor
ated
into
pro
cure
men
t in
stru
men
ts
CO
R/A
OR
/A
ctiv
ity M
anag
er;
Agr
eem
ent O
ffice
r
204.
3.4.
a.6
303.
3.6.
3e30
3.3.
13
IEE
& E
A co
nditi
ons
are
impl
emen
ted,
and
im
plem
enta
tion
is m
onito
red
&
adju
sted
as
nece
ssar
y
CO
R/A
OR
202.
3.6;
204.
3.4
303.
2.f
Env
ironm
enta
l com
plia
nce
docu
men
tatio
n is
mai
ntai
ned
PO
, CO
R/A
OR
, Tea
m
Lead
er, M
EO
202.
3.4.
6
Ove
rarc
hing
re
quire
men
t:O
pera
ting
units
mus
t ha
ve s
yste
ms
in p
lace
for
envi
ronm
enta
l co
mpl
ianc
e ov
er li
fe o
f pr
ojec
t &
mus
t mak
e su
ffici
ent
reso
urce
s av
aila
ble
for
this
pur
pose
(202
.3.6
; 20
4.3.
4)
AD
S 20
4 (“
Envi
ronm
enta
l Pro
cedu
res”
) is
the
core
AD
S re
fere
nce.
But
en
viro
nmen
tal c
ompl
ianc
e is
mai
nstr
eam
edth
roug
hout
the
AD
S.
3
A N
ote
Abo
ut R
ecor
d K
eepi
ng
•A
ppro
ved
22 C
FR 2
16 d
ocum
ents
ar
e ke
pt in
two
plac
es•
in o
ffici
al p
roje
ct fi
les
mai
ntai
ned
by C
/AO
R•
in o
ffici
al B
EO
file
s
•22
CFR
216
.10
mak
es a
ll of
thes
e av
aila
ble
to th
e pu
blic
•A
genc
y-w
ide
sear
chab
le d
atab
ase
of a
ll R
eg. 2
16 d
oc’s
app
rove
d si
nce
2000
: ht
tp://
gem
ini.i
nfo.
usai
d.go
v/eg
at/e
nvco
mp/
•A
nnua
l rep
ortin
g is
requ
ired
4
Mis
sion
Env
ironm
enta
l Offi
cer (
MEO
)
•Q
ualit
y A
ssur
ance
/Qua
lity
Con
trol
revi
ewer
for
Reg
. 216
doc
s
•C
lear
s R
eg. 2
16 d
ocs
befo
re th
ey g
o to
M
issi
on D
irect
or
•M
issi
on c
ompl
ianc
e ad
viso
r and
coo
rdin
ator
; as
sist
s in
com
plia
nce
mon
itorin
g
•M
issi
on p
oint
of c
onta
ct to
Reg
iona
l Env
ironm
enta
l A
dvis
or a
nd B
urea
u En
viro
nmen
tal O
ffice
r
•D
r. O
umou
K. L
Y
5
Reg
iona
l Env
ironm
enta
l Adv
isor
(REA
)
•B
ased
in re
gion
al M
issi
ons
•En
viro
nmen
tal c
ompl
ianc
e te
chni
cal a
ssis
tanc
e to
Mis
sion
s
•Pr
ovid
es q
ualit
y as
sura
nce
and
qual
ity c
ontr
ol o
f R
eg. 2
16 d
ocum
enta
tion
befo
re it
goe
s to
the
Bur
eau
Envi
ronm
enta
l Offi
cer
•M
r. C
amili
enJ.
W. S
aint
-Cyr
•M
r. A
bdou
rahm
ane
Ndi
aye
6
Bur
eau
Envi
ronm
enta
l Offi
cer (
BEO
)
•B
ased
in W
ashi
ngto
n, D
.C.
•O
vers
ees
envi
ronm
enta
l com
plia
nce
in th
eir
Bur
eau
•Pr
imar
y de
cisi
on m
aker
on
22 C
FR 2
16 th
resh
old
deci
sion
s fo
r act
iviti
es u
nder
the
purv
iew
of t
heir
Bur
eau.
