INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXAMINATIONFACESHEET

Activity/Project Title: Counter- Lord’s Resistance ArmyPROGRAM AREA HL.X: PROGRAM AREA HL.X:

Solicitation #: [As assigned by contracting office]

Contract/Award Number (if known): TBD

Geographic Location: Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Central African Republic (CAR) / Central Africa Regional Operating Unit / Mission to the DRC: Non-Presence Country Office (NPCO)Originating Bureau: Africa Bureau

Supplemental IEE: Yes NoAmendment: Yes No Programmatic IEE: Yes No

DCN and date of Original document:

DCN and ECD link(s) of Amendment(s):

Amendment No.:

Funding Amount: $30,000,000 Life of Project Amount: 5 years

Implementation Start/End: FY2017 to FY 2022Prepared By Elizabeth Mbanzidi, Mission Environment Officer USAID/DROC and Kirk HebertsonIEE Submitted by: Kirk Herbertson , Central African Region Technical Adviser

Date Submitted: January 23, 2017

Expiration Date: January 31, 2022 Reporting due dates (if any): Environmental Media and/or Human Health Potentially Impacted (check all that apply):None Air Water Land Biodiversity Human Health OtherRecommended Threshold Determination(check all that apply):

Negative Determination with conditions

Categorical Exclusion

Positive Determination Deferral Exemption USG Domestic NEPA action

Additional Elements Conditions EMMP WQAP Pesticides Deferred Other: ESF/ERR

DCA

1

Climate Change:GCC/Adaptation GCC/Mitigation Climate Change Vulnerability Analysis (included)

Adaptation/Mitigation Measures:

Other Relevant Environmental Compliance Documentation:

SUMMARY OF FINDINGSThe purpose of this Initial Environmental Examination (IEE), in accordance with 22 CFR 216, is to provide the first review of the reasonably foreseeable effects on the environment, as well as recommended Threshold Decisions, for activities to promote community protection and recovery in areas affected by the Lord’s Resistance Army (counter-LRA or C-LRA). This IEE also proposes mitigating measures to reduce or eliminate environmental impacts, including climate change risks.

The program will improve the resilience of communities in areas of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the Central African Republic (CAR) affected by the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), by helping people to reduce the risks of attacks and to recover from attacks that occur. This document will ensure environmental compliance and will also permit the implementation of the activity in accordance with USAID Environmental Policies and Procedures.

The activity will take place in northeastern DRC and southeastern CAR and will be managed by USAID’s Central Africa Regional Operating Unit at USAID’s Mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

InterventionCategorical Exclusion

Deferral Negative Determination

with Conditions

Positive Determination

Community protection committees and plans

X22 CFR 216.2 (c)2(i)(iii)(v)

- - -

Mapping and analysisX

22 CFR 216.2 (c)2(i)(iii)(v)

- - -

2

Trauma healing and psychosocial support

X22 CFR 216.2 (c)2(i)(iii)(v)

- - -

Participatory community training

X22 CFR 216.2 (c)2(i)(iii)(v)

- - -

Training, awareness raising, and capacity building

X22 CFR 216.2 (c)2(i)(iii)(v)

- - -

Broadcasting and radio operations - -

X22 CFR 216.3 (a)

(2)(iii)-

Power generation- -

X22 CFR 216.3 (a)

(2)(iii)-

Community-based micro projects / Agriculture development

- -X

22 CFR 216.3 (a)(2)(iii)

-

MONITORING AND IMPLEMENTATIONIn addition to the specific conditions enumerated in Section 3, the negative determinations recommended in this IEE are contingent on full implementation of a set of general monitoring and implementation requirements specified in Section 4 of the IEE.

These require, in summary: (1) Implementing Partner briefings on environmental compliance responsibilities; (2) development of environmental mitigation and monitoring plans (EMMPs); (3) integration and implementation of EMMPs in workplans and budgets; (4) integration of compliance responsibilities in prime and sub-contracts and grant agreements; (5) assurance of sub-grantee and sub-contractor capacity to implement the conditionalities herein; (6) environmental compliance monitoring; and (7) compliance with host country requirements.

3

APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION RECOMMENDEDIEE for CAR LRA to activities to promote community protection and recovery in areas affected by the Lord’s Resistance Army (counter-LRA or C-LRA).

CLEARANCE:USAID/DRC Mission Director: ___________________ Date: ______________

Christophe Tocco

CONCURRENCE:AFR Bureau Environmental Officer: ___________________ Date: ______________

Brian Hirsch

File name: CAR_LRA_NPCO_IEE

ADDITIONAL CLEARANCES:Mission Environmental Officer: ___________________ Date: ______________

Diane Mbanzidi

CAROU Technical Adviser: ___________________ Date: ______________Kirk Herbertson

Program Officer: ___________________ Date: ______________ Tim Stein

Regional Environmental Officer: ___________________ Date: ______________ USAID East & Central Africa David Kinyua

4

5

INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EXAMINATION (IEE)

PROGRAM/ACTIVITY DATAActivity Number: TBDActivity Title: Counter-Lord’s Resistance Army (C-LRA) ActivityCountry/Region: Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Central African

Republic (CAR) / Central Africa Region

SECTION I. BACKGROUND AND ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION

1.1 Purpose and Scope of IEE

The purpose of this IEE is to provide environmental review recommendations pursuant to 22 CFR 216 (Regulation 216) for the C-LRA activity. The activity intends to improve the resilience of communities in areas of the DRC and CAR affected by the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), by helping people to reduce the risks of attacks and to recover from attacks that occur. This document will ensure environmental compliance and will also permit the implementation of the activity in accordance with USAID Environmental Policies and Procedures.

This document reviews the reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of all interventions under the C-LRA activity in southeastern CAR and northeastern DRC. On this basis, the IEE recommends Threshold Decisions and attendant conditions for these interventions. The IEE also sets out activity-level implementation, monitoring, and reporting procedures intended to assure that: (1) conditions in this IEE are translated into specific mitigation measures and actions; (2) systematic compliance with this IEE during program implementation. These procedures are a general condition of approval for the IEE, and their implementation is mandatory.

As the Central African Republic is a non-presence country for USAID, the activity will be managed by USAID’s Central Africa Regional Operating Unit within the Mission to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

1.2 Background

Joseph Kony formed the LRA in 1987 as a Ugandan political rebellion, but the group soon began to carry out massacres, sexual violence, mutilations, pillaging, and abductions. Kony also gained notoriety for his use of child soldiers. In 2006, the LRA was pushed out of Uganda, but scattered groups continue to operate in the ungoverned border regions of the DRC, CAR, South Sudan, and Sudan. Ugandan and Congolese national militaries, advised by U.S. Special Forces, began pursuing the LRA in 2008, resulting in a halt to its large-scale atrocities. Military forces pursuing the LRA now operate under

6

the command of an African Union C-LRA Regional Task Force (AU-RTF). However, attacks attributed to the LRA continue to happen. Although the primary objective of the AU-RTF is to capture or kill Joseph Kony, civilians in the region face other security threats, as well. Prolonged instability has stifled economic and social development, contributing to a governance vacuum where armed groups thrive. The LRA does not have a monopoly on violence. Many armed groups travel throughout the region to engage in ivory poaching and other forms of natural resource trafficking. As of 2016, Joseph Kony remains at large, but the LRA appears to be significantly weakened. Although the number of reported attacks has increased, most involve small-scale robberies and short-term kidnappings of civilians who are then forced to carry items or perform manual labor for LRA groups. There has been a drop in the number of LRA killings and mass abductions. Of the five LRA commanders with International Criminal Court warrants, four have been captured or killed. The size of the LRA’s fighting force has dropped from approximately 1,000 combatants in 2008 to an estimated 150 today. Nevertheless, the future threat posed by the LRA remains uncertain. In early 2016, the region experienced a dramatic rise in attacks and kidnappings. Some analysts believe that different LRA groups operating in the DRC and CAR are increasingly composed of local people rather than Ugandans, and that Joseph Kony might be losing control of some groups. As a result, it is often difficult to distinguish between LRA and other armed groups or bandits based on clothing, language, and behavior.

