SUMMARY

USAID Asia and Near East Region Mission Environmental Officers and
Mission Staff Course

Environmental Compliance Procedures and Environmentally Sound Design

Cairo, February 14--17, 2005

Prepared by The Cadmus Group, Inc.

This document summarizes the results of a course offered to Mission
Environmental Officers and Mission Staff in Cairo, Egypt, February
14--17, 2005, by The Cadmus Group, Inc. The course was part of the
Bureau's response to the challenge of improving compliance with
federally mandated environmental regulations, agency and bureau
environmental policy, and environmentally sound design. USAID's
mandatory environmental procedures (as codified in 22 CFR 216, or "Reg
216") provide a systematic way to avoid environmental failures in
USAID-supported development interventions.

# Course Objectives

The aim of the Cairo course was to advance the capacity of Mission staff
to:

-   Design and implement environmentally sound activities to improve
    program and project sustainability.

-   Assess reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts. Mitigate and
    monitor to minimize adverse impacts and potential design errors.

-   Review how USAID procedures are to be applied in the context of
    evolving local policies and needs in environmental impact assessment
    (EIA) and environmentally sound design and management.

-   Address the question: "How can environmentally sound design
    processes be strengthened within our Missions and the Agency?"

-   Provide an opportunity to discuss capacity building approaches.

-   Review new approaches to knowledge management and their potential
    application to Agency and Mission responsibilities to promote
    environmentally sound design.

# Participants and Facilitators

Participants included Mission Environmental Officers, Strategic
Objective Team Members, Cognizant Technical Officers (CTOs), and other
USAID staff. The 25 participants represented Missions in Bangladesh,
Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Malawi, West Bank/Gaza, and Yemen. Also
present was a representative from the Jordanian Ministry of the
Environment. A list of participants accompanies this report.

Jim Hester, Agency Environmental Coordinator, delivered introductory
remarks and the closing. He also presented special modules throughout
the course. Barney Popkin, USAID/ANE/TS Environmental Protection
Specialist, offered a Bureau-wide view of course objectives and
monitored participant performance throughout the course. He also
stimulated and contributed to the development and facilitation of the
group exercises, and developed and conducted a pre- and post-test of the
participants' knowledge of USAID Regulation 216 processes (see course
results below).

In addition, Barney took on the responsibility for communicating with
the Missions to identify participants, and then to ensure their travel
and logistics needs with the hotel were addressed. Tim Resch of ANE/TS
was involved in helping solicit Mission interest in sending
representatives to the course.

The principal trainers included Wes Fisher, from The Cadmus Group, Inc.,
and Jim Hester. They were assisted by Shreedhar Kanetkar, also from
Cadmus. The course organizers are indebted to various members of the
USAID Mission in Cairo, particularly Seifalla Hassanein, Mission
Environmental Officer, and Inas Tawadrous, Administrative Assistant.
Their help enriched the participants' learning experience.

# Course Methodology

Agency Environmental Coordinator Jim Hester set the tone by emphasizing
how environmental impact assessment is the key to state-of-the-art
development. Over the next three days, facilitators and participants
together explored ways to strengthen USAID program performance by using
environmental procedures in conjunction with environmental best
management practices.

Through presentations, case studies, and group exercises participants
learned how to review Initial Environmental Examinations, and implement
Mitigation and Monitoring Plans (Environmental Management Action Plans).
Participants were also introduced to special environmental topics. These
included pesticides and integrated pest management, public-private
partnerships, and biosafety. Special attention was given to ways to
enhance the environmental and economic sustainability of USAID programs.

Roles and responsibilities as outlined in the Automated Directive System
(ADS), especially ADS 201 and ADS 204, were discussed. Participants were
encouraged to share experiences with their peers. Segments of certain
modules were also used to elicit ideas regarding ways to improve the
implementation of USAID procedures pertaining environmental impact
analysis. These are summarized in *Participant Recommendations on How to
More Effectively Apply USAID Environmental Procedures to USAID-Supported
Projects and Programs*, which accompanies this report.

