This paper evaluates workplace diversity management practices, constraints and opportunities in h... more This paper evaluates workplace diversity management practices, constraints and opportunities in hospital workplaces. It draws insights from the changing socio-cultural diversity management landscape across the UK National Health Service (NHS) provider organisations, pinning down what NHS employees think and what managers are doing. The NHS embodies the shared commitment of the government and people in the UK to provide healthcare and other health-related support for those in need regardless of socio-demographic, economic and cultural differences. Yet detailed empirical analysis accounting for recent progress in creating an inclusive NHS work environment - where employees can readily participate in organisational decision-making and achieve their full potential - are sorely lacking. Similarly, it is unclear whether NHS diversity management practices and cultures support or counter workplace inequality, harassment, victimisation and discrimination. Data were collected through self-adm...
While the right to food and community self-reliance underpin current knowledge and interpretation... more While the right to food and community self-reliance underpin current knowledge and interpretation of community food security (CFS), the literature on CFS seldom accounts for the ways in which gender-based violence (GBV) disrupts and undermines CFS. In this review, we make the case that GBV in CFS contexts manifests as a continuum, involving different forms of violence that blend into and reinforce each other, fueling social degradation and undermining the capacity of community food system workers to prioritise and pursue CFS. We show that harms to CFS resulting from GBV manifest through (i) GBV-induced social degradation, (ii) erosion of moral and ethical values anchoring CFS, (iii) disruption of crucial food systems sustainability pathways to CFS, (iv) the challenges, behaviours and activities of community food system workers, and (v) the crippling of community-level on-farm and off-farm food value chains, which oftentimes disrupt food access, consumption and utilisation. We furthe...
This thesis provides a basin-level analysis of climate shocks and conflict links, utilising livel... more This thesis provides a basin-level analysis of climate shocks and conflict links, utilising livelihoods and vulnerability toolboxes, including a newly assembled conflict dataset that captures communal, rebel and water conflicts in four Lake Chad Basin (LCB) zones. The thesis draws on multi-method approaches to assess: (i) the manner in which lake drying shapes livelihood drawbacks and opportunities, (ii) the directionality of occupation-based vulnerability to double exposures, (iii) climate conflict interactions in the context of contextual vulnerability and lake drying, and (iv) adaptation-water-conflict integration need for the LCB. Key findings reveal that: (i) asset holdings from unstable water-based activities are a medium through which drying influences livelihoods, (ii) pastoralists are more vulnerable to double exposures because they have limited social networks and income strategies, (iii) rainfall anomalies have dampening effects on conflict and lake drying does not repres...
The science of climate security and conflict is replete with controversies. Yet the increasing vu... more The science of climate security and conflict is replete with controversies. Yet the increasing vulnerability of politically fragile countries to the security consequences of climate change is widely acknowledged. Although climate conflict reflects a continuum of conditional forces that coalesce around the notion of vulnerability, how different portrayals of vulnerability influence the discursive formation of climate conflict relations remains an exceptional but under-researched issue. This paper combines a systematic discourse analysis with a vulnerability interpretation diagnostic tool to explore: (i) how discourses of climate conflict are constructed and represented, (ii) how vulnerability is communicated across discourse lines, and (iii) the strength of contextual vulnerability against a deterministic narrative of scarcity-induced conflict, such as that pertaining to land. Systematically characterising climate conflict discourses based on the central issues constructed, assumptio...
This article builds on the growing literature that explores the relationships between environment... more This article builds on the growing literature that explores the relationships between environmental change and non-traditional security, defined as non-military threats that challenge the survival and well-being of peoples and states. The Lake Chad basin in Africa is used as a case study for analysis. Focusing on a set of questions that have dominated recent theoretical debates, this article investigates whether conflicts resulting from water scarcity are as much about the broader vulnerability of the Lake Chad region as they are about changes in the lake system and its environment. It argues that conflict is a probable outcome only in locations that are already challenged by a multitude of other context-specific factors besides resource scarcity. In the Lake Chad context, the likelihood of scarcity-driven conflict depends on whether vulnerability increases or decreases in the face of a declining water supply. The article provides perspectives for a nuanced understanding of how the ...