•M
r. B
rian
HIR
SCH
7
The
ME
O is
a
mem
ber o
f eve
ry
sect
or te
am
(A
DS
204
.3.5
)
CO
Rs/
AO
Rs
and
Act
ivity
Man
ager
s.A
ssur
e R
eg. 2
16 d
ocum
enta
tion
in p
lace
. Ass
ure
IEE
/EA
cond
ition
s an
d co
mpl
ianc
e re
quire
men
ts
inco
rpor
ated
into
pro
cure
men
t ins
trum
ents
. Mon
itor
com
plia
nce
with
IEE
/EA
cond
ition
s an
d m
odify
or e
nd
activ
ities
not
in c
ompl
ianc
e.
Team
Lea
ders
Ove
rsee
C
OR
s/A
OR
s.
Ass
ure
that
thei
r te
ams
have
en
viro
nmen
tal
com
plia
nce
syst
em in
pla
ce.
Mis
sion
Dire
ctor
Ulti
mat
ely
resp
onsi
ble
for
envi
ronm
enta
l co
mpl
ianc
e.
Man
dato
ry
clea
ranc
e on
all
Reg
. 216
en
viro
nmen
tal
docu
men
tatio
n.
Prim
ary
Res
pons
ibili
ty fo
r E
nviro
nmen
tal
Com
plia
nce
!
Sect
or T
eam
s &
Mis
sion
Man
agem
ent
8
BE
Os
and
AE
C ta
ke le
gal
advi
ce in
to a
ccou
nt b
ut
are
resp
onsi
ble
for
deci
sion
-mak
ing
in
inte
rpre
ting
22 C
FR 2
16
Age
ncy
Envi
ronm
enta
l Coo
rdin
ator
(AEC
)O
vers
ees
22 C
FR 2
16 im
plem
enta
tion
and
inte
rpre
ts
Reg
. 216
in n
ew s
ituat
ions
.
Con
curs
in A
A’s
appo
intm
ents
of B
EO
s.
Dec
ides
app
eals
to B
EO
dec
isio
ns (r
are)
. Pre
sent
s ap
peal
s of
AE
C d
ecis
ions
to C
EQ
(rar
e) C
oord
inat
es
EIS
pro
cess
for U
SA
ID (r
are)
Reg
iona
l Leg
al
Adv
isor
s (R
LAs)
Pro
vide
lega
l adv
ice
on e
nviro
nmen
tal
com
plia
nce
to fi
eld
staf
f. S
ome
regi
ons
requ
ire R
LA
clea
ranc
e on
Reg
. 21
6 do
cum
ents
.
Ass
ista
nt
Gen
eral
C
ouns
els
(AG
Cs)
P
rovi
de le
gal
advi
ce to
BE
Os
and
RLA
s on
en
viro
nmen
tal
com
plia
nce
in th
eir
regi
ons.
!
Age
ncy
Envi
ronm
enta
l Coo
rdin
ator
, O
ffice
of t
he G
ener
al C
ouns
el
9
Reg
. 216
doc
s: W
ho w
rites
? W
ho c
lear
s?
•W
ho w
rites
?•
AO
R/C
OR
resp
onsi
ble
for a
ssur
ing
Reg
. 216
doc
umen
tatio
n is
in p
lace
.*•
Can
eng
age
a co
nsul
tant
/con
tract
or to
dev
elop
—E
nviro
nmen
tal A
sses
smen
ts a
lmos
t alw
ays
deve
lope
d by
third
-par
ty c
onsu
ltant
s.
•U
SA
ID is
resp
onsi
ble
for c
onte
nts/
dete
rmin
atio
ns
NO
MA
TTER
WH
O D
EVEL
OPS
IT!
