Training Course Report
Impact assessment and decision
making in the BCLME Region
Deutsches Haus, Swakopmund, Namibia
23-26 March 2007
Prepared and delivered by the
Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment (SAIEA)
Contents
Contents........................................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 3
Attendance....................................................................................................................................................... 3
Course methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Course Review................................................................................................................................................. 4
Annexes ........................................................................................................................................................... 6
Annex 1: Course Agenda.............................................................................................................................. 6
Annex 2: Course materials ........................................................................................................................... 8
Annex 3: Evaluation questionnaire ................................................................................................................ 9
Introduction
This training course was commissioned by the Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem (BCLME)
programme, through the BENEFIT office. BCLME funded the participation of 14 participants while the
NACOMA project sponsored an additional 6 participants. The list of persons who attended the course is
presented below.
The course was prepared by the Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment (SAIEA) and
presented jointly by Peter Tarr and Zeka Alberto. The materials were drawn from a number of other courses
prepared and presented by SAIEA over the past 6 years, but customized for the audience and the need for
focus on the coastal and marine environments in the BCLME region.
All logistical arrangements, including venue hire, participants travel and other logistics were made by the
BENEFIT office, and overseen by their Training Coordinator, Ms Pavs Pillay.
Attendance
Domingos da Silva Neto INIP
Isabel Rangel
INIP
Theressa Akkers
MCM
Ema Gomes
Ministry of Petroleum
Helena André
Ministry of Petroleum
Ana Yolanda Gonçalves
Ministry of Urbunism and Environmental Affairs
Alwyn Engelbrecht
NACOMA
Aunie Gebardt
NACOMA
Berdine Potgeiter
NACOMA
Francis Samtambwa
NACOMA
John Paterson
NACOMA
Petrus Sunny Shuuya
NACOMA
Anja Kriener
NatMirc
Anja van der Plas
NatMirc
Deon Louw
NatMirc
Heidi Currie
Independent
Heidi Skrypzeck
NatMirc
Janine Basson
NatMirc
Kolet Grobler
NatMirc
Paloma Ellitson
NatMirc
Course methodology
The overal theme of the course was `decision maker's dilemma' the challenges faced by mid-level decision
makers in the BCLME Region. The majority of participants were relatively senior with an average of
approximately ten years experience each. For this reason, the course was designed to improve leadership
around the use of sustainable development tools such as Impact Assessment. It was assumed that the
participants would either contribute towards the setting of Terms of Reference for EAs or comment on
completed EAs as part of their normal work. In some cases, they would play a pivotal role in issuing a
decision on a project on the basis of having reviewed an EA report. This assumption proved correct.
The course combined lectures based on powerpoint slides, group activities on prepared case studies, a `mini
EIA' conducted partly in the field and an excursion to view development issues along the coastline between
Swakopmund and Walvis Bay. The field excursion focused on a controversial housing estate in the above
area, and included an in situ presentation by the company that conducted the EIA and a response by a local
NGO opposed to the project. This enabled participants to consider both sides of the argument whilst viewing
construction activities first hand. They were given the opportunity to pose questions to the `for' and `against'
camps and so draw their own conclusions about the merits of both. The methodology was designed to
achieve maximum participation by all participants and as much `learning by doing' as possible. Also,
participants were expected to share their knowledge so that course-goers could benefit from the collective
experience within the group.
Groups were selected by the facilitator to ensure a mix of persons from the three countries represented. This
prevented colleagues from forming their own group and facilitated networking and the establishment of new
relationships between participants.
From the discussions that were generated during the course, it became evident that the countries in the
BCLME region share a number of common problems. A concluding `brainstorm' session suggested that a
number of improvements need to be made to ensure better implementation of Impact Assessment. These
include:
· Passing of draft legislation (in the case of Namibia)
· Combating corruption (there is a perception that political considerations some linked to corrupt practices
undermine Impact Assessment and governance in development planning)
· More consistent use of EA (current situation is ad-hoc use)
· More use of independent guide-and-review services both to improve quality and governance
· More training especially for higher level people
· Improve post-implementation monitoring.
Course Review
It is evident from the evaluation by participants that the course was successful as 33% felt it exceeded their
expectations whilst the remainder (67%) said their expectations had been met. It was pleasing to note that no-
one felt that their expectations had not been met.
Figure 1: Rating by participants on the quality of various aspects of the course (based on anonymous
completion of the evaluation questionnaire).