Active armed groups include the LRA, ex-Séléka and anti-balaka militias from CAR, and Janjaweed militias from the Sudans, among others.1 Government troops from South Sudan and other countries have also been linked to illegal activities.2 In addition to known armed groups, numerous criminal networks and bandits traverse the borders of CAR, the DRC, and the Sudans freely. All of these actors have attacked civilians. Historical tensions also exist between agricultural and pastoralist communities over competition for land and natural resources.3 In southeastern CAR, violence between agricultural and pastoralist communities erupted in November 2014. In the DRC, recent incidents of violence have occurred, and anti-pastoralist rhetoric is common among local political and military leaders.1 The “Séléka” is a coalition of armed, primarily Muslim groups that launched an offensive against the CAR government in December 2012, leading to a coup in March 2013. Officially disbanded in September 2013 (and now referred to as “ex-Séléka”), these groups still control significant amounts of territory in eastern CAR. The “anti-balaka” is a loose coalition of predominantly Christian armed groups that arose in CAR in response to the Séléka. The “Janjaweed” are militia groups linked to the Sudanese government’s genocidal campaign in Darfur.2 For example, South Sudan’s military, called the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), has been linked to ivory poaching in northeastern DRC. SPLA soldiers have reportedly clashed on several occasions with Garamba National Park rangers in the DRC.3 Most nomadic pastoralists that travel through LRA affected areas are members of the culturally diverse Fulani (or Peuhl) people, the largest pastoral nomadic group in the world. They are sometimes referred to as “Mbororo.”

7

Throughout the region, the ability of people to travel freely outside their villages is essential to their livelihoods. For example, people grow crops in fields, fish and hunt in forests, transport goods to markets in nearby towns, work at artisanal mining camps, and herd cattle. Parents send their children to schools outside the village. Women often walk several kilometers in search of water. Villagers must also travel long distances to access medical care. As a result of the various security threats, however, people are afraid to travel outside of their villages for fear of being attacked. This has contributed to food insecurity and lack of access to education, healthcare, and other basic needs.

The presence of armed groups in the region is motivated, at least in part, by opportunities to engage in natural resource trafficking. Ivory poaching is widespread in the region’s protected conservation areas—namely Garamba National Park (DRC), the Bili Uele/Bomu Reserve (DRC), and the Chinko/Zemongo Reserves (CAR). In Garamba National Park, where the scale of poaching has been the most studied, the elephant population has declined from 20,000 in the 1980s to approximately 1,500 today. Poachers include Sudanese armed groups, rogue elements of the Ugandan and the Congolese militaries, and local citizens. The LRA is responsible for a tiny fraction of the poaching incidents, but poaching is key to funding the operations of the LRA. Minerals are also a source of revenue for armed groups as well as government troops, although the scale of minerals theft and trafficking is unknown. The region has numerous deposits of gold and diamonds, which are mostly extracted by artisanal miners. International NGOs operating in CAR have reported numerous incidents where artisanal mining camps were attacked or pillaged by armed groups. Additionally, armed groups might also be involved in other forms of natural resource trafficking, such as timber or charcoal, although the scale of such activities is unknown. Experience from other conflicts in Central Africa demonstrates the ability of armed groups and military forces to shift between various criminal enterprises if one becomes restricted. LRA-induced displacement has noticeably impacted populations, both rural and urban. As of August 2015, an estimated 200,000 people remained displaced in LRA-affected areas. Many people have moved to larger towns for protection, creating a strain on food prices, employment opportunities, and public services. Conflicts emerge as people settle into new locations or return home to find that social arrangements for land use have changed.

Meanwhile, many survivors continue to struggle with lasting trauma and health issues. Survivors of sexual and gender-based violence are often stigmatized, which prevents them from seeking help. Those who were abducted by the LRA or were born in captivity and managed to escape also face stigmatization and lack of support upon their return. Without support to reintegrate into society, returnees are vulnerable to joining armed groups or pursuing criminal activities.

1.3. Activity Description

8

In coordination with anticipated USAID biodiversity conservation programming in the same geographic area, USAID aims to improve the resilience of communities and wildlife in the LRA-affected areas of the DRC and CAR. The purpose of the C-LRA program is to implement the community resilience elements of this effort, while coordinating closely with the wildlife and biodiversity elements.

The C-LRA and counter-wildlife trafficking programs are proceeding under a joint results framework, which is described below. Of the six intermediate results (IRs) described below, the C-LRA program will work towards # 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. The activity will not contribute directly to IR 1, which is included here for information purposes only. USAID’s counter-wildlife trafficking and biodiversity programming is covered under a separate IEE.

IR 1: Strengthened capacity for wildlife conservation in Garamba National Park, Chinko Reserve, and other protected areas

This intermediate result is not part of the C-LRA program, but rather will be implemented under the separate counter-wildlife trafficking program. It is presented here for information purposes only and does not fall under the scope of this IEE.

IR 2: Communities enabled to mitigate and adapt to security and conservation threats

USAID’s intended approach is to ensure that communities are able to lead their own non-violent protection efforts, while host governments and the international community remain positioned to intervene in a targeted manner. In addition to providing support at the community level, USAID intends to promote action-oriented analysis that feeds into security and humanitarian decision-making at the local, regional, and international levels.

Anticipated interventions include:

Training and awareness raising o Community protection committees and risk mapping exercises.

High frequency (HF) radio network o Maintenance and expansion of USAID’s existing high frequency (HF) radio early

warning system. Frequency modulation (FM) radio broadcasting

o FM radio programming on security and humanitarian issues. Research, analysis, and reporting

o Trends analysis of armed group threats, humanitarian issues, and wildlife trafficking.

9

o Reporting back to key stakeholders.

IR 3: Target communities enabled to pursue pro-conservation livelihoods and basic needs In coordination with other USAID activities to strengthen pro-conservation livelihoods and basic needs services (not covered by this IEE), the C-LRA activity will aim to reduce communities’ exposure to security threats. Through targeted interventions, the award recipient should ideally help civilians to reduce their vulnerability to attacks as they pursue their livelihoods and basic needs.

Anticipated interventions include:

Training and awareness raising o Awareness-raising of how communities can reduce their exposure to security risks.

Community-based micro-projects o Micro-projects implemented in target communities, in coordination with similar efforts

by other conservation and development actors. HF radio network

o HF radios used to communicate specific social, economic, and governance information. FM radio broadcasting

o FM radios used to communicate social, economic, and governance information of general interest in the region.

IR 4: Vulnerable populations’ recovery from trauma facilitated USAID takes a community-based and gender-sensitive approach to reintegration and trauma healing, in which the benefits are provided to victims, ex-combatants, and host communities alike. Some of these interventions target the community as a whole, such as trauma healing workshops. Others support high-needs individuals, such as women and youths who have suffered severe trauma or stigmatization.

Anticipated interventions include:

Research, analysis, and reporting o Mapping and analysis of the supply and demand of trauma healing and reintegration

services in LRA affected areas.o Analysis of sexual- and gender-based violence trends related to armed group attacks and

abductions.o Coordination where relevant with formal disarmament, demobilization, repatriation,

resettlement, and reintegration processes. Trauma healing

10

o Community-based trauma healing.o Community-based training to prevent stigmatization of returnees.o Awareness training on sexual- and gender-based violence.o Community-based monitoring for sexual- and gender-based violence perpetrated by

combatants or community members.o Local capacity building on trauma healing and protection against sexual- and gender-

based violence.o Community-based reintegration assistance.

Psycho-social counseling o Referrals by qualified personnel to support centers.o Professional support for high needs individuals on mental health, physical health, and

livelihoods issues.

IR 5: Key intercommunal conflicts resolved USAID will work with other USG agencies and international stakeholders to ensure that community leaders—both women and men—have the social cohesion skills to identify and resolve conflicts, both within and between communities. Simultaneously, USAID will ensure that community members in high risk areas are able to recognize conflict risks, dispel rumors, and prevent escalation at an early stage.

Anticipated interventions include:

Research, analysis, and reporting o Mapping of existing and potential conflicts that could undermine peace and stabilization

efforts in the region.o Analysis and reporting on conflict risks and inter-community tensions.

Training and awareness raising o Conflict resolution training for local leaders, including women.o Diverse representation on community protection committees.o Awareness-raising among local leaders of security threats.o Participatory community theater and conflict de-escalation simulations.o Community-based, rumor management training.o Coordination platforms between communities and local officials.

FM radio broadcasting o FM radio broadcasts to dispel rumors and promote social cohesion.

Community-based micro-projects o Jointly designed micro-projects to foster social cohesion between groups.