This article examines lake drying and livelihood dynamics in the context of multiple stressors th... more This article examines lake drying and livelihood dynamics in the context of multiple stressors through a case study of the "Small Lake Chad" in the Republic of Chad. Livelihoods research in regions experiencing persistent lake water fluctuations has largely focused on the well-being and security of lakeshore dwellers. Little is known about the mechanisms through which lake drying shapes livelihood drawbacks and opportunities, and whether locally evolved responses are enhancing livelihoods. Here we address these gaps using empirical, mixed-methods field research couched within the framework of livelihoods and human well-being contexts. The analysis demonstrates that limited opportunities outside agriculture, the influx of mixed ethnic migrants and the increasing spate of violence all enhance livelihood challenges. Livelihood opportunities centre on the renewal effects of seasonal flood pulses on lake waters and the learning opportunities triggered by past droughts. Although drying has spurred new adaptive behaviours predicated on seasonality, traditional predictive factors and the availability of assets, responses have remained largely reactive. The article points to where lake drying fits amongst changes in the wider socio-economic landscape in which people live, and suggests that awareness of the particularities of the mechanisms that connect lake drying to livelihoods can offer insights into the ways local people might be assisted by governments and development actors.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Afi Conservation Partners are in charge of the Afi Mountain Wildlife Sanct... more EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Afi Conservation Partners are in charge of the Afi Mountain Wildlife Sanctuary (AMWS) Conservation Project within the Boje District. They are initiating two flexible, portable and user-friendly technologies that allow local users with low literacy levels to record GPS referenced natural resource related data using ‘touch-screen’ hand-held computers. Data collated would be uploaded on a GIS platform for mapping and analysis and for subsequent use in managing the biodiversity assets of the Sanctuary. These two ICTs (that is, GPS mobile hand-held computers and GIS tools) have been used in Cameroon and Congo Brazzaville to monitor and manage natural resources of national importance. Their use in the AMWS project is expected to address the serious human and environmental threats facing the enormous natural resource base of the Sanctuary. But how e-ready is Boje District to allow the full penetration and use of these technologies? What type of environment does the District offer in terms of ICT use generally? How e-ready are the stakeholders to use these technologies? What are the actual use and benefits of these technologies? Using a synthesised combination of the e-readiness methodologies proposed by the Harvard University’s Center for International Development (CID), the Computer Systems Policy Project’s (CSPP) Readiness Guide for Living in the Networked-World and the Networked Readiness Index (NRI) in the Global Information Technology Report, the above e-readiness questions were adequately answered in this report. Evidence from this study revealed that the District is generally not e-ready going by its remote location, lack of ICT infrastructure and the poor socio-economic status of the local populace. Mobile telecommunication may have penetrated the area but internet access is non-existent except at the local district forestry office managed by the Afi Partners. The Afi Conservation Partners are e-ready to use the technologies but they face the enormous challenge of carrying the local communities along. The people have to be trained and motivated to take leverage of the ICT potentials. ICT infrastructure and enough funding are required to ensure sustainable use of the technologies for monitoring and managing the resources of the AMWS.
Executive Summary:
“Follow-up”, “auditing”, “impact monitoring”, “compliance monitoring” and “pos... more Executive Summary: “Follow-up”, “auditing”, “impact monitoring”, “compliance monitoring” and “post-development monitoring” are familiar to environmental assessment practitioners as members of a family of terms that relate to the general concept of “feedback” in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system, and they are commonly used interchangeably in literature. The term “post-development monitoring” is adopted for this study and it is conceptualised as the measurement of environmental variables during project construction and operation to determine the changes which may have occurred as a result of the project. Post-development monitoring represents a crucial point in assessing the predictive force of the EIA procedure and it is becoming widely accepted as the most crucial element of any EIA system. Most countries in developed and developing nations now have some form of EIA monitoring systems. Countries like Canada, Australia and the Netherlands that have long traditions of EIA practice, have well established legislative requirements for EIA monitoring. In UK, monitoring is self-regulatory. In developing countries, monitoring practices are recent and not well coordinated even though there are regulations in place. Information on monitoring is meager, scattered and the lessons learnt from EIA experience not well documented and shared amongst stakeholders especially in Ethiopia, South Africa and Nigeria. While the benefits and needs for monitoring are well documented, and the requirements spelt out, there seem to be only few projects that undergo monitoring in most of the ten countries surveyed in this study. The tasks and responsibility for monitoring are shared amongst proponents, regulators and the public (communities). What each partner does and when, are defined by each countries regulations. While developed countries boast of a robust track record of public participation and openness in their monitoring activities, the developing countries lack well designed process for involving the public and the parties involved lack the required training and character. The study proposed some recommendations which sum up to suggest that post-development monitoring can and will succeed if national governments show high level commitment and make efforts to build information exchange networks across borders.
Executive Summary:
“Follow-up”, “auditing”, “impact monitoring”, “compliance monitoring” and “pos... more Executive Summary: “Follow-up”, “auditing”, “impact monitoring”, “compliance monitoring” and “post-development monitoring” are familiar to environmental assessment practitioners as members of a family of terms that relate to the general concept of “feedback” in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system, and they are commonly used interchangeably in literature. The term “post-development monitoring” is adopted for this study and it is conceptualised as the measurement of environmental variables during project construction and operation to determine the changes which may have occurred as a result of the project. Post-development monitoring represents a crucial point in assessing the predictive force of the EIA procedure and it is becoming widely accepted as the most crucial element of any EIA system. Most countries in developed and developing nations now have some form of EIA monitoring systems. Countries like Canada, Australia and the Netherlands that have long traditions of EIA practice, have well established legislative requirements for EIA monitoring. In UK, monitoring is self-regulatory. In developing countries, monitoring practices are recent and not well coordinated even though there are regulations in place. Information on monitoring is meager, scattered and the lessons learnt from EIA experience not well documented and shared amongst stakeholders especially in Ethiopia, South Africa and Nigeria. While the benefits and needs for monitoring are well documented, and the requirements spelt out, there seem to be only few projects that undergo monitoring in most of the ten countries surveyed in this study. The tasks and responsibility for monitoring are shared amongst proponents, regulators and the public (communities). What each partner does and when, are defined by each countries regulations. While developed countries boast of a robust track record of public participation and openness in their monitoring activities, the developing countries lack well designed process for involving the public and the parties involved lack the required training and character. The study proposed some recommendations which sum up to suggest that post-development monitoring can and will succeed if national governments show high level commitment and make efforts to build information exchange networks across borders.
