Applied Methodologies and Guidelines for Carrying …Applied Methodologies and Guidelines for...

© NBCBN 2010

Applied Methodologies and Guidelines

for Carrying out CBA, RA and SEA for the Nile Basin

Riparian Countries

By

Mohd El Muntasir

Mohamed M Abdel-latif

Margaret Aanyu

Irene Nansubuga

Bennie Mang’eni

Jovah Ndyaberena

Nyende Jacob

Coordinated by

Dr. Zablon Isaboke Oonge

University of Nairobi

Scientific Advisors

Ir. Joop de Schutter

Dr. Lindsay Beevers

UNESCO-IHE

2010

Produced by the

Nile Basin Capacity Building Network

(NBCBN-SEC) office

Disclaimer

The designations employed and presentation of material and findings through the publication don’t imply the expression of any opinion

whatsoever on the part of NBCBN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation

of its frontiers or boundaries.

Copies of NBCBN publications can be requested from:

NBCBN-SEC Office

Hydraulics Research Institute

13621, Delta Barrages, Cairo, Egypt

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.nbcbn.com

Images on the cover page are property of the publisher

©NBCBN 2010

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.nbcbn.com/

Project Title

Knowledge Networks for the Nile Basin

Using the innovative potential of Knowledge Networks and CoP’s in strengthening human and

institutional research capacity in the Nile region.

Implementing Leading Institute

UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, The Netherlands (UNESCO-IHE)

Partner Institutes

Ten selected Universities and Ministries of Water Resources from Nile Basin Countries.

Project Secretariat Office

Hydraulics Research Institute – Cairo - Egypt

Beneficiaries

Water Sector Professionals and Institutions in the Nile Basin Countries

Short Description

The idea of establishing a Knowledge Network in the Nile region emerged after encouraging

experiences with the first Regional Training Centre on River Engineering in Cairo since 1996. In

January 2002 more than 50 representatives from all ten Nile basin countries signed the Cairo

Declaration at the end of a kick-off workshop was held in Cairo. This declaration in which the main

principles of the network were laid down marked the official start of the Nile Basin Capacity

Building Network in River Engineering (NBCBN-RE) as an open network of national and regional

capacity building institutions and professional sector organizations.

NBCBN is represented in the Nile basin countries through its nine nodes existing in Egypt, Sudan,

Ethiopia, Tanzania, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi and D. R. Congo. The network includes six

research clusters working on different research themes namely: Hydropower, Environmental

Aspects, GIS and Modelling, River Morphology, flood Management, and River structures.

The remarkable contribution and impact of the network on both local and regional levels in the basin

countries created the opportunity for the network to continue its mission for a second phase. The

second phase was launched in Cairo in 2007 under the initiative of; Knowledge Networks for the

Nile Basin. New capacity building activities including knowledge sharing and dissemination tools

specialised training courses and new collaborative research activities were initiated. The different

new research modalities adopted by the network in its second phase include; (i) regional cluster

research, (ii) integrated research, (iii) local action research and (iv) Multidisciplinary research.

By involving professionals, knowledge institutes and sector organisations from all Nile Basin

countries, the network succeeded to create a solid passage from potential conflict to co-operation

potential and confidence building between riparian states. More than 500 water professionals

representing different disciplines of the water sector and coming from various governmental and

private sector institutions selected to join NBCBN to enhance and build their capacities in order to

be linked to the available career opportunities. In the last ten years the network succeeded to have

both regional and international recognition, and to be the most successful and sustainable capacity

building provider in the Nile Basin.

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 BACKGROUND ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ......................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 PURPOSE OF STUDY ............................................................................................................................. 2

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY .............................................................................................................. 2

2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................................. 3

2.1 THE NILE BASIN .................................................................................................................................. 3

2.1.1 Background Information ................................................................................................................. 3

2.1.2 Vision of the Nile Basin Riparian Countries ................................................................................... 4

2.1.3 Strategic Goal .................................................................................................................................. 4

2.1.4 Legal Framework for the Sustainable Management of the Nile Waters .......................................... 4

2.1.5 NBCs Shared Water Resources Management Issues and Challenges ............................................. 5

2.1.6 Review of the River Basins in the Nile Basin ................................................................................. 6

2.2 RIVER ENGINEERING ......................................................................................................................... 10

2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF RIVER ENGINEERING ........................................................................ 10

2.4 REVIEW OF DONOR INSTITUTIONS‘‘ APPRAISAL METHODS .............................................................. 10

2.5 DEVELOPMENT OF METHODS & GUIDELINES FOR CBA, RA & SEA ................................................ 14

3 STUDY METHODOLOGY AND DATA INTERPRETATION .................................................................. 23

3.1 BACKGROUND TO METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 23

3.2 CASE STUDIES .................................................................................................................................... 23

3.3 SEMI-STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRE................................................................................................. 23

3.4 DATA ANALYSIS PLAN ...................................................................................................................... 24

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS .................................................................................................................. 25

4.1 REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT OF KENYA PRACTICE .............................................................................. 25

4.1.1. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 25

4.1.2. SCREENING AND SCOPING ............................................................................................................. 25

4.1.3. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................... 25

4.1.4. STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT AND COMMUNICATION ................................................................ 25

4.1.5. MONITORING AND EVALUATION ................................................................................................... 26

4.1.6. PLANNING TOOLS AND PROCESSES IDENTIFIED ............................................................................ 26

4.1.7. MAJOR MILESTONES IN ESTABLISHING AN SEA FRAMEWORK ..................................................... 28

4.2 CASE STUDY I: SEA ON BECA RESEARCH WORK-ILRI .................................................................... 30

4.3 CASE STUDY II: SEA FOR THE KENYA FORESTS ACT 2005-WORLD BANK .................................. 33

4.4 CASE STUDY III: SSEA FOR BUJJAGALI HYDROPOWER PROJECT IN UGANDA ................................. 37

4.4.1. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................ 37

4.4.2. SUMMARY OF THE SEA PROCESS .................................................................................................. 37

4.4.3. BUJAGALI HYDROPOWER PROJECT ............................................................................................... 38

4.4.4. THE SEA PROCESS ......................................................................................................................... 38

4.5 CASE STUDY IV: SEA FOR IRRIGATION MODERNIZATION IN EGYPT ................................................ 42

4.6 CASE STUDY V: SEA FOR POWER DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS IN THE NELSAP ................................. 57

4.7 MAIN OUTPUT OF STUDY: MODEL FRAMEWORK FOR UNDERTAKING AN SEA ................................ 59

4.7.1. Definition of variables for the model ........................................................................................ 59

4.7.2. Analysis in an SEA .................................................................................................................... 60

4.7.2.1 Qualitative Analysis .................................................................................................................. 60

4.7.2.2 Quantitative Analysis ................................................................................................................ 60

5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 65

5.1 CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................................... 65

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 66

6 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................... 67

LIST OF RESEARCH GROUP MEMBERS .................................................................................................... 68

APPENDIX

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1: Tools Used in SEA and Related Processes (Policy, Plan and Program Levels) ............................. 29

Figure 4.2: SEA on BecA Research Work done by ILRI .................................................................................. 33

Figure 4.3: Kenya Forests Act (2005) Institution – Centered SEA Process (The WB) .................................... 34

Figure 4.4: The Deduced SEA Framework for Bujjagali ................................................................................. 42

Figure 4.5: Irrigation and Drainage System in Beni Ebid Area in Egypt .......................................................... 44

Figure 4.6: Deduced SSEA Framework of the NELSAP Automatic Downstream Water Level Control ......... 49

Figure 4.7: Low Pressure Pipeline Mesqa ......................................................................................................... 49

Figure 4.8: Deduced SSEA Framework of the NELSAP .................................................................................. 59

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Water Resources availability and utilization in the Nile basin ........................................................... 3

Table 2.2: Water portioning for Lake Victoria .................................................................................................... 5

Table 2.3: Total number of Dams in the World .................................................................................................. 7

Table 2.4: Examples of large dams planned or being built in some of the NBRCs ............................................ 8

Table 2.5: Institutional and Regulatory Frameworks for EA in NBRCs ............................................................. 9

Table 2.6: From SEA to project‘ EIA in the Netherlands tiering approach ...................................................... 19

Table 3.1: The framework thematic analysis ..................................................................................................... 24

Table 4.1: PESTLE Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 27

Table 4.2: SWOT Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 27

Table 4.3: Risks mitigation and management for BecA hosted Research activities ......................................... 32

Table 4.4: Screening criteria for BecA-hosted research projects ...................................................................... 32

Table 5.1: Summary of SEA Framework .......................................................................................................... 63

This report is one of the final outputs of the research activities under the second phase of the Nile Basin Capacity Building Network

(NBCBN). The network was established with a main objective to build and strengthen the capacities of the Nile basin water

professionals in the field of River Engineering. The first phase was officially launched in 2002. After this launch the network has

become one of the most active groupings in generating and disseminating water related knowledge within the Nile region. At the

moment it involves more than 500 water professionals who have teamed up in nine national networks (In-country network nodes)

under the theme of “Knowledge Networks for the Nile Basin”. The main platform for capacity building adopted by NBCBN is

“Collaborative Research” on both regional and local levels. The main aim of collaborative research is to strengthen the individual

research capabilities of water professionals through collaboration at cluster/group level on a well-defined specialized research theme

within the field of River and Hydraulic Engineering.

This research project was developed under the “Cluster Research Modality”. This research modality is activated through

implementation of research proposals and topics under the NBCBN research clusters: Hydropower Development, Environmental

Aspects of River Engineering, GIS and Modelling Applications in River Engineering, River Morphology, flood Management, and

River structures.

This report is considered a joint achievement through collaboration and sincere commitment of all the research teams involved with

participation of water professionals from all the Nile Basin countries, the Research Coordinators and the Scientific Advisors.

Consequently the NBCBN Network Secretariat and Management Team would like to thank all members who contributed to the

implementation of these research projects and the development of these valuable outputs.

Special thanks are due to UNESCO-IHE Project Team and NBCBN-Secretariat office staff for their contribution and effort done in

the follow up and development of the different research projects activities.

ADB Asian Development Bank

ADF African Development Fund

AfDB African Development Bank

AMCOW African Ministers‘ Council on Water

CBA Cost Benefit Analysis

COP Community of Practice

DSS Decision Support System

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EMCA Environmental Management Coordination Act

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

GIS Geographic Information Systems

HEP Hydro Electric Power

IGAAD Inter-government Authority on Development

IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management

KNNB Knowledge Networks for the Nile Basin

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NAAEC North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation

NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement

NBCBN Nile Basin Capacity Building Network

NBCBN-RE Nile Basin Capacity Building Network for River Engineering

NBI Nile Basin Initiative

NTF Nigeria Trust Fund

NBRCs Nile Basin Riparian Countries

ODEA Operational Directive on Environmental Assessment

OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

RA Risk Assessment

SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment

UNDP United Nations Development Program

WB World Bank

WMO World Meteorological Organization

Environmental Aspects of River Engineering Research Cluster 2010

Nile Basin Capacity Building Network ( NBCBN ) 1

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The Nile River Basin covers a large area of approximately 3.1 million square kilometres, approximately 10%

of the African continent, and contains the longest river in the world (Nile) with a total length of approximately

4,160 miles (6,695 km). The basin is shared among 10 countries and extends from latitude 4° S to 31° N and

from longitude 21° E to 40° E. Because of its size and variety of climates and topographies, it is one of the

most complex major basins in the world. The Nile has three sources; the basin of the Equatorial Lakes

Plateau, the Ethiopian Highland Plateau and the Bahr el Ghazal Basin (UNEP, 2004). Anthropogenic and

other activities continue to exert pressure on the basin‘s environmental resources creating need for

development of checks on degradation to ensure that sustainable development is assured within the basin

boundaries. In this respect, Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and associated processes in the planning

cycle are important.

Environmental Impact Assessment is a process that seeks to ensure sustainable development through the

evaluation of those impacts arising from a major activity that are likely to significantly affect the natural and

man-made environment. It is anticipatory, participatory and systematic in nature and relies on

multidisciplinary input (Glasson et al, 1994).

EIA was first formally developed as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 in the

United States for considering possible impacts prior to a decision being taken on whether or not a proposal

should be given approval to proceed. It consequently now has become a requirement in more than 100

countries. Consultation and participation are integral to this evaluation (Wood, 1995). Environmental impact

assessment (EIA) is defined by the UNECE (1991) as 'an assessment of the impact of a planned activity on the

environment'. In essence, it is a systematic process whereby information about the environmental effects of an

action is collected and evaluated, with the conclusions being used as a tool in decision-making. The EIA

process may involve several stages. It is a process of information gathering and analysis that are undertaken in

support of decision-making, embodied within legal and institutional frameworks, based upon the concepts and

methods of interdisciplinary science, and open to public involvement and input by those who are directly

affected by or interested in proposed developments. Methodologically, EIA is a multi-disciplinary task; it

applies the tools, knowledge and expertise of a range of natural and social sciences (Sadler 1999, as cited in

Lumsden 2001).

Environmental Impacts Assessment (EIA) is carried out as a major step in the early planning of projects that

are likely to affect biological resources and habitats in the surrounding environment. The EIA ensures that the

environmental effects of the project are taken into consideration in the planning and design phases. The EIA is

often based in national legislation, international conventions and agreements. It requires involves

identification of vulnerable resources and areas of conflict based on a thorough evaluation of the area affected

and the expected discharges and technical implementations.

1.2 Problem Statement

The Nile Basin Initiative (NBI), launched in February 1999, is a regional partnership within which the 10

countries of the Nile Basin have united in common pursuit of the long-term development and management of

Nile waters. They formulated a ‗Shared Vision‘ whose aim is to achieve sustainable socio-economic

development through the equitable utilization of, and benefit from, the common Nile Basin water resources.

This in essence calls for recognition of the multisectoral nature of water resources development in the context

of socio-economic development, as well as the multi-interest utilization of water resources for water supply

and sanitation, agriculture, industry, urban development, hydropower generation, inland fisheries,

transportation, recreation, low and flat lands management and other activities.



While the underlying factor here is ―sustainable development‖, the challenge that NBI faces is lack of

strategic frameworks that integrate the three pillars of sustainable development (i.e., social, economic and

environment) into at higher levels of decision making, i.e., policy, plan and programme (PPP). While

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been widely used for assessing environmental and socio-

economic impacts at project level, it has a limited scope since it cannot be applied at PPP levels. The

Business-As-Usual scenario will mean that development continues to suffer since there is less integration of

environmental, social and economic issues at strategic planning and decision making levels.

It is arguable that the achievement of sustainable development requires, inter alia, a fair balance of social,

economic and environmental factors at PPPs providing for what could usefully be referred to as ‗sustainability

equilibrium‘ in this research.

This research thesis engaged in developing a model framework for Strategic Environmental Assessment

(SEA) for River Engineering in Nile Basin. It involved developing frameworks from five (5) case studies of

SEA done in the Nile Basin countries and testing them for sustainability equilibrium using a mathematical

concept known as ‗set theory‘ and therefore developing a best-practice SEA framework for the NBI. It is

anticipated that, this framework will also enhance public awareness since it shall embrace participatory

approaches which will ultimately promote solidarity, co-operation and sustainable use of Nile Basin water

resources. Most importantly, the framework shall provide guidance and influence key decisions.

1.3 Purpose of Study

The main purpose of this research was to develop a model framework methodology and guidelines for

carrying out SEA for River Engineering related Policies, Plans and Programmes for the Nile Basin Countries.

To achieve the main objective the following specific objectives were sought:

1.4 Significance of the Study

The study undertakes to explore the existing methodologies and guidelines in SEA processes and hence help

formulate a framework that could be used in the Nile Basin Countries (NBCs) in addressing development

proposals targeting river water resources. The study is done in line with the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) vision.



2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 The Nile Basin

2.1.1 Background Information

River Nile has a basin area of about 3 Million Km2. which is shared by 10 countries (Burundi, Democratic

Republic of Congo, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda) with a total

population of about 300 million people, 160 million of whom live within the basin and rely on the Nile Waters

for their basic socio-economic needs (Uganda National Water Development Report – 2005).

Nile basin is a home to the poorest countries in the world despite its unique positioning with a world-wide

pride of the longest river, River Nile, and the second largest fresh-water Lake, Lake Victoria. The region has

some of the largest dams in the world in relation to reservoir volume, e.g., Owen Falls in Uganda, and Aswan

High Egypt containing 270, and 162 billion cubic meters of storage, respectively (McCartney, M. P. 2007).

Despite the tremendous natural resources in the Nile Basin, most of the riparian countries are among the

poorest in the world (four of which are among the 10 poorest countries in the world). Seven of the 10

countries have a GDP of less than US$ 300. This situation has been compounded by a number of factors

including political instability, rapid population growth, extensive environmental degradation, and increasing

water scarcity in several parts of the basin (Uganda National Water Development Report, 2005).

Table 2.1: Water Resources availability and utilization in the Nile basin

Country Population GDP

(million

USD)

Percentage

of total

basin area

Total

Renewable

Water

(TRW)

Resources

(Km3/year)

Internal

Renewable

Water

Resources

(Km3/year)

% of

Irrigated

Land

Irrigation

Water

Withdraw

as % of

TRW

Burundi 6,356,000 977 0.43 3.6 3.6 7.0 5.0

DR Congo 50,948,000 4,187 0.71 1,283.0 935.0 0.1 0.01

Egypt 67,884,000 81003 9.06 58.3 1.7 100 93.2

Eritrea 3,659,000 6672 0.12 6.3 2.8 4.0 5.0

Ethiopia 62,908,000 7966 11.74 110.0 110.0 2.0 2.0

Kenya 30,669,000 9971 1.68 30.2 20.2 1.0 3.0

Rwanda 7,609,000 2183 0.68 6.3 6.3 0.4 0.4

Sudan 31,095,000 1021.5 63.75 88.5 35.0 12.0 56.0

Tanzania 35,119,000 6812 3.96 89.0 80.0 3.0 2.0

Uganda 23,300,000 8110 7.87 66.0 39.2 0.1 0.2

Source: The United Nations World Water Development Report, 2003.



2.1.2 Vision of the Nile Basin Riparian Countries

In order to use the shared water resources to stimulate socio-economic development within agreeable

environmental framework in the basin, the Nile basin countries have negotiated and agreed on a ―Shared

Vision‖: ―To achieve sustainable socio-economic development through the equitable utilization of, and

benefits from, the Common Nile Basin Water Resources‖ (Uganda National Water Development Report,

2005).

The Shared Vision demonstrates a high level of commitment by the riparian countries towards the Nile basin

cooperation and is based on a legacy of mutual trust and confidence between the Nile basin countries. The

shared vision provides the broad integrating framework within which the countries can jointly undertake ‗win-

win‘ water resources management and development projects and programs in order to meet their development

goals. The shared vision also gives firm political commitment and legitimacy to the cooperation process and

ensures ownership of the process by all the concerned parties. A Strategic Action Program has been launched

to translate the NBI‘s shared vision into action. This consists of two complementary sub-programs, i.e.:

A Shared Vision Program (SVP) – Which is comprises of seven basin-wide projects intended to create an

enabling environment for cooperative development, and;

Subsidiary Action Programs (SAPs) – Which are implemented by smaller groups of Nile riparian states,

comprising physical investment at sub-basin level involving two or more countries.

The SVP and SAPs interpret to developing the NBRCs‘ rivers to reduce their vulnerability to droughts, better

manage floods, to ensure more water, more food, and more electricity, and to do so in a way that respects the

needs of the river system itself so it can continue to nurture generations to come.

2.1.3 Strategic Goal

In order to ensure effective implementation of the Strategic Action Program, the Nile basin countries agreed

on a set of policy guidelines, which emphasize that all intervention measures are to be planned at the lowest

appropriate level. The appropriate planning level needs to involve all those who will be affected. Given the

hydrological conditions of the Nile Basin, action on the ground will mainly be planned and implemented at

sub-basin level. Art. 4(2) (a) of the 1994 United Nations Convention to combat desertification in those

countries experiencing serious drought and /or desertification, particularly in Africa requires states parties to

adopt an integrated approach addressing the physical, biological and socio-economic aspects of the process of

desertification and drought (de Klemm, C, Shine, C., 1998).

2.1.4 Legal Framework for the Sustainable Management of the Nile Waters

Treaties regarding the management of the waters of the Nile Basin date back to 1929 when Great Britain and

Egypt signed an agreement under which no irrigation, power works or other measures were to be constructed

or taken on the Nile and its branches or on lakes from which it flows in the Sudan or in countries under British

administration except with the previous agreement of the Egyptian government. The Agreement was followed

by the 1959 Agreement on the Full Utilization of the Nile Waters, which was signed between Egypt and

Sudan. The 1959 Agreement apportions the waters of the Nile between the two signatory states, i.e., Egypt

and Sudan. Given the new political dispensation in the Nile basin, the NBRCs, in 1995, embarked on the

process of negotiating and developing a new Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement for the

sustainable management and development of the shared Nile water resources. This process is still ongoing and

it is envisaged that once these negotiations are successfully concluded, the resulting agreement will supersede

all the existing Nile water agreements.

River Nile outflow was naturally occurring until the commissioning of the Owen Falls Dam in 1954. The Dam

was built to operate on the ―Agreed Curve5‖ Policy that determines the amount of water to be released by

using the prevailing water levels in order to maintain natural flow. The operation of this policy maintained a

natural pattern up to 2000. During the period 2001-2005, disparities began to occur between lake levels and

Nile outflow. The Nile outflows have increased while lake levels have fallen. This can partly be attributed to



increasing outflow at Jinja and other climatic factors, e.g. periods of lower rainfall and river discharge into the

lake than has occurred over the historic period. Actually a new development shows that new dams being

developed downstream of Lake Victoria, have led to the reduction in the lake‘s depth.

Table 2.2: Water portioning for Lake Victoria

Average 1950-2000 Flows (m3/s) Percentage (%)

Rain over lake Victoria 3631 82

Basin Discharge 778 18

Evaporation from Lake -330 -76

Victoria Nile -104.6 -24

Source: COWI 2002 as cited in McCartney, M. P. 2007

The flow characteristics for River Nile outflow have shown an increase in average flow out of the lake by

15% to 1057.6 m3/s in the period 2001-2004 as compared with the long term average of 1046 m3/s in the

period 1950-2000 including the per cent of all losses with the remaining loss being evaporation (EAC, 2006).

But this increase in outflow occurred during a period of falling water levels, which is a departure from the

long-term relation between level and outflow. Although the recent record is for a shorter period than the long-

term period, it nevertheless gives a general pointer to the new hydrologic trend that may emerge. The lake

cannot maintain its water level if outflows of the past five years are maintained; unless substantial increases in

rainfall and river discharge are realized.

2.1.5 NBCs Shared Water Resources Management Issues and Challenges

The Uganda National Water Development Report of 2005 cites the following issues and challenges facing the

Nile Basin Riparian Countries:

2.1.5.1 Issues

(a) Hydropower - Overall, hydropower is relatively little developed in Uganda, but power demand is

increasing rapidly and the availability of electricity is limiting development. There is substantial potential for

increased development of reliable, low-cost power, for example through expansion of hydropower production

and through exploring opportunities for regional power trade. There is, therefore, need to promote optimal

development, management, and use of the shared water resources of the equatorial Nile for hydropower

production.

(b) Irrigation - Agriculture, which is of great economic and social importance, is by far the largest potential

water user in the region. Improvements in agricultural practices and water use efficiency are key factors in

ensuring food security in the region. There is, therefore, need to prepare and implement a plan to develop and

use water resources in the region for modernization of agriculture.

(c) Environmental concerns - The major environmental issues related to shared water resources include land

degradation, water quality deterioration, and aquatic weeds infestation, drainage of wetlands, floods and

droughts. There is need for joint collaboration in the protection of the shared water resources from

environmental degradation.

(d) Institutional Capacity - Strong national and regional institutions are an important element in achieving

sustainable management and development of the shared waters and enhanced regional cooperation. There is

need to build capacity in the national and international aspects of water resources planning, management and

development.

(e) Participation and public awareness – Effective stakeholder participation and increased public awareness

is a pre-requisite for sustainable management and development of shared waters. There is, therefore, need for



putting in place mechanisms for effective stakeholder participation in all water resources management and

development activities and comprehensive communication strategies for sustained public awareness on salient

water resources issues.

2.1.5.2 Challenges

(a) Conflicting interests

One of the greatest challenges in shared water resources management and development is dealing with the

conflicting interests from the different riparian countries. For example, in the Lake Victoria basin, whereas

Kenya and Tanzania are interested in inter-basin water transfers to meet their domestic, industrial and

irrigation water needs in the water scarce parts of their countries, Uganda on the other hand is interested in the

uninterrupted flow of water into Lake Victoria to support its hydropower production at Owen Falls Dam. This,

therefore, calls for joint basin-wide planning and implementation of ―win-win‖ projects.

(b) Mistrust among the riparian countries

High levels of mistrust among the riparian countries have been a big set-back to any development efforts in a

shared basin. There always exists suspicion and ill-feelings among the riparian countries in what the other

riparian countries could be doing with the shared waters! This is reflected in the reluctance by the riparian

countries to share data on the shared water resources and information on planned and existing development

projects in the individual countries.

(c) Fragmented and incompatible national water resources management and development plans

In most cases, each riparian country has its own national water resources management and development plan

which does not take into consideration the broader basin-wide management and development issues. This

often results in implementation of conflicting development projects, duplication of activities and wastage of

resources. There is therefore need for joint basin-wide planning and implementation of ―win-win‖ projects

with more emphasis being put on the ―sharing of benefits‖.

(d) Environmental conservation

It is obvious that poor water resources management practices in the upstream countries can result in serious

environmental issues for the downstream countries too. The challenge is always how downstream countries

can influence the way activities are implemented in the upstream countries and how to ensure that the

upstream countries contribute towards the cost of environmental restoration activities in the downstream

countries.

2.1.6 Review of the River Basins in the Nile Basin

It can be easily noted that from table 3 below, the most developed countries of the world have the highest

number of dams. With South Africa having 2.8% and Zimbabwe 0.85 of the world‘s total number of dams

while United States has 28.0%, with China following with 14.2% and India 14.0%, which is corresponding to

the level of development in these countries. From table 4 it can be seen that there are about 25 dams under

construction or planned for construction in the Nile basin with Uganda alone having 9 dams planned, under

construction or operational along the White Nile. This shows that the Nile Riparian Countries are eyeing the

water resources within the Nile Basin as a solution to their water supply, irrigation and power generation in a

bid to alleviate poverty.