•W
ho c
lear
s?•
CO
R/A
OR
, Act
ivity
Man
ager
or T
eam
Lea
der
•M
EO
(for
Mis
sion
)•
RE
A (d
epen
ding
on
Mis
sion
/regi
onal
pol
icy)
•M
issi
on D
irect
or o
r W
ashi
ngto
n eq
uiva
lent
cle
ars
•B
urea
u En
viro
nmen
tal O
ffice
rcon
curs
. R
espo
nsib
ility
/aut
horit
y ca
nnot
be
dele
gate
d.
Req
uire
d by
R
eg. 2
16
Go
to th
e fie
ld b
efor
e yo
u w
rite
10
11
Fund
amen
tal r
espo
nsib
ility
&
acco
unta
bilit
y:
•S
ecto
r Tea
m L
eade
r
•A
ctiv
ity M
anag
ers
& C
OR
/AO
Rs
•ul
timat
ely
with
the
Mis
sion
Dire
ctor
ME
O: q
ualit
y an
d co
mpl
eten
ess
revi
ewer
fo
r Reg
. 216
doc
umen
tatio
n; c
ompl
ianc
e ad
viso
r and
coo
rdin
ator
; ass
ists
in
com
plia
nce
mon
itorin
g.
In th
e M
issi
on
US
AID
Impl
emen
ting
Par
tner
sA
ssur
es R
eg. 2
16 d
ocum
enta
tion
in
plac
e. E
stab
lishe
s/ap
prov
es
envi
ronm
enta
l miti
gatio
n an
d m
onito
ring
cond
ition
s. Ve
rifie
s com
plia
nce.
ALW
AYS:
Impl
emen
t miti
gatio
n an
d m
onito
ring
cond
ition
s tha
t app
ly to
thei
r pr
ojec
t act
iviti
es a
nd re
port
to U
SAID
.
ALW
AYS
resp
onsi
ble
for d
esig
n of
de
taile
d En
viro
nmen
tal M
itiga
tion
and
Mon
itorin
g Pl
an (E
MM
P) in
resp
onse
to
miti
gatio
n an
d m
onito
ring
cond
ition
s es
tabl
ishe
d by
the
Reg
. 216
do
cum
enta
tion.
SOM
ETIM
ES d
evel
op R
eg. 2
16
docu
men
tatio
n (I
EEs,
EAs)
* fo
r new
pr
ojec
t com
pone
nts;
dev
elop
sub-
proj
ect
Envi
ronm
enta
l Rev
iew
Rep
orts
(ER
Rs)
(f
or su
b-gr
ants
/sub
-pro
ject
s).
*Titl
e II
CSs
dev
elop
IEEs
as p
art o
f the
ir M
YAPs
.
Who
is re
spon
sibl
e?
Envi
ronm
enta
l Com
plia
nce
Verif
icat
ion/
Ove
rsig
ht b
y U
SAID
1. P
rior R
evie
w/A
ppro
val o
f par
tner
-dev
elop
ed
EMM
Pen
sure
resp
onsi
ve to
IEE/
EA c
ondi
tions
B
udge
ts a
nd w
orkp
lans
ensu
re E
MM
P im
plem
enta
tion
plan
ned
& fu
nded
Pr
ojec
t Rep
ortin
g Fr
amew
ork
ensu
re e
nviro
nmen
tal c
ompl
ianc
e re
port
ing
requ
irem
ents
are
met
2. O
ngoi
ng re
view
of p
artn
er p
rogr
ess
repo
rts
to m
onito
r EM
MP
impl
emen
tatio
n
3. F
ield
vis
its:
at
a m
inim
um, a
ll vi
sits
inte
grat
e a
quic
k ch
eck
for
sign
ifica
nt e
nv. d
esig
n/m
anag
emen
t pro
blem
s
Fo
r env
ironm
enta
lly s
ensi
tive
activ
ities
, spe
cific
vi
sit(s
) to
audi
t aga
inst
EM
MP.