Executive Summary:
“Follow-up”, “auditing”, “impact monitoring”, “compliance monitoring” and “pos... more Executive Summary: “Follow-up”, “auditing”, “impact monitoring”, “compliance monitoring” and “post-development monitoring” are familiar to environmental assessment practitioners as members of a family of terms that relate to the general concept of “feedback” in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system, and they are commonly used interchangeably in literature. The term “post-development monitoring” is adopted for this study and it is conceptualised as the measurement of environmental variables during project construction and operation to determine the changes which may have occurred as a result of the project. Post-development monitoring represents a crucial point in assessing the predictive force of the EIA procedure and it is becoming widely accepted as the most crucial element of any EIA system. Most countries in developed and developing nations now have some form of EIA monitoring systems. Countries like Canada, Australia and the Netherlands that have long traditions of EIA practice, have well established legislative requirements for EIA monitoring. In UK, monitoring is self-regulatory. In developing countries, monitoring practices are recent and not well coordinated even though there are regulations in place. Information on monitoring is meager, scattered and the lessons learnt from EIA experience not well documented and shared amongst stakeholders especially in Ethiopia, South Africa and Nigeria. While the benefits and needs for monitoring are well documented, and the requirements spelt out, there seem to be only few projects that undergo monitoring in most of the ten countries surveyed in this study. The tasks and responsibility for monitoring are shared amongst proponents, regulators and the public (communities). What each partner does and when, are defined by each countries regulations. While developed countries boast of a robust track record of public participation and openness in their monitoring activities, the developing countries lack well designed process for involving the public and the parties involved lack the required training and character. The study proposed some recommendations which sum up to suggest that post-development monitoring can and will succeed if national governments show high level commitment and make efforts to build information exchange networks across borders.
Executive Summary
“Follow-up”, “auditing”, “impact monitoring”, “compliance monitoring” and “post... more Executive Summary “Follow-up”, “auditing”, “impact monitoring”, “compliance monitoring” and “post-development monitoring” are familiar to environmental assessment practitioners as members of a family of terms that relate to the general concept of “feedback” in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system, and they are commonly used interchangeably in literature. The term “post-development monitoring” is adopted for this study and it is conceptualised as the measurement of environmental variables during project construction and operation to determine the changes which may have occurred as a result of the project. Post-development monitoring represents a crucial point in assessing the predictive force of the EIA procedure and it is becoming widely accepted as the most crucial element of any EIA system. Most countries in developed and developing nations now have some form of EIA monitoring systems. Countries like Canada, Australia and the Netherlands that have long traditions of EIA practice, have well established legislative requirements for EIA monitoring. In UK, monitoring is self-regulatory. In developing countries, monitoring practices are recent and not well coordinated even though there are regulations in place. Information on monitoring is meager, scattered and the lessons learnt from EIA experience not well documented and shared amongst stakeholders especially in Ethiopia, South Africa and Nigeria. While the benefits and needs for monitoring are well documented, and the requirements spelt out, there seem to be only few projects that undergo monitoring in most of the ten countries surveyed in this study. The tasks and responsibility for monitoring are shared amongst proponents, regulators and the public (communities). What each partner does and when, are defined by each countries regulations. While developed countries boast of a robust track record of public participation and openness in their monitoring activities, the developing countries lack well designed process for involving the public and the parties involved lack the required training and character. The study proposed some recommendations which sum up to suggest that post-development monitoring can and will succeed if national governments show high level commitment and make efforts to build information exchange networks across borders.
This paper evaluates workplace diversity management practices, constraints and opportunities in h... more This paper evaluates workplace diversity management practices, constraints and opportunities in hospital workplaces. It draws insights from the changing socio-cultural diversity management landscape across the UK National Health Service (NHS) provider organisations, pinning down what NHS employees think and what managers are doing. The NHS embodies the shared commitment of the government and people in the UK to provide healthcare and other health-related support for those in need regardless of socio-demographic, economic and cultural differences. Yet detailed empirical analysis accounting for recent progress in creating an inclusive NHS work environment - where employees can readily participate in organisational decision-making and achieve their full potential - are sorely lacking. Similarly, it is unclear whether NHS diversity management practices and cultures support or counter workplace inequality, harassment, victimisation and discrimination. Data were collected through self-adm...
While the right to food and community self-reliance underpin current knowledge and interpretation... more While the right to food and community self-reliance underpin current knowledge and interpretation of community food security (CFS), the literature on CFS seldom accounts for the ways in which gender-based violence (GBV) disrupts and undermines CFS. In this review, we make the case that GBV in CFS contexts manifests as a continuum, involving different forms of violence that blend into and reinforce each other, fueling social degradation and undermining the capacity of community food system workers to prioritise and pursue CFS. We show that harms to CFS resulting from GBV manifest through (i) GBV-induced social degradation, (ii) erosion of moral and ethical values anchoring CFS, (iii) disruption of crucial food systems sustainability pathways to CFS, (iv) the challenges, behaviours and activities of community food system workers, and (v) the crippling of community-level on-farm and off-farm food value chains, which oftentimes disrupt food access, consumption and utilisation. We furthe...