Table 2.3: Total number of Dams in the World

Country Registered no. of dams, 2003 % of total dams

United States 9,265 28.0

China 4,688 14.2

India 4,636 14.0

Spain 1,267 3.8

South Korea 1,205 3.6

Japan 1,121 3.4

South Africa 915 2.8

Canada 793 2.4

Brazil 635 1.9

Turkey 625 1.9

France 597 1.8

Italy 549 1.7

Mexico 536 1.6

United Kingdom 517 1.6

Australia 507 1.5

Norway 335 1.0

Germany 306 0.9

Albania 306 0.9

Zimbabwe 253 0.8

Romania 246 0.7

Others 3,803 11.5

Total 33,105 100.0

Source: ICOLD 2003 as cited in McCartney, M. P. 2007

Notes: + other sources estimate the total number of dams in China, to exceed 22,000



Table 2.4: Examples of large dams planned or being built in some of the NBRCs

Name Country River Primary purpose Anticipated

completion

Tekeze Ethiopia Tekeze (Nile

tributary)

Hydropower (300 MW) 2009

Karadobi Ethiopia Abay (Blue Nile) Hydropower (1,600 MW) Undetermined

Baro 1 & 2 Ethiopia Baro – Akobo Hydropower (916 MW) Undetermined

Koga Ethiopia Gilgel Abay Irrigation 2007

Tendho Ethiopia Awash Irrigation 2007

Kesem Ethiopia Awash Irrigation 2007

Sondu-Miriu Kenya Sondu Hydropower (60 MW) Undetermined

Ewaso Ngiro Kenya Mara Hydropower Undetermined

Mutonga/Grand

Falls

Kenya Tana Hydropower, irrigation and water supply Undetermined

Imboulou D R of Congo Lefini Hydropower (120 MW) 2009

Sounda Gorge D R of Congo Kouilou Hydropower (1,000 MW) Undetermined

Merowe Sudan Nile Hydropower (2,500 MW) and irrigation 2007-2008

Kajbar Sudan Nile Hydropower (300 MW) Undetermined

Rusumo Falls Tanzania/Rwanda Kagera Hydropower (60 MW) Undetermined

Rumakali Tanzania Rumakali Hydropower (222 MW) 2024

Ruhudji Tanzania Hydropower (36 MW) 2012

Bujagali Uganda White Nile Hydropower (200-250 MW) Undetermined

Karuma (Kamdini) Uganda White Nile Hydropower (300-350 MW) Undetermined

Murchison Uganda White Nile Hydropower (450-550 MW) Undetermined

Nalubaale-

OwenFalls

Uganda White Nile Hydropower (180 MW) Working

Kiira- owen falls

ext

Uganda White Nile Hydropower (200 MW)

Kalagala Uganda White Nile To be developed for tourism (225 MW)

Busowoko Uganda White Nile Hydropower (230 MW)

Ayago (North) Uganda White Nile Hydropower (310-400 MW)

Ayago (South) Uganda White Nile Hydropower (230-250 MW)

Sources: IRN 2006 plus others as cited in McCartney, M. P. et al 2007 and from Wamaniala, V. N., 2002:

The Development and Management of Hydropower Resources in Uganda.

Note: MW = megawatt



Table 2.5: Institutional and Regulatory Frameworks for EA in NBRCs

EIA Sudan Egypt Congo Tanzania Ethiopia Uganda Kenya Burundi Eritrea Rwanda

Enabling Legislation In draft Yes, 1994 Yes, 1991

Revised, 1997

No Yes, 1995 Yes, 1995 Yes, 1999 No

Specific

Legislation/Regulation

No Yes, 1995 Yes, 1986 No Yes, 2002 Yes, 1998 Yes, 2003 No

General and Specific

Guidelines

Yes, 1995 Under draft In draft Yes, 2000 Yes, 1995 In draft

Formal provision for public

participation

No Yes, through

guidelines

Included in draft

guidelines

Yes, 2002 Yes, 1995

SEA Provision

No No No No Yes No Yes, 2003

Given under

miscellaneous

provisions

No No No

Main administrative body

Higher Council

for

Environment

and natural

resources

Egyptian

Environmental

Affairs

Agency

General

Directorate of the

Environment

under the

Ministry of

Industry, Mining

and the

Environment.

The National

Agency for

Environmental

Protection is

under creation.

National

Environment

Management

Council, 1983

Environmental

Protection

Agency, 1995

National

Environmental

Management

Agency

(NEMA), 1995

National

Environmental

Management

Authority

(NEMA)

Ministry of

National and

Regional

Development

and the

Environment

Rwanda

Environmental

Management

Authority

(REMA)

Information source

Mohamed Ali,

O.M., 2003

CITET-

METAP, 2003

D‘Almeida, K.,

2001

Katima,

J.H.Y.,2003

Kibassa, J.,

2003

IUCN, 2001,

*Tekelemichael,

Y., 2003 EPA,

March 2004

NEMA, 2004 NEMA, 2004 D‘Amelda,

K., 2001



2.2 River Engineering

River engineering can be defined as, the process of planned human intervention in the course, characteristics

or flow of a river with the intention of producing some defined benefit such as, irrigation, hydroelectric power

generation or water supply (Brooker M.P, 1985). People have intervened in the natural course and behavior of

rivers since before recorded history - to manage the water resources, to protect against flooding or to make

passage along or across rivers easier. From the late 20th century, river engineering has had environmental

concerns broader than immediate human benefit and some river engineering projects have been concerned

exclusively with the restoration or protection of natural characteristics and habitats (Brooker M.P, 1985).

The size of rivers above any tidal limit and their average freshwater discharge are proportionate to the extent

of their basins, and the amount of rain which, falling over these basins, reaches the river channels in the

bottom of the valleys, by which it is conveyed to the final water body.

The basin of a river is the expanse of country, bounded by a watershed over which the rainfall flows down

towards the river traversing the lowest part of the valley; whereas the rain falling on the far slope of the

watershed flows away to another river draining an adjacent basin. River basins vary in extent according to the

configuration of the country, ranging from the insignificant drainage-areas of streams rising on high ground

very near the coast and flowing straight down into the sea, up to immense tracts of great continents, when

rivers, rising on the slopes of mountain ranges far inland, have to traverse vast stretches of valleys and plains

before reaching the ocean. The size of the largest river basin of any country depends on the extent of the

continent in which it is situated, its position in relation to the hilly regions in which rivers generally rise and

the sea into which they flow, and the distance between the source and the outlet into the sea of the river

draining it.

2.3 Environmental Effects of River Engineering

Dams form one of the design methods used to harness water in rivers for irrigation, hydropower generation,

water supply etc. The World Commission on Dams (WCD) was established to assess the development

effectiveness of large dams. In its final report it concluded (as cited in McCartney, M. P. et al 2007):

Dams have made an important and significant contribution to human development and the benefits

derived from them have been considerable.

In too many cases an unacceptable and often unnecessary price has been paid to secure those benefits,

especially in social and environmental terms, by people displaced, by communities downstream, by

taxpayers and by the natural environment.

Lack of equity in the distribution of benefits has called into question the value of many dams in

meeting water and energy development needs when compared with the alternatives.

By bringing to the table all those whose rights are involved and who bear the risks associated with

different options for water and energy resources development, the conditions for a positive resolution

of competing interests and conflicts are created.

Negotiating outcomes will greatly improve the development effectiveness of water and energy

projects by eliminating unfavorable projects at an early stage and by offering as a choice only those

options that represent the best ones to meet the needs in question.

2.4 Review of Donor Institutions’’ Appraisal Methods

2.4.1 World Bank (WB)

Most development projects are associated with disputes which mostly are environment related. In order to

resolve these problems and as a sign of responsible lending the WB has developed policies and procedures

applicable to assessment of projects funded by the bank through its subsidiary WB Groups such as the IDA,

IFC and IBRD. These include the Operational Policy/Bank Procedure 10.04 (Economic Evaluation of

Investment Operations); Operational Procedure 17.50 and 10.00 annex A (World Bank Policy on Disclosure



of Information); Operational Directive 4.01 (Environmental Assessment); Operational Directive 4.30

(Involuntary Resettlement); and Operational Directive 4.20 (Indigenous Peoples), as mentioned in the World

Bank‘s ―Arun Valley‖ case (Sand P.H., 1997).

During the 1980s, environmental concerns were integrated into all aspects of the World Bank activities and

led to the establishment of an environmental department in all four of the regional divisions of the Bank. This

increased focus on environmental issues culminated in 1989 with the issuance of the Bank‘s Operational

Directive on Environmental Assessment (ODEA) and a subsequent revision of ODEA in 1991. The

environmental assessment covers project-specific and other environmental impacts in the area influenced by

the project. Its purpose is to ensure that the project options under consideration are environmentally sound and

sustainable. All environmental consequences should be recognized early in the project cycle and taken into

account in project selection, planning and design. The environmental assessment should also identify ways of

improving projects, by preventing, minimizing or compensating for adverse environmental impacts.

The Operational Directive distinguishes types of environmental assessment: project-specific, regional, and

sectoral, where similar but significant development activities are planned for a localized area, for sector

investment loans and loans through intermediaries, emergency recovery projects, and larger issues such as

ozone depletion or pollution of international waters. The preparation of the environmental assessment is the

responsibility of the borrower, but the Bank‘s task manager assists and monitors the project and screens it in

order to determine the nature and extent of the environmental work required. The Operational Directive

includes checklists of potential issues for an environmental assessment. It also proposes outlines and models

for the assessment and prescriptions for the assessment and the screening procedures.

Environmental review under ODEA begins with identifying the seriousness of the potential harm. The Bank

screens all new projects and assigns each one of four categories based upon the character, dimension, and

sensitivity of the environmental issue (Operational Directive 4.0 –Annex A- I have this part).

Category A- projects which may have a significant impact on the environment and thus require a complete

environmental assessment, e.g. dams and reservoirs; forestry production; large scale industrial plants and

industrial estates; irrigation, drainage, and flood control; land clearance and leveling; mineral development;

port and harbor development; reclamation and new land development; resettlement and all projects with

potentially major impacts on people; river basin development; thermal and hydropower development; and

manufacture, transportation, and use of pesticides or other hazardous and/or toxic materials

Category B – projects that may only have limited, specific environmental effects which should be

investigated but do not necessarily require an in-depth environmental assessment, e.g. small scale agro-

industries; electrical transmission; aquaculture and marine culture; small-scale irrigation and drainage;

renewable energy; rural electrification; tourism; rural water supply and sanitation; watershed projects; and

small-scale rehabilitation, maintenance, and upgrading projects.

Category C – projects for which an environmental analysis is not normally necessary e.g. education; family

planning; health; nutrition; institutional development; technical assistance; and human resource projects.

Category D – environmental projects which do not require an assessment for the reason that environmental

development is the focus of the project, and it is assumed that any environmental consequences have already

been considered.

The extent to which the borrowing country must conduct an EIA therefore depends on the category in which

the project is placed.

For those projects for which a full EIA is not required, but are in need of some environmental analysis

(category B), an Environmental Mitigation or Environmental Management Plan often will suffice (these are

prepared for category A projects as a part of the full EIA). The Bank‘s requirement for mitigation plans

includes:

a description of all adverse environmental impacts

a description and technical details for each mitigation measure



the assignment of responsibilities for carrying out the mitigation measures

an implementation schedule for the mitigation measures

monitoring and reporting procedures

and cost estimates

The Bank expects the borrower to ensure coordination among government agencies and to take into account

the views of affected groups and local NGOs. It also requires the borrower to provide relevant information to

affected groups and local NGOs and to hold meaningful consultations with them. The environmental

assessment should form part of the overall feasibility study or project preparation and be submitted to the

Bank which decides on the loan.

An EIA for a major project should take anywhere from six to eighteen months to prepare and review. While

the EIA is being prepared, drafts should be made available, and the final EIA must be available prior to the

final appraisal of the project. The borrower submits the final EIA when it is complete to the Bank prior to the

Bank‘s appraisal. During the appraisal phase, the Bank and the borrower together review the assessment. At

this time any unclear issues are resolved, and the two parties determine whether the recommendations from

the assessment have been incorporated into the project design.

The impact assessment will later provide the framework through which the project is evaluated as it is being

implemented by the borrowing country. The borrowing country must inform the Bank of its compliance with

the environmental conditions, the status and effectiveness of the mitigating measures, and the findings of the

monitoring program. In the final phase of the process, project-completion reports are required to evaluate

environmental effects. The reports are to take a particular notice of whether the original assessment correctly

identified the potential environmental consequences, and determine whether the mitigating measures were

successful.

The revisions to ODEA in 1991 placed a greater emphasis on public participation, mandating the borrowing

governments consider the views of the affected groups and local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in

designing and implementing projects and in preparing the EAs. More specifically, the revisions require that

consultations with NGOs occur at least during two stages of the EIA process: 1) just after the EIA category is

assigned, and 2) once a draft of the EIA has been prepared.

2.4.2 Asian Development Bank

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has expressed its commitment to promoting environmentally

sustainable development in its member countries. The Bank‘s Office of Environment categorizes all projects

listed in country operational program papers according to their type, location, sensitivity and the nature and

magnitude of their potential impact and availability of cost-effective mitigation measures. If a significant

impact is expected, an EIA or an initial environmental examination is required for the project, according to the

importance of the impact. When an impact assessment is mandated, the procedure starts with the submission

of a summary environmental assessment by the Projects department to the Board. The full EIA should be

made available to a member of the Board upon request. The Bank requires the borrower to take the views of

affected groups and local NGOs into account in the preparation of environmental assessment reports. The

assessment reports may also be made available to them. Specific rules program loans, sector loans and private

sector operations. Once the project is approved, the Bank undertakes environmental monitoring to ensure that

the planned mitigating measures are implemented, that legal standards for pollutants are not exceeded, and to

provide early warning of environmental damage. After project completion, the actual impacts of project

operations, the accuracy of the predictions, and the effectiveness of the mitigating measures and the

functioning of the established monitoring program are determined and evaluated through auditing.

For all projects that have a potential impact on the environment, the project staff should carry out an initial

environmental examination. On the return of the fact-finding mission, the report will be reviewed and the

terms of reference for the special study or EIA will be prepared with the active assistance of the Office for the

Environment. The loan fact-finding mission analyzes the results of the assessment and identifies probable

additional environmental concerns not addressed in the study or resulting from changes in project scope.



Towards the end of each calendar year a report is published listing all projects requiring specific

environmental treatment during the implementation phase.

A review mission is dispatched periodically to discuss with concerned executing agencies the implementation

of environmental mitigation measures agreed upon by both the borrower and the Bank. It verifies that

environmental safeguards built into the project design are satisfactorily implemented during the construction

and the operation of the project. At the end of the operations a project completion report should include a

general assessment of any significant environmental impact experienced during project implementation.

2.4.3 African Development Bank

The African Development Bank (AfDB) is a development bank established in 1964 with the intention of

promoting economic and social development in Africa. It is a conglomeration of the African Development

Bank (AfDB), the African Development Fund (ADF), and the Nigeria Trust Fund (NTF).

The Board of Directors of the Bank adopted an Environment Policy Paper in 1990, with the overall objective

of ensuring environmental viability of investment projects in the Bank Group‘s Operation Program. In 1991,

the Bank initiated action for the preparation of Environmental Assessment Guidelines and environmental

assessment procedures which were finalized in 1992. The guidelines are based on the principles that

environmental assessment procedures should be linked as much as possible with existing procedures in the

Bank Group and that loan and project officers will identify further action to be taken at the earliest stage.

Environmental screening is carried out during identification of projects that need further attention due to their

impacts on environment. The Environmental Assessment Guidelines compare this initial environmental

examination to an early warning system. It determines whether a project will be assigned to a category

requiring detailed field review and an environmental impact assessment, specific measures or changes in the

project design, or no environmental assessment. It also determines whether the selected project site is located

in an environmentally sensitive area, characterized by ecosystems with high species diversity, by the presence

of endangered or endemic species, or the presence of unique historical or archeological sites. The impact

assessment should envisage, if necessary, mitigating measures and should take into consideration the priorities

and concerns of the local population, by working in close consultation with NGOs and local institutions at all

stages of the project cycle.

The Bank's policy on environmental protection and management is consistent with Member States

environmental policies and generally acceptable environmental management. The Bank will pay attention to

inter-relationship between choice of process or technology design and the potential for residue minimization

or re-use and between project site location and direct environmental impacts. In their appraisal work, the

bank's staff will pay attention to the following principles:

Will try to ensure that the projects affecting renewable natural resources do not exceed the

regenerative capacities of the environment. (For example, fisheries project should seek to prevent over

fishing and agricultural projects should avoid unsustainable rates of soil erosion).

Will not finance projects that could cause severe or irreversible deterioration.

Will not finance projects that unduly compromise the public's health and safety.

Will not finance projects that displace people or without implementing acceptable mitigating

measures.

Will not finance projects that could significantly alter the environment of a neighboring country

without that country's consent.

Will not finance projects that would significantly modify areas designated by national legislation as

national parks, wildlife refuges, or other protected areas.

Endeavors to ensure that projects with unavoidably adverse environmental effects are sited to areas

where the environmental damage is minimized.

2.4.4 European Union (EU)

The economic region with the highest degree of harmonized or even uniform environmental law-making

undoubtedly is the European Community (EC), which evolved to the current European Union (EU).



Environmental laws and standards are of particular concern to international organizations aiming at

harmonization and integration among countries- for only by reducing the discrepancies between different

national regulatory systems can potential trade distortions be avoided and economic discrimination be

minimized

It is no coincidence, therefore, that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) as

the largest regional group of industrialized countries also was among the first and most active proponents of

transnational environmental ―soft law‖: numerous OECD Council Recommendations (usually prepared by its

Environmental Committee) have thus addressed topics ranging from the equal right of access and non-

discrimination in relation to trans frontier pollution (C/76/55 of 11 May 1976), to the mutual acceptance of

data and laboratory practices in the assessment of potentially harmful chemicals (C/83/95 of July 1983).

The 1992 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its related 1993 North American Agreement

on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) went a step further, by establishing a system of private complaints

against alleged failure to enforce applicable environmental legislation- through investigations and ―factual

reports‖ to be carried out by the Montreal-based NAAEC secretariat.

2.5 Development of Methods & Guidelines for CBA, RA & SEA

2.5.1 Why Environmental Assessment Guidelines

In a world in which the environment, sustainable economic development and human health have become

major policy issues, evaluative techniques such as risk analysis (RA), cost-benefit analysis (CBA), and

strategic environmental assessment (SEA), must increasingly be included as part of the standard toolkit of

government departments and regulatory agencies to back up the traditional EIA process. However, to be

applied, these tools must be understood and can then be used in decision-making. The CBA and RA can be

viewed as subsets of both EIA and SEA. This is because for any proposal at whatever level, the benefits are

analyzed against the costs and for a project to be viable, the benefits should be higher than the costs incurred.

Equally, mitigation measures are set on any resulting negative socio-economic and environmental effects

which emanates from and ad hoc RA. At the strategy level, SEA considers the gains and losses from a policy,

plan or program against the risks that can be accommodated within the country/regional/global development

strategies.

2.5.2 Cost-Benefit Analysis

The purpose of cost benefit analysis (CBA) is to improve (or ensure) a locative efficiency so as to increase

economic (and possibly social) welfare. It is a valuable tool, but by definition it cannot incorporate certain

important aspects into the analysis, e.g. political (non-efficiency) objectives. This is the topic of what is

generally mentioned as integrated assessment.

CBA has been applied in a wide variety of governments‘ decisions: river developments; transportation;

investment in human capital; economic development schemes; capital investment by Crown corporations;

birth control programs; urban renewal; research and development funding; and the evaluation of regulatory

programs. For example, CBA plays a major role in Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) undertaken by the

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In Canada, applications to the National Energy Board and

various provincial regulatory boards may include CBAs.

Benefit-cost analysis is a method of evaluating the relative merits of alternative public investment projects in

order to achieve efficient allocation of resources. It is a way of identifying, portraying and assessing the

factors that need to be considered in making rational economic choices. It is not a new technique. In principle,

it entails little more than adjusting conventional business profit-and-loss calculations to reflect social instead

of private objectives, criteria, and constraints in evaluating investment projects.

Formal cost-benefit analysis is in principle a rigorous, quantitative, and data-intensive procedure, which

requires;



Identification of all nontrivial effects

Categorization of these effects as benefits or costs

Quantitative estimation of the extent of each benefit or cost associated with an action

Translation of these into a common metric such as dollars

Discounting of future costs and benefits into the terms of a given year

Summary of all costs and benefits to see which is greater

Comparing these sums across alternatives, a point neglected even by many of its proponents

Early attempts at project assessment were limited to technical feasibility studies and cost benefit analysis

(CBA). CBA attempts to express all impacts in terms of resource costs valued in monetary terms. Projects

such as the Aswan Dam in Egypt and the third London Airport were assessed using CBA techniques, while

the US Army Corps of Engineers used CBA for many years to justify water management projects in the

Tennessee Valley and other parts of the United States. Flaws in the method included the apparent inability to

allocate meaningful dollar values to environmental intangibles, but perhaps more important was the narrow

range of economic impacts traditionally addressed by CBA.

The bottom-line number can be either "net benefits", the "benefit:cost ratio", or the "internal rate of return",

depending on what the analysis is supposed to find out. If the problem is the evaluation of a single project, net

benefits (the excess of benefits over costs) is often used. If the problem is which of a number of investment

options makes the largest contribution to social welfare, the benefit:cost ratio is the preferred measure. If the

problem is to determine how a project compares to all alternative investment opportunities in society, the

internal rate of return should probably be used. Whichever measure is used, the following concepts are

fundamental to CBA:

a) Normative analysis: CBA is a normative instrument of analysis. Its concern is the increase in social welfare

due to projects and policies. It is not an element of positive social science, which attempts to describe and

predict how the world works

b) Comparative static‘s: This is the underlying methodology of CBA. What it means is that successive stages

(or "snapshots") of an economy are examined without giving attention to the process of getting from one stage

to the next (which is the sphere of dynamic analysis).

c) Marginal approach: CBA assumes that individual projects (or programs) are marginal or incremental to the

economy. The basic concern is what will happen to aggregate social welfare if the project in question is added

to the economy.

d) A locative efficiency: This is a key concept. In the literature, it is referred to as Pareto-efficiency or Pareto-

optimality. In perfectly competitive markets (markets in which buyers and sellers are all equally powerful and

completely free to make choices), with all firms being price takers, the general equilibrium position is Pareto-

optimal; that is, one in which it is not possible to make one or more persons better off without making at least

one person worse off. A Pareto improvement is one which makes some members of society better off without

making anyone worse off. A variant of the Pareto-optimum, the Kaldor-Hicks criterion, allows some people to

be worse of, but recognizes that there is still an improvement if the gainers can compensate the losers and still

have something left over.

e) It should be noted that, while CBA does not deal with equity, that is, with the distribution or redistribution

of income, the Kaldor-Hicks criterion, in introducing the notion of compensation, does appear to allow for the

redistribution of income from gainers to losers. Mere transfers of income (taxes, subsidies, monopoly profits)

from one segment of society to another without any overall gain or loss have no place in the analysis,

however.

f) Market failure: CBA is applied to projects which the private market cannot provide, or which the market

can provide only under distorted conditions (monopoly, oligopoly). Values which are assigned to costs and

benefits are those which would apply under perfectly competitive conditions. Because many prices are

distorted by monopolistic pricing practices, taxes, and subsidies, and because some public goods do not enter



the market and hence have no market price, estimates are made of shadow prices, which are the prices that

would apply under perfectly competitive conditions.

g) Externalities: External costs and benefits are those which arise from a project but which cannot be assigned

to, or captured by, the project proponent. What is external and internal often depends on regulation and

enforcement – e.g. the costs of cleaning up an oil-soaked beach can be assigned to an oil company if the

enforcement mechanism exists.

h) Present value: The perspective of CBA is from the here and now. It assumes that the individuals who

comprise society, exercising "time preference", value projects and programs from their particular point in

history. Future costs and benefits are discounted to their present value most often using the long-term market

rate of interest.

While adequate for many purposes, CBA has some important drawbacks which reflect its origins, particularly

the assumption that only a few factors under analysis can be varied while all others such as prices in general,

the distribution of income and wealth, tastes and preferences, and technology are held constant (the method of

comparative statistics). This assumption may be realistic enough if the project in question is small and

therefore suited to marginal analysis, but it becomes dubious if the project is large in relation to the economic

universe. In such cases, the notion of "marginal" change may lose its meaning. If the proposed change to the

status quo is large enough, all of the factors held constant would necessarily change, and partial equilibrium

techniques would simply not prove capable of providing meaningful answers.

There are also other problems. The US EPA lists three major types of limitations to the technique: those

inherent in economic analysis in general; those caused by gaps in available information; and those that are the

result of errors and omissions in the execution of the analysis. The socio-economic version does take care of a

lot of the drawbacks of the financial CBA.

A case whose project development has pointed on economic benefits is the Busowoko hydropower project in

Uganda which has been said to be economically less viable with the development of neighbouring sites

(Wamaniala, V.N., 2002).

2.5.3 Risk Assessment

Risk assessment (RA) is a careful examination of what could cause harm to people‘s health, damage to

infrastructure or damage to ecosystems so that decisions can be made about what is reasonably practicable to

reduce or prevent harm (Devon County Council, Inclusive Education: Risk Assessment, 2005).

The purpose of environmental risk analysis (ERA) is to provide decision makers with a tool that enables them

to establish and maintain acceptable environmental safety levels for their operations. This ensure, as far as

reasonably practicable implementation of a project which poses the least risk if any to the affected group, and

ensure that there is professional appropriately trained to undertake this assessment An ERA enables

identification of how much each individual activity or component contributes to the total risk to the

environment, so that risk reducing efforts can be focused. ERA involves: identification of environmental

hazards, quantitative estimation of risk for hazardous events, spatial and temporal modeling of emissions and

discharges, evaluation of important ecological components with respect to sensitivity, quantification of risks

for environmental damage and comparison with pre-defined acceptance criteria and identification of

mitigating measures

2.5.3.1 Risk Assessment Procedure

Think of possible hazards. A hazard is anything that has the potential to cause harm.

Decide who might be affected and how.

Evaluate the level of risk and consider preventive measures and decide whether existing precautions

are adequate. Risk is the likelihood of a hazard causing harm.

Discuss with NGOs, the affected and relevant policy people as appropriate

Formulate into a written plan.

Put measure into practice.



Review and revise as necessary.

These guidelines need to be seen against the background of legislation and guidance and the individual

circumstances of each establishment. Plan well a head whenever possible.

2.5.3.2 Risk Ranking

The Health and Safety Executive use the simple equation:

Both the hazard severity and the likelihood of occurrence are categorized, or assessed, on the basis of a three

point scale. For each category outline guidelines are given to define that category. For Hazard Severity, (i.e.

potential for loss), the three categories are:

3: HIGH

2: MEDIUM

1: LOW

In assigning a category one is considering:

The severity of outcome arising from a deficiency/absence of adequate control measures either in

terms of personal health or damage to environment;

Whether this deficiency/absence of adequate measures would give rise to an accident requiring

notification to the Health and Safety Executive; and

Whether the deficiency/absence of adequate control measures would if viewed by an inspector, or by

an internal competent person lead to enforcement action.