IR 6: Implementation of IR 1 to IR 5 informed by ongoing research, analysis, and coordination

11

Given the limited data available to inform programming and the volatility of security levels in LRA-affected areas, USAID and other actors will need to adapt their interventions to changing circumstances over the life of the activity. IR 6 accounts for the importance of conducting research and analysis throughout the life of the activity, in order to ensure that outputs are effectively contributing to the overall program’s objective. Anticipated interventions include:

Research, analysis, and reporting o Initial mapping and field research phase to inform programming on trauma healing, early

warning systems, social cohesion, and other key topics o Research and analysis throughout the life of the projecto Sharing of information with other stakeholders

12

SECTION 2: COUNTRY AND ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION (BASELINE INFORMATION)

2.1 Locations Affected

2.1.1 Geographical Scope

The program will take place in LRA-affected areas of the DRC and CAR from 2017 to 2022. In CAR, this includes the Mbomou, Haut Mbomou, and Haute Kotto prefectures. In the DRC, this includes Bas Uele and Haut Uele provinces. The geographic scope of the program will be based partly on armed group activities in the region, and thus may expand to other prefectures/provinces.

2.1.2. Area Description

The DRC and CAR are rich in natural resources—especially minerals such as cobalt, copper, zinc, gold, and diamonds—and contain some of the world’s most important tropical forests. Yet both countries face significant environmental pressures as a result of prolonged conflict and weak governance.

The absence of state has led to the unsustainable exploitation of natural resources throughout the region. Most noticeably, armed groups and local communities have participated in wildlife poaching, resulting in severe biodiversity loss and degradation of natural habitats. Populations of elephants and other important species have dropped dramatically in recent years.

Although the overall impacts of conflict on the environment in LRA-affected areas are not well studied, conservation organizations have reported significant, negative impacts. In its analysis of the state of the environment in Central Africa, The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) found:

“Increasing human population, poverty, the ongoing civil wars in Sudan and the [DRC], strife between government and rebel groups in [CARs] and armed incursions by well-armed poaching gangs from the Sudan, mean that the northern forest-savanna mosaic faces increased threats. Hunting of animals for food, including from within protected areas, occurs in all areas, as does deforestation.”4

Additionally, the massive displacement of local populations has placed pressure on land and other natural resources. Forest degradation and pollution caused by unregulated artisanal mining is likely to be increasing, as well, although these trends have not been carefully studied. Conflicts exist between agricultural and pastoralist communities, whose different uses of the land are often in competition. WWF describes the environmental impacts of the movements of people as a result of conflict:

4 WWF, “Central Africa” (last accessed 24 Aug. 2016), http://www.worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/at0712 [hereinafter WWF].

13

“Political instability has propelled floods of transnational refugees, as well as provided incentive for widespread poaching, exacerbating negative human impact on the natural systems. Warring rebel factions poach valuable game and timber to buy munitions (CIA 2000); mass migrations of refugees further tax fuelwood, wildlife in the form of bush meat resources, water, and soils. Ongoing economic, political and social instability have drained the already limited conservation budgets, and parks and protected areas are particularly susceptible to poaching.”5

2.1.3 Demography and Land Occupation

Central African Republic

CAR has been affected by conflict and weak governance since its independence in 1960. The country is ranked among the least developed in the world. It ranked 187 out of 188 countries on the 2015 UNDP Human Development Index. An estimated 67 percent of the population is illiterate.6 The average life expectancy is 50.7 years with an infant mortality rate of 96.1 out of every 1,000 live births.7

Since the most recent civil conflict began in 2012, militant groups have clashed with one another and attacked civilians throughout the country. The UN, in cooperation with other donors, has worked to gradually restore security and build a functioning government. After two years under a transitional government, CAR held peaceful elections in early 2016 and is transitioning towards a more sustainable system of governance. Nevertheless, the government has only limited presence outside the capital city of Bangui. A large percentage of the country remains under the control of armed groups.

An estimated 4.7 million people live in CAR. Most CAR citizens live in conditions of extreme poverty and chronic food insecurity without access to basic services.8 The World Bank estimates that less than seven percent of the population has access to electricity, while only 30 percent of the population has access to safe water.9 These are pre-conflict statistics, suggesting that the situation has become even worse for many CAR citizens.

Over 60 percent of the population lives in rural areas.10 Most parts of the country are sparsely populated with an average density of 7.2 inhabitants per square kilometer.11 Infrastructure is in poor quality or non-5 WWF, note 4.6 2015 UNDP Human Development Index.7 2015 UNDP Human Development Index.8 2015 UNDP Human Development Index.9 World Bank, Central African Republic: Country Environmental Analysis (Nov. 2010), p. iv, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRANETENVIRONMENT/Resources/CARCEA.pdf [hereinafter World Bank 2010]; UN Environment Programme, Mission Report: Risks and opportunities from natural resources and the environment for peacebuilding in the Central African Republic (Aug. 2009), pp. 8-9, http://www.unep.org/disastersandconflicts/Portals/155/disastersandconflicts/docs/UNEP_car_mission_Report_August_2009_draft_rev_1.pdf [hereinafter UNEP 2009]. 10 World Bank 2010, note 9, p. iv.11 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, Central African Republic: Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (Sept. 2015), p. 4, http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/Central%20African%20Republic/

14

existent in most parts of the country. During the rainy season, roads become impassable in many areas. Travel along existing roads is dangerous, as attacks by armed groups and bandits are common.

The conflict has uprooted over one-fifth of the population, resulting in a large population of refugees and internally displaced persons. At the same time, approximately ten percent of the population belongs to migratory pastoralist communities who move across the land with their cattle. Conflicts often emerge over competing interests in land and natural resources.

Most CAR citizens pursue their livelihoods outside the formal economy. An estimated 90 percent of all agriculture occurs at subsistence levels.12 Meanwhile, corruption is rampant and limits people’s ability to pursue their livelihoods. The country ranks 145 out of 167 in Transparency International’s 2015 Corruption Perceptions Index. Gender-based violence is endemic, while gender inequality exists throughout the country’s formal and informal economies.

Where the formal economy exists, revenue draws mainly from the mining and forestry sectors. Prior to the conflict, diamonds and timber together accounted for an estimated 90 percent of exports.13 CAR also has deposits of iron, copper, zinc, tin, nickel, coltan, and colbalt, but these are largely unexploited.14 Diamond mining occurs primarily at an artisanal scale, rather than at an industrial scale. Many of the diamond mines are concentrated in the southwestern part of the country, while a mix of artisanal gold and diamond mining occurs in the eastern part of the country outside the control of the central government.

Legal diamond and timber exports came to a halt during the civil conflict and are beginning to re-emerge. Notably, the Kimberley Process—the responsible diamond trade system—permitted CAR to restart diamond exports from certain compliant zones. The first post-conflict exports took place from southeastern CAR (Berberati) in mid-2016.

Revitalizing the artisanal diamond mining sector is a high priority for the CAR government as it seeks to recover from years of civil conflict. Prior to the start of the conflict in 2012, an estimated 25 percent of the population was linked to the diamond economy and its ancillary sectors.

One of the major drivers of conflict in CAR has been competition for land use between agricultural and pastoralist communities. Pastoralist migrations have taken place in Central Africa for centuries. In many cases, communities have succeeded in sharing land and natural resources through local-level negotiations and traditional arrangements. The UN Environment Program (UNEP) describes how pastoralist-agriculturalist relationships have worked in the past:

1/CPDN_R%C3%A9publique%20Centrafricaine_EN.pdf [hereinafter UNFCCC 2015]. 12 UNEP 2009, note 9, pp. 8-9.13 World Bank 2010, note 9, p. iv.14 UNEP 2009, note 9, p. 13.