12
Prim
ary
resp
onsi
bilit
y fo
r en
surin
g co
mpl
ianc
e lie
s w
ith C
/AO
R.
ME
O w
ill a
lso
revi
ew/c
lear
w
here
act
iviti
es a
re e
nv.
sens
itive
and
/or I
EE
/EA
cond
ition
s ar
e co
mpl
ex.
ME
O o
n di
strib
utio
n lis
t for
IP
’s q
uarte
rly/s
emi-a
nnua
l pr
ojec
t rep
orts
.
Mos
t fie
ld v
isits
are
by
C/A
OR
or M
&E
Offi
cer
ME
O s
houl
d vi
sit t
he m
ost
envi
ronm
enta
lly s
ensi
tive
activ
ities
(RE
A m
ay a
ssis
t)
Envi
ronm
enta
l Com
plia
nce
&
Proc
urem
ent I
nstr
umen
ts
•C
ritic
al to
IP c
ompl
ianc
e w
ith
IEE/
EA c
ondi
tions
•B
UT:
his
toric
ally
, pro
blem
s in
im
plem
enta
tion:
•
Man
y U
SA
ID p
rocu
rem
ent
inst
rum
ents
hav
e N
OT
adeq
uate
ly
addr
esse
d en
viro
nmen
tal
com
plia
nce
•La
ck o
f gui
danc
e re
quire
d A
/CO
Rs,
C
Os
to re
peat
edly
“re-
inve
nt th
e w
heel
” •
Par
tner
s/co
ntra
ctor
s fa
il to
bud
get f
or
envi
ronm
enta
l req
uire
men
ts
13
AD
S R
equi
res.
. .
“Inco
rpor
atin
g en
viro
nmen
tal f
acto
rs
and
miti
gativ
em
easu
res
iden
tifie
d in
IEE
s, E
As,
and
E
ISs,
as
appr
opria
te,
in th
e de
sign
and
the
impl
emen
tatio
n in
stru
men
ts fo
r pr
ogra
ms,
pro
ject
s,
activ
ities
or
amen
dmen
ts.”
(204
.3.4
(a)(6
)
The
solu
tion.
. .
Envi
ronm
enta
l Com
plia
nce:
La
ngua
ge fo
r Use
in S
olic
itatio
ns a
nd A
war
ds (E
CL)
Step
-by-
step
gui
danc
e an
d bo
ilerp
late
lang
uage
•Fo
r RFA
s, R
FPs,
ag
reem
ents
, gra
nts,
co
ntra
cts
•O
ptio
nal,
not r
equi
red
•A
DS
Hel
p D
ocum
ent
•A
ppro
ved
by G
ener
al
Cou
nsel
14
Avai
labl
e fr
om:
ww
w.u
said
.gov
/pol
icy/
ads/
200/
204s
ac.p
df
Bes
t-pra
ctic
eso
licita
tion
lang
uage
15
To a
ssur
e th
at p
roje
cts
do n
ot “c
reep
” ou
t of c
ompl
ianc
e as
act
iviti
es a
re
mod
ified
and
add
ed o
ver t
heir
life.
Spec
ifica
lly:
1. C
ompl
ete
EMM
Pex
ists
or i
s de
velo
ped.
2.
Wor
kpla
ns&
budg
ets
inte
grat
e th
e E
MM
P3.
Pro
ject
repo
rting
trac
ks E
MM
P im
plem
enta
tion
Req
uirin
g th
at:
Pro
posa
ls a
ddre
ss
qual
ifica
tions
and
pr
opos
ed a
ppro
ache
s to
com
plia
nce/
ESD
M
for e
nviro
nmen
tally
co
mpl
ex a
ctiv
ities
.
Bes
t-pra
ctic
eaw
ard
lang
uage
Req
uirin
g th
at:
IP v
erifi
es c
urre
nt a
nd
plan
ned
activ
ities
ann
ually
ag
ains
t the
sco
pe o
f the
R
CE
/IEE
/EA
.