2.5.3.3 Role of Risk Analysis in Hydraulic Design

Uncertainties and the consequent related risks in EIA are unavoidable. Hydraulic structures are always subject

to a probability of failure in achieving their intended purposes. For example, a flood control project may not

protect an area from extreme floods. A water distribution system may not deliver water that meets quality

standards although the source of the water does. The rationale for selecting the design and operation

parameters and the design and operation standards are questioned continually. Procedures for the engineering

design and operation of water resources do not involve any required assessment and quantification of

uncertainties and the resultant evaluation of a risk.

In hydraulic design Risk is defined as the probability of failure, and failure is defined as an event that causes a

system to fail to meet the desired objectives. Reliability is defined as the complement of risk: i.e., the

probability of no failure. Failures can be grouped into either structural failures or performance failures. Water

distribution systems are a good example. A structural failure, such as broken pipe or a failed pump, can result

in unmet demand. In addition, an operational aspect of a water distribution system, such as the inability to

meet demands at required pressure heads, is a failure despite the lack of a structural failure in any component

in the system. Uncertainty can be defined as the occurrence of events that are beyond one‘s control. The

uncertainty of a hydraulic structure is an in deterministic characteristic and is beyond rigid controls. In the

design and operation of these systems, decisions must be made under various kinds of uncertainty namely

natural uncertainties, model structure uncertainties, model parameter uncertainties, data uncertainties, and

operational uncertainties.

Natural uncertainties are associated with the random temporal and spatial fluctuations that are inherent in

natural processes. Model structural uncertainties reflect the inability of a simulation model or design

procedure to represent the system‘s true physical behaviour or process precisely. Model parameter

uncertainties reflect variability in the determination of the parameters to be used in the model or design. Data

uncertainties include inaccuracies and errors in measurements, inadequacy of the data gauging network, and

errors in data handling and transcription. Operational uncertainties are associated with human factors, such as

construction, manufacture, deterioration, and maintenance that are not accounted for in the modeling or design

procedure. Uncertainties fall into four major categories: hydrologic uncertainty, hydraulic uncertainty,



structural uncertainty, and economic uncertainty. Each category has various component uncertainties.

Hydrologic uncertainty can be classified into three types: inherent, parameter, and model uncertainties.

Various hydrologic events, such as stream flow or rainfall, are considered to be stochastic processes because

of their observable natural, (inherent) randomness. Because perfect hydrologic information about these

processes is lacking, informational uncertainties about the processes exist. These uncertainties are referred to

as parameter uncertainties and model uncertainties. In many cases, model uncertainties result from the lack of

adequate data and knowledge necessary to select the appropriate probability model or from the use of an

oversimplified model, such as the rational method for the design of a storm sewer. Hydraulic uncertainty

concerns the design of hydraulic structures and the analysis of their performance. It arises mainly from three

basic sources: the model, the construction and materials, and the operational conditions of flow. Model

uncertainty results from the use of a simplified or an idealized hydraulic model to describe flow conditions,

which in turn contributes to uncertainty when determining the design capacity of hydraulic structures. Because

simplified relationships, such as Manning‘s equation, are typically used to model complex flow processes that

cannot be described adequately, resulting in model errors. Structural uncertainty refers to failure caused by

structural weakness. Physical failures of hydraulic structures can be caused by saturation and instability of

soil, failures caused by erosion or hydraulic soil, wave action, hydraulic overloading, structural collapse,

material failure, and so forth. An example is the structural failure of a levee system either in the levee or in the

adjacent soil; the failure could be caused by saturation and instability of soil. A flood wave can cause

increased saturation of the levee through slumping. Levees also can fail because of hydraulic soil failures and

wave action. Economic uncertainty can arise from uncertainties regarding construction costs, damage costs,

projected revenue, operation and maintenance costs, inflation, project life, and other intangible cost and

benefit items. Construction, damage, and operation or maintenance costs are all subject to uncertainties

because of fluctuations in the rate at which construction materials, labor costs, transportation costs, and

economic losses, increase and the rate at which costs increase in different geographic regions. Many other

economic and social uncertainties are related to inconvenience losses: for example, the failure of a highway

crossing caused by flooding, which results in traffic related losses. The objective when analyzing uncertainties

is to incorporate the uncertainties systematically into the evaluation of loading and resistance. The most

commonly used method is the first-order analysis of uncertainties. This method is used to determine the

statistics of the random variables loading and resistance, which are typically defined through the use of

deterministic models but have uncertain parameter inputs.

2.5.3.4 Selection of Case Studies

A case study is under review of Risk analysis; the cooling process of heated effluents from thermal power

plant discharging into surface water bodies in Egypt. As an example, Nubaria Thermal Power Plant on the

delta region discharges heated water into the Nubaria Canal and El-Kureimat Thermal Power Plant

discharging into the River Nile directly.

2.5.4 Strategic Environmental Assessment

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is the application of environmental and socio-economic

assessment to policies, plans and programs. It seeks to address, as early as possible, and on a par with social

and economic impacts, what environmental impacts may occur, and what measures should be taken to avoid

or ameliorate these impacts. However, there is no internationally agreed definition of SEA, but the most

widely quoted is the interpretation offered by the three definitions below:

1. ―SEA is a systematic process for evaluating the environmental consequences of proposed policy, plan or

program initiatives in order to ensure they are fully included and appropriately addressed at the earliest

appropriate stage of decision-making on par with economic and social considerations‖ (Sadler and Verheem

(1996) as cited in ECA, 2005).

2. The formalized, systematic and comprehensive process of evaluating the environmental impacts of a policy,

plan or program and its alternatives, the preparation of a written report on the findings, and the use of the

findings in publicly-accountable decision-making (Theriel, et al. 1992 in Goodland et al. 1996).



3. A formal process of systematic analysis of the environmental effects of development policies, plans,

programs and other proposed strategic actions. This process extends the aims and principles of EIA upstream

in the decision-making process, beyond the project level and when major alternatives are still opens (UNEP,

2002).

4. A process of integrating the environmental and social concerns in the process of developing policies, plans

or programs.( World Bank, 2002)

5. Is the process of subjecting public policy, programs and plans to tests for compliance with sound

environmental management (Kenya‘s Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003).

SEA is a systematic process for evaluating the environmental and socio-economic consequences of proposed

policies, plans or programs to ensure environmental issues are fully integrated and addressed at the earliest

appropriate stage of decision making.

It is from here clear that SEA is a hierarchical process whose application depends on what level a

development proposal of a state or region is.

Table 2.6: From SEA to project‘ EIA in the Netherlands tiering approach

Hierarchy from up-down Setting Strategies Confinements and Resources

Policy level Why do something? Need

Objectives

Principles

Plan level What to do? Methods

Capacities

Program level Where to do it? Location

Project level How to do it? Design

Minimization

Compensation

It involves reviewing policy, plan and program proposals to incorporate environmental considerations into the

development of public policies.

The process of SEA is relevant at all levels of public decision making which precede the project level. As

such the costs are generally borne by the public sector, in contrast to project EIA where the promoter or

proponent (usually a private developer) is responsible for funding the assessment

2.5.4.1 Benefits of SEA

The principal benefits identified by respondents to the study, included:

Providing a systematic review of relevant environmental and socio-economic issues in the planning

process;

Improving and refining the basic strategic concepts involved in the policy, plan or program;

Achieving a clearer understanding of the potential environmental effects;

Leve

l of h

ierarch

y from

SEA to

Pro

ject EIA



Enhancing the policy, plan or programs' contribution to the overall goals of environmental and socio-

economic sustainability;

Creating a better balance between environmental, social and economic factors (thus aiding the

decision-making process);

Simplifying the process of environmental investigations at the individual project level, and thereby

reducing or possibly avoiding the need for Project EIA while also accelerating the process of decision

making.

Enhancing the transparency of the plan making process, and winning public support for preferred

options or strategies.;

Providing guidance on the development of mitigation proposals;

Helping to define environmental targets for monitoring purposes;

.SEA introduces environmental considerations into decision making early, before projects locations

and scale decisions have been made.

SEA provides a mechanism for incorporating into decision-making considerations related to

sustainable development; i.e. development that meets the needs of the present without compromising

the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. SEA can draw attention to potential

environmental problems early so that decisions makers can filter out environmentally damaging

projects that might otherwise be the source of costly and protracted delays and controversy.

2.5.4.2 Steps in the SEA Process

SEA processes, currently in use, have a number of features in common:

Screening: A screening exercise is undertaken to answer the following threshold question: Should an SEA be

conducted for the subject proposal (i.e., a particular policy, plan or program)?

Scoping: A scoping exercise is conducted to ensure that all high priority issues relevant to the decision being

made are addressed in the SEA. There is wide agreement that both direct and indirect (or ‗secondary‖) effects

of a proposal should be examined and that cumulative impacts should be included in an SEA.

Indicators: Sometimes the description and evaluation of effects is given in terms of ―sustainability

indicators‖ (i.e., measures used to gauge whether the proposal will contribute to sustainable development).

Stakeholders: All ―stakeholders‖ - i.e., parties potentially affected by (or otherwise interested in) the proposal

- should be given an opportunity to participate in the scoping exercise. While consultation with stakeholders

takes place at various points in proposal development, it is particularly important during scoping.

Identification, Prediction and Evaluation of Effects: SEA is concerned with the both direct and indirect

impacts. The impacts of policies, Plans, and programs on the environmental components are normally

indirect. That is, the Policy, Plans or Programs, are designed to bring about changes in social and economic

behavior. These social and economic changes may in turn lead to potential direct and indirect impacts on the

environment. The process of forecasting and evaluating environmental effects in an SEA can employ some of

the same methods and procedures used in project- level EIA. It is at this level where EIA and SEA compare

since in the two processes a CBA and RA is done to help sight the economic gains and risks involved.

Integration: Integration of environmental, social and economic effects must be part of the impact prediction

and evaluation process. This joint consideration of environmental social and economic effects is essential

because some proposals will yield direct economic (or social) impacts that will then lead to indirect (or

―higher order‘) environmental effects. While most countries emphasize environmental effects in SEAs, some

are beginning to experiment with appraisals that integrate environmental, social and economic effects in a

balanced way.

Mitigation: An SEA should include measures that eliminate, reduce or offset adverse environmental effects.

The term ―mitigation‖ refers to the ―elimination, reduction or control of the adverse effects of the policy, plan

or program, and includes restitution for any damage to the environment caused by such effects through

replacement, restoration, compensation or any other means‖



Monitoring: An SEA should include a plan for monitoring environmental effects so that mitigation measures

can be implemented if unforeseen effects occur. In addition an SEA should include a plan for ensuring that

agreed upon mitigation measures are actually carried out.

Independent Review: An independent review of an SEA provides a check on the quality of the assessment.

Results from the review should be considered in preparing the final SEA and in making final decisions.

Researchers have developed criteria for reviewing and evaluating SEAs, and examples are given in Table 1.

Influence on Decisions: The SEA (including results of the independent review) should be made available to

decision makers at a time when those results can inform debate on the proposal and alternatives to the

proposal.

A Good Quality SEA Reporting Criterion should:

1. Contain a description of the project and the affected environment extending beyond the physical

boundaries of the project, focusing on key assets, sensitive areas and threats;

2. Review environmental and sustainability objectives of the plan and propose a set of criteria, targets or

indicators for evaluating the effects of the plans policies and their alternatives;

3. Contain a systematic identification, prediction and evaluation of potential impacts, including indirect

and cumulative ones, with a level of detail appropriate for appraising the plan and the information

needs of decision-makers;

4. Include recommendations on preferred alternatives and a description of suggested monitoring and

mitigation measures;

5. Include recommendations for tiring its results to environmental assessments at lower levels of the

planning hierarchy;

6. Clearly delineate and explain the methodology by which its findings have been obtained and report on

findings from public consultation;

7. Facilitate sustainability appraisal by

(a) Evaluating environmental sustainability;

(b) Presenting its findings in a way which will facilitate an integrated sustainability analysis

(including proposing sustainability criteria).

2.5.4.3 Determining whether or not SEA is appropriate

Screening questions for determining whether SEA is the appropriate tool for environmental assessment of a

program loan or sector loan are presented below;

1. Which policy area or sector is targeted in the proposal?

Is it known to have or likely to cause environmental effects?

Are there components that are likely to generate cumulative or long-term environmental

consequences?

2. What environmental considerations are raised by the proposal?

Does the proposal appear to initiate actions that will have direct or evident environmental impact?

Are there any policy, regulatory, or institutional weaknesses relative to environmental management in

the sector?

3. What is the state of the country‘s institutional context?

Do property rights on resources such as land tenure security not being recognized by the existing law?

Does the institutional framework for managing resources severely limit the role of civil

society/communities?

4 What is the state of the country‘s socio-economic context?

Is there high dependency on local resources?



That level of pressure on natural resources?

What is the rate of urbanization?

5. What is the state of the country‘s ecological context?

Are ecosystems fragile or robust?

What is the overall level of ecosystem degradation?

2.5.4.4 Examples of SEA Studies

Poverty Reduction Strategies, Ghana: Development of a national poverty reduction strategy for Ghana

applied at both the national and district level including recommendations on the sustainability level of district

development plans.

Transport policy, Mozambique: SEA for the development of a strategic alternative for alterations to a

coastal railway line using a national perspective.

Rehabilitation of Lake Tai, China: Development and comparison of alternative solutions to tackle water

pollution problems in order to rehabilitate basic functions of the lake.

Netherlands National Planning Decision “Room for Rivers‖: Development of a plan to secure a safe

increase of river discharges and improve the quality of the river bed in combination with related spatial

planning measures.

River Canalization in South America: Use of SEA for an evaluation of the ―hydrovia‖ Paraguay-Parana

waterway dredging project in the perspective of its consequences for nature, especially the quality of the Pant

anal Wetlands (now under implementation).



3 STUDY METHODOLOGY AND DATA INTERPRETATION

3.1 Background to Methodology

This study is aimed at getting the opinion of the people in selected countries of the Nile Basin and their

awareness level. A questionnaire (Appendix 1) was been prepared to help in carrying out a review of different

programs, policies, plans and projects. The idea was to find out which methodologies and guidelines were

used during the planning and decision making stages.

This report outlines the two phases (the desk study and the key informant questionnaire) findings. The

proposed research methodology to define and test such a hypothesis followed the task flow as summarized

below.

Carry out review of NBCs and the level of application of Environmental Assessment Methods and

Guidelines

Review of EA appraisal methods of two donor institutions, that is, the WB, and the AfDB.

Review river engineering developments in the NBCs

Study the existing methods of SEA

Questionnaire administration

Development of a model framework of Methods and Guidelines for SEA for RE

3.2 Case Studies

The sources of data shall be desk studies, and interviews by use of semi-structured questionnaires as one of

the methods. This research study covered the review of SEA related methods and guidelines used by the

Government of Kenya; review of specific case studies of SEA undertaken within the NBCs. This included:

Case I was the SEA done for International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) branch called Biosciences

Eastern and Central Africa (BecA); case II, was an SEA for the Kenya Forests Act 2005 done by the World

Bank‘s Agriculture and Rural Development Department; case III was a Social/Strategic and Environmental

Assessment Process for Bujagali Hydropower Project in Uganda; case IV was Strategic Environmental

Analysis for Irrigation Modernization in Egypt; and case V was a Strategic/Sectoral, Social and

Environmental Assessment of Power Development Options in the Nile Equatorial Lakes Region.

3.3 Semi-structured Questionnaire

This was aimed at getting the opinion of key informants in various government ministries, private companies,

Non-Governmental Organization and relevant institutions. A semi-structured questionnaire was developed to

aid in carrying out a review of different policies, plans, programs, and projects. The idea was to find out

whether they are aware of SEA tools, whether they have used them and or not, and how SEA compares with

CBA, RA. The questionnaire was then be used to engage the respondents in finding a solution to the best

framework process that shall comprise of the methods and guidelines of SEA specifically on River

Engineering. The structured interview questionnaire was, in addition to gathering information of SEA,

expanded to include background information on typical strategic frameworks, SEA procedures and practice,

and the purpose, resources and value of SEA on RE.

The second purpose of the interview was to solicit industry/company input on current practices, and to seek

out example formats and techniques, as well as to allow input from interview participants to suggest

improvements.



3.4 Data Analysis Plan

By the very nature of the study, qualitative analysis featured more that quantitative data analysis following the

structure of data reduction, data display, conclusion and drawing verification. A framework thematic analysis

was used through five (5) key steps as detailed in the table below. This data analysis plan was used for both

the questionnaire administered in Kenya and the case reviews from the other NBCs. It would be worth noting

here that, the design of the question had assumed that people were aware of the SEA methodology and could

therefore respond to the questions. This was not the case; instead, the research team collected and analysed

case studies of SEAs that had been undertaken in their respective countries which were analysed as detailed

below and results presented as flow charts. This was done through five (5) key steps as in the table below:

Table 3.1: The framework thematic analysis

Step Process within the step

Familiarization process This involved whole or partial description and reading of data.

Identifying thematic

framework

This was the initial coding framework which was developed both

from issues before the questionnaire administration and from

emerging issues at the familiarization stage.

Indexing This was the process of applying the thematic framework to the data,

using numerical or textual codes to identify specific pieces of data

which correspond to differing themes.

Charting Headings from the thematic framework were used to create charts of

data so that it could be easily read across the whole data set. Charts

were thematic from each theme across all respondents.

Mapping & interpretation This involved searching for patterns, associations, concepts, and

explanation in the data by visual displays and plots.



4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Review of Government of Kenya Practice

4.1.1. Background

The research established that the main decision making stages in the government, that is, Policy, Plan and

Program (or PPP), use SEA related processes. These decision making processes can all be referred to as

‗planning processes‘. This section focused on finding out the way government institutions apply

environmental assessment tools during their PPPs but also got insights on good practice by Institutions like

Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs), financial institutions and research institutes. One major finding

from both the literature review and case study findings is that, one cannot isolate the quantitative methods of

CBA and RA from both EIA and SEA exercises. If anything, the two methods are the key environmental

assessments tools bringing out the costs, benefits and inherent risks involved if a development proposal is

undertaken. While SEA tries to answer the questions why, what and where; EIA tries to answer the question

how. Therefore the review of existing alternatives can only be possible through undertaking CBA and RA of

the development proposal from policy level down to project level making the two methods very much part of

both EIA and SEA.

4.1.2. Screening and Scoping

The study found out that, a number of reasons lead to formulation of new plans. For instance the initiative in

formulating a policy might be due to integration or due to existing biases or government/stakeholder priorities

or due to weaknesses of existing policies. Policies also may follow any of these: the domestic issues such as

the Kenya‘s ERS 2003-2007, the Poverty Reduction Strategic Papers (PRSPs) and the Vision 2030; regional

issues like the East African Community (EAC), and the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI); or global regimes say the

Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs), the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) or the

Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), etc. To formulate a new policy one has to internalize the fact that

there is or there will be a gap as far as implementation of activities is concerned.

Ministries draw on their senior staff particularly the Permanent Secretary, the departmental heads, deputy

heads, policy analysts, and department of policy for their policy formulation. The process starts with

constituting a multi-sectoral committee who draw up Terms of Reference (TOR). The consultant constitutes a

team of experts who form a task force. The task force team then agrees on targets, activities, indicators,

outputs and type of resources to be utilized and roles. This triggers the proponents to look at their capability

through analyses such as Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (or SWOT) and the Political-

Economic-Social-Technological-Legal-Environmental (or PESTLE) analysis. During policy formulation,

identification of the key objectives would open avenue to policy alternatives.

4.1.3. Literature Review

When formulating PPPs a number of sources of information include secondary data from websites, books,

reports, and records as well as primary data from research and stakeholder interviews. Other sources include

data bases from partners, staff consultation, audit findings and recommendations from reports.

4.1.4. Stakeholder Involvement and Communication

Stakeholder Analysis and Consultation

The study found out that there is a clear provision for stakeholder participation in especially policy

formulation process in Kenya that involves a combination of the line ministry, other relevant ministries,

government departments, the general public, lobby groups, the private sector, non-governmental

organisations, partners, line experts, and the interested and affected (I&A) persons as the case may require.



The stakeholders should be involved as early as possible because during scoping, SEA requires that priority

issues be identified to help save money and time. The scoping should be publicly available for transparency

and to help build confidence of stakeholders.

The stakeholder consultation process has two key stages: stakeholder analysis which involves identification

and categorization; and; public consultation through public meetings, workshops, Focused Group Discussions

(FGDs) and interviews. The views of the stakeholders are categorized into thematic sections, discussed with

the stakeholders and a conclusion on how to deal with each issue agreed on. This resolution forms the plan

action matrix with indicators ready for implementation. It is also used to indentify capacity building needs.

Communication

Proper communication about a PPP is likely to lead to its successful implementation by reducing conflict. The

communication framework should be able to spell out at least the roles of each party or stakeholder group, the

legal binding under which the parties are working and the objectives of the PPP.

The study revealed that the role of the government is to create data bases through mapping which are then

accessed by stakeholders and investors in any sector through established communication channels.

Communication should be a continuous exercise and can be enhanced by establishing a secretariat.

4.1.5. Monitoring and Evaluation

M&E is important as a mechanism for crosschecking the performance of PPPs, therefore making it part and

parcel of the SEA process. During planning, objectives should be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant

and Time-bound (S.M.A.R.T). This makes it easier to measure progress during implementation, and success

level based on objectives. Indicators are developed at all levels from policy down to project stage. The process

of developing indicators might use proxies to be able to tell what is happening in the environment. At policy

level the indicators are more global hence taking more qualitative character while at project level the

indicators are more specific taking more quantitative character.

The main output of an M&E is to measure how far the objective or goals have been achieved and therefore the

direction implementation is taking. This means the results can be used to redesign the PPP incorporating new

strategies. The M&E should also be dynamic since scenarios may change and therefore the timing for

evaluation.

4.1.6. Planning Tools and Processes Identified

1. PESTLE Analysis

An analysis of Political, Economic, Social, Technological advancement, Legal and Environmental (or

PESTLE analysis) is done during strategic planning. This identifies issues in each category against negative

effects, as illustrated in table 4.1. At strategic level, the PESTLE analysis, and particularly for environmental

issues, captures the aspect of uncertainty due to natural calamities and the related effects. During the strategic

planning stage, a PESTLE analysis could identify the risks and uncertainties and then put in place relevant

measures to mitigate them.



Table 4.1: PESTLE Analysis

CATEGORY ISSUES EFFECTS

Political

Economic

Social

Technological

advancement

Legal

Environment

2. SWOT Analysis

It is an analysis of Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-and Threats (or SWOT). The SWOT analysis keys in

strengths and weaknesses as internal to an organization while opportunities and threats as external factors that

may influence how the organisation strategies to survive. This analysis is more of institution-based used at

strategic planning stage, project design stage and evaluation level.

Table 4.2: SWOT Analysis

OPPORTUNITIES THREATS

STRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES

3. LOGFRAME

From the PESTLE to the Log Frame Analysis, further details on key assumptions in achieving specific goals

through a number of activities is captured. The Logframe appears at plan, program and project levels where

objectives have been set giving desired results and how to measure these results through objectively verifiable

indicators (OVIs). The source of information from within or without is specified. Indicators are the Means of



Verification (MOV). More often than not, the Logframe is applied at project level than at higher levels of

planning.

4.1.7. Major Milestones in establishing an SEA Framework

Kenya has come up with guidelines provided in the Environmental Impact Assessment and Audit Regulations

(2003). On a regional context, the ministry of water and irrigation is developing a transboundary water policy

(TWP) whose objective is to ensure that Kenya‘s national water policy adequately addresses the

transboundary water management issues. A desk has been established at the MWI that deals with the TW

issues. This study established that once the TWP is done, then the Water Act shall be amended to cater for

opinions in the new policy.

General SEA attributes

Social viability: Share the initiative proposal with the local communities living within the region. Discuss

with them and let them give their views. The views should help in ascertaining acceptability to the local

people, and change in demography. Then address the fears and concerns of the inhabitants of all countries in

the region and reduction of riparian conflicts.

Economic viability: The question about how is one going to benefit from the vision such as good will for

upstream countries given by downstream countries. There should be a benefit of sacrifice. A good example is

the development of Sondu- Miriu HEP where the local community does not benefit from the power generated.

This requires performance of a CBA. It is good to see if lifestyles will be changed. The type of economy

prevailing in the affected area is very important.

Environmental issue: An analysis of the capacity of environment to accommodate a development proposed is

necessary- detailing the level of utilization of the natural resources. This should be done alongside the best

and available technology (BAT). Where required, projects go through an EIA as required by NEMA.



Figure 4.1: Tools Used in SEA and Related Processes (Policy, Plan and Program Levels)



4.2 Case Study I: Sea on BecA Research Work-ILRI

Summary of the SEA

This SEA was done to complement the EIA that was used to assess the decommissioning, construction, and

operation of the BecA hub facilities. The SEA was done as part of donor requirement, Canadian International

Development Agency (CIDA) following the Canadian Cabinet Directive on the Environmental Assessment of

Policy, Plan and Program Proposals of 2004.

The SEA established the current state of the research environment at a strategic level, assessed the regional

and national regulations on bioscience research, examined Biosafety levels of existing and proposed new

facilities; and determines the direct, cumulative and synergistic impacts of BecA hosted research.

Canadian SEA guidelines

The SEA report on BecA program seeks to address nine key questions, which were drawn from CIDA

guidelines on SEAs. These are:

1. What is the existing situation in the particular sector and region?

2. What are the goals and objectives of the program?

3. Do these support relevant CIDA and Government of Canada policies, particularly those related to

environment and sustainable development?

4. What are the different feasible options for delivering the program?

5. What is the best feasible program for BecA?

6. What are the most pronounced environmental issues (negative or positive)?

7. How significant are these environmental effects?

8. What can be done to avoid or lessen negative effects and enhance positive effects?

9. How does BecA measure, monitor and report on the environmental effects?

Stakeholder SEA consultative process

The stakeholder consultative process was done in two stages: First involved in analysis where stakeholders

were identified and categorized in relation to the levels of required communication; and second stage involved

in public consultation through a series of workshops, public meetings, interviews and stakeholders and

representatives of the key stakeholder organisations, institutions and agencies.

Stakeholder Analysis

From the foregoing, different stakeholders make up the population affected by a policy, plan or program in

any sector. There may be many stakeholders but more importantly, the way the PPP affects them might be

different. Therefore within each of the affected stakeholders, there can be significant diversity of views and

conflicts of interest. To ease the stakeholder analysis and their participation, it is relevant to classify them into

three major groups as below:

Primary stakeholders: They have high influence over implementation of the policy and who will be

major beneficiaries.

Secondary stakeholders: these are stakeholder groups that may either influence or benefit from the

reforms but not both.