15

“Shared use of resources among agriculture, livestock and other needs such as hunting is common and has usually been governed by a series of tacit or explicit understandings or tribal-level negotiation processes. Where these situations hold, the mutual benefit can be substantial. Settled communities receive an income by selling goods and services to the passing pastoralists. The cattle can feed on post-harvest stubble and fertilize the fields as they pass through. The hooves of the cattle can also break up the soil prior to the rains, allowing better water retention in the soil.”15

In some cases, conflicts have arisen between agriculturalists and pastoralists. These tensions have worsened in recent years, as climate change and desertification force pastoralists into new areas. Additionally, CAR political leaders’ manipulation of religious and ethnic differences between communities has heightened the likelihood of conflict. As described by UNEP:

“Traditional practices assumed a limited number of pastoralists, with herds limited by disease and wild animal predation, passing through infrequently and remaining for a limited time. As the number of herders grows, and as they accumulate more animals and lose fewer to foot-and-mouth disease or predators, traditional understandings break down and tensions grow. These tensions are aggravated where land use and resource access rights are unclear, notably in the eastern and northeastern parts of the country. Reports from north and northeast CAR suggest that increased numbers of livestock are crossing the borders from Chad and Sudan, driven by conflict and prolonged drought in parts of the range. As a result, conflicts over rights of passage, access to water, crop damage and poaching of local game have become more prevalent. Traditional transhumant corridors have simply broken down, as have the wildlife areas and national parks...”16

Democratic Republic of the Congo

The DRC is a vast, mostly-landlocked country of 69.4 million people coming from 360 ethnic groups.17 Like CAR, the country has suffered from decades of predatory governance, corruption, and conflict. Despite having the world’s largest deposits of cobalt and tantalum, as well as significant deposits of gold, copper, diamonds, and other minerals, DRC remains one of the poorest countries. It is ranked 176 out of 188 countries on the 2015 UNDP Human Development Index. An estimated 39 percent of the population is illiterate.18 The average life expectancy is 58.7 years with an infant mortality rate of 86.1 out of every 1,000 live births.19

15 UNEP 2009, note 9, p. 32.16 UNEP 2009, note 9, p. 32.17 University of Gothenberg, “Democratic Republic of Congo – Environmental and Climate Change Policy Brief” (June 2008), pp. 1-2, http://www.vub.ac.be/klimostoolkit/sites/default/files/documents/env_policy_brief_congo.pdf [hereinafter U. of Gothenberg].18 2015 UNDP Human Development Index.19 2015 UNDP Human Development Index.

16

Poverty levels have worsened in recent years, especially in the eastern part of the country, as conflict between numerous armed groups has destabilized the region and displaced millions of people. An estimated 70 percent of the DRC’s population lives below the poverty line.20 Perhaps as a result of poor and dangerous living conditions, the DRC’s population is youthful with a median age of 17.5 years. 21 Levels of discrimination and violence against women are among the worst in the world.

Around 70 percent of the population lives in rural areas, although the DRC’s urbanization rate is growing at what UNEP calls an “unprecedented” 4.6 percent. Although Kinshasa is currently the third most populated city in Africa, it is projected to become the largest African city by 2030.22 Of those people who live in cities across the country, approximately 75 percent live in slums.23 Both urban and rural areas are noteworthy for their large populations of underemployed youths.

Most Congolese citizens lack access to basic services and live in a chronic state of food insecurity. Economic development opportunities are limited for a number of reasons, including pervasive corruption, the weak land and property rights systems, high levels of discrimination against women, and ongoing armed conflict in parts of the country. The government has little capacity to provide basic services to the population.

Corruption is endemic at all levels of society in the DRC. Transparency International ranks the DRC as 147 out of 167 countries in its 2015 Corruption Perceptions Index. In many parts of the country, including LRA-affected areas, government officials are perceived as collecting taxes without providing basic services in return. Little of the revenue collected by the central government is redistributed back to the provincial level.

Land tenure systems remain weak across the country, creating a level of instability that harms economic development. Around 65 percent of the DRC’s population depends on agriculture. However, the insecurity of the land tenure system also disincentives people from investing in the land. A basic land tenure regime exists on paper, based on the 1967 Bakajika Law and the 1973 Land Tenure Law, but the interactions of these formal laws with customary tenure are complicated and often result in confusion. 24 In urban areas, the ambiguous land tenure system has contributed to land degradation, for example, by permitting unplanned construction, erosion, and lack of drainage systems.25 In rural areas, customary land tenure systems are sometimes in place to resolve disputes over access to land and natural resources, but are not always sufficient. In conflict-affected areas in eastern and northeastern DRC, in particular,

20 U. of Gothenberg 2008, note 17, p.5.21 2015 UNDP Human Development Index.22 UN Environment Program, The Democratic Republic of Congo: Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment (2011), p. 45, http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/UNEP_DRC_PCEA_EN.pdf [hereinafter UNEP 2011].23 UNEP 2011, note 22, p. 45.24 USAID, Democratic Republic of Congo: Biodiversity and Tropical Forestry Assessment (2010), p. xviii, http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/Pnads946.pdf [hereinafter USAID 2010]; UNEP 2011, note 22, pp. 57-58.25 UNEP 2011, note 22, p. 37.

17

widespread displacement of populations has further upended existing land systems. UNEP has noted that control over natural resources is the main source of conflict in non-war zones in northeastern DRC (former Orientale Province), while 76 percent of conflicts in the former Katanga province relate to land titles.26

The DRC’s tropical forests are important to the livelihoods of many people living in rural parts of the DRC. An estimated 40 million Congolese depend on the forests.27 Wood and charcoal provide 80 percent of domestic energy in the DRC. Bush meat is a key source of protein. Timber is used for local construction. Plants provide food and medicine.28 As of 2010, USAID estimated that the economic value of artisanal timber in the DRC was $60 million. However, the major threat to forests comes from the markets for bushmeat and firewood.29 UNEP estimates that 1.7 million tonnes of bushmeat are harvested each year from unregulated hunting and poaching, valued at $1 billion.30

The DRC also has the largest artisanal and small-scale mining sector in the world. Around 90 percent of mineral production in the country comes from artisanal and small-scale mines, as opposed to industrial operations.31 An estimated ten million people depend on artisanal mining for their livelihoods.32 Around two million men, women, and children participate directly in mining activities, while others participate in the support networks and micro-economies that arise around a mine. Like forest-based activities, artisanal mining is largely unregulated and controlled by criminal groups, armed groups, the military, or government officials. Artisanal mining can contribute to a number of environmental problems, such as soil erosion and water pollution. Miners often work under unsafe conditions where they risk injury, death, and exposure to toxic chemicals.

2.1.4 Geography and Climate

Central African Republic

CAR is located on a large plateau between the arid deserts of the Sahel in the north and the tropical forests of Congo River Basin in the south. It is surrounded by Republic of Congo, Cameroon, Chad, Sudan, South Sudan, and the DRC. Most of the country is covered by savannah woodland with humid tropical forests in the southwest.33 Forests cover 36.5 percent of the country.34

Northern CAR has a moist savanna climate, while the southern part of the country has an equatorial forest climate. Rainfall varies from 800 mm in the north to 1600 mm in the south. Average temperatures 26 UNEP 2011, note 22, p. 37.27 USAID 2010, note 24, p. xv.28 U. of Gothenberg 2008, note 17, pp. 5-6.29 USAID 2010, note 24, p. xvii; UNEP 2011, p50)30 UNEP 2011, note 22, p. 50.31 UNEP 2011, note 22, p. 50.32 U. of Gothenberg 2008, note 17, pp. 6.33 World Bank 2010, note 9, p. 1.34 World Bank 2010, note 9, p. 1.

18

range from 15 degrees Celsius in the south and 38 degrees Celsius in the north.35 The dry season generally begins in October and ends in March.36

The CAR once had the third largest area of rainforest cover in Africa. Today, while tropical forest covers 36 percent of the country, very little of the forest cover can be considered primary forest. Global Forest Watch reports that CAR had 76 percent tree cover in 2000, but only nine percent of that forest was primary. The remaining 91 percent of tree cover came from regenerated forest. 37 Most of the country's forests have been logged for valuable tree species, including sapelli, ayous, and sipo. Where a timber industry still exists, the wood is generally exported to Europe, sometimes through illegal channels. Fuelwood collection has also placed pressure on the nations’ forests. Furthermore, deforestation and poor agricultural practices are resulting in desertification in the northern parts of the country. Desertification, in turn, has led to the migration of pastoralist cattle herders further south, fueling conflict with sedentary, agricultural communities over use of land and water resources.

Democratic Republic of the Congo

The DRC has a wide range of topography, although most LRA-affected areas fall within or near the Congo River Basin. The Congo River is the world’s second largest by volume of water. The river’s basin drains an area of 3.7 million square kilometers (1.4 million square miles) that is covered by tropical forests and swamps.38 The Congo River Basin extends into nine countries, including the DRC and CAR. Of these, the DRC contains the largest area of rain forest, 107 million hectares.39 This tropical rain forest is the second largest in the world.