This thesis provides a basin-level analysis of climate shocks and conflict links, utilising livel... more This thesis provides a basin-level analysis of climate shocks and conflict links, utilising livelihoods and vulnerability toolboxes, including a newly assembled conflict dataset that captures communal, rebel and water conflicts in four Lake Chad Basin (LCB) zones. The thesis draws on multi-method approaches to assess: (i) the manner in which lake drying shapes livelihood drawbacks and opportunities, (ii) the directionality of occupation-based vulnerability to double exposures, (iii) climate conflict interactions in the context of contextual vulnerability and lake drying, and (iv) adaptation-water-conflict integration need for the LCB. Key findings reveal that: (i) asset holdings from unstable water-based activities are a medium through which drying influences livelihoods, (ii) pastoralists are more vulnerable to double exposures because they have limited social networks and income strategies, (iii) rainfall anomalies have dampening effects on conflict and lake drying does not repres...
The science of climate security and conflict is replete with controversies. Yet the increasing vu... more The science of climate security and conflict is replete with controversies. Yet the increasing vulnerability of politically fragile countries to the security consequences of climate change is widely acknowledged. Although climate conflict reflects a continuum of conditional forces that coalesce around the notion of vulnerability, how different portrayals of vulnerability influence the discursive formation of climate conflict relations remains an exceptional but under-researched issue. This paper combines a systematic discourse analysis with a vulnerability interpretation diagnostic tool to explore: (i) how discourses of climate conflict are constructed and represented, (ii) how vulnerability is communicated across discourse lines, and (iii) the strength of contextual vulnerability against a deterministic narrative of scarcity-induced conflict, such as that pertaining to land. Systematically characterising climate conflict discourses based on the central issues constructed, assumptio...
This article builds on the growing literature that explores the relationships between environment... more This article builds on the growing literature that explores the relationships between environmental change and non-traditional security, defined as non-military threats that challenge the survival and well-being of peoples and states. The Lake Chad basin in Africa is used as a case study for analysis. Focusing on a set of questions that have dominated recent theoretical debates, this article investigates whether conflicts resulting from water scarcity are as much about the broader vulnerability of the Lake Chad region as they are about changes in the lake system and its environment. It argues that conflict is a probable outcome only in locations that are already challenged by a multitude of other context-specific factors besides resource scarcity. In the Lake Chad context, the likelihood of scarcity-driven conflict depends on whether vulnerability increases or decreases in the face of a declining water supply. The article provides perspectives for a nuanced understanding of how the ...
This article examines lake drying and livelihood dynamics in the context of multiple stressors th... more This article examines lake drying and livelihood dynamics in the context of multiple stressors through a case study of the "Small Lake Chad" in the Republic of Chad. Livelihoods research in regions experiencing persistent lake water fluctuations has largely focused on the well-being and security of lakeshore dwellers. Little is known about the mechanisms through which lake drying shapes livelihood drawbacks and opportunities, and whether locally evolved responses are enhancing livelihoods. Here we address these gaps using empirical, mixed-methods field research couched within the framework of livelihoods and human well-being contexts. The analysis demonstrates that limited opportunities outside agriculture, the influx of mixed ethnic migrants and the increasing spate of violence all enhance livelihood challenges. Livelihood opportunities centre on the renewal effects of seasonal flood pulses on lake waters and the learning opportunities triggered by past droughts. Although drying has spurred new adaptive behaviours predicated on seasonality, traditional predictive factors and the availability of assets, responses have remained largely reactive. The article points to where lake drying fits amongst changes in the wider socio-economic landscape in which people live, and suggests that awareness of the particularities of the mechanisms that connect lake drying to livelihoods can offer insights into the ways local people might be assisted by governments and development actors.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Afi Conservation Partners are in charge of the Afi Mountain Wildlife Sanct... more EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Afi Conservation Partners are in charge of the Afi Mountain Wildlife Sanctuary (AMWS) Conservation Project within the Boje District. They are initiating two flexible, portable and user-friendly technologies that allow local users with low literacy levels to record GPS referenced natural resource related data using ‘touch-screen’ hand-held computers. Data collated would be uploaded on a GIS platform for mapping and analysis and for subsequent use in managing the biodiversity assets of the Sanctuary. These two ICTs (that is, GPS mobile hand-held computers and GIS tools) have been used in Cameroon and Congo Brazzaville to monitor and manage natural resources of national importance. Their use in the AMWS project is expected to address the serious human and environmental threats facing the enormous natural resource base of the Sanctuary. But how e-ready is Boje District to allow the full penetration and use of these technologies? What type of environment does the District offer in terms of ICT use generally? How e-ready are the stakeholders to use these technologies? What are the actual use and benefits of these technologies? Using a synthesised combination of the e-readiness methodologies proposed by the Harvard University’s Center for International Development (CID), the Computer Systems Policy Project’s (CSPP) Readiness Guide for Living in the Networked-World and the Networked Readiness Index (NRI) in the Global Information Technology Report, the above e-readiness questions were adequately answered in this report. Evidence from this study revealed that the District is generally not e-ready going by its remote location, lack of ICT infrastructure and the poor socio-economic status of the local populace. Mobile telecommunication may have penetrated the area but internet access is non-existent except at the local district forestry office managed by the Afi Partners. The Afi Conservation Partners are e-ready to use the technologies but they face the enormous challenge of carrying the local communities along. The people have to be trained and motivated to take leverage of the ICT potentials. ICT infrastructure and enough funding are required to ensure sustainable use of the technologies for monitoring and managing the resources of the AMWS.