External stakeholders: these are the stakeholders representing international donor, or aid agencies.

Scoping-stakeholder findings

Findings were classified under potential risks to: environment, communities‘ livelihoods, gender, health,

political, legal and economic situations. The SEA basically looked at the processes, the products and the

policies governing research including legal and regulatory frameworks in the area affected. The main output

of the SEA was a strategic baseline study, a risk assessment and a risk management strategy.



SEA’s influence on design and implementation of BECA’s works

After identification of possible types of risks emanating from different scenarios as highlighted above

(environment, communities‘ livelihoods, gender, health, political, legal and economic situations), risks were

then classified as high, medium and low.

Mitigation measures were recommended, and a risk management strategy was proposed the main elements of

which consist of the development and implementation of operational policies, projects screening criteria to

assess risks on a case by case basis for certain research, standard operating procedures (SOPs), training,

preventive maintenance, integrated confinement system, improved public relations and communications, and

compliance to be assured through regular audits and reviews.

The proposed risk management strategy is used to guide BecA in implementing and monitoring mitigation and

management system. As a result of SEA and EIA processes, ILRI has already embarked on preparing a

number of SOPs, training activities for its personnel in Biosafety and safety procedures in preparation to host

the BECA hub facility.

In conclusion, the SEA process through extensive consultation and technical review has identified and

examined the potential risks due to BecA‘s activities and operations. These risks are now predictable and are

judged to be mitigable. Other risks such as those related to political tensions and regional conflicts may be

predictable.

Provided the mitigation and management recommended in the report are properly adopted and enforced by

both BecA and ILRI, the major environmental and social risks of the BecA program can be acceptable, and

key benefits to the environment, livelihood, health and gender can be obtained.

Communication Framework

Throughout the SEA process, the risks of poor communication and the potential negative impacts this could

have on BecA was debated and highlighted by various stakeholders. The following arose from the

communication framework:

BecA is legal status to be clearly defined and made known to target researchers and institutions;

BecA‘s contractual agreement with National Agricultural Research Institutes (NARIs) and researchers

to be in place;

BecA‘s objective should clearly indicate its intention that benefits of research products developed at

its facilities are fair in terms of social and equity;

BecA‘s objective must ensure protection of commercialization of indigenous and TK systems;

BecA must appoint a public relations/communications expert on their staff;

Recommendations made in the framework strategy for public engagement and BecA‘s

communication strategy must be implemented.

Risk Analysis

The methodology of analysis of impacts and RA included a detailed analysis of the effects under the following

risk categories: Environment, livelihoods, health and gender. The risk level of each of the effects was

determined on the basis that the significance of a risk is a function of the likelihood of it occurring and the

consequence it will have with respect to severity, cumulative or synergistic effects, reversibility, public

perceptions, legal implications and mitigability (able to be managed).



Table 4.3: Risks mitigation and management for BecA hosted Research activities

Risk due to Risk level

H, M, L

Risk

mitigation

actions

Policies,

procedures

and training

required

Monitoring

means/

timelines

Current

status at

ILRI

Xxx xxx Xxx xxx xxx xxx

Risk management involves in the implementation of a number of components that enable or facilitate

mitigation of negative developments, as well as the monitoring of mitigation measures and management

systems. For each of the risk categories, mitigation included one or more of the following:

1. Policies

2. Project selection criteria for BecA-hosted research activities

3. Standard operating procedures (SOPs)

4. Maintenance programs

5. Training

6. Integrated confinement systems (ICS)

7. Public relations and communication strategy

8. Audits and reviews (as a means of M&E)

Public relations and communication strategy

BecA‘s Business Plan of April 2005, puts forward a communication‘s approach in three key goals:

1. integration of communications into all aspects of BecA‘s program and activities

2. Building a communication program to enhance relationships with stakeholders; and other partners,

thereby, building confidence among partners and stakeholders;

3. Ensuring development of interactive communication pathways with dissemination and feedback

mechanisms.

It also recognizes the need for strategic alliances for communication activities, as well as the need for

dissemination of information.

Table 4.4: Screening criteria for BecA-hosted research projects

Screening

question

Additional

criteria/remarks

Criticality of

question/issue

Scale 1-3

Ranking of

proposed

project

Scale 1-5

Weighted response

Criticality x

ranking

Xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx



Figure 4.2: SEA on BecA Research Work done by ILRI

4.3 CASE STUDY II: SEA for the Kenya Forests Act 2005-World Bank

Background

This followed an institutions-centered Strategic Environmental Assessment methodology following the World

Bank toolkit approach. It is also an approach considered in the recently published ―Guidance on Applying

Strategic Environmental Assessment‖ by the Development Assistance Committee of the Organisation for

Economic Cooperation and Development. It has responded to local circumstances in the light of progress and

timing of the forest reform process and the need to clarify baseline conditions through a rapid appraisal of the

political economy and other situation assessments. A number of the steps were carried out in parallel with

each other. The main sequence of activities included four phases that entailed screening and scoping, situation

assessment, setting environmental priorities, and development of alternative courses of action as shown in

Figure 4.1 below. This was seen as appropriate for this institutions-centered SEA.



Figure 4.3: Kenya Forests Act (2005) Institution – Centered SEA Process (The WB)

Important characteristics of the SEA in Kenya have included the following:

Reliance on rapid assessment of the political economy and analysis of existing publications to

establish the background to implementation of the Forests Act.

Strong emphasis on the role of stakeholder groups to help identify priority areas of concern and key

intersectoral environmental and social linkages. The opinions of all stakeholders have been sought

through both open dialogue in workshops and one-to-one discussions in person or by telephone

between individuals and members of the SEA team.

Use of a case study and other site-specific information to help identify potential winners and losers

arising from implementation of the new act and the extent to which the benefits of good forest

management are likely to be shared throughout society.

Development of a policy action matrix that incorporates an accountability and transparency

framework. Its purpose is to help the government chart out (beyond the road map) how to effectively

implement the Forests Act according to the prioritized issues.

The institution-based approach involved sector assessment in baseline studies, experts workshop, stakeholders

workshops, legal review of EMCA and related Acts, international study tours and political lobbying.

PHASE 1: SCREENING AND SCOPING

This initial phase shall entail rapid assessment of the political economy relating to the local government and

urban development. It also shall involve determining who shall be approached as stakeholders and identify the

environmental and social-economic considerations that would need to be taken into account in later phases of

the SEA study. This phase shall include three subsections, the political economy, stakeholder analysis and

literature review.

Rapid Assessment of the Political Economy

A clear understanding of the political economy is essential in any SEA for two reasons; first, it affects the

conduct of the assessment itself, and second, it plays a key role in determining the practical options for



delivering long-term reforms. One of the main consequences of the Forests Act will be the devolution of

centralized state control of forest management to local partnerships involving communities and the private

sector. It is therefore important to know what the dynamics are likely to be among the various stakeholders to

help assess who may be winners, who may be losers, and how to ensure that the relevant voices are heard.

Methods: An initial appraisal was based on personal meetings with key players, the well-informed insights of

Kenyan members of the SEA team through previous engagement in the reform process, and literature reviews.

A more systematic review of the role of different players was undertaken as part of the situation assessments.

Identifying stakeholders

A thorough understanding of stakeholders—who they are, what their concerns may be what interests they

have — is required in any SEA process. In this SEA the objective was to carry out a stakeholder analysis to

complement the analysis of the political economy. Through this analysis the SEA aimed to identify all

relevant stakeholder groups to be included in consultation.

Methods: The process of identifying stakeholders entailed reviewing the databases of key organizations

including the Kenya Forests Working Group and the Forest Department and identifying and listing

stakeholders who will be affected by the new act as well as those with an interest in the new act. The list in

appendix 2 of those consulted was presented to both the Ministry of Environment and the Forest Department

and confirmed to be fully representative of the wider stakeholder interests. The preliminary assessment of the

political economy generated critical information on the role of key stakeholders. This output was used to

select invitees to the first of the three planned workshops. It also helped identify environmental, social, and

economic issues that had been raised by disadvantaged groups, including communities living in and adjacent

to forests, and the private sector.

Literature Review

The literature review was to build a preliminary picture of principal concerns about the forest sector and

validate comments from individual stakeholders.

Methods: Relevant publications were identified through personal knowledge of team members, discussions

with informed stakeholders including the forestry profession and international community, and a keyword

search of the Internet.

PHASE 2—SITUATION ASSESSMENTS

The aim in preparing situation assessment reports was to provide a baseline description of the governance and

institutional, economic, financial, social, and environmental factors that need to be taken into account in

implementing the Forests Act. The assessments provide the evidence on which the findings and

recommendations of the SEA are based.

Governance and Institutional Assessment

This analysis considers the role of different institutions and organizations (identified through stakeholder

analysis; see Social Analysis) in relation to forest management at the national and local levels. It draws out

institutional issues in terms of both formal and informal practices and the way in which these are likely to

support or hinder the introduction of changes envisaged in the Forests Act.

Methods: The analysis included literature reviews that provided documented evidence of the roles and

attitudes of different public bodies, and of historical failures of transparency, accountability, and corruption.

These reviews were supported by interviews and discussions with key stakeholders.



Financial and Economic Assessment

This appraisal has an important function in examining reasons for previous poor performance of the forest

sector with regard to forest management, timber valuation, and revenue collection, and exploring the scope for

improvements under each of these headings once the KFS is established. It also considers the role of the

international community in providing aid to forest services in Kenya.

Methods: Original data was collected and analysed to produce financial models of historic and projected

performance. In addition to data on actual performance, estimates were made of the future expenditure and

revenue streams for the KFS. The national analysis also drew on findings from the Hombe Forest case study.

Environmental Assessment

The environmental analysis focused on the nature of forest resources in Kenya, the aim being to establish

whether policies, rules, and regulations could be applied universally across the country, or would need to be

adapted to local conditions. It was also important to establish the nature and extent of forest cover to gauge the

types of environmental impacts to be considered.

Methods: Given the short time scale for the initial appraisal, the environmental assessment concentrated on

mapped information and published sources based principally on the literature review. Information contained

in the environmental analysis was combined with the findings from other assessments, including primarily the

social analysis to which it is closely allied given the overlaps between environmental resources, livelihoods,

and human welfare.

Social Assessment

This analysis was designed to assess the social context in which the new Forests Act is to be implemented,

and to explore community attitudes toward forest management issues. It also included a stakeholder analysis

to inform the way in which the views of different interest groups have been assessed.

Methods: The various interests of these groups, both overt and hidden, were examined in relation to the

problems being addressed by the new law under the headings of Environment, Social, Economic, and

Governance and Institutions. A separate exercise involved assessing the likely impact of the new Forests Act

on each of these interests (positive +, negative -, or unknown?), and indicating the relative priority that

implementation of the act should give to each stakeholder interest on a scale from 1 (high priority) to 4 (low

priority). The social analysis helped to inform other areas of study, including the institutional and governance

reviews, the selection of stakeholders, and the development of the case study methodology. Box 3.1 describes

the characteristics of the SEA stakeholders.

Hombe Case Study and Rumuruti Forest Site Visit

From the outset of the SEA, it has been considered important to verify broad conclusions drawn at a national

level by reference to conditions on the ground. A case study of Hombe Forest on the slopes of Mount Kenya

was used as a window into the local situation, primary areas of interest of the SEA, and determining the

practicalities of addressing priority areas. In addition, a site visit was made to Rumuruti Forest to understand

the varying context.

Methods: On location interviews were conducted with local representatives of the community and the

existing forest department, and collecting both quantitative and qualitative data. The SEA also held a

community-based workshop on the implications of the new Forests Act. A separate site visit to Rumuruti

Forest focused on the views of a local nongovernmental organization (Tree is Life) and the Rumuruti

Community Forest Association.

PHASE 3: SETTING ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES AND DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES

A standard feature of SEAs is their focus on exploring alternative approaches to policies, plans, or programs.

In the case of the Kenya forest reforms, the content of the new Forests Act has largely defined the shape of the

new administration, but great flexibility remains in terms of the ways in which specific clauses of the act are

put into effect. It is in relation to practical implementation that the SEA is able to explore different ways of



achieving the overall aims. Findings from the stakeholder workshops, together with the outputs from the case

study in Hombe Forest and the brief visit to Rumuruti Forest have played a key role in shaping the SEA

recommendations. It should be noted that from the outset of the SEA process an effort was made to avoid

drawing conclusions prematurely, before hearing the views of those consulted and other stakeholders.

Workshops

A series of three workshops were planned to encourage dialogue between stakeholders on the key issues in the

first session, to bring together findings from the various assessments in the second workshop, and agree on

priorities for action and to invite stakeholders to make commitments to delivering specific elements of the

policy matrix in the third and final workshop.

Methods: A combination of presentations, exercises, working group sessions, and plenary discussions were

used to gather the views of workshop participants. The first two workshops helped identify priority concerns

and the policy action matrix contained in this report. The first workshop (held in May 2006) recorded the

broad concerns of stakeholders were explored in relation to the main themes of the SEA. The second SEA

workshop (held in June 2006) considered a range of questions based on the analysis of strengths and

weaknesses of the Forests Act. Participants were divided into four groups, each of which independently

examined a list of 40 questions and prioritized these in terms of the 10 most important topics that should be

addressed in the short term to strengthen delivery of the act‘s objectives. The findings from these exercises are

reported in chapter 3 and 4. At the second workshop, the situation assessment reports were presented together

with the findings of the Hombe Forest case study and an analysis of key questions arising from the May

workshop and subsequent analysis associated with the SEA.

Policy Action Matrix

The final stage of the SEA involved the preparation of a policy action matrix that captured findings and

recommendations from stakeholders. It sets these out with clear responsibilities for action. A time scale for

completion of activities needs to be completed by the government of Kenya. These actions were discussed and

agreed to at the third workshop.

4.4 Case Study III: SSEA for Bujjagali Hydropower Project in Uganda

4.4.1. Background

The third schedule of Uganda‘s National Environmental Management Act specifies that any development that

involves dams, rivers and water resources (including storage dams, barrages and weirs) or electrical

infrastructure (including electricity generation stations, electrical transmission lines and electrical substations)

require an EIA. The National Environmental Management Agency (NEMA) is Government of Uganda (GoU)

agency with primary responsibly for environmental impact assessment of projects in Uganda.

4.4.2. Summary of the SEA Process

The Social/Strategic and Environmental Assessment /SEA was done in compliance with the requirements of

the GoU and the policies and guidelines of the various International Financial Institutions (IFIs) that were

expected to finance the project. The purpose of the SEA was to ensure that the project was designed and

developed in a manner that minimizes negative social and environmental effects while maximizing project

benefits. Bujagali Energy Limited (BEL) conducted the SEA according to Terms of Reference (ToR) that

were approved by GoU (NEMA) and were made available to IFI representatives, Project Affected People

(PAP), NGOs and the general public for their review.

The main SEA work commenced in early 2006 with ecological fieldwork, social surveys and consultations

with relevant review agencies and potentially affected people and NGOs. Consultations on the draft findings

of the SEA were carried out in September and October of 2006. The SEA established the current state of the

regulations and standards of the GoU, and the safeguard policies and guidelines of the International Financial

Institutions (IFIs) that were expected to be involved in the project. An assessment of potential environmental

and social effects was one of the key policy requirements for all the IFIs involved in the project.



Analysis was done to show how the standards, guidelines and policy requirements of the GoU and the IFIs

applicable to the project were identified. Where GoU and IFIs requirements overlapped, as for example in the

case for wastewater discharge where the GoU has effluent quality regulations and the World Bank has effluent

quality guidelines, then the more stringent of the overlapping requirements were adopted as the project

applicable requirements.

4.4.3. Bujagali Hydropower Project

The Bujagali Hydropower Project (or HPP) was a proposed 250 MW hydropower facility on the Victoria Nile

in the Republic of Uganda. The hydropower facility will consist of a 28 m high earth-filled dam and spillway

works, and associated power station housing up to five 50 MW turbines. It is to be located at Dumbbell Island,

approximately 8 km downstream (i.e. north) of the Town of Jinja. The dam is to impound a reservoir that

extends upstream to the tailrace area of the Nalubaale and Kiira facilities, inundating Bujagali Falls. The

reservoir will be 388 ha in surface area, comprising of the existing 308 ha surface of the Victoria Nile, and 80

ha of newly inundated land. The amount of newly inundated land is expected to be small, as the reservoir

waters will be contained within the steeply incised banks of the river. In total the project will require a land-

take of 125 ha for newly inundated land and permanent facilities. An additional 113 ha of land will be needed

temporarily for the construction of the facility.

4.4.4. The SEA Process

Baseline Data

Ecological fieldwork,

Social surveys

Consultations with relevant review agencies; potentially affected people; NGOs.

Result: An inventory of flora, fauna, landscape and the existing political economy

Screening and Scoping: The scoping exercise included underking:

Rapid assessment of the political economy relating to the development

Stakeholders identification

definition of objectives of

Environmental and socio-economic considerations to be taken into account in later phases of the SEA

study.

Political Economy: The political economy looked at the livelihood, industries, agriculture, cultural practice,

population distribution (85% of Ugandan stay in rural areas), environment, social life (HIV/AIDS), tourism,

and poverty levels.

Stakeholder Identification: The stakeholders involved were the national public, government agencies,

NGOs, local communities, project affected persons, vulnerable groups, business operators, tourists, visitors

and Indigenous Peoples.

Public Consultations: During the public consultations BEL retained the services of a witness NGO (InterAid

Africa) in August 2006 to provide independent monitoring of the consultation activities, and to provide a

mechanism for stakeholders to file grievances with the SEA processes. The program was implemented, in a

manner to ensure participation from women. Overall, the consultation activities and disclosure program were

designed to maximize:

Community awareness of the proposed project and SEA study and report

Opportunities for community input and involvement

The consultation program was designed in six phases:

1. Initial Stakeholder

2. SEA/ToR

3. SEA Summary Report



4. SEA Report and Action Plan

5. CDAP Consultation Planning and Project

6. Consultation.

Stakeholder Consultation: The stakeholder consultation process was quite comprehensive. It included the

following process and tools:

National Public Project notices in national newspapers;

web site;

Making documentation available to all interested parties;

Meetings were held with various government agencies and SEA documentation was circulated

through NEMA and NGOs (national and local);

Local Communities Contact was made with District and Sub-County level governments to inform

them of the project.

Sub-County Consultation committees, which included women and representatives from vulnerable

groups, were established to assist in consultation activities with local villages.

Public meetings were held in the affected communities to advise people of the project and to receive

their comments and concerns.

Socio-economic audit surveys were undertaken with the Project Affected Persons, (PAPs), including

women, as part of the consultation process and an action plan was prepared to deal with remaining

issues.

Additional surveys were also undertaken with the ―fishermen‖ community in the project area.

Vulnerable group representatives, including women, were included on the Sub-county Consultation

Committees. A separate tourism impact study was undertaken to cater for key affected businesses by

holding individual interviews.

Subsequent discussions between the tourist operators and BEL regarding mitigation/compensation

due to the flooding of Bujagali Falls were held.

Discussions with the employees of the tourism industry were held and actions to deal with potential

loss of income (either temporary or permanent) were proposed. The interests of tourists were

identified in the above mentioned tourism impact study.

The Kingdoms of Buganda and Busoga were directly consulted through meetings and the submission

of project documentation.

A comprehensive listing of the issues identified included:

Resettlement activities

Community development activities

Cultural activities

Construction workforce impacts

Local community access to electricity

Employment/training opportunities

Need for community consultations

Potential for job loss in tourism industry

Safety issues arising from construction traffic

Local community benefits from the project

Loss of access to the river

Low water levels in Lake Victoria being exacerbated

Safety issues in Nalubaale facility

Communication and Disclosure Program: BEL disclosed the following documents:

• SEA ToR and the draft PCDP;

• Consultation Summary of the draft findings of the SEA;

• HPP SEA Report, which includes APRAP, CDAP, and PCDP

In the Bujagali project the SEA TOR and draft PCDP were distributed in July 2006 to the National

government (NEMA) and local government stakeholders (sub-county level). The Consultation Summary



Report was released in late September 2006. The final SEA Report was released in December 2006. The SEA

Report and Action Plans were available to the other identified stakeholders and the public at large at publicly

accessible locations and on the BEL web site: www.Bujagali-energy.com. The only problem is the brief time

period in which it was done and that the local community do not ordinarily access such media because of the

cost and the prevalent low literacy levels. Hence communication and disclosure would be highly ineffective to

this group of stakeholders.

Impact Identification and Management:

a. Strategic Impacts

This SEA adopted a project life cycle assessment format. It focused on the development of specific

management initiatives for all phases of the project to ensure the following strategic impacts:

i) The people closest to the project receive the projected benefits;

ii) Potentially negative environmental and socio-economic impacts are minimized;

iii) Potentially negative health and safety impacts are kept to a minimum.

To optimise the life cycle assessment, linkages between potential impacts (i.e., key environmental issues),

mitigation measures (i.e. management actions), net effects (i.e. residual effects), and monitoring programs (i.e.

management decision tools) were explicitly made.

b. Cumulative Impacts

The potential cumulative effects of the Bujagali hydroelectric project were evaluated in the context of other

existing and proposed hydroelectric projects on the mainstream Victoria Nile in Uganda. The timeframe was

on the order of 20 years, though conceptually, the timeframe extends to the end of the operational life of the

projects under review, more on the order of 50 years, at least.

Positive cumulative impacts: Overall, the significant and positive cumulative effects of Bujagali included:

Developmental benefits at the local, regional and national levels, including economic benefits.

Increased supply of electricity, including poverty alleviation benefits

Compensation to people economically affected or physically relocated by the project

Employment and small business opportunities for Ugandans in the short, medium and long terms.

Negative cumulative impacts: Project cumulative impacts of a negative nature were considered to be of

minor significance. These included:

Relocation of people with compensation to accommodate the construction facilities and operations;

Aesthetic impacts from the presence of another dam with the potential for knockon tourism impacts;

Some disruption of the natural flow regime over the ~8-km reach of River Nile downstream of and as

a result of Nalubaale and Kiira facilities with associated impacts on aquatic organisms and

communities and river users;

Losses of wildlife populations and habitats, as well as agricultural lands, due to inundation of

terrestrial habitats;

Disruption of fish migrations in the river Nile in the vicinity of the project;

Insignificant changes in the levels of Lake Kyoga and in flows downstream of it;

Reduced operational need to increase flows through Nalubaale and Kiira due to efficiencies from

Bujagali HPP.

With respect to cumulative effects with other non-hydroelectric projects in the Ugandan energy sector, there

could be a reduced need to dispatch thermal and emergency sources of electricity to the Ugandan grid and by

individual consumers (generators) with cost savings, air emissions reductions, and likely human health

benefits. Another such effect could be some reduced demand for other fuels (including firewood) where

access to electricity is available and cost-competitive. There are no changes (including cumulative effects)

anticipated in the ‗Agreed Curve‘ hydrological regime for the river Nile.

BEL was to consult with key stakeholders in Uganda and elsewhere, as appropriate, on the preliminary

conclusions reached in the cumulative effects analysis and report on the results and any associated mitigation

or monitoring implications, as appropriate, in the SEAP update documentation to be released on a regular

basis. In addition, the final version of the Strategic/Sectoral, Social and Environmental Assessment of Power

http://www.bujagali-energy.com/



Development Options in the Nile Equatorial Lakes Region commissioned by the Nile Basin Initiative is

expected to become available after the disclosure of this SEA report. The update of this cumulative effects

analysis of preliminary conclusions will include any implications for this analysis from the final version of

that report, as well as modifications resulting from consultations with key stakeholders.

c. The Management Plan

The impacts would be achieved through the SEAP with the following constituent management plans whose

details are given in the original document (attached) and included:

Sponsor‘s Action Plan

Contractor‘s Action Plan

Public Consultation and Disclosure Plan (PCDP)

Assessment of Past Resettlement Activities and Action Plan (APRAP)

Community Development Action Plan (CDAP)

Environmental Mitigation & Monitoring Plan (EMMP)

Labour Force Management Plan (LFMP)

Traffic Management Plan (TMP)

Waste Management Plan (WMP)

Labour Force Management Plan (LFMP)

Regulatory & Management Framework: Legislation/Policies, Environmental Review,

Change Management Health & Safety Management Plan (HSMP)

Pollutant Spill Contingency Plan (PSCP)

Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan (EPRP)

Hazardous Materials Management Programme (HMMP)

A field team comprising of field inspectors, supported by drivers and labourers would maintain a permanent

presence onsite, carrying out routine checks of operating procedures and environmental monitoring. BEL was

committed to the creation and implementation of programs to reduce the probability of occurrence of

deleterious environmental incidents. Contingency plans were developed for dealing with such adverse

incidents, if they occurred. BEL expected the same level of environmental performance from its agents,

suppliers, and sub-contractors and would stipulate this in any legally binding agreements it entered with these

parties.



Figure 4.4: The Deduced SEA Framework for Bujjagali

4.5 Case Study IV: SEA for Irrigation Modernization in Egypt

1- Introduction

The Nile River in Egypt represents the main source of water. Rainfall is rare and the desert covers most of

Egypt, except for a narrow strip of cultivated land and urban areas along the Nile river course. The Nile Delta

occupies an area of about 6 million feddans (1 feddan = 4,200 m2) and the Nile valley occupies an area of

about 2.5 million feddans. The Delta region is characterized with large tracts of rich fertile agricultural land,

overpopulation, unique and delicate environmental conditions caused by the mixing of drainage and fresh

water, unique flora and fauna, and problems associated with low lying areas such as sea water intrusion.

Management of these natural resource areas has become more critical as ecological balance in these areas

becomes threatened due to an increase in water exploitation to support population growth and resource

development.

2- Survey on Irrigation Modernisation in Egypt

Like other water-scarce countries, Egypt is facing fast growing demands versus limited water resources.

Therefore, Egypt is entitled to do more with less water. This fact was early recognized by the government and



considered in country's plans and mitigation measures. One of the key measures is the rehabilitation and

modernization of the irrigation system. During the period 1977-84, EWUP was instrumental in introducing a

system for irrigation improvement and irrigation participatory. The activities of the EWUP included problem

identification, evaluation of alternative solutions for technical and socio-economic feasibility, and

demonstration solutions to improve the social and economic livelihood of Egyptian farmers through improved

irrigation water use and management and related agroeconomic practices. In 1985 the government of Egypt

began a national program to improve the existing irrigation system in the old lands. A project called Regional

Irrigation Improvement Program (RIIP) was established within the MWRI according to the ministerial decree

issued in 1984 based on EWUP recommendations. The basic goal was to improve the agricultural productivity

and reduce water use in the old land through implementing the recommendations of the EWUP in pilot areas

with significant problems such as Beni Ebeid in El-Menya Governorate.

The goals of the IIP as a modernized process included the following:

Strengthen the institutional capacity of the MWRI so that it has equipment, organization, staffing,

managerial and administrative skills, and operational policies and procedures to continue NIIP.