The DRC’s climate varies widely. In the equatorial river basin, the climate is hotter and more humid than in the southern part of the country. In the north, the wet season generally occurs between April and September. In the south, the wet season occurs between October and April.40

Altogether, forests cover 87 percent of the DRC. Of this, 67 percent includes primary forest cover, while 33 percent includes regenerated forest.41 In general, the deforestation rate in the DRC is lower than that of any other major forest region in the world (0.3 percent compared to the global average of 0.5

35 UNFCCC 2015, note 11, p. 4.36 Encyclopedia Brittanica, “Central African Republic,” Apr. 2016, https://www.britannica.com/place/Central-African-Republic [hereinafter Brittanica].37 Global Forest Watch, “Country Profile: Central African Republic” (last accessed 24 Aug. 2016), http://www.globalforestwatch.org/country/CAF [hereinafter Global Forest Watch - CAR]. 38 Mongabay.com, “The Congo,” July 2013 (last accessed 30 Aug. 2016), http://rainforests.mongabay.com/congo [hereinafter Mongabay]. 39 Mongabay, note 38.40 (cite: USAID climate vulnerability factsheet, oct 2012)41 Global Forest Watch, “Country Profile: Democratic Republic of the Congo” (last accessed 24 Aug. 2016), http://www.globalforestwatch.org/country/COD [hereinafter Global Forest Watch – DRC].

19

percent).42 However, even if the percentage of primary forest cover remains high, logging operations have opened up previously inaccessible areas of the DRC’s forest, leading to increased poaching and a drastic decrease in important animal populations.43 Additionally, as long as the government’s capacity to regulate and conserve the forests remains low, the risk of future accelerated deforestation exists.

2.1.5 Ecological Zones and Biodiversity

LRA-affected areas fall within a range of ecological zones, including the Congo basin rain forest, the Sudanian/Sahelian grasslands, and the forest savanna mosaic that transitions between the two.

The Congo rain forest is renowned for its biodiversity, including over 400 mammal species, 1,200 bird species, and 8,000 plant species. Of these, at least 16 species of birds and 23 species of mammals are considered threatened or endangered. Some well-known mammals include forest and savanna elephants, gorillas, chimpanzees, okapi, leopards, hippos, and lions. The forests also provide food, medicine, and shelter for millions of people.

The forest savanna mosaic, which includes the northernmost savanna woodlands in Africa, also hosts diverse habitats and high biodiversity.44 Conflict and poor governance have had a devastating effect on these habitats and the species that live within them, especially as armed groups and displaced populations disrupt ecosystems and engage in poaching.

While there are few environmental studies of LRA-affected areas, it likely that biodiversity is under threat throughout the region. High levels of poverty and lack of economic alternatives, combined with the impacts of sustained armed conflict, have increased demand for bushmeat. Large-scale poaching of elephants and other high value species has also proved lucrative for armed and criminal groups, leading to the devastation of animal populations. In northern parts of the country, deforestation and poor agricultural practices are resulting in desertification.

The vast majority of people living in LRA-affected areas face extreme food insecurity, which in turn forces people to exploit local resources and wildlife wherever possible. Researchers have also gathered evidence of organized poaching networks that traffic ivory and wildlife through the country. An estimated 34 species of mammals are threatened with extinction in west and central Africa, of which 17 are primates. The black rhino is no longer present in LRA-affected areas due to poaching. Some local extinction has already occurred, and many non-threatened species are exhibiting diminishing stocks. These losses could lead to further environmental degradation through the disappearance of species important for ecosystem functions such as seed dispersal and pollination.45

42 U. of Gothenberg 2008, note 17, p. 3.43 Mongabay, note 38.44 WWF, note 4.45 World Bank 2010, note 9.

20

Protected areas and wildlife trafficking

Protected areas in Central Africa are widely dispersed and operate to varying degrees of effectiveness. In LRA-affected areas, protected areas include Garamba National Park (DRC), Bili Uele Reserve (DRC), and Chinko Reserve (CAR).

The presence of armed groups in the Central Africa border region is motivated, at least in part, by opportunities to engage in natural resource trafficking. USAID’s 2015 assessment concluded that in the Central Africa border region, “there is a clear connection between revenue generation for armed groups from poaching, the looting of diamonds and gold, and the illicit trafficking of ivory and conflict minerals in DRC, CAR, and South Sudan.”46

Ivory poaching is widespread in the region’s protected conservation areas—namely Garamba National Park (DRC), the Bili Uele/Bomu Reserves (DRC), and the Chinko/Zemongo Reserves (CAR). Of these, Garamba National Park is the best studied and currently has the most conservation resources available. Garamba was classified as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1980 and has been on the List of World Heritage in Danger since 1996 due to conflict and poaching. After being forced out of Uganda, the LRA temporarily used the park as its base. Since 2005, Garamba National Park and its surrounding hunting domains have been managed by the NGO African Parks in partnership with the DRC Government’s Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature (ICCN).

Garamba is one of the oldest national parks in Africa and covers an area of 4,900 square kilometers, with a buffer zone of hunting reserves to the east, south and west as well as South Sudan’s Lantoto National Park to the north. Garamba National Park and the three hunting zones collectively comprise the 12,500 square kilometer Garamba Complex (collectively referred to as Garamba).

Over the past decades, Garamba has been challenged by massive increases in poaching pressure on elephants and other species. Militarized poachers and rebel groups, including the LRA, take advantage of the instability generated by conflict and the lack of strong government presence in the area to facilitate their poaching activities, with over 200 incidents reported in Garamba in 2014 and 2015 alone. Often in Sudanese military clothing, and equipped with new weapons and sophisticated communication channels, poachers have devastated large mammal populations (particularly the African elephant and the Kordofan giraffe). In Chinko, armed groups pose a serious seasonal threat to wildlife by facilitating or directly engaging in poaching. In addition to the threats caused by professional poaching, wildlife populations have decreased due to bushmeat hunting by local populations and nomadic pastoralists’ cattle migrations through conservation areas.

With both forest and savanna habitats, Garamba is home to 163 species of mammals, 345 species of birds, 82 species of reptiles, and 42 species of amphibians. The park lies on the transition zone between two centers of endemism: Guinea-Congolian forest and Guinean-Sudanese savannah, explaining the

46 USAID’s 2015 C-LRA assessment, p. 55.

21

presence of species typical to both of these biogeographic zones. Garamba thus supports important populations of elephant, buffalo and hippo. The national park in particular also contains the last population of Kordofan giraffe in DRC, and was the last known area where the northern white rhino existed in the wild. Large populations of Uganda kob, Lelwel’s hartebeest, buffalo and lion also roam the park. Other important forest species found in the hunting areas include chimpanzees, bongo, giant forest hog and sitatunga.

The high-value natural resources spread across this vast area have become one of the main causes of insecurity in and around the park. The trafficking of ivory, bushmeat, gold, and diamonds by armed groups (primarily groups coming from the Sudans), exacerbated by unsustainable local practices, have resulted in major natural resource destruction in the area, particularly with regards to large mammal species. In many cases, local leaders actively participate in trafficking. In other cases, armed groups force local community members to participate in these crimes, for example by kidnapping villages and requiring them to carry ivory. Park rangers are directly targeted by elephant hunters. Firefights between poachers and security forces occur on a regular basis. Members of national armies themselves are sometimes implicated in the poaching.

Poachers in Garamba are heavily militarized, often entering the park with sophisticated weapons and communications. Between May 2014 to May 2016, park rangers had over 50 contacts with armed poachers. In 2015, eight rangers were killed. In April 2016, an attack by poachers resulted in three ranger deaths and two injured, including the park manager.

Poaching has had a noticeable impact on the wildlife population in Garamba National Park. Elephant losses average 130 to 200 each year, or approximately 10% of the total population. This exceeds the natural rate by which an elephant population can replenish itself. African Parks reports the following overall population decreases:47

Elephants: 20,000 in 1976 1,100 to 1,400 in 2016 Rhinos: 500 in 1974 0 in 2016 Buffalos: 50,000 in 1976 10,000 in 2016 Giraffes: 350 in 1974 35 in 2016

The park is one of the known centers of activity by the LRA and armed groups, particularly because of the large elephant population. Analysts estimate that South Sudanese (including ex- or current SPLA members) are responsible for 60% of poaching in Garamba; Sudanese (including Janjaweed and Darfur militias) are responsible for 30%; and the LRA is responsible for 10% of incidents. Elements of the Ugandan and Congolese militias have also been responsible for poaching incidents.