Executive Summary:
“Follow-up”, “auditing”, “impact monitoring”, “compliance monitoring” and “pos... more Executive Summary: “Follow-up”, “auditing”, “impact monitoring”, “compliance monitoring” and “post-development monitoring” are familiar to environmental assessment practitioners as members of a family of terms that relate to the general concept of “feedback” in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system, and they are commonly used interchangeably in literature. The term “post-development monitoring” is adopted for this study and it is conceptualised as the measurement of environmental variables during project construction and operation to determine the changes which may have occurred as a result of the project. Post-development monitoring represents a crucial point in assessing the predictive force of the EIA procedure and it is becoming widely accepted as the most crucial element of any EIA system. Most countries in developed and developing nations now have some form of EIA monitoring systems. Countries like Canada, Australia and the Netherlands that have long traditions of EIA practice, have well established legislative requirements for EIA monitoring. In UK, monitoring is self-regulatory. In developing countries, monitoring practices are recent and not well coordinated even though there are regulations in place. Information on monitoring is meager, scattered and the lessons learnt from EIA experience not well documented and shared amongst stakeholders especially in Ethiopia, South Africa and Nigeria. While the benefits and needs for monitoring are well documented, and the requirements spelt out, there seem to be only few projects that undergo monitoring in most of the ten countries surveyed in this study. The tasks and responsibility for monitoring are shared amongst proponents, regulators and the public (communities). What each partner does and when, are defined by each countries regulations. While developed countries boast of a robust track record of public participation and openness in their monitoring activities, the developing countries lack well designed process for involving the public and the parties involved lack the required training and character. The study proposed some recommendations which sum up to suggest that post-development monitoring can and will succeed if national governments show high level commitment and make efforts to build information exchange networks across borders.
Executive Summary:
“Follow-up”, “auditing”, “impact monitoring”, “compliance monitoring” and “pos... more Executive Summary: “Follow-up”, “auditing”, “impact monitoring”, “compliance monitoring” and “post-development monitoring” are familiar to environmental assessment practitioners as members of a family of terms that relate to the general concept of “feedback” in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system, and they are commonly used interchangeably in literature. The term “post-development monitoring” is adopted for this study and it is conceptualised as the measurement of environmental variables during project construction and operation to determine the changes which may have occurred as a result of the project. Post-development monitoring represents a crucial point in assessing the predictive force of the EIA procedure and it is becoming widely accepted as the most crucial element of any EIA system. Most countries in developed and developing nations now have some form of EIA monitoring systems. Countries like Canada, Australia and the Netherlands that have long traditions of EIA practice, have well established legislative requirements for EIA monitoring. In UK, monitoring is self-regulatory. In developing countries, monitoring practices are recent and not well coordinated even though there are regulations in place. Information on monitoring is meager, scattered and the lessons learnt from EIA experience not well documented and shared amongst stakeholders especially in Ethiopia, South Africa and Nigeria. While the benefits and needs for monitoring are well documented, and the requirements spelt out, there seem to be only few projects that undergo monitoring in most of the ten countries surveyed in this study. The tasks and responsibility for monitoring are shared amongst proponents, regulators and the public (communities). What each partner does and when, are defined by each countries regulations. While developed countries boast of a robust track record of public participation and openness in their monitoring activities, the developing countries lack well designed process for involving the public and the parties involved lack the required training and character. The study proposed some recommendations which sum up to suggest that post-development monitoring can and will succeed if national governments show high level commitment and make efforts to build information exchange networks across borders.
Executive Summary:
“Follow-up”, “auditing”, “impact monitoring”, “compliance monitoring” and “pos... more Executive Summary: “Follow-up”, “auditing”, “impact monitoring”, “compliance monitoring” and “post-development monitoring” are familiar to environmental assessment practitioners as members of a family of terms that relate to the general concept of “feedback” in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system, and they are commonly used interchangeably in literature. The term “post-development monitoring” is adopted for this study and it is conceptualised as the measurement of environmental variables during project construction and operation to determine the changes which may have occurred as a result of the project. Post-development monitoring represents a crucial point in assessing the predictive force of the EIA procedure and it is becoming widely accepted as the most crucial element of any EIA system. Most countries in developed and developing nations now have some form of EIA monitoring systems. Countries like Canada, Australia and the Netherlands that have long traditions of EIA practice, have well established legislative requirements for EIA monitoring. In UK, monitoring is self-regulatory. In developing countries, monitoring practices are recent and not well coordinated even though there are regulations in place. Information on monitoring is meager, scattered and the lessons learnt from EIA experience not well documented and shared amongst stakeholders especially in Ethiopia, South Africa and Nigeria. While the benefits and needs for monitoring are well documented, and the requirements spelt out, there seem to be only few projects that undergo monitoring in most of the ten countries surveyed in this study. The tasks and responsibility for monitoring are shared amongst proponents, regulators and the public (communities). What each partner does and when, are defined by each countries regulations. While developed countries boast of a robust track record of public participation and openness in their monitoring activities, the developing countries lack well designed process for involving the public and the parties involved lack the required training and character. The study proposed some recommendations which sum up to suggest that post-development monitoring can and will succeed if national governments show high level commitment and make efforts to build information exchange networks across borders.