Several group exercises were used during the course. Participants were
divided into four groups, each with between five and seven members. Each
group was given a short set of open-ended case questions designed to
deepen the group's understanding of topics covered in prior modules.
Each case question was based on real-world examples identified by Barney
Popkin and developed collaboratively by all four facilitators. During
the group exercise, facilitators visited each group to monitor progress
and address questions that arose as the group worked on the question. At
the end of the exercise, each group reported its results to the class.
Group composition and choice of rapporteur changed throughout the
course, bringing a fresh perspective to each exercise and allowing
participants to get to know their colleagues in a variety of settings.

# Course Evaluation (Subjective)

Out of a total evaluation ranking (on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 for the
highest score), the course received an overall ranking of 4.6 for "How
would you assess the overall quality of the course content?" and 4.5 for
"Please rate and comment on the extent to which this course improved
your understanding of environmental assessment."

# *General Comments*

Nineteen participants provided written comments along with their
quantitative response to the first question. Most (11) expressed general
appreciation. A sampling follows:

> "It was a great course, with a good combination of examples, case
> studies and presentations."
>
> "Excellent material, well organized. Jim Hester's presence was
> extremely useful."
>
> "The course was very good. Good presenters and excellent resource
> material. Both Blue Book \[Environmental Procedures Training Manual\]
> and Source Book are good documents."
>
> "Very thorough course documentation. The technical expert specialists
> were very good -- especially having Jim Hester."
>
> "Overall very good course. Wes has excellent knowledge of background.
> Presence of Jim Hester added value to the course."

# *Areas for Improvement*

Several participants (8) provided comments that suggest general or
specific areas for improvement. For example:

> "The material is very good. It could be improved by focusing more
> \[on\] the process and use one case study and apply the process."
>
> "\[Include\] more group exercises and case studies."
>
> "Use more field examples; reduce number of course objectives; \[add
> an\] interactive session on real life challenges."
>
> "Course material is excellent; however, flow of presentations did not
> follow up with the material in hand."

# *Improvements Reported by Participants*

When asked to comment on the extent to which the course improved their
understanding of environmental assessment, 17 participants responded
with written comments. Most (15) described discernible improvements
resulting from the course. For example:

> "I did not understand clearly the special rules related to pesticides
> and GMO. This training was helpful to clarify the [intent]{.underline}
> of following Reg 216."
>
> "Course improved my understanding of strategic and big picture
> issues."
>
> "I now know that the Program Office should get involved in monitoring
> compliance to Reg 216 requirements."
>
> "Understood the legal implications and the different roles and
> responsibilities of all parties within Mission and outside."

Two participants used this opportunity to suggest improvements to the
course:

> "Increasing time -- field trip should be included"
>
> "It has improved my understanding; however, I wanted some practical
> exercise on how to prepare an EA (actual case study)."

# *Enhanced environmental review capacity  *Eighteen participants provided written comments on the extent to which they felt prepared, as a result of the course, to undertake or assist in the preparation of an environmental review. To some extent, their responses to this question varied according to their prior experience and their current responsibilities. However, most comments pointed to an increased level of confidence and capability. Examples include:

> "I feel very prepared to conduct environmental reviews in USAID."
>
> "I feel I can help in writing EA in our environmental projects."
>
> "I feel more confident than before and if I can't do it I know whom to
> go to for help."
>
> "I really gained a lot. The training answered many questions I had.
> The course material will help me to find where I should go."

# *Course Evaluation (Objective)*

A short questionnaire developed by Barney Popkin was used to evaluate
changes in subject-matter knowledge resulting from the course. The same
questionnaire was administered to participants before and after the
course. Results are summarized in the table below:

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Questions answered    | Pre-test February 15, | Post-test             |
| correctly             | 2005                  |                       |
|                       |                       | February 17, 2005     |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Mean                  | 74 percent            | 92 percent            |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Range                 | 36 -- 100 percent     | 84 -- 100 percent     |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

The mean improvement in grades was 16 percent. Individual improvement
ranged from 4 to 64 percent. No one who took the test on February 15
scored lower on February 17. Nor did anyone score the same. That is, all
participants improved, except for one participant who scored 100 percent
on both days.

# *ANE/TS Support Services Task Order*

This course was supported through core funds and technical assistance
under the USAID Asia and Near East Bureau Office of Technical Support
(ANE/TS) Support Services Task Order. For more information on services
available through this Task Order, please contact Barney Popkin
(202-712-1063) or John Wilson (202-712-4633).