The
nece
ssar
y m
echa
nism
s an
d bu
dget
for I
P im
plem
enta
tion
of
IEE
/EA
cond
ition
s ar
e in
pl
ace.
15The
ECL
Doc
umen
t Gen
erat
es:
Prov
ides
cos
t and
effi
cien
cy b
enef
itsto
M
issi
on S
taff
and
Impl
emen
ting
Part
ners
USA
ID S
taff
Impl
emen
ting
Part
ners
Pro
vide
s ce
rtain
ty re
gard
ing
envi
ronm
enta
l com
plia
nce
resp
onsi
bilit
ies
Pre
vent
s “u
nfun
ded
man
date
s”–
US
AID
requ
irem
ents
to im
plem
ent
miti
gatio
n an
d m
onito
ring
afte
r im
plem
enta
tion
has
star
ted
and
with
out a
dditi
onal
bud
get.
Avoi
ds th
e ef
fort,
cos
ts a
nd lo
ss o
f go
od w
ill th
at c
ome
from
impo
sing
“c
orre
ctiv
e co
mpl
ianc
e” m
easu
res
on
IPs
afte
r im
plem
enta
tion
has
star
ted.
Red
uces
US
AID
cos
t and
effo
rt of
en
viro
nmen
tal c
ompl
ianc
e ve
rific
atio
n/
over
sigh
t by
assu
ring
that
IPs
inte
grat
e en
viro
nmen
talc
ompl
ianc
e re
porti
ng in
to ro
utin
e pr
ojec
t pe
rform
ance
repo
rting
.
16
The
ECL
Stre
ngth
ens
ESD
M a
nd …
Who
Can
Hel
p?
17
AFR:
Bria
n Hi
rsch
, Asia
& M
E: Jo
hn O
. Wils
on, B
FS:R
on G
reen
berg
(act
ing)
; DCH
A:Er
ika C
lesce
ri E&
E:W
ill Gi
bson
(act
ing)
, E3:
Tere
sa B
ernh
ard,
GH:
Rach
el Da
govit
z, L
AC: V
ictor
Bul
len, M
/ODP
: De
nnis
Durb
in, O
APA:
Gor
don
Wey
nand
Paul
Sch
mid
tke,
C
entr
al A
mer
ica
(E
l Sal
vado
r)
Ann
e D
ix/B
en O
poku
Wes
t AFR
(Gha
na)
Aria
nne
Nei
gh (i
nter
im),
Sout
hern
AFR
(Pre
toria
)
Dav
id K
inyu
aEa
st A
FR (K
enya
)
Jaso
n G
irard
, Sou
th
Am
eric
a (P
eru)
Joe
Torr
es, C
arib
bean
(D
omin
ican
Rep
ublic
)
MEO
s in
eve
ry b
ilate
ral M
issi
on A
ND
the
BEO
san
d R
EAs:
Aar
on B
row
nell
RD
MA
/Ban
gkok
WD
C
BEO
sA
lexa
ndra
Had
zi-V
idan
ovic
OM
EP (C
airo
)
And
rei B
aran
nik
CA
R (A
lmat
y)
Ref
eren
ces
& U
sefu
l Inf
orm
atio
n
•U
SAID
Env
ironm
enta
l Com
plia
nce
& R
elat
ed L
inks
ww
w.u
said
.gov
/our
_wor
k/en
viro
nmen
t/com
plia
nce/
ind
ex.h
tml
•22
CFR
216
w
ww
.usa
id.g
ov/o
ur_w
ork/
envi
ronm
ent/c
ompl
ianc
e/re
g21
6.pd
f
•A
DS
Serie
s 20
0 (w
ith li
nk to
Cha
pter
204
& E
CL)
ww
w.u
said
.gov
/pol
icy/
ads/
200/
•IE
E A
ssis
tant
(hel
p in
pre
parin
g R
eg. 2
16
docu
men
tatio
n), S
ecto
r Env
ironm
enta
l Gui
delin
es
+ m
any
othe
r res
ourc
esw
ww
.usa
idge
ms.