Executive Summary
“Follow-up”, “auditing”, “impact monitoring”, “compliance monitoring” and “post... more Executive Summary “Follow-up”, “auditing”, “impact monitoring”, “compliance monitoring” and “post-development monitoring” are familiar to environmental assessment practitioners as members of a family of terms that relate to the general concept of “feedback” in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system, and they are commonly used interchangeably in literature. The term “post-development monitoring” is adopted for this study and it is conceptualised as the measurement of environmental variables during project construction and operation to determine the changes which may have occurred as a result of the project. Post-development monitoring represents a crucial point in assessing the predictive force of the EIA procedure and it is becoming widely accepted as the most crucial element of any EIA system. Most countries in developed and developing nations now have some form of EIA monitoring systems. Countries like Canada, Australia and the Netherlands that have long traditions of EIA practice, have well established legislative requirements for EIA monitoring. In UK, monitoring is self-regulatory. In developing countries, monitoring practices are recent and not well coordinated even though there are regulations in place. Information on monitoring is meager, scattered and the lessons learnt from EIA experience not well documented and shared amongst stakeholders especially in Ethiopia, South Africa and Nigeria. While the benefits and needs for monitoring are well documented, and the requirements spelt out, there seem to be only few projects that undergo monitoring in most of the ten countries surveyed in this study. The tasks and responsibility for monitoring are shared amongst proponents, regulators and the public (communities). What each partner does and when, are defined by each countries regulations. While developed countries boast of a robust track record of public participation and openness in their monitoring activities, the developing countries lack well designed process for involving the public and the parties involved lack the required training and character. The study proposed some recommendations which sum up to suggest that post-development monitoring can and will succeed if national governments show high level commitment and make efforts to build information exchange networks across borders.
Uploads
Papers by Uche Okpara, PhD
“Follow-up”, “auditing”, “impact monitoring”, “compliance monitoring” and “post-development monitoring” are familiar to environmental assessment practitioners as members of a family of terms that relate to the general concept of “feedback” in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system, and they are commonly used interchangeably in literature. The term “post-development monitoring” is adopted for this study and it is conceptualised as the measurement of environmental variables during project construction and operation to determine the changes which may have occurred as a result of the project. Post-development monitoring represents a crucial point in assessing the predictive force of the EIA procedure and it is becoming widely accepted as the most crucial element of any EIA system. Most countries in developed and developing nations now have some form of EIA monitoring systems. Countries like Canada, Australia and the Netherlands that have long traditions of EIA practice, have well established legislative requirements for EIA monitoring. In UK, monitoring is self-regulatory. In developing countries, monitoring practices are recent and not well coordinated even though there are regulations in place. Information on monitoring is meager, scattered and the lessons learnt from EIA experience not well documented and shared amongst stakeholders especially in Ethiopia, South Africa and Nigeria. While the benefits and needs for monitoring are well documented, and the requirements spelt out, there seem to be only few projects that undergo monitoring in most of the ten countries surveyed in this study. The tasks and responsibility for monitoring are shared amongst proponents, regulators and the public (communities). What each partner does and when, are defined by each countries regulations. While developed countries boast of a robust track record of public participation and openness in their monitoring activities, the developing countries lack well designed process for involving the public and the parties involved lack the required training and character. The study proposed some recommendations which sum up to suggest that post-development monitoring can and will succeed if national governments show high level commitment and make efforts to build information exchange networks across borders.
“Follow-up”, “auditing”, “impact monitoring”, “compliance monitoring” and “post-development monitoring” are familiar to environmental assessment practitioners as members of a family of terms that relate to the general concept of “feedback” in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system, and they are commonly used interchangeably in literature. The term “post-development monitoring” is adopted for this study and it is conceptualised as the measurement of environmental variables during project construction and operation to determine the changes which may have occurred as a result of the project. Post-development monitoring represents a crucial point in assessing the predictive force of the EIA procedure and it is becoming widely accepted as the most crucial element of any EIA system. Most countries in developed and developing nations now have some form of EIA monitoring systems. Countries like Canada, Australia and the Netherlands that have long traditions of EIA practice, have well established legislative requirements for EIA monitoring. In UK, monitoring is self-regulatory. In developing countries, monitoring practices are recent and not well coordinated even though there are regulations in place. Information on monitoring is meager, scattered and the lessons learnt from EIA experience not well documented and shared amongst stakeholders especially in Ethiopia, South Africa and Nigeria. While the benefits and needs for monitoring are well documented, and the requirements spelt out, there seem to be only few projects that undergo monitoring in most of the ten countries surveyed in this study. The tasks and responsibility for monitoring are shared amongst proponents, regulators and the public (communities). What each partner does and when, are defined by each countries regulations. While developed countries boast of a robust track record of public participation and openness in their monitoring activities, the developing countries lack well designed process for involving the public and the parties involved lack the required training and character. The study proposed some recommendations which sum up to suggest that post-development monitoring can and will succeed if national governments show high level commitment and make efforts to build information exchange networks across borders.