47 Based on information provided by African Parks in April 2016.

22

Chinko Nature Reserve, one of the last remaining strongholds for elephants in CAR, covers an area of 17,600 square kilometers. Once a wildlife paradise teeming with animals, including thousands of elephant, buffalo and lion, Chinko’s biodiversity has been decimated since 1986 by rampant ivory and bush meat poachers (predominantly from South Sudan). In 2014, African Parks began to manage the reserve in partnership with the Central African Republic’s Ministry of Forestry, Environment and Tourism. The elephant population in the area once numbered in the thousands, but is now estimated to have around 100 individuals. Species of buffalo, lion, and other animals have also been decimated. Sudanese poachers travel regularly into the refuge for ivory poaching and bush meat, while local poachers are active as well.48

Chinko Reserve is situated in the Chinko-Mbari drainage basin in eastern CAR. The area has rich biodiversity and a mosaic of sparsely inhabited Medio-Sudanian and Sudano-Guinean savanna with some patches of Congolian lowland rainforest. This mosaic of ecosystems at such latitude on the African continent makes this area incredibly rich and unique in biodiversity. Chinko serves as refuge for the last remaining elephants in eastern CAR, and due to its wide diversity of habitats, is an important ornithological site with more than 400 bird species recorded. Chinko is also home to a healthy numbers of large antelopes, notably the Giant Eland and the Bongo. Recently, researchers documented more than 10 species of primates, both forest and savannah elephants, 23 even-toed ungulates, 4 ant-eating mammals and 21 carnivores including the African wild dog, lion and 9 species of mongoose.

In addition, several livelihood activities in and around Chinko—including cattle herding by nomadic pastoralists and artisanal mining by local communities—pose significant challenges from a wildlife conservation perspective. The movement of cattle and people through Chinko disturbs wildlife as well as threatens natural resources. There is an increase in the risk of disease for many wild ungulates that use the same paths and water sources as cattle. Herdsmen and miners shoot wild animals for direct consumption and for dried meat to be sold later in regional markets. Other threats to wildlife in Chinko include poisoning of large predators by herdsmen to protect their cattle, exotic invasive flora species carried by people and cattle traversing the area, and the hunting and habitat degradation associated with informal and unregulated small-scale artisanal gold and diamond mining. These dynamics underscore the need for community involvement and buy-in into any successful conservation efforts in Chinko.

In 2015, the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) began a program in Bili Uele, a large complex of protected areas in northeastern DRC. AWF identified a 10,000 square kilometer core area and has begun efforts to protect biodiversity and habitats. Bili Uele hosts populations of forest elephants and chimpanzees, among other species.49 As with the other protected areas, the forest elephant population has decreased dramatically in recent years.

2.1.6 Soils

48 Based on information provided by African Parks in April 2016.49 Based on a USAID field visit to Bili, DRC in November 2015.

23

According to WWF, “Central Africa’s active seismic history exposed many rock types that provided parent material for diverse soil catenas.”50 Many parts of the region contained soils of low fertility, similar to other humid tropical areas. Over time, human activities have resulted in lower soil quality. WWF summarized the history of soil in Central Africa:

“The transition from the equatorial forest to northern latitude savannas was most probably gradual throughout the early Pleistocene. Two main factors sharpened the transition zone. Initially, about 50,000 years ago, fires became a frequent disturbance. Secondly, for the last 3,000 years humans have burned clearings for farms and livestock, further reducing tree densities and creating wooded grasslands. These historic land use patterns reflect plant-soil interaction. Nutrient-poor oxisols traditionally have been left under forest or [fire-fallow cultivation].”51

In recent years, economic activities and development have likely affected soil quality. However, there is limited data on this subject. In general, activities such as artisanal mining are likely to contribute to erosion due to top soil disturbance, as well as the introduction of toxic chemicals into the soil. In more densely populated areas, such as towns or displacement camps, land degradation and conversion of land is likely to have occurred due to lack of strong environmental management practices.52

2.1.7 Water Resources

Water quality and access in LRA-affected areas is not well studied. Although there are low levels of industrial pollution and few areas of dense populations, water quality and access remains low. Rural communities in CAR and the DRC generally have limited access to clean water. Sanitation remains poor. In some areas, water pollution by cattle herds has been a source of tensions.

Britannica provides an overview of water resources in CAR:

“[CAR] occupies an immense rolling plateau that forms, along a crest that trends southwest to northeast, the major drainage divide between the Lake Chad and Congo River basins. The country is well supplied with waterways. Tributaries of the Chari River occupy the northern third of the country’s territory. The remaining two-thirds of the terrain drains southward into the Ubangi River, which forms [CAR’s] southern border with [the DRC].”53

According to a 2009 study by UNEP, CAR receives significant annual rainfall of around 1,000 mm and has a number of river courses. However, ground water levels are diminishing and surface water quality is low.54 Access to clean water remains a challenge for many CAR citizens, especially following the

50 WWF, note 4.51 WWF, note 4.52 U. of Gothenberg 2008, note 17, pp. 2-3.53 Brittanica, note 36.54 UNEP 2009, note 9, pp. 14-15.

24

wide displacement during the civil conflict. Sanitation facilities and practices also contribute extensively to poor water quality. Prior to the conflict, only 30 percent of the population had regular access to clean drinking water.55 Health threats continue to affect the population. In mid-2016, a cholera outbreak emerged in the capital city Bangui and in Kemo prefecture.56

Similarly poor water access conditions exist in the DRC, despite the abundance of water resources available in the country. Water quality remains poor throughout the country, and water-borne illnesses are common.57 In a 2011 report, UNEP described the scope of the problem:

“Despite its immense freshwater resources, the overriding challenge for the [DRC’s] water sector is to improve its rapidly growing population’s low access to safe drinking water. At least two decades of underinvestment, aggravated by conflict-related destruction of facilities, have left the country’s water infrastructure and services in a serious state of deterioration. Consequently, water access rates have undergone a dramatic decline from pre-conflict 1990 levels; the DRC’s current rate of around 26 per cent is one of the lowest in Sub-Saharan Africa. It is also significant that the enormous death toll from the “Congo wars” is mainly attributable to indirect public health effects, including inter alia those linked with the collapse of water and sanitation services.”58

2.1.8 Climate Change

Neither the DRC nor CAR is a major greenhouse gas (GHG) emitter, but both are significant actors in the global response to climate change. The tropical forests of Central Africa store huge volumes of carbon that can reduce the overall impact of GHG emissions. Meanwhile, the populations of both countries are highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and will need to adapt to ongoing changes, such as increased desertification and forest conversion.

Central African Republic

CAR contributes less than 0.002 percent of global GHG emissions.59 Of the country’s emissions from 2011, 89.46 percent came from land-use change and forestry activities.60 While it is insignificant as a global polluter, CAR provides important carbon storage capacity, especially in the southern forests that

55 UNEP 2009, note 9, p. 34.56 Reuters, 18 Aug. 2016, “Aid agencies race to contain cholera outbreak in Central African Republic,” http://www.reuters.com/article/us-centralafrica-cholera-idUSKCN10T1PN. 57 U. of Gothenberg 2008, note 17, pp. 3.58 UN Environment Program, Water Issues in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: Challenges and Opportunities (2011), p. 6, http://postconflict.unep.ch/publications/UNEP_DRC_water.pdf. 59 UNFCCC 2015, note 11, pp. 4-5.60 UNFCCC 2015, note 11, p. 6.

25

form part of the Congo River Basin. According to Global Forest Watch, CAR has 2,843 million metric tons of carbon stocks in living forest biomass.61

Meanwhile, CAR citizens remain highly vulnerable to climate change. Most of the population lives below the poverty line and is exposed to extreme climate hazards, such as heavy rains, floods, or drought that destroy their limited resources.62 Pastoralists, which comprise ten percent of the population, have already altered their migration routes in response to increased desertification and climate change. This, in turn, has contributed to further conflicts between communities.