org
18
SEC
TOR
AL E
NVI
RO
NM
ENTA
L G
UID
ELIN
ES
Cha
pter
11:
Liv
esto
ckAU
GU
ST 2
012
Session 11. Resolving the “Parking Lot”: Final General Q&A Session Facilitated Discussion Summary Through the technical presentations, group work and discussions we have identified a number of “parking lot” items—questions and issues that could not be easily addressed at the time they arose, but which are important to answer and resolve before the end of the workshop.
As we prepare to conclude the workshop, we will use this session to discuss—and hopefully resolve—these parking lot issues in a facilitated discussion that draws on assembled expertise of USAID environmental staff, the consultant trainers, and participants.
Objective Conclude the “core technical skills and knowledge” portion of the workshop by resolving parking lot issues.
Key Resource
• List of “parking lot” issues compiled during the workshop.
US
AID
Env
ironm
enta
l Com
plia
nce
& E
SD
M T
rain
ing
Wor
ksho
p
Dak
ar, S
eneg
al
Febr
uary
201
4
Wor
ksho
p Ev
alua
tion
Envi
ronm
enta
l Com
plia
nce
+ En
viro
nmen
tally
Sou
nd D
esig
n &
Man
agem
ent i
n Pr
ojec
t Im
plem
enta
tion
A W
orks
hop
for U
SAID
/Sen
egal
Sta
ff an
d Im
plem
entin
g Pa
rtne
rs
Daka
r, Se
nega
l F
ebru
ary
2014
Yo
ur fr
ank
and
hone
st fe
edba
ck w
ill h
elp
stre
ngth
en fu
ture
trai
ning
s and
hel
p pr
iorit
ize E
SDM
and
env
ironm
enta
l com
plia
nce
supp
ort t
o U
SAID
Pro
gram
s and
Miss
ions
in A
fric
a an
d gl
obal
ly.
Than
k-yo
u fo
r you
r tim
e!
Lear
ning
app
roac
h Fo
r eac
h iss
ue, p
leas
e ch
eck
or c
ircle
the
asse
ssm
ent y
ou m
ost a
gree
with
Is
sue
Asse
ssm
ent
Com
men
ts
Bala
nce
of ti
me
in
clas
sroo
m to
tim
e in
fie
ld
Muc
h m
ore
time
in fi
eld
need
ed
A bi
t mor
e tim
e in
fiel
d ne
eded
Ab
out r
ight
A
bit m
ore
time
in c
lass
room
ne
eded
Muc
h m
ore
time
in c
lass
room
ne
eded
In th
e cl
assr
oom
, ba
lanc
e of
pr
esen
tatio
ns to
ex
erci
ses,
gro
up w
ork
& d
iscu
ssio
ns
Muc
h m
ore
emph
asis
on
pres
enta
tions
ne
eded
A bi
t mor
e em
phas
is on
pr
esen
tatio
ns
need
ed
Abou
t rig
ht
A bi
t mor
e em
phas
is on
ex
erci
ses/
di
scus
sions
ne
eded
Muc
h m
ore
emph
asis
on
exer
cise
s/
disc
ussio
ns
need
ed
Tech
nica
l lev
el &
pac
e M
uch
too
heav
y A
little
too
heav
y Ab
out r
ight
A
bit t
oo li
ght
Muc
h to
o lig
ht
Opp
ortu
nitie
s for
pee
r ex
chan
ge &
lear
ning
Nee
ded
to h
ear
and
lear
n m
uch
mor
e di
rect
ly
from
fa
cilit
ator
s
Nee
ded
to h
ear
and
lear
n m
ore
dire
ctly
from
fa
cilit
ator
s
Abou
t rig
ht
Som
e m
ore
oppo
rtun
ities
fo
r pee
r le
arni
ng/
exch
ange
are
ne
eded
Man
y m
ore
oppo
rtun
ities
for
peer
le
arni
ng/e
xcha
nge
are
need
ed
High
est/
Low
est-
rate
d se
ssio
ns
Plea
se id
entif
y th
e 1
or 2
sess
ions
that
you
rate
mos
t hig
hly
(for c
onte
nt, u
sefu
lnes
s, a
ppro
ach
or fo
r oth
er re
ason
s). P
leas
e al
so id
entif
y th
e 1
or 2
ses
sions
that
you
foun
d le
ast
enga
ging
/use
ful/r
elev
ant.