Develop a rational interdisciplinary approach for planning, designing, and implementing the

renovation of specific commands identified in the ministry plans.

Develop and put in place an irrigation advisory service to provide for the transfer of water

management technical information and technical assistance.

Organize operational water users associations in all IIP areas to provide farmer input during the

renovation process, scheduling of water on Mesqas, perform maintenance, and resolve local disputes

Establish policies and procedures for the recovery of a reasonable portion of the operation and

maintenance costs of the irrigation system and the full cost of Mesqa and on-farm improvements.

This modernized process included two main components; physical changes and organization changes. The

physical changes included; continuous flow in branch canals, physical rebuilding of existing Mesqas, and

replacement of individual pumps by collective pumping. The organization changes included establishment of

Water Users Associations (WUAs) and creation of an Irrigation Advisory Service. IIP started in 1989 and

established a number of private WUAs on Mesqa level as well as the institutional structure for the IAS. The

main goal of IIP is to increase the irrigation efficiency and agricultural productivity. Implementation of IIP

covered an area of 147,000 hectares (350,000 feddans) in 11 pilot areas in Egypt for the period 1989-1996. In

1995, the World Bank IIP project was initiated to include improvements of additional 104,160 hectares

(248000 feddans) in Lower Egypt. This study highlights briefly on the modernization package that is

i m p l e m e n t e d i n B e n i E b e i d a r e a i n E g y p t d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d 1 9 8 8 – 1 9 9 6 .

3-Baseline Data of Modernized Irrigation System in Beni Ebeid in Egypt

This section provides a brief description of modernized irrigation system in Beni Ebeid area in Egypt. Table

(1) summarizes the main information of the process.

3-1 Location

Beni Ebeid area is located in the western part of Menya Governorate in Middle Egypt. Beni Ebeid comprises

two main villages; Greis and Beni Ebeid in Abo Korkas District.

3-2 Command Area

The total gross area is 2100 hectares (5000 feddans)1 and the net irrigated area is about 1871 hectares (4455

feddans). The boundary of the command area is defined by the Greis drain on the west and Mohit drain in the

east side as shown in figure (4.5).



Figure 4.5: Irrigation and Drainage System in Beni Ebid Area in Egypt



3-3 Land Tenure Structure

The size of farms in Beni Ebeid Area ranges from 0.042 to 5.04 hectares (0.1 to 12 feddans) with an average

of about 1.05 hectares (2.5 Feddans). 56% of farmers who are working in this area own their land while the

remainders are renting the land. The farmer and family members provide most of the labour required for

farming and irrigation.

3-4 Date of Modernization

A feasibility study for Beni Ebeid area has been completed in the early of 1991. After then, the MWRI,

through USAID funded project on improvement of irrigation in Egypt (IIP), started implementation of the

recommended alternatives in the previous studies and approved policies. By the end of 1994, the

implementation of the modernization has been completed. It should be noted that, the construction of the

automated downstream control gates of Beni Ebeid branch canal was carried out in 1988-89.

3-5 Water Sources

The main source of water supply to the area is the Nile River that provides more than 97% of the total water

demand of the command area (The total crop water consumptive use was estimated at 25 million cubic meters

per year). Nile waters are delivered to the area through a major canal called Serry canal which off-takes from

Ibrahimai canal that takes, in turn, from the Nile River upstream Assuit Barrage. Private groundwater

tubewells (about 20 tubewells) cover the rest of the water requirements. Studies showed that groundwater is a

reliable source, in terms of quantities and quality, and could be practiced in this area.

3-6 Energy Source

Diesel fuel constitutes the main energy source to operate the pumps that are installed at the head of Mesqa to

divert water from branch canal to Mesqa. Water is then made available to farmer fields, through openings

along the Mesqa, which flows by gravity to fields. Water flows from main canals to branch canals (primary,

secondary and distributary canals), before and after the project, by gravity. Before the project, water was

flowing from branch canal to the Mesqa by gravity, while farmers used to lift irrigation water to their fields

using their own (or rented) small mobile pumps. After the project, water is lifted to the new Mesqa, but the

irrigation water is distributed to the farms by gravity.

3-7 System Type

The modernization system of irrigation in Beni Ebeid areas involved improving the hydraulic conditions of

water distribution at tertiary level. The system provided two types of tertiary canal (private canal operated by

farmers that is called Mesqa) instead of the old one that was earthen canal and was found not efficient to

deliver water to farm gate. The first type was to replace the old Mesqa with a new Mesqa that is lined and

elevated. Water is pumped from the distributary canal to the Mesqa head while water discharges by gravity to

farms. The other type included replacing the old Mesqa with a pipeline with low pressure and water is

delivered to farms through Alf2-Alfa valves along the pipeline. Modernization included also rehabilitation of

the distributary canal and constructing automatic downstream control gates instead of the old gates.

3-8 Water Rights

Water rights system is not existing in Egypt. Farmers, however, are allowed to take water from canals or

Mesqas to irrigate their land. Scheduling of irrigation is made among farmers associations, known as Water

Users Associations, WUAs, with the assistance of an innovated governmental entity called Irrigation Advisory

Service, IAS. Water allocated to farmers is mainly based on the cropping pattern. However, in case of water

deficit in Mesqa discharge, this deficit is proportionally distributed among farmers according to the decision

taken by the WUAs. The irrigation schedule shows the turn of each farmer to irrigate and the number of hours

to open the gate or the valve on the Mesqa. This schedule is implemented by the leader of the Mesqa and the



leaders of the gate or the valve along the Mesqa. Although the irrigation interval of the system before

modernization was fixed to 15 days, farmers particularly those at Mesqa tail, used to complain from lack of

irrigation water or were deprived from irrigation during the on-period of the canal. The modernized system

grantees the time of irrigation and the flow for each farmer as expressed in operating hours of gate or the

valve. The determined number of hours for irrigation has encouraged farmers to implement land levelling to

reduce irrigation hours to minimum and to increase land productivity as well ). Frequency of irrigation after

modernization became also more flexible. It depends on the crop type. Sensitive crops may need shorter

irrigation interval. This was achieved through introducing the continuous flow. Irrigation interval and duration

is determined by the WUA. Farmers became very keen with their water application, as they are paying for the

cost of operation and maintenance. They do their best to minimize the operating hours and consequently

optimise the use of water. The MWRI used to release an average of about 13000 cubic meters of water per

hectare per year ( 5500 m3/feddan/year) for Beni Ebeid at the head of the command area. The problem was

that this quota was unevenly distributed among farmers before the modernization process.

3-9 Main Crops

The main grown crops in summer include Cotton and Maize, which cover about 82% of the cultivated area,

while the main crops in winter include Wheat and Berseem (Clover) that occupy about 89%. Permanent crops,

such as sugar cane and fruit trees, occupy about 2.3% of the cultivated land. The cropping pattern is used to

determine the water requirements and deliveries to the command area based on the standards crop

consumptive water uses set by the MWRI. Water allocated to farmers is then determined by the WUAs based

on cropping pattern and also based on the conditions of water allocated to each Mesqa. Water deficit is

proportionally redistributed among farmers. The irrigation schedule as set by WUAs defines the time of

irrigation for each farmer or group of farmers at the gate or valve. It defines also the allowed water delivery to

fields in terms of operating hours for each farmer.

3-10 Soil

Like most of Nile Valley and Delta region, soil in Beni Ebeid area is mainly fluvial deposits derived from Nile

silts without significant influence of desert Aeolian deposits. This type of soil is mainly classified as vertisol

that is characterized by deep cracks during the off-period of irrigation. The problem of these cracks becomes

severe when the off-period gets longer. Studies and investigations in this area showed that this type of soil

restrict 80% of the plant root to the upper 40 cm layer of the soil. This affects the type of crops grown in the

area where citrus and other deep-root plants are not grown. Soil salinity in the area was found to be mostly

non-saline soils. Very limited area, that is not exceeding 3% of the command area, is classified as moderately

saline soils. Water table in most of the area is 150 cm or more below the ground surface.

3-11 Irrigation/drainage Infrastructure

Beni Ebeid Canal is a third order canal of 12.68 km length. It branches from Serry Canal at km 12.0

downstream Serry intake. The canal has three water structures that regulate the flow and to create the suitable

head for off-takes (branch canals) along it. These regulators were replaced through constructing new

regulators along the canal. The new regulators are provided with radial gates to provide automatic

downstream water level control under continuous flow process. The gate type is AVIO 110/200 at the canal

head, AVIS 920/170 at km 4.375, and AVIO 90/125 at km 9.53. Beni Ebeid canal has also 4 bridges crossing

the canal.

There are also four branch canals, of fourth order, take from Beni Ebeid canal. Branch canal length varies

from 1.7 to 3.5 km. Two branch canals, of fifth order, take from Elnahal canal as shown in figure (4.5). The

total canal length of Beni Ebeid branches is about 14 km. Branch canals are also provided with 7 bridges.

Farmers usually get their water from Mesqas. Mesqa is a private canal that takes from the branch canal and it

is maintained and operated by farmers on their own while the government is responsible for operation and

maintenance of the public canal system which comprises main and branch canals, i.e. except Mesqa. In Beni



Ebeid area, Mesqas irrigate 55% of the total command area while the remainder area, 45%, is irrigated from

direct outlets along Beni Ebeid canal. The total number of Mesqas in the area was 111 Mesqa and off-takes.

The modernization process included grouping most of scattered off-takes onto a new Mesqa. Therefore, the

number of the improved mesqa is currently 65. Improved Mesqa facilities include a pump station at Mesqa

head in addition to a reservoir to provide low head for pipeline Mesqa. The number of pipeline Mesqas is 27

while the open elevated Mesqas are 38.

The command area has adequate facilities of drainage system where water table problems or salinity problems

are not recorded. The whole area is provided with subsurface drainage system installed at 1.0 m below the

ground surface and has a space of 75 meters between laterals. This system of drainage collects field drainage

and discharges it to an open drainage system such as Garis and Mohit drains.

3-12 Discharge

The estimated peak water duty in July is 87.89 cubic meters per hectares per day (36.9 cubic meters per

feddan per day). This means that the designed discharge is 1.9 cubic meters per second for the command area

(MWRI, 1993). Studies are now being conducted by National Water Research Center to evaluate this process

of modernization. It aims also at measuring the actual flow runs through the system at the head of the

command area.

3-13 Operation and maintenance

The activities of operation involve purchase of diesel and lubricants. A schedule of operation of the pump is

decided by the WUAs council with the assistance of the IAS. Collection of fees is also the responsibility of

the council. Collection of fees is determined on operating hours basis or seasonal basis. The latter is the most

recommended alternative. Maintenance of Mesqa such as regular cleaning is the responsibility of the WUAs.

Some cleaning activities or repairs can be conducted by users themselves. In some cases, labour is hired to

conduct some maintenance works for the WUAs. The average annual cost of operation and maintenance in

Beni Ebeid area is about L.E. 135 per feddan, i.e., about US$ 71.4 per hectare (Allam, 1995). A member of

the WUAs called treasurer is responsible for collecting O&M fees from farmers on annual basis and

depositing into the bank account. The operation and maintenance fees are determined by WUAs without any

governmental interference. In Beni Ebeid Area, members of the WUA mentioned that they determined the

O&M fees based on crop type and irrigation application. Three categories were developed for payment

starting from US$ 3.5 and up to US$ 5.0 per hectare per application. Fees are used for covering the following

cost items:

Salary of the pump operator, which is determined at US$ 0.20 per hectare per year, i.e. about US$ 400

per year for the whole command area.

Cost of the pump fuel and lubricant

Cost of repair and spare parts, and periodical cleaning of the Mesqa

The rest of the fees is deposited into the bank account of the WUA to be used in the future for

replacement of pumps or for major rehabilitation works.

3-14 Irrigation methods

Like most of old lands in Egypt, Beni Ebeid areas is characterized by surface (flood) irrigation method. Basin

or Furrow irrigation is practiced in this area based on the crop type. Micro irrigation system such as sprinkler

or drip irrigation is not practiced in this area. Transfer to drip irrigation is a new policy applicable only for the

trees' farms, and still not in implementation

4- Baseline Data Analysis Modernized Irrigation System in Beni Ebeid in Egypt

4-1 Causes that led to modernization



The IIP is carried out with the main objectives of:

Facilitating a more equitable distribution of water between upstream and downstream users.

Ensuring long term sustainability through active participation of water users.

Augmenting agricultural production and incomes through improvements of the basic infrastructure,

providing continuous water flow, and improved field irrigation systems.

4-2 Steps of modernization process

The improvement package includes interventions at two levels of the irrigation system: the branch canal and

the tertiary canals (Mesqa) from where farmers abstract water to their fields . The largest part of IIP, however,

is improvements of the tertiary system. The package of the IIP can be listed as follows:

Renovation and improvement of branch canal and distributary canals

This involved improvement of the main delivery system in Beni Ebeid area included seven branch canals as

mentioned before. Improvement plan included the following:

Rehabilitation of the water structures along these canals such as intakes, cross regulators and tail

escapes to prevent water losses from canal end to drains.

Replacement of the old structures with new ones of radial gates to provide automatic control for the

downstream water levels to cope with the farmers demand and abstraction.

Remodelling the canal cross section to improve the canal characteristics and conveyance efficiencies.

This means bringing the cross section up to standards of the original design. The remodelled cross

section was made to allow for water storage during the non-irrigation times; particularly during night

time.

Turn-outs and offtakes are also planned to be installed along the branch canals such as facilities at the

head of each Mesqa; pumps, pump stands and pump sumps. Energy dissipation basins are also

constructed at the head of each Mesqa.

Utilization of other water resources

Utilization of other water resource (non-conventional waters) includes groundwater and agricultural drainage,

to augment the branch canal flow. The plan included two options. The first is to construct four deep tube

wells, each of 400 m3/hour. The second is to construct twenty-five shallow wells, each of 100 m3/hour.

Drainage water reuse was not considered in this process, given the ability of groundwater with better quality.

In fact none of these options have been implemented till now. The use of these water resources aims at

compensating the canal flow so that water rights will be met at its pre-determined quantities. This option will

be essential in future particularly if the canal flow is reduced due to increases in national water demands.

Downstream water level control

The self-regulating gates (float –operated radial) are provided to branch canals to respond to water level

fluctuations in the downstream. These gates open to bypass more flow when farmers abstraction increases in

the downstream and close when water withdrawal is stopped. The gates close completely when water levels

rise to approximately 10 cm above the crest level of the tail escape. Two types of downstream control gates

were suggested; AVIO and AVIS as shown in figure (4.6). The first was recommended for relatively higher

upstream water levels while AVIS is for smaller upstream levels.



Figure 4.6: Deduced SSEA Framework of the NELSAP Automatic Downstream Water Level Control

Mesqa Improvement

Improvement of Mesqa constitutes the major part of the modernization process. It includes replacement of the

existing Mesqa, which is earthen low level ditch with non-organized water withdrawal through multiple

pumping/lifting points along its length. Two types was recommended for modernization, open elevated Mesqa

and buried low-pressure pipe. Elevated Mesqa is an open ditch, but lined and elevated. Normal water level in

the elevated Mesqa was set to permit gravity flow to fields at 15 cm above the field level. Alternatives for

elevated Mesqa include a rectangular concrete cast-in place section and pre-cast concrete ―J‖ section. Low-

pressure PVC pipeline Mesqa is another option for replacing the old Mesqa. It is set at approximately one

meter below grade and provided with risers at spacing of about 100 meters. Flow from each riser is controlled

by an alfalfa valve. Such types of these Mesqas, elevated or pipe line, are intended to reduce the seepage of

water to minimum. The end of the Mesqa is closed to prevent water losses to drains. Figure (4.7) shows a

schematic for pipeline Mesqa. The pipe Mesqa is recommended when land acquisition for constructing open

Mesqa is difficult and expensive. In addition, Pipe Mesqa is recommended when Mesqa runs through villages

and subject to pollution and blocking by villagers garbage. The cost of construction of the open elevated and

pipe Mesqa is US $ 457 per hectare (L.E. 867 per feddan) and US$ 853 per hectare (L.E. 1612 per feddan)

respectively (Allam, 1995). However in other areas particularly in Lower Egypt, the difference in prices

between the open and pipe Mesqa is less than that in Beni Ebeid area. Farmers (i.e., WUAs) have the decision

to select the type of Mesqa based on their conditions.

Figure 4.7: Low Pressure Pipeline Mesqa



Conversion from Rotational flow to continuous flow

Continuous flow in branch canals was viewed as an important part of the process of modernization. Farmers

can have greater flexibility in timing of irrigation applications to meet crop water requirements as compared to

the rigid rotation schedules of the traditional system. Irrigation schedule will then be among farmers

themselves without government intervention. The water supply to the command area before the modernization

process was about 4.0 cubic meters per second during the on-period. After implementing the modernization

process, water supply reduced to 1.9 cubic meters per second but on continuous basis. The irrigation schedule

among farmers was not set before modernization where farmers used to wait on the canal or Mesqa until they

find the water to irrigate their fields. The modernized process enabled farmers to know their time of irrigation

and number of irrigation hours instead of waiting along the canal or Mesqa. This process prevented the over

irrigation usually made by the head farmers that affected the water availability for tail farmers. Regarding the

change of irrigation methods, the MWRI is currently conducting some studies to introduce drip irrigation

system for trees and orchards.

Formation of Water Users Associations

Farmers along the improved Mesqa are organized in WUAs to build, operate, and maintain their Mesqa on

their own initiative. A board of 6 members is to be elected by the water users. The board consists of head,

treasurer, and other four members. The board will be responsible for collecting operation and maintenance

cost from farmers. Usually, a bank account is made for WUAs to control the financial issues of the O&M of

improved Mesqa.

Establishment of Irrigation Advisory Service

The irrigation advisory service (IAS) is a newly established governmental entity to provide technical

assistance to farmers such as operation and maintenance of the modernized irrigation system. IAS also helped

farmers establish water users associations, scheduling of irrigation among farmers and on-farm activities such

as land leveling.

4-3 Organizations/Institutions involved

Under the modernization process, three organizations became involved in irrigation management and

decision-making:

MWRI-Irrigation Directorate, at the Governorate level, became responsible for water management at

the main canal system such as Serry canal; the main feeder of Beni Ebeid branch canal. Water flow in

Beni Ebeid branch canal is then regulated automatically through automatic downstream water level

control gates that are operated under the on-demand system.

Water Users Associations (WUAs) is a new organization established through the modernization

process. WUA is a non-governmental organization which incorporates representatives of farmers that

benefit from the Mesqa. For each Mesqa, WUA council is formed, through election, to include 3 to 10

members; head of WUAs, treasurer, operator, and other members. WUA is responsible for Mesqa

improvement (such as selection of Mesqa type, locating the new Mesqa, locating Mesqa turnouts),

operating and maintaining the single point lift pump, scheduling turns among water users, resolving

disputes, and Mesqa maintenance.

Irrigation Advisory Service (IAS) is a newly initiated governmental agency. The primary mission of

the IAS is to facilitate and assist formation of WUAs. It also assist in providing technical assistance to

water users for Mesqa improvements, operation, maintenance, and irrigation scheduling among

farmers.



4-4 Implementation of the modernization process

The process of implementation of the IIP in Beni Ebeid included five main components as follows:

Feasibility studies and Design for the delivery and Mesqa systems

Bidding and contracting process

Construction

IAS and WUAs activities

Land and water management activities.

4-5 Actual Modernization that took place

4-5-1 Main Delivery System

The canal cross section for the all branch canals in Beni Ebeid command area have been remodeled to cope

with continuous flow

• Three radial gates for automatic downstream water control have been constructed. The AVIS gate at

canal intake, AVIO gate at km 4.75, and AVIO gate at km 9.53 on the canal.

• AVIO gate has been installed at each branch canal intake.

• Canal tail escapes for all branch canals haven been rehabilitated to prevent water losses from canal

end.

4-5-2 Mesqa System

The number of improved Mesqas in Beni Ebeid is 65 Mesqsa that covers the total command area of Beni

Ebeid. Twenty-seven out of 65 Mesqas are pipeline and the remainder are raised Mesqas. All Mesqas are

currently fully operated since they are equipped with the designed facilities such as pumps.

4-5-3 Formation of Water Users Associations

There are, 65 WUAs were formed to cover the whole command area. They are currently involved in operation

and maintenance of the improved Mesqas.

4-5-4 Establishment of IAS

IAS office in Beni Ebeid has been established since 1991. It comprises agricultural technicians . They are

responsible for WUAs formation, farmers training and providing technical assistance to them.

4-5-6 Training

Training was provided to both the government staff and water users associations on the operation and

maintenance of the new system.

4-5-7 Introducing continuous flow policy

Continuous flow is introduced to all branch canals of the area.



4-6 Training

A new program, as revolutionary as the IIP, requires specific training and capacity building programs to

ensure success and sustainability. Different training courses were given to both water users and IAS staff

during the implementation of the process. These courses included:

A. Training courses for WUAs:

• Introduction to pump and Mesqa operation

• WUAs financial management and record keeping

• Mesqa maintenance planning

• Water management demonstrations

• Special tours

• Canal WUAs conference

B. II. Training course for IAS staff:

• Basic IAS introductory course

• Managing, monitoring and evaluating WUAs and Mesqas improvement

• IAS orientation training for new IAS staff

• Mesqa planning and design with water users involvement

• Operation and maintenance of improved Mesqa

• On-farm water management, monitoring, and evaluation

4-7. Financing of the process

The IIP package in Beni Ebeid command area was financed by a USAID grant. A project called IMS was

established under this grant in 1987. IIP pilot program was one of the IMS components which included

improvement of the irrigation system of Beni Ebeid.

4-8 Estimated cost of the process

The average cost of the IIP package as implemented under IMS/UASID program is approximately LE 1200

per feddan (US$ 635/ha) for Mesqa improvement. The cost of other components such as rehabilitation of main

system and constructing radial gates represents about 40% of the Mesqa cost (MWRI, 1998).

4-9. Was system performance evaluation done prior to modernization?

A feasibility report for Beni Ebeid command area was prepared as part of the RIIP (Regional Irrigation

Improvement Program) activities to establish procedures for rehabilitation of these areas. Four reports dealing

specifically with Beni Ebeid areas have been prepared:

• Feasibility Report of the Beni Ebeid, December 1988.

• Socio-economic Baseline Survey of the Beni Ebeid Unit Command Area, Serry Canal Command,

October 1988.

• Comparative Study of Mesqa Size, Maintenance, and Improving the Beni Ebeid area, December 1988.

The objective of the study was mainly ―Problem Identification and solutions‖. Further, the study sought to

quantify, where possible, priority irrigation and related problems in Beni Ebeid to examine feasibility of

alternative solutions to these problems. Problems that have been identified through this study were mainly

water distribution and on-farm water management problems. The study included also determination of water

requirements, irrigation system efficiencies, night storage, land leveling, and Mesqa system definition.

Reports included also soil maps and survey. The socio-economic field study examined problems of water



control, crop yields, net farmer income, maintenance problems, and costs. The third study included design of

different Mesqa alternatives and operation procedures.

5 Impact of Modernization Modernized Irrigation System in Beni Ebeid in Egypt

5-1 Governance

Governance, which basically determines the allocation of power and authority, explains who is responsible for

what function of irrigated agricultural and within what bounds. Application of continuous flow policy has

contributed to change the governance in irrigated agriculture in Beni Ebeid. Before system modernization,

water allocation to farmers was controlled by the central departments of the MWRI through rotational flow

that is usually affected by the water budget of the main canal system. Under modernization, power and

responsibilities of operation of the irrigation system is shared between different agencies; irrigation

directorate, IAS, and WUAs. For the branch canal level and lower canal system, the government is no longer

interfering in water distribution. Water is controlled through an on-demand system under the automated

downstream control gates.

5-2 Water rights and water allocation

The modernized system in Beni Ebeid guarantees water availability on time for each framer wherever his

location are; canal or Mesqa, head or tail. The problem of inadequate water at canal and/or Mesqa tails has

been solved due to implementation of continuous flow. Improved Mesqa and involvement of water users in

operation and maintenance has contributed to equitable and timely water allocation among farmers. Openings

along Mesqa are designed according to the quota of each farmer or group of farmers. Better water distribution

among farmers is the main advantage of the modernized process where water is made available to them at a

specified time. This was achieved through improving the water distribution efficiency among the canal

network and also among the Mesqas. Water allocation to farmers is made around to about 13000 cubic meters

of water per hectare per year. Water delivery is not significantly different than before modernization.

Modernization process helped mainly improve the water allocation and ensure an even water distribution

among farmers.

5-3 Water service provider

The government used to maintain and operate the main delivery system while Mesqa operation and

maintenance were the responsibility of farmers. Due to un-organized water users, Mesqa has been deteriorated

with low efficiency of water distribution. The same problem was reported for branch canals. Under

modernized system, water will be available in the branch canal on continuous basis instead of the old

rotational system. Water distribution burdens are relieved on the MWRI (the water service provider) due to

introducing of continuous flow policy and involvement of water users. The government is also planning for

transferring the management of branch canals to water users federation that represents all Mesqas WUAs. In

this case, the role of government, as water service provider, will be reduced to be for management of the main

conveyance system.

5-4 Water Distribution method

As mentioned before, water distribution method has changed from rotational flow to continuous flow in the

branch canal. However, water allocation among farmers is kept under rotational basis through a well-

established irrigation schedule set by IAS in consultation with WUAs.

5-5 Water service fee structure

The cost of the modernization process includes two portions:



• Improvement of the distributary canal

• Constructing new Mesqa and installing pumps

Farmers are responsible to pay the capital cost of Mesqa construction and the pump. Cost of the pump was

planned to be recovered over three years while capital cost of Mesqa is recovered over 20 years with equal

annual payments at no interest and with five-year grace period. The ministry of finance, through its team who

collects land tax and tile drainage cost, will be responsible for collecting the capital cost of the Mesqa. On the

other hand, the capital improvement cost of the distributary canals is fully covered by the MWRI.

Farmers paying fees to the WUAs for the operation and maintenance cost of improved Mesqa. The head of the

WUA council, treasurer and pump operator, in consultation with other WUAs members, decide on the

methods of fees collection from Mesqa beneficiaries. Two ways of fees calculation and collection; per feddan

or per hour of pump operation. The first is most common, particularly in Beni Ebeid area. Fees concerning

O&M are collected per feddan on seasonal basis mainly after harvesting of crops. On the average, the

collected irrigation fee is approximately US$ 70 per hectare per year. This fee was found to be 50% less than

what farmers used to pay before the modernization process (Allam, 1995). The reduction in the O&M cost is

due to several reasons including:

• The physical improvement of the irrigation system.

• Changing the water delivery to one single point lift at the head of the Mesqa instead of multiple lifting

points.