80
excellent
70
good
satisfactory
60
poor
50
se
40
e
spon
% R
30
20
10
0
ck
nt
tio
ue
nte
tion
rips
l ra
nities
ven
enta
tu
eld t
ation pa
esenters
tica
se
Pr
se co
es
ortunities
por
Fi
ur
Pr
ur
opp
ac
form
op
Co
In
Co
y/pr
ring
or
orking
sha
The
ge
Netw
owled
Kn
Figure 1 shows that the presentation of the course and the presenters themselves were very well received
(100% excellent or good) and that all other aspects (except the venue) received an overwhelming satisfaction
rating amongst participants. The venue was generally `satisfactory' but the room was perhaps a bit small
given the fact that the course included a number of exercises that required people to move around and
interact with each other. Breakaway areas were far from the main room and it was rather awkward to carry
boards and flip charts up and down stairs.
Most participants commented that the course was extremely relevant to them in their work and that they felt
more confident to perform their duties as a result. The main suggestions for improvements (in random order)
were:
· Present the course in Portuguese (in Angola)
· Distribute course materials ahead of time so people can familiarise themselves with the contents
· Present the course to higher level decision makers
· Include more information on environmental law
· More information about monitoring
· Include more case studies.
Attendance of the course dinner was disappointing and it was evident that participants preferred saving their
per diems rather than going out as a group. This was a pity as a course dinner usually helps to foster group
spirit. A better idea in future is perhaps to host the dinner as a compulsory activity though this is obviously a
controversial issue given the costs and the fact that these are ultimately deducted from the per diems. It was
further disappointing to note that the fully funded ice-breaker was also not attended by many of the
participants. This event was meant to introduce the participants to each other and start the inklings of group
spirit.
Annexes
Annex 1: Course Agenda
DAY 1: Monday 23 April 2007
08h30
Coffee and registration
09h00
Official opening of the course (Minister of Fisheries and Marine Resources)
09h30 Purpose of the course, introductions and participant expectations
10h00
Course outline, methodology, house rules, administration.
10h30
TEA
Part 1: Threats and development options for the BCLME
11h00
Group work:- key threats to the BCLME
12h00
Plenary discussion
12h30 Taking stock and discussion/suggestions
13h00
LUNCH
14h00
Overview of fisheries, coastal development, tourism, etc.
15h00
TEA
Part 2: Environmental Law
15h30 Overview of environmental law, international conventions and key principles
16h15 Group work: Strengths and weaknesses of policy and practice in the BCLME
countries
17h00
End Day 1
19h00 Course reception: cocktails and drinks (venue to be announced)
DAY 2: Tuesday 24 April 2007
08h00
Overview Day 1 and planning for day 2
08h15 Plenary feedback on policy and practice
Part 3: Decision making for sustainable development
09h00
Responsibilities of decision makers in the BCLME countries
10h00
Group work: Decision making challenges in BCLME countries
10h30
TEA
11h00
Group work continued
11h30 Plenary feedback on decision making challenges
Part 4: Impact Assessment
12h00 Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)
13h00
LUNCH
14h00
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
15h00
TEA
15h30 Group work: Scoping exercise using a local case study
16h30 Plenary feedback
17h00 Closure
DAY 3: Wednesday 25 April 2007
08h00
Overview Day 2 and planning for day 3
Part 5: Impact Assessment practice
08h15
Public participation in impact assessment (including exercise)
10h00 Introduction to case study
10h30
TEA
11h00 Excursion to case study site. Participants walk to site. Briefed on site about the
Project. Return to venue for lunch
13h00
LUNCH
14h00
Group work: Mini-EIA relating to the case study
15h00
TEA
15h30
Group work continued
17h00
Closure
19h00 Course dinner (venue to be announced)
DAY 4: Thursday 26 April 2007
08h00
Overview Day 3 and planning for day 4
Part 6: SEA/EIA wrap-up
08h15
Field excursion: Bus trip to various illustrative case studies to show examples of best
and poor practice. Lunch in the field.
15h00 Tea (at lecture venue)
15h30 Course evaluation
16h00 Wrap-up discussion
17h00 Closure
Annex 2: Course materials
See separate file
Annex 3: Evaluation questionnaire
· Please be honest and frank in your evaluation the purpose of the evaluation is to find ways of improving
future courses
· You can remain anonymous, so that you are free to speak your mind!
· Please tick the appropriate boxes and / or write comments in the space provided
· Please hand in your completed evaluation to the course facilitator.
Excellent Good Satisfactory Poor
1
The information pack that you received was
2
The presenters of the course were
3
The content of the course was
4
The presentation of the course was
5
The opportunities for you to share your knowledge with
other participants were
6
The ratio of theoretical presentations to group/practical
exercises was
7
The opportunities for you to network with other
participants attending the course were
8
The course venue was
9
The field trips were
Exceeded
Met
Did not
Unsure
expectations
expectations
meet
To what extent did this course meet your
expectations?
How relevant was the course and how will you use the knowledge you have gained? .........................
...............................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
What should we do to improve the course?............................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
General Comments and Recommendations:............................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
Thank you