Plea
se b
riefly
indi
cate
the
reas
ons f
or y
our c
hoic
e. (Y
ou m
ay w
ish to
refe
r to
the
agen
da to
refr
esh
your
mem
ory.
)
Se
ssio
n Co
mm
ent (
Plea
se e
xpla
in w
hy y
ou m
ade
this
cho
ice.
) HI
GH-
RATE
D
HIG
H-RA
TED
LO
W-R
ATED
LO
W-R
ATED
US
AID
Env
ironm
enta
l Com
plia
nce
& E
SD
M T
rain
ing
Wor
ksho
p
Dak
ar, S
eneg
al
Febr
uary
201
4
Ove
rall
eval
uatio
ns
Plea
se c
heck
the
asse
ssm
ent y
ou m
ost a
gree
with
. Is
sue
Asse
ssm
ent
Com
men
ts
Ve
ry p
oor
Poor
Ac
cept
able
Go
od
Exce
llent
Tech
nica
l qua
lity
(Pro
gram
& C
onte
nt)
Faci
litat
ion
Logi
stic
s
Venu
e
Fiel
d
visi
ts
Impa
ct
Plea
se c
ircle
the
char
acte
rizat
ion
you
mos
t agr
ee w
ith.
Que
stio
n Ch
arac
teriz
atio
n
Com
men
ts
Base
line
Know
ledg
e In
ligh
t of w
hat y
ou h
ave
lear
ned
in th
is w
orks
hop,
how
w
ould
you
rate
you
r und
erst
andi
ng o
f ESD
M a
nd U
SAID
’s
Envi
ronm
enta
l Pro
cedu
res B
EFO
RE th
is w
orks
hop?
Had
poor
or
limite
d un
ders
tand
ing
Und
erst
ood
the
basic
s, la
cked
so
me
deta
ils
Had
a st
rong
an
d de
taile
d un
ders
tand
ing
Empo
wer
men
t To
wha
t ext
ent h
as th
is w
orks
hop
incr
ease
d yo
ur k
now
ledg
e an
d ca
pabi
litie
s to
addr
ess e
nviro
nmen
tal
com
plia
nce
requ
irem
ents
in th
e co
ntex
t of y
our j
ob
func
tion/
prof
essio
nal r
espo
nsib
ilitie
s?
Not
at a
ll M
oder
atel
y St
rong
ly
Mot
ivat
ion
To w
hat e
xten
t has
this
wor
ksho
p in
crea
sed
your
mot
ivat
ion
to p
roac
tivel
y ad
dres
s env
ironm
enta
l co
mpl
ianc
e an
d ES
DM in
the
cont
ext o
f you
r job
fu
nctio
n/pr
ofes
siona
l res
pons
ibili
ties?
Not
at a
ll M
oder
atel
y St
rong
ly
Key
topi
cs n
ot c
over
ed
Wer
e th
ere
any
topi
cs o
f key
impo
rtan
t to
you
that
wer
e no
t cov
ered
/giv
en
very
lim
ited
atte
ntio
n?
Supp
ort n
eeds
Ar
e th
ere
part
icul
ar e
nviro
nmen
tal c
ompl
ianc
e/ES
DM su
ppor
t nee
ds o
r re
sour
ces t
hat y
ou re
quire
?
Addi
tiona
l com
men
ts w
elco
me
on a
ny to
pic.