5-6 System performance

5-6-1 Agricultural and water productivity

The modernization process resulted in two main agricultural benefits that both led to enhancement of farmer's

income. The first benefit is land saving due to construction of improved Mesqa as compared to areas occupied

by old Mesqas. There is about 2% of the total command area that has been saved and made available for

agriculture. The second benefit is the increase in crop yield due to the better condition of water availability.

The process guarantees the fresh water allocated to farmers through continuous flow and new irrigation

schedule. Increase in crop yield ranges from 5% to 30% according to crop type.

5-6-2 Equity and efficiency of water distribution

The evaluation reports showed that the equity of water distribution has been achieved in Beni Ebeid command

area. The conveyance efficiency in the Mesqa has improved to reach about 98% instead of about 70% before

IIP. The conveyance efficiency reflects the ratio of the farm turnout water deliveries to the amount of water

entering the Mesqa. Measurements of this efficiency were made by the IIP team through installing water level

automatic recorders along the Mesqa and using the flow meters to quantify the flow running along the Mesqa

and deliveries to farms. This has been done to sample of Mesqa (improved and control Mesqa).

The modernization process has also contributed to the improvement of water allocation between the head and

tail of the Mesqa. Before the modernization, most of tail end farmers complained from inadequate water. The

water use index (WUI) was used to test the uniformity of allocation between tail and head of the Mesqa.

WUI is the ratio of water delivered to the water required. Water required was calculated based on the actual

cropping pattern.

Examination of WUI between head and tail of the Mesqa during the period of high water demand (June to

September) shows low water application efficiency in September. However in other months, application

efficiency seem better. Improvement of efficiency was also due to reducing the time of irrigation as noted in

Beni Ebeid Area. It is reported that over-irrigation is recorded when WUI exceeds the value of 1.5 where

water losses through deep percolation or surface runoff would be the reasons behind this increase (MWRI,

1998). This is clear during September where crop needs are minimum, since crops are being planted in this



month, and farmers still flood their lands. However, it is reported also that before IIP the WUI ranged from 2

to 5. However, the value of the WUI is used in testing the uniformity of water allocation among water users,

i.e., between head and tail-end users. It should also be kept in mind that this process is still pilot. Certainly,

more improvements are needed to rationalize the water allocation. The process, anyhow, gave the foundation

for further improvements and water conservation. Reduction of irrigation time ranged from 50 to 60% of that

was before IIP (4). Reduction in irrigation time was due to implementing land leveling and setting a suitable

water head at the farm inlet. Time of irrigation was also reduced because of the continuous flow, which made

water available all the time in the Mesqa. Better scheduling of irrigation and higher flow rate at the field level

have also contributed to reduced the irrigation time.

5-6-3 Economic indicators

The feasibility study showed that the benefit-cost ratio (B/C) is more than unity and the IRR4 was higher than

the discount rate (MWRI, 1993). However, monitoring and evaluation should be conducted to test these

indicators due to change in farmer's practices in agriculture and also due to changes in cost of operation and

maintenance. A study on the economic impact of IIP showed that average cost of one irrigation application

has reduced from $8.4 to $4.0 per hectare, i.e 51 % reduction for winter crops, while this reduction was 57%

for summer crops (Elshinawi & Elgohary, 1996). The cost of irrigation includes different items such as

renting a pump, labour and cost of waiting time until water is made available at the head of the field. After

modernization, these costs have been reduced thanks to the single point lift and better irrigation schedule that

minimizes the waiting time. Collected water fees cover the O&M cost and Water fees.

4 IRR is the internal Rate of Return. The IRR is defined as the discount rate at which the net present value of

incremental benefits equal to zero. The project will be economically feasible if IRR is higher than the discount

rate

5-6-4 Impact on Environment

The modernized system had positive impacts on the public health particularly for the tail-end users. This

system has contributed to the availability of fresh water at canal end. Therefore, tail-enders are no longer

pumping polluted drainage water and consequently, farmer exposure to pathogens is reduced.

Buried pipeline Mesqas do not provide the favourable living conditions for snail hosts. Availability of fresh

water contributed also to less water requirements for leaching.

The modernized system had its impact on the drainage water quality. Reducing the field run-off, due to

lowering irrigation time, will reduce the level of nutrients received by drains. Groundwater quality will be

expected to improve as a result of minimizing the utilization of drainage water.

5-6-5 Administrative and Financial consideration and farmers satisfaction

The main goal of the IIP is to move towards the devolution of irrigation water management and maintenance

to water users. Then, establishing WUAs and IAS is the key element to achieve such goal. In Beni Ebeid area,

WUAs have reached the final phase of full responsibility of operation and maintenance. Such new entities

(WUAs and IAS) have facilitated the communication with MWRI and MALR officials that lead to improve

agricultural production. Recent studies showed that IIP provides attractive financial and social incentives.

These incentives indicate strong satisfaction of water users with forming and participating in their own private

WUAs ( MWRI, 1998). These incentives are:

• Improved trust, communication and cooperation among water

• Uniform allocation and distribution of water due to to continuous flow reliability

• Saving time, labor, operation and maintenance costs and land

• Improved problem solving between WUAs and irrigation department

• Better feeling of ownership and leadership among the members of WUAs



• Water saving and hence water reliability

• Better scheduling and timing of irrigation

• Improved yields and quality of crops

4-7. Have other systems in the country followed the same process?

Under the IMS project, this modernized process has been replicated in 11 pilot areas in Egypt, including Beni

Ebeid area, over the period 1989-1996, with a total net area of 147,000 hectares. In 1994, the MWRI has got a

loan from the World Bank to implement this process in another area of about 104,160 hectares in Lower

Egypt. The government strategy is to replicate this improvement irrigation package allover the country.

6. Consultant's own conclusion

6-1 What is your appreciation of the modernized process that took place?

It can be concluded that the modernization process in Beni Ebeid area is sustainable. All WUAs have

registered and opened a bank account. Farmers are paying the irrigation fees, and operation and maintenance

activities are being successfully carried out. No severe problems or degradation of the infrastructure are

reported up to date. Farmers are encouraged to pay the irrigation fees because they are paying less than before,

and the modernization process contributed to increased crop production by about 30% particularly for maize

and wheat. The modernized process, through implementing the full package of the IIP, can be considered as

revolutionary changes in the irrigation system in Egypt. This process can achieve many benefits to the nation

as well as individuals. The process could pave the road towards the transfer of the water management aspects

to water users and thus towards privatisation of water services.

6-2 Do you perceive any major gaps in the process that took place?

The process seems to be fully successful and meets the required goals. However one gap could be mentioned

here that is related to the timing of the improvement of the main delivery system. This improvement should be

implemented in-line with the other to ensure providing the continuous flow conditions in the branch canal. In

some areas, apart from Beni Ebeid, this problem was clear. Use of non-traditional water resources should also

be implemented, as a component of modernization process, in parallel with physical improvement.

6-3 Can the process be replicated elsewhere?

This process provided a full package to be replicated elsewhere particularly in Egypt. The government is

currently undertaking a program for implementing this process nation-wide.

6-4 What lessons can be learned from the modernization process that took place?

Lessons could be listed as follows according to the evaluation studies conducted on the IIP command areas in

Egypt (MWRI, 1998):

• Rate of implementation should be faster than that was conducted in the process. This could be

achieved through establishing WUAs and conducting training prior to implementation.

• Cost of improvements is still high and needs to be reduced. This could be achieved through

developing private sector expertise to conduct design and construction.

• Continuous training is needed so as to maintain a certain level of educated staff, particularly for IAS,

to support the process operation.

• Establishing canal federation to participate in the branch canal operation.

• Establish specific monitoring programs for water quantities, quality, and crop production before the

implementation of the process. This baseline data could be very useful in assessing project impacts

after implementation.



• Improvement of main system should start prior to improvement of tertiary level to ensure

implementing the continuous flow.

4.6 Case Study V: SEA for Power Development Options in the NELSAP

Background

A Strategic Social and Environmental Assessment (SSEA) of Power Development options in the Nile

Equatorial Lakes Region was recently prepared using a highly participatory approach. The Study was

undertaken in two phases: Phase I covered Rwanda, Burundi, and Western Tanzania and Phase II covered the

six NEL countries (DRC, Burundi, Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania). The output is a comprehensive

assessment of regional power development options and transmission interconnections, including a strategic

assessment of their economic and engineering feasibility, and a strategic/sectoral social and environmental

assessment including an analysis of cumulative impacts. An Indicative NELSAP Power Master Plan up to

2020 has been prepared based on different development scenarios.

The indicative power master plan is a strategic tool aimed at assisting the NELSAP countries in their selection

of supply options (including interconnections) by contributing to informed and transparent decision-making.

The plan will also assist potential financiers in the assessment of power generation and trade options to

support regional economic development in the context of the Nile Basin Initiative.

After a careful review of the final report by the World Bank management, it was recommended to: revise the

presentation of the document to deepen the cumulative impacts assessment, and to undertake an analysis of

climate change issues. The latter issue was not part of the original Terms of Reference for the SSEA but is to

be included in the final report. The report needs also to be edited to more effectively present to decision

makers and others a strategic environmental and social assessment of regional power development options and

transmission interconnections, substantiated by a thorough assessment of their economic and engineering

feasibility.

Approach and Analytic Process

The SSEA was conducted over a three-year period in two stages from 2003 to 2006 within the framework of

the NBI/NELSAP, figure (4.8). Stage 1 included Burundi, Rwanda and Western Tanzania. Stage 2 added the

eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Kenya, the whole of Tanzania, and Uganda to the

assessment.

The boundaries for the analyses included all of Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda, and the

eastern part of the DRC, consisting of North Kivu Province, South Kivu Province, the eastern districts of

Haut-Uélé and Iluri in Oriental Province, the eastern districts of Tanganyika and Haut Katanga in Katanga

Province and the district of Kabambare in Maniema Province.

The key elements of the process included:

A period of analysis of about 15 years, up to 2020

The solicitation of stakeholder viewpoints in each step of the SSEA SSEA III – Final Report S-2

017334-001-00

The use of primarily existing data as well as the paradigms provided by the East African Community

Power Master Plan and national power master plans

Consideration of the legal and regulatory framework of each of the countries as well as relevant

international agreements and conventions

Assessment of expected (calculated/forecasted) changes in temperature and runoff due to climate

change

Consideration of power development options limited to those that could be of regional benefit

Ranking of power development options according to their desirability with respect to cost,

environmental, social and risk factors



Preparation of example portfolios of investments to satisfy alternate development strategies and load

growth scenarios

Preparation of a NELSAP Indicative Power Development Strategy to guide future investment

planning

Contents and coverage

The SSEA covered the following areas:

o Legal, Policy and Administrative Context

o Current Environmental and Social Context

o Regional Energy Needs Assessment

o Identification and Screening of New Power Development Options

o Power Options Retained for Comparative Analysis

o Options Set Aside

o Comparison of Options

o Potential Impact of Climate Change on Runoff

o Cumulative Impacts-environmental and socio-economic

o Institutional Issues

Overall Strategic Conclusions for the Nile Equatorial Lakes Region

This strategic/sectoral and environmental and social assessment of regional power development options in the

NEL Region leads to the following conclusions:

In order for the countries to be able to cooperate regionally in the development of their power sectors,

a backbone of transmission facilities needs to be built as soon as practicable.

By the end of the period of analysis (2020), three-quarters of the identified power development

options will have been required to meet the medium load growth scenario.

Under the base forecast scenario, electricity use would increase by less than 10% over current levels

of about 95 kWh/capita. Under the medium load growth scenario, consumption would increase to 141

kWh/capita, an increase of 53% over current levels, but not even half of the current average for all of

Africa (even excluding the wealthier countries) of 320 kWh/capita. For the high growth scenario,

consumption would reach 181 kWh/capita, an increase to almost double the current level in the

region, but still well under the current average for all of Africa (even excluding the wealthier

countries).

It is only under the transformation scenario that consumption would reach the current average for all

of Africa excluding the wealthier countries. This is still only about one-third of the level reached by

the developing countries of the world, even when the wealthier of them are excluded from the

comparison.

The transformation load growth scenario would provide more than 60kWh per household per month.

This should be compared with about 500 KWh/capita/year, SSEA III – Final Report S-20 017334-

001-00 which is regarded as a minimum quality of life (based on 75 million households and about 190

million people by 2020).

The cumulative impacts were considered using the development of the region with no regional

integration as a reference case. This would include continued suppressed electricity demand and the

installation of smaller and less attractive power development options than regional integration would

foster.

Even the most hydro-intensive portfolio assessed (the one representing the strategy that maximises the

use of the best-evaluated options) would not have any significant cumulative impact on the Albert

Nile leading to Sudan and the Sudd Marshes, whether in terms of flow regime, volume lost due to

evaporation or sediment load.

The cumulative impacts on the environment from multiple hydro projects in a river basin or several

thermal plants compared at the global level are relatively minor; the most significant would be

emissions from thermal plants and potential impacts on wetlands in the Kagera River and the Rufiji

River.

The runoff in the northern part of the region is expected to increase due to climate changes. On the

other hand, the runoff in Southern Tanzania is expected to remain at current levels or to decrease

slightly.



The overall impact of climate change on the power output of the NELSAP Indicative Power

Development Portfolio is expected to be positive over the period of the assessment.

To meet the medium load growth scenario for all three regional cooperation strategies, the total

capital investment required over the period 2005 to 2020 is very similar at just under US$6 billion

(includes US$0.7 billion up to 2009 inclusive).

The high load growth scenario would require over 50% more investment – US$8.25 billion to meet an

additional demand of 1300 MW.

The transformation scenario would require over three times more investment – US$16 billion.

Imports from Inga in the DRC, or from other sources, would be attractive if power can be delivered

into the region for under approximately US$0.03/kWh.

Figure 4.8: Deduced SSEA Framework of the NELSAP

4.7 Main output of Study: Model Framework for Undertaking an SEA

4.7.1. Definition of variables for the model

Key processes identified in the SEA methodology include 10 processes that, if they have to meet the

definition of sustainable development, must identify social, economic and environment factors at each level.

On the basis of the questionnaire administered and the frameworks from the case reviews, the following

definitions have been used to come up with the model framework:

Social effect: A social effect can be described as that which has a direct or indirect effect on the

attitude, orientation or behaviour which takes the interests or needs of the people (stakeholders) into

account.

Economic Effect: An economic effect can be described as that which affects the well-being of people.



Environment Effect: An environment effect can be described as that which affects the immediate

surrounding both living and non-living, which supports life socially or economically.

4.7.2. Analysis in an SEA

4.7.2.1 Qualitative Analysis

During the qualitative assessment stage, evaluators identify plans and programs that are likely to have

significant environmental effects and therefore should be subject to environmental assessment. At this stage,

expert opinion and stakeholder consultation are used to identify potential objectives, alternatives, and impacts.

Broadly, the qualitative analysis considers the identification of objectives (i.e., those established by legislation

and those established by stakeholder consultation), the identification of a set of alternatives, and assessment of

alternatives in light of the objectives.

4.7.2.2 Quantitative Analysis

Evaluators may or may not proceed with quantitative analysis depending on the results of the qualitative

assessment. However, quantitative analysis may be used to provide rigorous support for the qualitative

assessment, which is based primarily on expert opinion and consultation with stakeholders and the

community. At this stage, specific data requirements and methods must be identified. Typical data

requirements for an SEA include the costs, benefits and risks involved in a proposal. This brings the concept

of a CBA and RA at the quantitative analysis stage of SEA. For RE developments, the data required include

the quality, quantity, access to water and quality of human life. This information allows evaluators to address

concerns about potential impacts of the proposed development and their alternatives.

Therefore in addressing alternatives, CBA and RA could give precise and concrete conclusions if well

applied. Indicators should be developed to aid the effective application of CBA and RA. Since CBA and RA

are very global at policy level, there are no specific models applicable apart from looking at the general

implications of the plan. The role of CBA and RA at all levels is to take account of both tangible and

intangible environmental services such as river resources, ecological dynamics and the macro and micro costs

and benefits.

1. Risk Analysis

Risk analysis is done at all levels and it involves considering all the dynamics in governance, economy, and

technology, legal and environmental (PESTLE) aspects. The risks are evaluated in both qualitative and

quantitative methods.

At strategic level risks are low because risks are nested within actions which come at lower levels of planning.

The government plays the role of undertaking mitigation for the stakeholders so that they get value at program

level. The risks at policy level will be change in government systems such happens in countries with

economies in transition or Least Developed Countries (LDCs) whose economy is a ―political economy‖. If RA

is not taken into board when formulating policies, plans and programs or even projects, then it becomes a

crisis. The level of detail for RA varies downwards from policy down to project level with more details

required at lower levels-project. The process of undertaking RA is very rigorous especially at policy level.

The RA is done depending on the activities. Therefore, during SEA, the most pronounced positive and

negative environmental issues that may arise are highlighted. Most of the main perceived risks fall on the

environment, communities‘ livelihoods, and health among others. If the RA is from a general observation it

takes qualitative indicators. However, sometimes there is need for tangible scientific evidence in which case

quantitative analysis is sought. The RA is concerned with project outputs and hence it is more applicable at

project level. One needs to have alternatives to deal with risks.

More detailed RA is undertaken at project level where they undertake feasibility studies or baselines that

focus on socio-economic and ecological aspects. RA undertaking depends on donor-requirements where for

instance USAID requires umbrella EIAs at project design level and EU requires EIAs at project level. In the



USAID case, assumptions with the option for program re-design are allowed during RA, while in EU

contingency is allowed.

Risk Ranking: The quantitative risk assessment literature consistently emphasizes the need to rank the

magnitude of the consequences (E.g. using simple rating scales to rank risks from negligible to severe) and the

probability (E.g. using simple rating scales to rank risks from ‗rare‘ to ‗most certain‘) of those consequences

within a given time frame. Risk can therefore be viewed as the triplet (sj, pj, xj) where sj is the risk scenario,

with each sj having a probability (pj) of occurring and a consequence (xj) if it occurs. SEA is then the process

of identifying the risk scenarios, their probabilities, and consequences, and then investigating the effect of

uncertainty on the probability and consequence estimates. We ask the following questions:

What can happen (sj)?

How likely is it to happen (pj)?

What are the consequences should the risk scenario (sj) occur (xj)?

How confident are we in our estimates of pj and xj?

The model equation in Risk Ranking is as given below:

Both the hazard severity and the likelihood of occurrence are categorized, or assessed, on the basis of a three

point scale. In assigning a category one is considering the following outline guidelines:

The severity of outcome arising from a deficiency/absence of adequate control measures either in

terms of personal health or damage to environment;

Whether this deficiency/absence of adequate measures would give rise to an accident requiring

notification to the responsible manager; and

Whether the deficiency/absence of adequate control measures would if viewed by an inspector, or by

an internal competent person lead to enforcement action.

For Hazard Severity, (i.e. potential for loss), the three categories are:

3: HIGH [H]

2: MEDIUM [M]

1: LOW [L] Output Reference

[Based on activity]

Risk Scenario Likelihood

[L,M,H]

Consequence

[L,M,H]

Risk Management

Approach

Risk management: Risk management involves a process of identifying, analyzing and monitoring risks

drawing and implementing monitoring strategies (related to prevention, mitigation or acceptance) and based

on possible influence of the risk to the program and project.

High Risk Low Risk

High Probability Stop Monitor

Low Probability Monitor Go

The Role of Uncertainty: Typically, decisions are made with incomplete information or intrinsic variability,

which leads to uncertainty. This uncertainty needs to be incorporated into the analysis in order to assess its



impact on a decision. There are a number of ways of incorporating uncertainty about parameter values and

assumptions into models to help characterize risk.

Implementation of the plan is done in line with the set objectives (which are supposed to be S.M.A.R.T-

Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound). However, some objectives might fall in a grey

area during the planning process in which case there are unknown outcomes either negative or positive. This

is very common at policy level where environmental effects and opportunities are likely to be significant but

can hardly be defined ex-ante due to uncertainty on the concrete processes that a specific plan will set on

motion. Uncertainties have been identified to arise in two levels; planners or expert uncertainties which arise

during planning stage, and stakeholders‘ uncertainties which arise during stakeholder consultation process.

Some of the causes of uncertainties are lack of technical know-how, lack of information or communication,

lack of capacity within the country.

2. Stakeholder Uncertainty Analysis

The community is exposed to uncertainty in most cases because information is not shared with them. It is

important to note that consumers are the strategic stakeholders and that communication barrier as a source of

uncertainty can be overcome by use of Focused Group Discussions (FGDs), public meetings, etc during

planning processes. Other tools available here include participatory planning tools like Participatory Rural

Appraisal (PRA) and Participatory Learning Appraisal (PLA). Stakeholders can be asked about their level of

confidence in something taking place. This is because stakeholders have a traditional way of managing

outcomes which is kind of coping mechanism and therefore need to appraise their approach. Also that, past

experience is important while undertaking SEA, because it offers evidence on what outcome are expected in

implementing a certain proposal.

Technical Uncertainty Analysis: Uncertainties appear at thematic levels when planners are trying to project

outcomes. These projections are meant to take care of the future since plans might run to the long future. To

reduce uncertainties, professionalism should be influenced in all projects.

The planners have a number of tools used to take care of uncertainties. They map uncertainties and develop

critical assumptions. Looking for remedies, they add contingencies in terms of money and time especially at

project level. They also seek for alternatives. The Precautionary Principle is applied in some instances.

However some remarked that the role of Precautionary Principle is subjective, depending on people‘s

knowledge in development of good environmental plans. Some take uncertainties as form of risks and the way

forward is to look for mitigation. Departments come up with strategies to mitigate risks in their strategic plans.

Through disaster preparedness and response and working with partners that may provide raw information

which is then digested and used as proxy indicators. Example is information on seasonal rain patterns and

droughts as an indicator of malnutrition and food security. They also work with development partners from

developed countries who offer Technical Assistance (TA).

There are three common tools which can be used to analyze the level of uncertainty. One useful approach is

scenario development (i.e., what-if). Two is the sensitivity analysis that assesses the effect of uncertainty

simply by altering the parameter values and repeating the calculation-iterative. The third one is a prediction

method which sets limits and confidence levels. Example is saying that the effect of climate change will lead

to temperature increase of between 10-15% which will lead to rising of sea levels. This can have an effect on

hydraulic design of dams. Therefore rise in sea levels is an indicator of the climate change. This can be

monitored with indicators and evaluated after some time to form an early warning system.

Risk taking is involved based on developing critical assumptions. For instance, in starting a water supply

project the assumption is that water will always be there or at least within the design period. What happens

when a river used for a water supply project changes course? This is pure uncertainty!

Proposed developments can be classified with regards to their level of uncertainty, say in a range say 1-5. This

therefore means that uncertainty can be analyzed against proposed alternatives in which case a less uncertain

option may be taken against an option with higher uncertainty. The link between uncertainty and M&E is that



uncertainties can be documented during M&E as lessons learnt and hence used for future planning processes

or redesigning plans.

3. Cost Benefit Analysis

Since policies are very strategic anchors for the government roadmap, the undertakings are also very broad

and thinking is very global. CBA comes in at implementation stage. This therefore means that at policy level

CBA uses more qualitative indicators and the level of detail increases as you go down from policy to plan to

program and finally to project level where CBA takes more quantitative indicators.

To get the value of intangible environmental resources, a social analysis will show the value attached for

example to water for animals than water for electricity. Another case can be the value of land and the effect of

an improved transport system is more or less a CBA process for the Urban Transport Policy. Therefore

satisfaction and wellbeing of the stakeholders, comfort levels, social amenities value the non-tangible benefits

and costs. Accordingly, questions like willingness to pay or accept should feature. This is a more qualitative

approach.

Simulation models are applicable to test project viability. For example, Kenya Power and Lighting Company

(KPLC) uses for simulation models to distribute transmission lines.

Table 5.1: Summary of SEA Framework

EXERCISE METHODS OUTPUT

Screening Literature Review

Baseline Survey

Records Review

Environmental indicators

Baseline Environmental conditions

Prediction and Evaluation of impacts and comparisons of alternatives

Identification of mitigation measures and preparation of a draft environmental

management plan

Baseline data that can be used as a basis prior project initiation.

Scoping Consultations

Identify key environmental issues associated with the proposals which may

influence decision making.

Decide scale of the SEA based on the Nature of the proposals and the type of

data available such as local, regional and global scale impacts.

Define spatial and temporal boundaries of SEA

Identify agencies to be consulted be including various decision-making

authorities covered by spatial boundaries.

Situation assessment

(both desk studies

and stakeholder

contribution)

CBA

RA/Uncertainty

analysis

Social-Economic

analysis

PESLTE Analysis

Environmental situation-indicators developed here

Financial economic situation and projections

Social status and effects of new plan

Political, institutional and governance state and capacities



Setting of SEA

priorities and

development of

alternatives

Reporting Report on the feedback of stakeholder consultation from situation assessment

Draft plan action matrix

Final plan action matrix

Final SEA document Reporting A report detailing the complete findings

Final plan action matrix-Management tool

A monitoring framework-Management tool



5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusion

From the study findings it is evident that an SEA does not have a specific approach it rather depends on the

main objective question of, ―why an SEA? This question helps the SEA team in setting priorities and then the

main output expected at the end of an SEA exercise. At a glance one might be interested in CBA, RA or both.

A good example is that in a nuclear energy planning the ministry is more interested in the risks but not the

costs and benefits which are obvious since the country does not have scientific capability.

The study also found out that many or all government bodies in Kenya use SEA related processes that can be

adopted in developing a basin-wide framework. Again, most of the countries in the Nile basin have

formulated EIA frameworks that are used for assessment of projects against their environmental impacts.

Since the study finds out that EIA is widely accepted by many countries, the study points out on key

similarities between the two processes. The study also reveals that universally, SEA process involves

qualitative and quantitative assessment methodologies integrated with communication, stakeholder

participation, and management of projected outcomes either positive or negative. This section therefore

discusses the SEA framework highlighting the methods and the key stages of what an SEA should comprise

of.

This study concludes that it is difficult to undertake SEA in isolation of CBA and RA and that the two process

shall be developed within the bigger framework of SEA methods and guidelines. This conclusion is based on

the fact that during planning, sustainable development is measured through this two processes-costs and

benefits against risks. Therefore to balance the three pillars of sustainable development-social, economic and

environmental factors have to converge into a balanced consensus.

The study faced two main challenges which featured in the design methodology and therefore expressed

themselves in the results. One, that from the questionnaire administered in Kenya, it was evident that there are

very few SEA studies done in Kenya and these have been done by experts from outside using methods and

regulations that are not documented in Kenya;

Even though government institutions use SEA processes, there are no clear methodologies used. For

instance RA and CBA are used for many proposals but documents showing how they were applied

are not available;

There is little if any awareness of the government of this study going on which therefore means little

support in terms of suggestions of what needs to be done in developing these methodologies. Even

the Transboundary Water Desk established at the MWI in Kenya was not aware of this development.