“Follow-up”, “auditing”, “impact monitoring”, “compliance monitoring” and “post-development monitoring” are familiar to environmental assessment practitioners as members of a family of terms that relate to the general concept of “feedback” in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system, and they are commonly used interchangeably in literature. The term “post-development monitoring” is adopted for this study and it is conceptualised as the measurement of environmental variables during project construction and operation to determine the changes which may have occurred as a result of the project. Post-development monitoring represents a crucial point in assessing the predictive force of the EIA procedure and it is becoming widely accepted as the most crucial element of any EIA system. Most countries in developed and developing nations now have some form of EIA monitoring systems. Countries like Canada, Australia and the Netherlands that have long traditions of EIA practice, have well established legislative requirements for EIA monitoring. In UK, monitoring is self-regulatory. In developing countries, monitoring practices are recent and not well coordinated even though there are regulations in place. Information on monitoring is meager, scattered and the lessons learnt from EIA experience not well documented and shared amongst stakeholders especially in Ethiopia, South Africa and Nigeria. While the benefits and needs for monitoring are well documented, and the requirements spelt out, there seem to be only few projects that undergo monitoring in most of the ten countries surveyed in this study. The tasks and responsibility for monitoring are shared amongst proponents, regulators and the public (communities). What each partner does and when, are defined by each countries regulations. While developed countries boast of a robust track record of public participation and openness in their monitoring activities, the developing countries lack well designed process for involving the public and the parties involved lack the required training and character. The study proposed some recommendations which sum up to suggest that post-development monitoring can and will succeed if national governments show high level commitment and make efforts to build information exchange networks across borders.
“Follow-up”, “auditing”, “impact monitoring”, “compliance monitoring” and “post-development monitoring” are familiar to environmental assessment practitioners as members of a family of terms that relate to the general concept of “feedback” in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system, and they are commonly used interchangeably in literature. The term “post-development monitoring” is adopted for this study and it is conceptualised as the measurement of environmental variables during project construction and operation to determine the changes which may have occurred as a result of the project. Post-development monitoring represents a crucial point in assessing the predictive force of the EIA procedure and it is becoming widely accepted as the most crucial element of any EIA system. Most countries in developed and developing nations now have some form of EIA monitoring systems. Countries like Canada, Australia and the Netherlands that have long traditions of EIA practice, have well established legislative requirements for EIA monitoring. In UK, monitoring is self-regulatory. In developing countries, monitoring practices are recent and not well coordinated even though there are regulations in place. Information on monitoring is meager, scattered and the lessons learnt from EIA experience not well documented and shared amongst stakeholders especially in Ethiopia, South Africa and Nigeria. While the benefits and needs for monitoring are well documented, and the requirements spelt out, there seem to be only few projects that undergo monitoring in most of the ten countries surveyed in this study. The tasks and responsibility for monitoring are shared amongst proponents, regulators and the public (communities). What each partner does and when, are defined by each countries regulations. While developed countries boast of a robust track record of public participation and openness in their monitoring activities, the developing countries lack well designed process for involving the public and the parties involved lack the required training and character. The study proposed some recommendations which sum up to suggest that post-development monitoring can and will succeed if national governments show high level commitment and make efforts to build information exchange networks across borders.
“Follow-up”, “auditing”, “impact monitoring”, “compliance monitoring” and “post-development monitoring” are familiar to environmental assessment practitioners as members of a family of terms that relate to the general concept of “feedback” in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system, and they are commonly used interchangeably in literature. The term “post-development monitoring” is adopted for this study and it is conceptualised as the measurement of environmental variables during project construction and operation to determine the changes which may have occurred as a result of the project. Post-development monitoring represents a crucial point in assessing the predictive force of the EIA procedure and it is becoming widely accepted as the most crucial element of any EIA system. Most countries in developed and developing nations now have some form of EIA monitoring systems. Countries like Canada, Australia and the Netherlands that have long traditions of EIA practice, have well established legislative requirements for EIA monitoring. In UK, monitoring is self-regulatory. In developing countries, monitoring practices are recent and not well coordinated even though there are regulations in place. Information on monitoring is meager, scattered and the lessons learnt from EIA experience not well documented and shared amongst stakeholders especially in Ethiopia, South Africa and Nigeria. While the benefits and needs for monitoring are well documented, and the requirements spelt out, there seem to be only few projects that undergo monitoring in most of the ten countries surveyed in this study. The tasks and responsibility for monitoring are shared amongst proponents, regulators and the public (communities). What each partner does and when, are defined by each countries regulations. While developed countries boast of a robust track record of public participation and openness in their monitoring activities, the developing countries lack well designed process for involving the public and the parties involved lack the required training and character. The study proposed some recommendations which sum up to suggest that post-development monitoring can and will succeed if national governments show high level commitment and make efforts to build information exchange networks across borders.