Democratic Republic of the Congo

While DRC is more industrialized than CAR, it is an insignificant contributor to global GHG emissions. In 2011, 82 percent of the country’s GHG emissions came from land-use change and forestry. 63 Having the second largest tropical rain forest in the world, the DRC serves an incredibly important role in storing carbon. The country currently has 19,441 million metric tons of carbon stocks in living forest biomass.64 While deforestation rates remain low, however, ongoing conflict, poor governance, and endemic corruption threaten to accelerate deforestation rates in the future, if not carefully regulated.

The population in DRC is vulnerable to climate change in a number of ways. Most Congolese livelihoods are in the small-scale agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and artisanal mining sectors. All of these sectors are vulnerable to climate changes, such as changes in temperatures and rainfall.65 With a number of densely populated areas, including urban slums and refugee/displacement camps, the country remains at high risk of vector- and water-borne diseases.66

2.2 National Environmental Policies and Procedures

DRC and CAR have environmental laws that support and prescribed Environmental Impact Assessment, but in practice these are poorly implemented.

In the DRC, the “Arrete ministeriel” (ministry decree) n*043/CAB/MIN/ECN-EF/2006 of the 8 th

December 2006 is related to the importance of the environmental and social impact assessment for all development project for DRCOC and Decree no. 89.043 of February 23, 1989, establishing the national committee specializing in environmental issues and Order no. 90.003 of June 9, 1990, on integrating environmental concerns into development planning for CAR).

61 Global Forest Watch - CAR, note 37.62 UNFCCC 2015, note 11, p. 9.63 Global Forest Watch - CAR, note 37.64 Global Forest Watch - CAR, note 37.65 USAID Climate Vulnerability Factsheet – DRC (Oct. 2012).66 USAID Climate Vulnerability Factsheet – DRC, note 65.

26

As a result of years of conflict and political turmoil, the CAR government’s environmental management capacity remains weak to non-existent. The Environmental Code of the Central African Republic: Law No. 07.018 of 28 December 2007 (http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/caf105925.pdf) sets forth the most recent requirements for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process in CAR. The Ministry of Environment, Economy, and Sustainable Development is responsible for EIA decision-making in CAR, except in the case of mining activities where the Ministry of Mining is responsible. No detailed regulations on the EIA process have been established. Due to the extremely limited capacity of government ministries, very little environmental enforcement exists, if at all.

Both countries are party to the Ramsar Convention (1994) for the protection of important wetlands, CITES (1975) for the conservation of threatened wildlife and plants, the Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), World Heritage Convention (1975), and the African Convention on nature and natural resource conservation (1976), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the Central African Forestry Commission.

SECTION 3: ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this section, the interventions envisaged under the C-LRA program are described and their potential impacts analyzed. The types of interventions include:

Training and awareness raising Research, analysis, and reporting Trauma healing Psycho-social counseling HF radio networks FM radio broadcasting Community-based micro-projects

3.1 Interventions unlikely to have a negative environmental impact

Many interventions planned for this activity are unlikely to have a negative impact on the environment. This includes: (1) training and awareness raising; (2) research, analysis, and reporting; and (3) trauma healing.

3.2 Interventions with potential for negative environmental impacts

A few interventions are expected to involve biophysical interventions that have potential to adversely affect the environment. These include: (1) HF radio networks; (2) FM radio broadcasting; and (3) psycho-social counseling; and (4) community-based micro-projects.

27

Of these, the first three types of interventions could foreseeably include small-scale construction and rehabilitation, power generation, radio broadcasting, and maintenance of facilities. Since these interventions will be small in scale, their environmental impacts are likely to be minimal and can be mitigated through appropriate precautions.

The last intervention—community-based micro-projects—remains undefined at this time. Micro-projects could foreseeably include small-scale construction and rehabilitation, small-scale agriculture, natural resources management, or livestock development. Each of these types of interventions carries potentially negative environmental impacts, such as pollution of water or soil. The nature of these impacts and the necessary mitigation measures will depend on the details of each project and cannot be specifically identified at this time.

Small-scale construction and rehabilitation

The construction of small-scale communications infrastructure to be carried out under this program, such as radio towers and antenna construction and installation, will be minor and the details of the construction carried out in support of any particular community development intervention or site may have a number of unique aspects. However, construction interventions in general share a set of common features and potential adverse environmental impacts. Potential adverse impacts of small scale construction and rehabilitation projects include: damage to ecosystems; sedimentation of streams and surface water; contamination of water supplies; or damage to aesthetics of the area.

Runoff from cleared ground or materials stockpiled during construction can result in sedimentation/fouling of surface waters, particularly if the site is located in close proximity to a stream or waterbody. Construction may result in standing water on‐site, which readily becomes breeding habitat for mosquitoes and other disease vectors; this is of particular concern as malaria is endemic in the region. Both impacts are controllable below the level of significance with basic good construction practices.

While small-scale construction and rehabilitation is not expected to have a significant impact, USAID partners will need to work with communities to avoid issues which can arise with such construction. For new, small-scale (<1000 m2) construction, care will be taken to ensure that the foundation is well-prepared meeting at least best engineering standards for construction in country (e.g., to avoid collapse due to ignorance of basic construction standards), and measures taken to ensure that construction allows for proper run-off of rainwater.

Moreover, construction should ensure that the integrity of the structure is maintained and that actual construction has a minimal impact on the environment.

28

Power generation

Because of limited fuel availability, power generation from solar and self-sustaining local sources is preferred. In rare cases, generators may be placed at intervention sites.

Depending on how the facilities are powered, fueling the generators could possibly lead to fuel spillage. Generators should be installed on concrete aprons, and berms or gutters/sumps should be used in order to limit and contain possible fuel spillage.

Power generation could increase the amount of fumes in the air and has the potential to create noise pollution. The Implementing Partner can mitigate these problems by purchasing fuel efficient generators with quiet noise suppressing features. Generators will be sheltered from weather conditions in an effort to keep them in peak operating condition.

Radio broadcasting

By definition, radio broadcast antennas emit high intensity, non‐ionizing radio‐frequency radiation. This radiation can induce heating in body tissues. The science of other “non‐heating” effects, particularly at moderate field intensities, is uncertain, with some studies suggesting increased cancer and developmental risks and immunological effects, among others. As the radio broadcasting envisioned under this program will take place in low coverage areas and will be dispersed over a large geographical area, the risks to human health from broadcasts will likely be insignificant. Nevertheless, any development needs to keep within the acceptable parameters of industry standards.

Maintenance of facilities

Facilities—radio stations, psycho-social centers, HF radio stations—will generate a set of waste streams (i.e. gray water, latrine discharge, and solid waste). However, experience shows that such impacts are controllable below the level of significance with basic good design and management practices given the low volumes of such wastes produced by the radio stations. Given the small-scale of interventions envisaged under this program, any waste streams generated are likely to be insignificant.

3.3 Interventions with potential for positive environmental impacts

Although the C-LRA program’s objective is community protection and recovery, it has potential to make positive contributions towards three U.S. Government environmental priorities: combating

29

wildlife trafficking, combating trafficking in conflict minerals, and adapting to climate change.

Climate Risk Screening and Management

Screening for climate change impacts, as required by the Executive order 13677 from October 1st for all USAID funded activities, was not required at the time of the activity design and will not be included as part of this IEE. However, climate change will be taken into account during the implementation of this activity.

Combating wildlife trafficking

The presence of armed groups in the Central Africa border region is motivated, at least in part, by opportunities to engage in natural resource trafficking. As discussed above, ivory poaching is widespread in the region’s protected conservation areas—namely Garamba National Park (DRC), the Bili Uele/Bomu Reserves (DRC), and the Chinko/Zemongo Reserves (CAR).

Wildlife trafficking is an important factor affecting the C-LRA program. Most LRA affected communities that would benefit from the program are located between Garamba, Bili Uele, and Chinko. Wildlife trafficking serves as a primary motivation for armed groups to enter the area, and many trafficking routes pass through or near LRA-affected communities. At the same time, local community members—including traditional chiefs and other local leaders—are active in the poaching business. In some cases, poaching of high value items such as elephant tusks links to international markets, whereas in other cases poaching takes place for the purpose of obtaining bush meat to sell on local markets. As an integral and dangerous part of the local economy, combating wildlife trafficking will be key to improving security.