The findings of this study (which shall be this report) shall be shared with all the NBCs through the

environmental competent bodies like the National Environmental Authorities or agencies as per the

respective countries.

There are two broad approaches to SEA, the institution-based and the impact-based;

Government Institutions might not be aware of SEA but they use SEA related methods and

guidelines in their Planning.



5.2 Recommendations

From the identified bottlenecks, the following recommendations are necessary to see to it that the study

proceeds in the right direction.

The research team to also review case studies from developed countries that have successfully

undertaken SEA studies and therefore have functional SEA model frameworks.

To actively involve the government of the NBCs (and especially the environmental competent

authorities) since they hold key information and have access to environmental records necessary for

such a study.

The threshold for sustainable utilization of the Nile water resources can be investigated and be inbuilt

within the model. This can be done by application of conditional probability to establish the risks

posed by the present activities on the future.

The model can be applied on related PPPs as in the case of BecA and the Forest Act 2005 in the

samples analysed in this study.



6

REFERENCES

1. Asian Development Bank (ADB, 1988). Environmental Planning and Management and the Project

Cycle, Environmental Impact Assessment for Developing Countries, Paper No. 1, May 1988, Manila

2. Brooker, M.P. (1985). The Ecological Effects of Channelization (The Impact of River

Channelization). The Geographical Journal, 1985, 151, 1, 63-69, The Royal Geographical Society

(with the Institute of British Geographers)

3. De Klemm, C. & Shine, C., (1998). Introduction to Biological Diversity in International

Environmental Law: Biological Diversity, UNITAR, Geneva, Switzerland, pp 1-30

4. Devon County Council, Inclusive Education: Risk Assessment, (2005).

5. East African Community (2006). Lake Victoria Basin Commission Special report on the declining of

water levels of Lake Victoria, EAC Secretariat, Arusha, Tanzania, April 2006

6. ECA/SDD/05/13, (2005). Review of the Application of Environmental Impact Assessment in Selected

African Countries, Economic Commission for Africa.

7. Gennet Yirga-Hall, Principal Evaluation Officer (AfDB): Financing Rural Water Supply Projects: The

AfDB Group Experience, OPEV

8. McCartney, M. P. (2007). Decision Support Systems for Large Dam Planning and Operation in

Africa. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. 47 p. (IWMI Working Paper

119)

9. Sand P.H. (1997). Continental environmental regions Structures-The Role of International

Organizations in the Evolution of Environmental Law, UNITAR, Geneva, Switzerland,45-46 pp.)

10. Shelton, D. (2004, 2nd Revised Edition). Environmental Impact Assessment. Techniques and

Procedures in International Environmental Law, UNITAR, Geneva, Switzerland, 29-54 pp

11. Uganda National Water Development Report (2005). Chapter Ten, Shared Water Resources

12. Wamaniala, V.N., (2002). The Development and Management of Hydropower Resources in Uganda,

Trodheim, Norway.



List of Research Group Members

Name Country Organization E-mail

Prof. Mohd El Muntasir Sudan NBI-ENTRO office [email protected]

Dr. Mohamed M Abdel-latif Egypt Hydrualics Research Institute [email protected]

Mrs. Margaret Aanyu Uganda [email protected]

Mrs. Irene Nansubuga Uganda Kyambogo University [email protected]

Mr. Bennie Mang’eni Uganda Makerere University [email protected]

Eng. Jovah Ndyaberena Uganda Norplan Consulting

Engineers and Planners [email protected]

Eng. Nyende Jacob Uganda Kyambogo University [email protected]

Dr. Zablon Isaboke Oonge Kenya University of Nairobi [email protected]

Scientific Advisors

Ir. Joop de Schutter

Vice Rector

UNESCO-IHE, the Netherlands

Dr. Lindsey Beevers

Lecturer in Water Management

UNESCO-IHE, the Netherlands

Full Profiles of Research Group Members are available on: The Nile Basin Knowledge Map

http://www.NileBasin-Knowledgemap.com








http://www.nilebasin-knowledgemap.com/

APPENDICES


Nile Basin Capacity Building Network ( NBCBN ) A- 1

APPENDIX 1: SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CBA, RA AND SEA

I am ------------------------------------------ from ------------------------------------. Nile Basin Capacity Building

Net Work (NBCBN) is in the process of developing methodologies and Guidelines for Strategic

Environmental Assessments (SEA), Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) and Risk Assessment (RA) for the Nile

Basin Region. We are therefore carrying out a review of different Policies, Plans, Programs, and Projects in

relation to the above processes through questionnaires as one of the methods.

LOCATION

1. Country: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Town/City: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Name of Company /Company --------------------------------------------------------------

4. Type of Work: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Physical Address------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Name of Respondent: ------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Position in Company / Company: ----------------------------------------------------------

PART I: SEA IN POLICY, PLAN OR PROGRAM FRAMEWORK

1. (a). Do you have a company policy?

Yes 1

No 2

(b). What are your policy objectives?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________

2. (a). During the formulation of the above policy, did you have any other policy alternatives?

Yes 1

No 2



(b). How did you assess and come up with your best policy framework?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________

3. What is your company‘s strategic plan? How is your strategic plan linked to your company policy?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

4. Do you have any programs arising from your strategic plan or company policy?

Yes 1

No 2

Please list them.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

5. Who participates in policy, plan and program formulation in your company?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

6. In your geographical area of operation how do you factor in the effect of your activities on the use of

natural resources, the environment, the socio-cultural set up and economic needs.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________

7. (a). Do you work within an existing legal framework?

Yes 1

No 2

(b). How does the legal framework affect the formulation of the policy, plan or programs of your

company?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________

8. (a). Do you use any environmental assessment process in your activities?

Yes 1

No 2

(b). Which method do you use and at what level is this applied? ____________________

Policy 1



Plan 2

Program 3

Project level 4

9. (a). Are you aware of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)?

Yes 1

No 2

(b). How can you rate the necessity of EIA in its application on development activities?

Very important 1

Important 2

Not important 3

Do not know 4

10. Are you aware of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)? Have you or your company ever used

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) during the planning process and decision making for

your policies, plans and programs? Yes or No? (If yes answer question 15 and 16 and if no jump to

question 14 below).

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________

11. In which policies/plans/programs have you applied an SEA in your Company / Company?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________

12. (a). Which method did you use to undertake SEA?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

(b). Which guidelines did you follow? [Please list them].

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________

13. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is a process of analyzing the effect of socio-economic

and environmental factors on development. Given this background, how will you want an SEA to be

conducted? [Please list the key steps].

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________



_____________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________

14. (a). In undertaking your company activities, at what level do you undertake cost-benefit analysis and

risk analysis? (Tick as necessary).

Policy 1

Plan 2

Program 3

Project level 4

(b). Which one comes first, the cost-benefit analysis or risk analysis? Explain.

____________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

15. (a). If you have a monitoring and evaluation process in place. When do you develop indicators you

use to measure progress? [Explain]

____________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

(b). What do you monitor?

Policies 1

Plans 2

Programs 3

Projects 4

All levels 5 5

16. During strategic planning process, how do you deal with uncertainties?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________

PART II: RISK ANALYSIS

Process/Procedure Information

17. Does your Company have a risk analysis or a risk management process in place? Does the process

evaluate at the business decision level (i.e., at policy, plan or program), and/or at the project level?

[Please describe the scope of the risk analysis].

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________

18. Would you be willing to share your process with us-confidentially? [write the process here]

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________



_____________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________

19. If a process exists, is there a company policy that requires its use? If so, how was this process

developed and have the results been documented? How long has the process been used?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________

20. Does the process evaluate risks in a qualitative, quantitative manner or both?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________

21. How do you translate risks into the project evaluation process? Do you add money, time, or both as

contingencies?

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________

22. Are economic and financial risks such as inflation currency control considered?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________

23. What sources of information, research, and data have you used to assess risks before undertaking a

project?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________

PART III: COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

24. Does your Company have a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) process in place? Does the process evaluate

at the business decision level (i.e., at policy, plan or program), and/or at the project level? Please

describe the scope of the CBA.

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________

25. Would you be willing to share your process with us-confidentially?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________



____________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________

26. If a process exists, is there a company policy that requires its use? If so, how was this process

developed and have the results been documented? How long has the process been used?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________

27. Is the CBA process done in a qualitative, quantitative manner or both?

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________



PART IV: RESEARCH CONTENT AND REGIONAL CONTEXT

[In this section, note that you do not have to be an expert in River Engineering, you only give your opinion]

28. At regional level, and within the framework of Nile Basin Initiative (NBI), the Nile Basin Countries

(NBCs) have formulated a Shared Vision, ―to achieve sustainable socio-economic development

through the equitable utilization of, and benefit from, the common Nile Basin water resources‖. How

would you go about knowing if this Shared Vision is socially, economically and environmentally

viable? [Please list the major steps].

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________

29. Most of the NBCs have formulated Poverty Reduction Strategies (PRSPs) to meet the Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs) which directly or indirectly target river resources to derive food

security, energy, safe water etc. Do you think these strategic plans should be shared amongst all the

NBCs? [Explain].

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________

30. River engineering can be defined as, the process of planned human intervention in the course,

characteristics or flow of a river with the intention of producing some defined benefit such as,

irrigation, hydroelectric power generation or water supply. Who should be involved in policy

formulation, planning and programming of development strategies targeting river resources?

[Explain].

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

_________

31. (a). How will you undertake cost/benefit analysis to ensure sustainable development for a river

engineering development?

Qualitatively 1

Quantitatively 2

Both 3

Explain:______________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

(b). At what level would you apply CBA?

Policy 1

Plan 2

Program 3

Project level 4

All levels 5



Explain:______________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

32. (a). How will you undertake a risk analysis for River Engineering Development?

Qualitatively 1

Quantitatively 2

Both 3

Explain:______________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

(b).At what level would you apply RA?

Policy 1

Plan 2

Program 3

Project level 4

All levels 5

Explain:_________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________

Interviewer Name: ------------------------------------------------------------

Signature: -----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of interview: -------------------------------------------------------------

THANK YOU, GOD BLESS YOU


Nile Basin Capacity Building Network ( NBCBN ) A-9

Time Schedule ACTIVITIES AND TIME SCHEDULE

YEAR 1 YEAR 2

REF: ACTIVITY 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Methods

1 Carry out review of NBCs

2 Review of donor institutions (WB, ADB and EU) appraisal methods

3 Review river basins in the region

4 Study the existing methods of CBA, RA and SEA

5 Selection of case studies: hydropower, irrigation and water supply; select (2 No) for field regional visits

6 Questionnaire administration

Guidelines

7 Carry out review of NBCs

8 Review of donor institutions (WB, ADB and EU) appraisal methods

9 Review river basins in the region

10 Study the existing methods of CBA, RA and SEA

11 Selection of case studies: hydropower, irrigation and water supply; select (2 No) for field regional visits

12 Questionnaire administration

13 Development of Methods and Guidelines for CBA, RA and SEA and reporting



Appendix III: Policy Action Matrix for the Forest Act 2005

Table 6.1: Policy Action Matrix for the SEA of the Kenya’s Forest Act 2005

Policies and actions Milestones

(including time-

based milestones)

Indicative list of

stakeholders to

be involved

Expected

outcomes

Status

PRIORITY AREA 1: STRATEGIC PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF FORETS IN KENYA

A. GOVERNANCE

1. Independence of the KFS, the Board, and its Director 1.1 An open and transparent system for appointment of

members of the Board, (including both departmental and

minister-nominated members) should be developed (with

reference to section 6 of the Forest Act).

1.1.1 Approved

system for

appointments in place

by February 2007

Forest Reform

Sector Committee

(FRSC)

Transparent and

open recruitment

process

Appointments were made based on gender (at

least 30% women), professionalism and

regional balance

1.2 It is recommended that the interim period between

formation of the Board and appointment (by the Board) of a

Director should be no more than one year.

1.2.1 Process of

appointment of a

Director to begin by

July 2007

KFS

1.3 It is recommended that the Board should appoint a

Director to the KFS following national advertisement of the

post and selection of the successful candidate by the full

Board. The Board should consider retaining a reputable

management consulting firm (for example

PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, or Deloitte) to conduct

the preliminary assessment of candidates, manage the

interview process, and advise the Board on the candidates‘

strengths and weaknesses.

1.3.1 National

advertisement for the

post of Director of

KFS by June 2007

Ministry of

Environment and

Natural Resources

(MENR) and KFS

Board

Transparent and

open recruitment

process

Position of the Director and other six senior

staff advertised in local daily newspapers in

June 2007.

The Board is relying on change transaction

advisor in the selection and not a consulting

firm.

1.3.2 Appointment by

the Board of Director

to KFS by July 2007

KFS Board Credibility of KFS

Director by

stakeholders

Interviews planned for July 2007.

1.3.3 KFS launched

by May 2007

MENR Stakeholder

confidence

established in the

new organization

for forest

management

The KFS was launched on 10th May 2007

2. Cooperation with key agencies and departments needs to be strengthened

2.1 Existing arrangements for inter-institutional debate and

cooperation should be strengthened to resolve conflicts in

administration that currently prevent best use of forests that

are gazetted under more than one area of legislation. It is

recommended that this be achieved by strengthening the

2.1.1 Environmental

Council to be given

expanded mandate

and increased

capacity by (date to

KFS, KWS,

Ministry of Water

and Irrigation,

Ministry of Lands,

Ministry of Local

Harmonized

management of

forest resources




(including time-

based milestones)

Indicative list of

stakeholders to

be involved

Expected

outcomes

Status

role of National Planning processes and specifically

Provincial and District Environmental Committees.

be agreed)

Government,

Ministry of

Planning and

National

Development,

Ministry of

Agriculture,

Ministry of Finance,

MENR, and NEMA.

B. ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY

3. A strategic plan for the KFS

3.1 The draft strategic plan be prepared by the Forest

Department (FD) should be reviewed and finalized by the

KFS at the earliest opportunity. This plan should make

provision for each of the forest development programs. The

strategic plan should include KFS‘ aim, vision, mission and

organizational structure. Each result area should include a

goal, rationale, strategies and actions associated with each

goal, the outputs associated with each strategy or action, and

some key performance indicators (for accountability). An

associated business plan should capture staff requirements

and detail the core assets of the service and the projected

receipts and expenditures associated with any service and

product that KFS will be providing.

3.1.1 A five-year

strategic plan to be

revised and adopted

by the KFS by June

2007 and revised

every two-and-a-half

years

KFS, private sector,

civil society

organizations

An operational KFS

strategic plan

The draft five-year currently being used will go

through a peer review by September 2007

3.2 The KFS Strategic Plan should take account of, and give

effect to, the Kenya Forest Master Plan (KFMP), which is

being updated with assistance from the donor community

(possibly Embassy of Finland).

3.2.1 KFS Strategic

Plan incorporates

findings of KFMP (as

soon as KFMP is

updated)

KFS, Embassy of

Finland, Kenya

Forestry Research

Institute (KEFRI)

Improved Strategic

Plan

It is anticipated that the KFMP will have been

updated by 2010

4. Clear articulation of the role of plantations

4.1 The Strategic Plan should clearly state the role of

plantations and far forestry in terms of the sustainable use of

the forest resources.

4.1.1 Strategic plan

has section on role of

plantation forestry

plantations and farm

forestry

KFS, farmers,

private sector

Stakeholders

understand the role

of plantations and

farm forestry in

achieving

sustainable use of

forest resources.

5. Provide accountability to stakeholders through annual reports of the KFS

5.1 The Director should be mandated to prepare a business 5.1.1 Annual report, Director, KFS KFS annual The first annual report and business plan to be




(including time-

based milestones)

Indicative list of

stakeholders to

be involved

Expected

outcomes

Status

plan (link with a strategic plan) and annual reports on behalf

of the Board. The annual reports should confirm the

program, for the next five years and describing performance

by the service against previous year‘s service respectively.

This internal report should be considered by the Board and

amended as appropriate. The approved report, including the

business plan, should be printed, presented to a

parliamentary committee, and publicized in the media.

including business

plan to be ready by

end of each calendar

year (to link with the

budgetary planning).

The business plan

should be revised on

a periodic basis

(possibly every five

years) and subject to

annual audit.

progress reports and

five-year business

plans in place.

Parliamentary

committee endorses

the plan

ready by June 2008

6. Engaging stakeholders in preparing template and contents of the new Forest Management Plans

6.1 The KFS should convene a series of workshops and a

national conference to discuss the draft template and

required content of new forest management plans for each

state, local authority, and provincial forest and agree on the

procedures for drawing up and consulting on such plans.

Following this development phase, a manual and guidelines

should be prepared to illustrate the process.

6.1.1 Forest

management manual

and guidelines

published by

December 2007

KFS, Local

Conservancy

Committees, and

nongovernmental

organizations

(NGOs)

Transparent forest

management plans

in place.

Draft manual and guidelines in place

C. FINANCES

7. Funding for the KFS needs to be clarified

7.1 Specific financial support for the forest sector should be

made in the government‘s annual budget for the next five

years based on the projected gap between expenditure and

revenue. This needs to be built into the budget of various

sectors including Agriculture, based on the economic

recovery strategy for Kenya.

7.1.1 The

government of Kenya

commits to funding

KFS by June 2007

Government of

Kenya

KFS support for the

next five years

guaranteed

First annual funding provided for 2007/2008 as

1.6 Billion Kenya Shillings.

7.2 Budgetary provision to be made for the preparation of

Strategic Plan

7.2.1 Funding source

for the first Strategic

Plan and Business

Plan to be confirmed

Government of

Kenya, donors

Model, Strategic

Plan, and Business

Plan achieved

7.2.2 Hold a

stakeholders

workshop to review

implementation of

the strategic plan by

December 2007

KFS Funding of KFS

confirmed and an

implementation plan

strategy in place

7.3 Donor Organizations need to coordinate and make clear

which funding gaps are prepared to support.

7.3.1 Donors commit

to funding KFS by

Key donors Donor support for

the next five years




(including time-

based milestones)

Indicative list of

stakeholders to

be involved

Expected

outcomes

Status

December 2007 guaranteed

D. STAFFING and HUNAN RESOURCES

8. Staff morale to be maintained

8.1 Arrangements for recruiting staff to the KFS should be

published well in advance and clear job descriptions should

be prepared indicating the skills and qualifications required

to meet the service‘s new remit. Use of management

consultants for recruitment should be considered to aid

transparency.

8.1.1 Clear job

descriptions

published for senior

KFS staff by

December 2007

KFS Board of

Directors

Staff morale

improved

First advertisement for some senior staff

positions was issued on June 2007.s

9. FD staff who are made redundant need assistance

9.1 An advice and vocational skills training program should

be established to assist FD staff not transferring to the KFS

to find new employment.

9.1.1 Skills training

program set up by

January 2009

FD, forestry private

sector, donors

Redundant FD staff

assisted in finding

new employment.

10. Creating a new group of professionals with new skills

10.1 Training programs should be initiated to reequip

existing staff of FD to fill new posts where appropriate,

recognizing that entirely new skills will be called for in

some areas, including commercial marketing and strategic

management planning. (This requirement should reinforce

other equally important change management decisions.)

10.1.1 Training needs

assessment

conducted by

December 2007

KFS, Public service,

Directorate of

personnel

management in the

Office of the

President

KFS staff have

increased capacity

to handle

requirements of new

act.

10.1.2 Training

programs started for

KFS staff by January

2009

11. Developing specific skills and awareness in managing community liaison, joint partnerships, and benefit sharing

11.1 A national training program should be set up to prepare

headquarters and field staff of the KFS to respond to the

new role of communities in forest management. These

approaches will be distinct from those for moist forests.

11.1.1 Identify

training needs by

July 2007

KFS and NGO Capacity improved Training needs assessed and draft training

modules for KFS staff in place.

11.1.2 Commission

training to develop

and run a ―trainer of

trainees‖ course by

December 2008

KFS and NGO KFS capacity on

participatory forest

management

enhanced

Training on-going

11.1.3 A cadre of 10-

20 individuals

established who can

be employed to train

existing staff of the



management

enhanced

About 5 KFS staff have already been trained in

PFM training of trainers at MSTCDC (Arusha)




(including time-

based milestones)

Indicative list of

stakeholders to

be involved

Expected

outcomes

Status

FD and all new staff

by December 2007

11.2 All prospective KFS staff should receive a minimum of

three days training in the role of communities before taking

up his or her post

11.2.1 All KFS

operational staff

given initial training

by December 2008



management

enhanced

12. Developing skills in dry land forest management

12.1 A practical training program should be set up for staff

working within dry land forest areas to introduce the new

approaches required for preparation of forest management

plans in these areas, which will differ radically from those

traditionally used in moist forests.

12.1.1 Identify

appropriate training

needs to provide

hands-on practical

advice by December

2007

KEFRI, NGOs,

universities, Kenya

Forestry College

(Londiani), KFS

Increased capacity

in dry land forest

management

E. INFORMATION AND DATA

13. Need for national tree resources information system (TRIS)

13.1 As part of the process of surveying all forests,

including revising harvesting plans for plantations, a Tree

Resources Information System should be created in the form

of a data bank to monitor all forest operations and provide

base information for management plans. TRIS should be

publicly accessible on a dedicated Web site.

13.1.1 Creation of a

TRIS by December

2008

KFS, Local

authorities, National

Museums of Kenya,

KWS, Ministry of

Lands, KEFRI,

other research

organizations.

A TRIS in place

14. Pilot studies on guidelines for forest management and partnership

14.1 Pilot studies, modelled on the Hombe Forest case

study, should be undertaken to improve the guidance offered

on formation of community associations, joint partnerships,

and management plans in the following forest types:

industrial plantations, montane forests, farm forestry, dry

land forestry, river corridor forests, and coastal forests.

These studies should examine how management and

partnerships area affected by extrasectoral activities

14.1.1 Pilot studies in

applicable forest

areas by December

2008

KFS, NGOs,

communities.

Improved forest

management

guidelines and

guidelines for

partnership.

F. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

15. National forest policy

15.1 The updated Forestry Policy should be approved by

Parliament as soon as possible and kept under review.

(Sessional Paper No 4 of 2006 is due to be republished, and

retabled in early 2007).

15.1.1 Forestry

Policy given a new

Sessional paper

number and approved

by Parliament by

MENR, FD Updated Forestry

Policy in place

New Sessional paper number given (Paper No 1

of 2007). Policy waiting to be published




(including time-

based milestones)

Indicative list of

stakeholders to

be involved

Expected

outcomes

Status

December 2007

16. Harmonization of legal framework

16.1 The KFS should establish an internal working group to

ensure that a program for complying with international

standards is introduced. This is important for improving

compliance and other initiatives (for example, carbon

sequestration; avoidance of invasive species in dry lands;

regional, and international levels.)

16.1.1 An internal

KFS working group

established by June

2008


NGOs, universities.

National forest

management

standards in

conformity with

international

standards.

G. ENFORCEMENT

17. Improving enforcement

17.1 Develop a strategy and guidelines on how enforcement

will be addressed in the new KFS.

17.1.1 A strategy on

improving

enforcement in place

by December 2007

KFS in discussion

with community

representatives

Stakeholders have

genuine respect for

the new Forest Act

PRIORITY AREA 2: ENABLING COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AND COST AND BENEFIT SHARING

A. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

18. Increasing public participation in forestry issues

18.1 Guidelines should be prepared on the establishment of

community forest associations (CFAs) and the rules that

should apply to formation and registration of associations.

These guidelines should be developed and tested jointly by

FD and the KFS and include active involvement of CFA

representatives. Associations should be encouraged to form

umbrella organizations.

18.1.1 Guidelines to

be provided and

piloted ready for

implementation by

December 2007

Communities,

NGOs, KFS

Empowered

communities that

understand the role

and opportunities

open to them

through forest

associations.

19. Existing participation processes in communities should be built upon

19.1 An inventory of existing community participation

processes in Kenya should be undertaken. Best practice

should be identified as well as barriers to participation.

Recommendations on how these can be incorporated and

improved in the Forests Act implementation should be

made.

19.1.1 Inventory and

best practice study

complete by

December 2007

NGOs, civil society,

community

associations.

Best practice in

community

participation is built

into forest

management.

20. Increase emphasis on forest, bamboo, and cane that the poor depend on- arid and nonmoist forests

20.1 Undertake a study to review how arid and nonmoist

forests can contribute to poverty reduction. The study

should identify what scope there is for exploitation of non-

timber forest products.

20.1.1 Study to be

completed by

December 2008

KFS, NGOs Improved

understanding of

how forests can

contribute to

poverty reduction

21. Encourage the participation of women and excluded group




(including time-

based milestones)

Indicative list of

stakeholders to

be involved

Expected

outcomes

Status

21.1 Develop a policy on how women and excluded groups

should be engaged in CFAs and the resulting benefits from

these groups. The measure is to assist in ensuring

appropriate levels of representation on the conservancy

committees

21.1.1 Policy on

inclusion and

widespread

dissemination of its

purpose developed by

December 2007

CFAs, women,

excluded groups and

networks,

community

representatives,

NGOs

Women and

excluded groups

benefit from the

new act

B. REPRESENTATION OF COMMUNITY FOREST ASSOCIATIONS

22. Developing partnerships with registered community forest associations (CFAs)

22.1 To avoid disenfranchising some areas and associations,

consideration should be given to the introduction of rules to

ensure fair election and representation of CFAs on area

conservation committees. It would also be helpful to set up

regular meetings between CFAs within each conservancy

area.

22.1.1 Formation of

umbrella forums for

conservancies by

June 2008

NGOs, all CFAs

and Forest

Conservancy

Committee (FCC),

universities

CFAs well

coordinated and

fairly represented at

FCC

22.2 Undertake a capacity needs assessment to establish

what skills and funds are needed to run CFAs and what the

current gaps are. Study should make recommendations on

how this skill gap can be reduced.

22.2.1 Capacity

needs assessment and

recommendations

completed by June

2008

CFAs, universities,

Forest Action

Network, KFS,

KEFRI, KFWG

Understanding of

the skill gap of

CFAs better

understood by the

KFS

C. BENEFIT SHARING

23. Identify the full range of potential community benefits and costs and how these will be shared

23.1 Undertake studies within each Forest Conservancy

Area to identify the specific community benefits that can be

promoted in these areas.

23.1.1 Pilot studies of

community benefit

undertaken by June

2008

KFS, NGOs, CFAs,

universities, local

communities

23.2 To ensure that CFAs are accountable to the local

inhabitants, clear and transparent accounts should be

prepared showing the annual income and expenditure of

individual forest areas, and the income attributed to each

CFA. Preparation and publication of these accounts should

be the responsibility of the CFA, working with the treasures

of each CFA.

23.2.1 Procedures for

accountability and

transparency

prepared by CFAs

ready by June 2008

KFS, CFAs Accountable and

transparent CFAs in

place.