“Follow-up”, “auditing”, “impact monitoring”, “compliance monitoring” and “post-development monitoring” are familiar to environmental assessment practitioners as members of a family of terms that relate to the general concept of “feedback” in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system, and they are commonly used interchangeably in literature. The term “post-development monitoring” is adopted for this study and it is conceptualised as the measurement of environmental variables during project construction and operation to determine the changes which may have occurred as a result of the project. Post-development monitoring represents a crucial point in assessing the predictive force of the EIA procedure and it is becoming widely accepted as the most crucial element of any EIA system. Most countries in developed and developing nations now have some form of EIA monitoring systems. Countries like Canada, Australia and the Netherlands that have long traditions of EIA practice, have well established legislative requirements for EIA monitoring. In UK, monitoring is self-regulatory. In developing countries, monitoring practices are recent and not well coordinated even though there are regulations in place. Information on monitoring is meager, scattered and the lessons learnt from EIA experience not well documented and shared amongst stakeholders especially in Ethiopia, South Africa and Nigeria. While the benefits and needs for monitoring are well documented, and the requirements spelt out, there seem to be only few projects that undergo monitoring in most of the ten countries surveyed in this study. The tasks and responsibility for monitoring are shared amongst proponents, regulators and the public (communities). What each partner does and when, are defined by each countries regulations. While developed countries boast of a robust track record of public participation and openness in their monitoring activities, the developing countries lack well designed process for involving the public and the parties involved lack the required training and character. The study proposed some recommendations which sum up to suggest that post-development monitoring can and will succeed if national governments show high level commitment and make efforts to build information exchange networks across borders.
“Follow-up”, “auditing”, “impact monitoring”, “compliance monitoring” and “post-development monitoring” are familiar to environmental assessment practitioners as members of a family of terms that relate to the general concept of “feedback” in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system, and they are commonly used interchangeably in literature. The term “post-development monitoring” is adopted for this study and it is conceptualised as the measurement of environmental variables during project construction and operation to determine the changes which may have occurred as a result of the project. Post-development monitoring represents a crucial point in assessing the predictive force of the EIA procedure and it is becoming widely accepted as the most crucial element of any EIA system. Most countries in developed and developing nations now have some form of EIA monitoring systems. Countries like Canada, Australia and the Netherlands that have long traditions of EIA practice, have well established legislative requirements for EIA monitoring. In UK, monitoring is self-regulatory. In developing countries, monitoring practices are recent and not well coordinated even though there are regulations in place. Information on monitoring is meager, scattered and the lessons learnt from EIA experience not well documented and shared amongst stakeholders especially in Ethiopia, South Africa and Nigeria. While the benefits and needs for monitoring are well documented, and the requirements spelt out, there seem to be only few projects that undergo monitoring in most of the ten countries surveyed in this study. The tasks and responsibility for monitoring are shared amongst proponents, regulators and the public (communities). What each partner does and when, are defined by each countries regulations. While developed countries boast of a robust track record of public participation and openness in their monitoring activities, the developing countries lack well designed process for involving the public and the parties involved lack the required training and character. The study proposed some recommendations which sum up to suggest that post-development monitoring can and will succeed if national governments show high level commitment and make efforts to build information exchange networks across borders.
“Follow-up”, “auditing”, “impact monitoring”, “compliance monitoring” and “post-development monitoring” are familiar to environmental assessment practitioners as members of a family of terms that relate to the general concept of “feedback” in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) system, and they are commonly used interchangeably in literature. The term “post-development monitoring” is adopted for this study and it is conceptualised as the measurement of environmental variables during project construction and operation to determine the changes which may have occurred as a result of the project. Post-development monitoring represents a crucial point in assessing the predictive force of the EIA procedure and it is becoming widely accepted as the most crucial element of any EIA system. Most countries in developed and developing nations now have some form of EIA monitoring systems. Countries like Canada, Australia and the Netherlands that have long traditions of EIA practice, have well established legislative requirements for EIA monitoring. In UK, monitoring is self-regulatory. In developing countries, monitoring practices are recent and not well coordinated even though there are regulations in place. Information on monitoring is meager, scattered and the lessons learnt from EIA experience not well documented and shared amongst stakeholders especially in Ethiopia, South Africa and Nigeria. While the benefits and needs for monitoring are well documented, and the requirements spelt out, there seem to be only few projects that undergo monitoring in most of the ten countries surveyed in this study. The tasks and responsibility for monitoring are shared amongst proponents, regulators and the public (communities). What each partner does and when, are defined by each countries regulations. While developed countries boast of a robust track record of public participation and openness in their monitoring activities, the developing countries lack well designed process for involving the public and the parties involved lack the required training and character. The study proposed some recommendations which sum up to suggest that post-development monitoring can and will succeed if national governments show high level commitment and make efforts to build information exchange networks across borders.