The C-LRA program has been designed alongside a counter-wildlife trafficking program in Garamba, Chinko, and surrounding areas. The program will contribute to counter-trafficking efforts by increasing information flows about armed group and poachers’ movements through the HF radio networks and trends analysis.

Combating trafficking in minerals

Minerals are a source of revenue for both armed groups and government troops, although the scale of minerals theft and trafficking is unknown. The Central Africa border region has numerous deposits of gold and diamonds, which are mostly extracted by artisanal miners. Artisanal mining is a significant source of livelihoods for LRA-affected communities, as well as a significant source of revenue for local power brokers such as traditional chiefs and military officers. As a major source of revenue and power,

30

artisanal mines are a prime target. International NGOs operating in CAR have reported numerous incidents where artisanal mining camps were attacked or pillaged by armed groups. As with wildlife trafficking, artisanal mining provides an incentive for armed groups to operate in the region, as well as an incentive to sustain conflict.

As with counter-wildlife trafficking, the C-LRA program will improve information flows about armed and criminal group attacks and threats to artisanal mining communities.

Climate change adaptation

The United Nations has increasingly recognized the impacts that climate change is having on pastoralist communities in Africa. In April 2016, for example, activist Hindou Oumarou Ibrahim, an indigenous woman from a Mbororo community in Chad, was selected as a speaker at the signing ceremony of the historic Paris climate agreement.

Ibrahim’s work has raised awareness of the ways that Mbororo communities are adapting to the effects of climate change, including desertification, changing seasonal weather patterns, water scarcity, and increased competition for natural resources. In a 2011 report, she described the Mbororo’s knowledge systems for coping with these changes. If the Mbororo are able to remain in the same general region, they often move their cattle around the ecosystem to rotate grazing areas, divide their livestock into smaller groups, and raise different types of livestock, among other methods.

In recent decades, however, Mbororo groups and their cattle herds have been forced to migrate long distances southward in search of more sparsely populated areas and good pastoral lands. The climate change-induced migrations of pastoralists in Central Africa often leads to competing uses of land and natural resources and sometimes to conflict, as has happened in CAR.

The C-LRA program includes a social cohesion component that will help resolve conflicts between pastoralist and agriculturalist communities. This, in turn, could help host communities and Mbororo communities in LRA-affected areas to better adapt to changing social dynamics and migratory patterns caused by climate change.

31

SECTION 4: RECOMMENDED THRESHOLD DETERMINATIONS

4.1 Determinations

This section classifies as categorical exclusions, negative determinations with conditions, and deferrals. For interventions with a negative determination with conditions or a deferral, the implementation of those conditions becomes mandatory upon the approval of this IEE.

Intervention Recommended Determination and ConditionsTraining and awareness raising;Research, analysis, and reporting;Trauma healing

Categorical Exclusion pursuant to 22 CFR 216.2 (c)(2)(i) Education, technical assistance, or training programs except to the extent such programs include activities directly affecting the environment (such as construction of facilities, etc.); (iii)Analyses, studies, academic or research workshops and meetings; (v) Document and information transfers.

HF radio networks;FM radio broadcasting;Psycho-social counseling

Negative Determination with Conditions pursuant to 22 CFR 216.3 (a)(2)(iii). Mandatory conditions include the following:

Radio broadcasting- Even though the emissions of non-ionizing radio

frequency will not exceed the acceptable standard, the Implementing Partner will closely monitor these emissions to ensure they remain safe for the environment and human health. Any drastic increase of emissions should be documented, and actions should be taken.

Waste generation- Any waste generated by the intervention will be disposed

of in compliance with USAID guidelines on solid waste management.

Power generation- Generators should be installed on concrete aprons, and

berms or gutters/sumps should be used in order to limit and contain possible fuel spillage.

- Generators will be sheltered from weather conditions in an effort to keep them in peak operating condition.

- Generators will be maintained regularly to remain in good condition.

Construction and rehabilitation- Conditions apply to construction or rehabilitation of

facilities or structures in which the surface area to be disturbed exceeds 10,000 sq. ft (1,000 sq meters).

- Interventions will not involve displacement of existing

32

settlement/inhabitants.- Sites must not be placed within 30m of a permanent or

seasonal stream or water body, Sites must have an average slope of less than 5% and be located in areas that are not heavily forested, not in undisturbed local ecosystem, and not in a protected area. Sites violating one or more of these criteria are subject to the condition established under the last bullet point in this section.

- Construction will be undertaken in a manner generally consistent with the guidance for environmentally sound construction provided in the USAID Sector Environmental Guideline for Construction: http://usaidgems.org/Sectors/construction.htm .

- At minimum, (1) During construction, prevent sediment-heavy run-off from cleared site or material stockpiles to any surface waters or fields with berms, by covering sand/dirt piles, or by choice of location. (Only applies if construction occurs during rainy season.); (2) Construction must be managed so that no standing water on the site persists more than 4 days; (3) Implementing Partners must require their general contractor to certify that it is not extracting fill, sand or gravel from waterways or ecologically sensitive areas, nor is it knowingly purchasing these materials from vendors who do so; (4) Implementing partners must identify and implement any feasible measures to increase the probability that timber is procured from legal, well-managed sources.

- Implementing partners will undertake a USAID Environmental Report Form review process that covers each intervention or category of interventions involving construction or rehabilitation of HF radios, FM radios, or other telecommunications interventions.

Community-based micro-projects

Negative Determination with Conditions pursuant to 22 CFR 216.3 (a)(2)(iii). Mandatory conditions include the following:

Implementing partners will undertake the USAID Environmental Report Form review process that covers each proposed micro-project or category of micro-project.

4.2 Implementation and Monitoring

33

In addition to the specific conditions enumerated in Section 3, the negative determinations recommended in this IEE are contingent on full implementation of the following general monitoring and implementation requirements.

1. Implementing Partner briefings on environmental compliance responsibilities. USAID/DRC will provide the Implementing Partner with a copy of this IEE, and the AOR will brief the Implementing Partner on their environmental compliance responsibilities. During this briefing, the IEE conditions applicable to the interventions will be identified.

2. Development of EMMP. The Implementing Partner shall develop and provide for AOR and MEO review and approval, an Environmental Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (EMMP) documenting how their activity will implement and verify all IEE conditions that apply to the interventions (The AFR EMMP Factsheet provides EMMP guidance and sample EMMP formats: http://www.usaidgems.org/Documents/lopDocs/ENCAP_EMMP_Factsheet_22Jul2011.pdf ).

3. Integration and implementation of EMMP. The Implementing Partner will integrate their EMMP into their project work plan and budgets, implement the EMMP, and report on its implementation as an element of regular project performance reporting.

4. Communication to firms regarding compliance. The Implementing Partner will communicate to potential sub-grantees the requirements established in this IEE. Specifically, the Implementing Partner shall, and as appropriate, communicate environmental compliance responsibilities to each potential sub-grantee.

5. USAID/DRC monitoring responsibility. As required by ADS 204.3.4, USAID/DRC will actively monitor and evaluate whether the conditions of this IEE are being implemented effectively up to the signatures of agreements/deals and whether there are new or unforeseen consequences that were not identified and reviewed in this IEE. If new or unforeseen consequences arise, the team will suspend the intervention and initiate appropriate, further review in accordance with 22 CFR 216. USAID Monitoring shall include regular field visits.

6. Compliance with Host Country Requirements. Nothing in this IEE substitutes for or supersedes Implementing Partner, sub-grantee and subcontractor responsibility for compliance with all applicable host country laws and regulations. The Implementing Partner, sub-grantees and subcontractor must comply with host country environmental regulations unless otherwise directed in writing by USAID. However, in case of conflict between host country and USAID regulations, the latter shall govern.

4.3 General Restrictions

34

This IEE does NOT authorize support for pesticides, including their procurement, use, transport, storage or disposal. Any pesticide use proposed under this program would necessitate an amended IEE, including all elements of analysis required by 22 CFR 216.3(b) under USAID Pesticide Procedures.

4.4 Revisions

Under 22 CFR 216.3(a)(9), if new information becomes available that indicates that interventions covered by the IEE might be considered major and their effect significant, or if additional interventions are proposed that might be considered major and their adverse effect significant, this environmental threshold decision will be reviewed and, if necessary, revised by the Mission with concurrence by the BEO. It is the responsibility of the USAID AOR/COR to keep the MEO and BEO informed of any new information or changes in the activity that might require revision of this IEE.

35