23.3 Develop forest-specific guidance notes for the KFS,

CFAs, and the private sector on the aesthetic and religious

value of forests; the organization and administration of

ecotourism; livestock grazing; fruits, roots, and medicinal

plant gathering; and the promotion of small scale timber and

non-timber product marketing to achieve true benefit

sharing

23.3.1 Guidance

notes (in local

dialect) on

community benefit

sharing of different

activities developed

and published by

Area conservancy

committees

Transparent process

for benefits sharing

established.




(including time-

based milestones)

Indicative list of

stakeholders to

be involved

Expected

outcomes

Status

June 2008

23.4 Clarify whether community council and trust land in

arid and semi-arid areas will be classified as forest and

access for grazing livestock will be restricted under a

―conventional‖ approach to management plans.

23.4.1 Guidelines for

forest classification

and registration

published by

December 2008

KFS, Ministry of

Local Government,

Ministry of Lands

Transparent process

for benefits sharing

established.

24. Arrange payments for environmental services and valuation of ecosystem services

24.1 Undertake a study to quantify the nature and value of

environmental services, establish what is practical to be

achieved, and approve a design and best practice

methodology.

24.1.1 Case study to

be completed by

December 2009

KFS, NEMA,


Ministry of Water,

local and municipal

authorities, research

organizations,

private sector,

Bureau of Statistics

Environmental

services costed

24.2 Set up pilot study to build on existing experiences and

establish appropriate scales of charges. Decide who should

pay the costs and how the revenue is to be collected and

shared.

24.2.1 Undertake

pilot study on

valuation, revenue

collection, and

benefit sharing

KFS, NEMA,


Ministry of Water,

local and municipal

authorities, research

organizations,

private sector,

Bureau of Statistics

Pilot study

completed and

findings

disseminated

25. Joint management of plantation forests

25.1 A number of pilot studies of different types of

partnership for management of plantation forests should be

prepared, involving both community and private sector

interest and these examples should be used to develop

specific guidelines to cover joint management agreements.

Existing studies (such as the International Institute for

Environmental and Development work) should be

considered alongside these pilot studies.

25. 1.1 At least four

pilot studies of

different partnerships

for management of

plantations be carried

out by December

2009


communities, Kenya

Forestry College,

universities and

tertiary learning

institutions.

Clear guidelines on

the implementation

of the partnerships.

PRIORITY AREA 3: ENHANCING INVESTMENT IN THE FOREST SECTOR

A. BUSINESS PLANS

26. Developing investment plans

26.1 Each of the forest management plans should include an

investment strategy. The investment strategy should indicate

what contribution will be made by each organization toward

realization of the aims and also what returns will be due to

26.1.1 Develop a

number of business

plans for different

forest sites to be

KFS, CFAs, private

sector.

Investment plan

linked to forest

management plans.




(including time-

based milestones)

Indicative list of

stakeholders to

be involved

Expected

outcomes

Status

those organizations. Investment strategies should be referred

for consideration to the planned forest investment center.

ready by June 2008

B. TRAINING

27. Training in forestry and related industries

27.1 The KFS should undertake a review of training

programs with a view to introducing and supporting

programs that are directed at manufacturing and marketing

of timber and non-timber forest products. New training

programs should relate directly to the strategic and business

plans cited in Recommendation 3.1

Training needs

studies carried out

January 2008

KFS, private sector Training needs

document

27.2 Support training in all sectors of the forest industry

through the levy or royalties on concessions.

27.2.1 KFS to

develop training

packages for funding

through the

Directority of

Industry Training by

January 2008

KFS, private sector Cofinancing for

industrial training

secured

27.2.2 Develop

modalities for forest

industry contribution

to the conservation

fund by January 2008

KFS, private sector Cofinancing for

industrial training

secured

C. ROYALTIES, LICENCES, AND CONCESSIONS

28. Model contracts and concession agreements

28.1 The KFS Board should prepare model concession

contracts and agreements and make these available for

parties (communities and private sector) interested in

commercial activities in plantations or natural forests. Draft

agreements should show the types of safeguards that can be

build in to protect the interest of parties in the agreements

and all parties (especially communities) that may be

affected by the agreement as well as environmental services.

Model guidelines should also include consideration of

dispute resolution and ongoing management

28.1.1 Preparation of

model agreements

laying out rights and

responsibilities of

different parties and

products covered by

December 2007

FRC, KFS Transparent

contracting

28.2 Pilot should be undertaken to test the effectiveness of

model contracts and concessions but without delaying the

reactivation of sustainable timber production.

28.2.1 Pilot contracts

for concessions to be

tested by December

2008

KFS Maximum

effectiveness of

concessions ensured

28.3 The KFS Board should ensure that the principles 28.3.1 Preparation of FRC, KFS, public Maintenance of




(including time-

based milestones)

Indicative list of

stakeholders to

be involved

Expected

outcomes

Status

incorporated in model concession contracts and agreements

are also applied to the KFS‘s own management state forests.

guidelines on

sustainable forest

management by

December 2008

participation internal high

standards of forest

management.

28.4 Information on standard agreements for contracts and

concessions should be publicly available and awareness

should be raised (among forest dependent communities and

private sector) regarding these.

28.4.1 Raise public

awareness of and

access to model

agreements through

demonstration slide

shows, leaflets, and

other training aids

disseminated widely

as part of the general

program for raising

community and

private sector

awareness about the

forest sector reform

by December 2009

KFS, NGOs, CFAs CFAs and private

sector aware of

contracting

opportunities.

29. Increase accountability and transparency associated with investments

29.1 All contracts, concessions, royalty agreements, and

other licences and leases should be made publicly available

once the terms have been agreed to. Establishing clear and

transparent terms for licenses, royalties, stumpage payments

and other methods of measuring and valuing standing

timber will ensure that all parties can see the value of the

resource and will help to ensure that all parties can see the

value of the resource and will help to ensure that

silvicultural operations are being carried out sustainably.

29.1.1 System for

access to agreed

terms and conditions

of approved licenses

and leases by

December 2007

KFS, NGOs, private

sector

Transparent terms

and conditions for

licenses and leases

and easy access to

published

information on the

same. This will

create a level

playing field for

investors.

D. INCENTIVES

30. Minimizing number of stakeholders who are potential losers due to the act

30.1 A framework for the provision of incentives (especially

for potential losers under the new act, such as small-scale

saw millers, using environmentally responsibly equipment,

tree planting, and so on) needs to be developed. Before

these incentives are confirmed, it is strongly recommended

that indicative business plans be developed to illustrate the

levels of return that might be achieved on different types of

30.1.1 A framework

for providing

incentives developed

by December 2008

KFS, private and

communities,

Ministry of Finance.

Clear and

transparent

incentive

framework for

investing in

forestry.




(including time-

based milestones)

Indicative list of

stakeholders to

be involved

Expected

outcomes

Status

forests by private or community interests and that the levels

of risk should be assessed.

31. Ensuring private forest owners do not impose social, environmental, or economic costs on local communities and local authorities

31.1 Guidelines are required to ensure that incentives to

private forest owners are only provided where it is clear that

there will be no adverse consequences on the environment

or social or local economic conditions enjoyed by local

communities and authorities. It is essential that safeguards

are built into the registration process and its subsequent

monitoring to ensure that private forests are managed

sustainably.

31.1.1 Clear

guidelines for

management of

private forests by

December 2007

KFS, other

stakeholders

including Physical

Planning

Department in

Ministry of Lands

and communities.

Rules and

regulations for

management of

private forests.

E. ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER REGULATIONS

32. Environmental and other regulations

32.1 The KFS should apply regulatory framework including

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and other

evaluation tools that are fit for purpose and do not impose

an unacceptable burden on industry.

32.1.1 Clear

applications of EIA

regulations and

environmental audit

rules for the sector

during

implementation of

the Forests Act 2005

KFS, NEMA EIA regulations and

environmental audit

rules for forest

sector.

EIA regulations already prepared by NEMA

32.2 Criteria, standards, and guidelines should be developed

to indicate what conditions will constitute inadequate

management of all forest types.

32.2.1 Criteria and

standards confirming

the circumstances

under which forests

will be taken under

KFS management to

be adopted by

December 2008

KFS in consultation

with all stakeholders

Standards and

criteria established

F. Technical assistance and sustainable forest resource use

33. Revitalization of forest industry

33.1 Urgent steps are required to promote restricting of the

forestry industry and raise overall standards. It is

recommended that a Forest Industry Forum be established to

promote best practice.

33.1.1 Set up a Forest

Industry Forum by

December 2008

KFS in consultation

with all

stakeholders.

Forest Industry

Forum established

in Kenya.

34. Managing charcoal production and transportation

34.1 A full analysis should be undertaken to determine

where charcoal production can be permitted, and rules and

regulations should be developed for authorizing and

34.1.1 A charcoal

regulatory framework

with specific


Energy for

Sustainable

Charcoal rules and

regulation and

certification

Draft charcoal rules have been prepared,

development of national standards on

certification has been initiated.




(including time-

based milestones)

Indicative list of

stakeholders to

be involved

Expected

outcomes

Status

monitoring charcoal production. standards prepared

and gazetted and a

certification process

initiated by June

2008

Development

Africa, World

Agroforestry

Center,

communities, traffic

police, Ministry of

Planning, Local

Authorities, and

others (wide

spectrum of

stakeholders)

standards in place.

35. Expansion of farm forestry

35.1 Develop a clear policy brief on the role of both

plantation forestry and farm forestry (both different

locations and scales) in the new Forests Act and how each

can contribute to the sustainable use of forest resources.

This will need to have a clear position on the development

of technical support (extension) to support farm forestry.

35.1.1 Policy brief

prepared by

December 2007

KFS and other

stakeholders

Stakeholders

understand the role

of farm forestry in

achieving

sustainable use of

forest resources.



Appendix IV: Summary of Risks, Mitigation and Management for BecA Hosted Research Activities (ILRI)

Risk due to Risk

Level

Risk Mitigation Actions Policies, Procedures and Training

Required

Monitoring Means/Timelines

ENVIRONMENT

Solid and liquid wastes

Hazardous biological and

chemical wastes

H Hazardous waste should be handled and disposed of according to

international best practice and as recommended by MSDS and

NFPA 704 ratings.

SOP for handling/disposal of hazardous

chemical wastes.

Training in handling or disposal of

hazardous chemical wastes

Monthly inspections, biannual audits.

Audit report for external facilities/contractors used

for waste disposal.

Disposal of consumables

(e.g. Plastics and sharps)

and non-hazardous

reagents; disposal of

radioactive waste

M All biohazardous waste must be decontaminated by autoclaving

and then incinerated.

Waste water will be treated via an on-site wastewater treatment

system.

Disposal of computer

equipment

L Identify options for reuse/recycle/donate computer parts to schools

and other institutions.

Air pollution:

Incinerator emissions,

fumes, emissions from

autoclaves, standby

generator

M Maintenance of incinerator, pipes, ventilation systems, equipment

and laboratory buildings.

Preventive maintenance system.

Emergency response procedures

Training in emergency preparedness

Maintenance records.

Assessment of preventive maintenance program.

Training records.

As per preventive maintenance schedule.

Training on induction, and then at least annually. Gas leaks H

Transportation, storage and handling of hazardous materials:

Accidental release,

leakage, spillage

H Implement international standards (e.g. as specified in CBD and

Cartagena Protocol) and guidelines based on MSDS and NFPA

704 ratings.

Minimize need for transportation of hazardous materials within

Kenya, or across borders.

SOPs for transportation, storage and

handling.

Documentation for transportation

Training in storage, handling and

transportation of hazardous materials.

Emergency response procedures.

Training in emergency preparedness.

Cradle-to-grave analysis of one reagent every 3

months.

Evaluation of maintenance program of high risk

equipment

Records of accidents, leakage, spillage of materials

during transportation across east and central Africa

country boundaries

Training records

Vaccine development:

Persistent virulence of

shedded live vaccines from

target animals

M Employ ―Precautionary Principle‖, and assess on a case by case

basis.

Project selection criteria may require conduct of risk assessment,

depending on category risk target animal pathogen or parasite.

Biocontainement levels should be appropriate for facilities where

vaccines are being developed

.

SOPs for disposal of biological wastes,

and Biosafety compliance.

Training in Biosafety compliance.

Monitor disposal areas

Risk assessment for each product

Studies to monitor impacts resulting from application

of technology. Genetic recombination in

animals arising from use of

new generation vaccines.

M

GM plant research:

Horizontal gene transfer,

development of antibiotic

resistance, multiple species

crossing, species

M Employ ―Precautionary Principle‖, and assess on a case by case

basis.

In dealing with GM crops, risk mitigation measures need to be

developed on a case-by-case basis, for the particular crop/trait


standard greenhouse practices, and

Biosafety compliance.

Training in use of growth chambers,

Monitor ICS


Risk assessment for each crop/trait under study.




Risk due to Risk

Level


Required


takeover/blight, animal

toxicity, gene pollution,

genetic stability, increased

weediness after release.

combinations under study-project selection criteria may require

conduct of risk assessment.

Implementation of Integrated Confinement System: appropriate

(physical and biological) bio-containment for plant research,

relative to the level of risk of the research process involved (e.g.

tissue culture, marker-assisted selection in plant breeding, and/or

transformation technologies).

Alternative technological methods, such as marker-assisted

breeding, can be adopted to mitigate risks associated with plant

GMO research.

greenhouses, Biosafety compliance. of technology.

Biosafety issues:

Sabotage M The establishment of an ILRI Biosafety Committee.

Incorporate security conditions into the design of the facilities.

Implement security protocols.

SOPs and checklists for Biosafety

compliance.

Security protocols.

SOPs for emergency preparedness.

Training and awareness in first aid,

general safety and Biosafety compliance,

good microbiological techniques and

bio-containment.

Training in emergency response.

BecA and ILRI should comply with

current (and new) Kenya Biosafety

guidelines and regulatory requirements.

BecA and ILRI should adopt standards

of Biosafety and good laboratory practice

that are consistent with international best

practices (such as those established by

Health Canada, CFIA, US NIH and

WHO, for relevant areas of BecA hosted

research activities).

Assessment of BecA biosafety compliance and

emergency preparedness strategy to be done before

BecA start and during operations. Differing Biosafety

standards among BecA

participating countries

H

Ability of governments of

participating BecA

countries to control and

react to Biosafety issues.

H

LIVELIHOODS

Effects of BecA products and wastes generated

Accidental transfer of

genes; exposure to new

pathogens; generation of

alien and invasive species;

genetic contamination;

exposure to hazardous

waste; reinforced herbicide

tolerance liability arising

from products and wastes

generated through BecA

operations.

M Implement Integrated Confinement System:

possible accidental release, gene transfer, loss of indigenous

species through cross fertilisation can be avoided through various

containment measures. Hazardous waste handling and disposal

measures according to internationally best practice.

Implementation of PR/Public Engagement Strategy: build capacity

of local communities to deal with eventualities, and to assist with

monitoring.

Project selection criteria will include risk assessment of any

research on GM plants. Any proposals involving on field trials

with GM plants will be subject to scrutiny to ensure that national

regulations and international best practices can be met by the

project proponents and that these be monitored and enforced.

BecA AND ILRI will also require a

response plan, including a

communications strategy to deal with

any accidental release of pathogens,

GMO plants, or the spillage or leakage of

hazardous waste.

Communication strategy will require

greater interaction with local

communities.

Monitor ICS.

Monitor the meetings and record keeping with the

neighbouring communities at regular intervals with

community but primarily during BecA operations.

Loss of indigenous

species; poor farmers

lacking capacity to deal

H



Risk due to Risk

Level


Required


with a risk/event

Access to seed and technologies by local communities:

Neglect of local varieties;

threat to food security;

differentiated access by

different actors, increasing

vulnerability of weaker

actors (farmers).

M Preferential treatment for resource poor farmers in access to seed

technologies.

Project selection criteria requiring case by case analysis for any

proposed use of technologies such as GURTs that may limit

access to seed and technologies.

BecA‘s IP policy as described in the

Establishment Agreement proposes that

individual members or participants in the

BecA network may hold IP protection on

their inventions, developed as part of

BecA‘s activities, but where they do so,

they must give a royalty-fee, non-

exclusive licence to all other members

and participants in the BecA network, so

as to ensure access to seed and

technologies by resource poor farmers.

Monitor a group of farmers who are supposed to have

had access to seed and technology developed at BecA

Randomly select a number of rural areas in eastern

and central Africa countries and determine level of

awareness and access (throughout BecA operation

e.g. after 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 years).

GURTs limiting farmers‘

use of seeds; restriction of

farmers‘ choice of crops;

dependency on seeds and

chemicals; threats to

extinction of genetic stock.

M

Indigenous / Traditional Knowledge:

ITK being adulterated /

obliterated due to emphasis

on state / individual rights

L Agreements should be in place for transfer and use of materials,

designating source of materials used in the research and signifying

prior informed consent on the part of source / knowledge owners.

BecA‘s ITK policy should require the

disclosure of source of materials upon

which research will be based.

Evaluate BecA ITK policy 1 year after start-up for

content and level of implementation

To be done during BecA start-up but mainly during

BecA operation ITK being excluded from

the purview of intellectual

property; restricted or

denied access to medicine

and food by local

communities; monopoly

IPR rights conflicting with

established local farming

systems; BecA becoming a

conduit for appropriation

of ITK by researchers.

M

Intellectual property:

BecA‘s IP policy

discouraging potential

innovators; IPP taking

precedence over availing

technologies to African

farmers.

L Project selection criteria to ensure projects have freedom to

operate, and IP not a constraint to availing technologies to

farmers.

BecA‘s IP policy is set out in

Establishment Agreement and Project

Agreements.

In addition IP policy should include:

G. Broad areas for IPP grant;

H. Whether the Consortium will

own IP & on what conditions;

I. Who owns IP different

scenarios (independent

researcher; researcher from

NARI; researcher employed

in BecA hub etc);

J. How to deal with third party

IP within BecA;

K. Criteria for delineating BecA

research as public good, or

Monitor who owns IP in different scenarios

(independent researcher; researcher from NARI;

researcher employed in BecA hub etc)

Should be initiated prior to BecA start-up but

evaluation best during BecA operation.

Private actors obtaining

IPRs for appropriated

communal knowledge;

conflict between private

good versus public good in

BecA hosted research

activities; private

proprietary technology

being availed freely to the

public; differing IPP

M



Risk due to Risk

Level


Required


policies in BecA

participating countries, e.g.

on patenting life forms;

absence of plant variety

protection regime; lack of

capacity in eastern and

central African countries to

implement IPP; benefits

from innovations not

shared fairly and equitably;

proprietary knowledge

being passed through

natural processes, e.g.

where refugia exist; loss of

digitally stored scientific

information and

intellectual property

through theft or electronic

failure.

private good;

L. Use of materials transfer

agreements designating

source of materials used in

research and signifying prior

informed consent on the part

of source;

M. Ensure that IPRs promote

rather than hamper the

realisation of the objectives of

BecA.

BecA‘s use of ILRI‘s IT system will be

governed by ILRI‘s IT policy. However,

appropriate off site database back

systems, security practices and

procedures should be put in place.

Biopiracy:

Indigenous knowledge

developed and

commercialised, without

consent or recognition or

reward to the communities

holding that knowledge.

M Agreements should be in place for transfer and use of materials,

designating source of materials used in the research and signifying

prior informed consent on the part of source / knowledge.

BecA ITK policy as above will also

assist to prevent bio-piracy.

Evaluate relevant BecA policies 1 year after start-up

for content and level of implementation.

To be done during BecA start-up but mainly during

BecA operation.

HEALTH

Bioanalytical methods:

DNA sequencing, PCR

methods, SNP marker

technology, genotyping,

proteomics and imaging;

preparation of

reagents/mediums, SSR

gel electrophoresis,

transformation technology,

plant phenotyping and

immunology.

L Hazardous waste handling, storing and disposal measures

according to internationally best practice and as recommended by

MSDS and NFPA 704 RATINGS.

Mitigation measures to prevent negative impacts on health due to

Bioanalytical methods include proper use of PPE, incorporation of

safety procedures for biological, chemical and radiation hazards,

and containment.

SOP for use of PPE,

handling/storing/disposal of hazardous

chemical wastes

Training in use of PPE,

handling/storing/disposal of chemical

and reagents

Preventative maintenance program

Evaluation of maintenance program of high risk

equipment

Monitoring health of research personnel at regular

intervals during BecA operation.

Vaccine development:

Adverse reactions to

vaccine

M Implementation of Integrated Confinement System.

Employ ―Precautionary Principle‖

Project selection criteria may require case by case risk assessment.

Implementing appropriate biosafety practices and procedures.

Mitigation of adverse reactions varies; some effects can be

avoided through microbiological techniques during the handling

of vaccine related reagents; other reactions are more complex and

SOPs for handling and disposal of

biological wastes, and biosafety

compliance.

Training in biosafety compliance

Monitor ICS



Studies to monitor impacts resulting from

applications of technology.

Exposure to disease

pathogens under study and

vaccine reagents

H

Contamination of food

supply

M



Risk due to Risk

Level


Required


depend on the characterisation of the type of vaccine.

GM plant research:

Increased exposure of

researchers to hazardous

materials

L Employ ―Precautionary Principle‖ with case by case risk

assessment.

Project selection criteria may require risk assessment taking into

account crop and trait combination.

Compliance with governmental regulatory requirements will

address issues of potential toxicity and allergencity, by ensuring

that any transformed plants with potential for allergencity or

toxicity are eliminated in the regulatory process.

Alteration of nutritional content of transgenic plants can be

addressed by characterising the transgene and establishing the

composition of the transgenic crop through biochemical and

chemical assays.

Implementation of Integrated Confinement System to control

contamination of food.


standard lab and greenhouse practices,

and biosafety compliance

Training in use of growth chambers,

greenhouses, biosafety compliance.

Monitor ICS




of technology. Unintentional alteration of

nutrient content;

allerginicity; toxicity;

development of antibiotic

resistance in consumers.

M

Contamination of food

supply.

H

GENDER

Roles of women:

BecA‘s research products

hampering, rather than

assisting, women in

conducting, their chores.

M Project selection criteria to consider impacts on women: a case-

by-case assessment on the effects of proposed BecA-hosted

research is undertaken.

Women should be consulted in setting the agenda for BecA hosted

research projects.

Studies to assess impacts of BecA hosted research on

women‘s roles for each product during and after field

trails.

BecA research

technologies

reducing/replacing

women‘s roles

M

Gender equity:

Replication and

perpetuation of gender

imbalances (e.g. control of

income by men);

M Recognition of the special needs of young women scientists (e.g.

accommodation and child care), in order to encourage their greater

participation in science in Africa.

Gender equity can be assured through an

effective gender policy that mainstreams

gender into all aspects of BecA‘s

activities and operations.

BecA‘s approach to gender equity as

proposed in the Business Plan (April

2005) includes ex ante assessment of the

possible effects of new products

technologies on women; it also provides

for 30% of the members of the BecA

Steering Committee and the Science

Advisory Committee to be women; and

for the 30% of the fellowships to be

awarded to women.

Evaluate BecA policy on gender;

Monitor the number of female research scientists and

managers over time. To be done at start-up and

subsequently at least once during BecA operation.

Adoption of gender neutral

stance, e.g. in the context

of women as holders of

traditional knowledge;

M

―tokenism‖ M

Over-emphasis of private /

individual rights

M



Benefits and Risks of BecA hosted Research Activities The benefits and risks from BecA hosted research stem from:

Research process used to generate new products and technologies;

Products of research, as they are disseminated into environments of eastern and central Africa;

Policies that govern the conduct of the research and the dissemination of its outputs, including the legal

and regulatory framework in the countries of eastern and central Africa.

Table 1 summarises the most pronounced positive and negative environmental issues that may arise

from the BecA program.

BENEFITS RISKS

ENVIRONMENT

New plant varieties

Improved crop yield

Pest and disease resistance

Tolerance to biotic stress (drought)

Reduced use of pesticides and herbicides

Reduction of soil erosion due to decreased tilling

of herbicide resistant crops

Genetic characterisation of indigenous flora and fauna

Improved conservation and management of

African genetic resources, including wildlife

Livestock vaccines and diagnostics

Reduction in chemical use to control animal

diseases

Livestock breeds

Reduction in chemical use to control livestock

diseases

Higher yielding plant varieties

Loss of plant genetic and species diversity.

GM crops

Possible deleterious effect on non-target organisms

from insect resistant crops

Development of resistance in pests to anti-pest

characteristics in transgenic crops

Weediness of transgenic plants (multiple species

crossings)

Other genetically modified organisms (GMOs)

Genetic contamination of wild flora and fauna

Possibility for GMOs to hybridise with and

takeover indigenous native species, leading to

reduction in diversity

Livestock breeds

Loss of animal genetic and species diversity

Research processes

Generation of hazardous waste

LIVELIHOOD

New varieties of staple food crops

Increased yields, resulting in increased

consumption, therefore improved health status

Surplus available for sale resulting in increased

income

Reduced costs to growers/consumers

Reduced vulnerability to drought

Longer storage/improved marketing flexibility

Increased food security

Improved animal nutrition

Improved forage leading to healthier livestock


Increased incomes from healthier livestock (e.g.

dairy cattle, chickens).


Increased difficulty of preserving and using

traditional varieties

Inaccessibility of new technology to poorest

farmers

Competition between small and large producers

Genetically modified crops

Dependence on commercially available GMO

seeds and related inputs, possibly from monopoly

suppliers

Inequitable sharing of IPR benefits

Trade restrictions from importers that ban GMOs

HEALTH


Increased access to food



Availability of crops resistant to environmental

stress and pests

Reduced farmer and consumer exposure to

pesticides/herbicides


Unintended effects altering nutritional content


Unintentional alteration of nutrient content

Allergenicity

Toxicity

Contamination of food supply



BENEFITS RISKS

Enhanced nutritional content of food

Cheaper drugs (from pharmaceutical crops)

Plant-based pharmaceuticals targeting orphan

diseases


Diminished livestock mortality

Reduced reservoirs of infection for diseases

affecting people and livestock, such as avian flu

and typanosomiasis


Increased exposure of researchers to pathogens

Research process

Increased exposure of researchers to hazardous

materials

GENDER


Improved food security


Increased income from sale of surplus produce


Reduced time required for, weeding (HT crops)

Improved nutritional value of crops

Increased income from sale of surplus produce


Increased milk production by livestock

Improved health for small stock

Higher income from sale of livestock products

(e.g. milk and eggs)


Reduced income from sale of surplus produce as

men takeover cultivation of crops previously

grown by women (e.g. banana)

Increased time required for harvesting, weeding

Any detrimental impacts on environment affects

women as custodians of the environment

Erosion of indigenous and traditional knowledge

customarily safeguarded by women

Women do not often benefit from increased

income guaranteed by the sale of high value crops.

Applied Methodologies and Guidelines for Carrying …Applied Methodologies and Guidelines for...

Documents

Transcript of Applied Methodologies and Guidelines for Carrying …Applied Methodologies and Guidelines for...