Author: MIL-OSI Publisher

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Mulumba M Agaba, Researcher, University of Liverpool

Uganda’s environmental impact assessment system is meant to protect the environment from harmful development projects. For nearly 30 years, the law has required developers applying for approval to consider alternatives to their proposed projects, such as different sites, designs, technologies or even whether the project should go ahead at all. This is intended to make sure that the least environmentally damaging option is chosen. Biodiversity and environmental impact assessment researcher Mulumba M. Agaba examined 108 environmental impact statements submitted between 2001 and 2023 to assess whether developers were complying with this requirement.

Why aren’t developers allowed to propose only one option?

Environmental impact assessments globally are used to evaluate the environmental consequences of major projects before they are approved. They give decision-makers clear information about the likely impact of the project on the environment, and about whether less damaging options are available. In Uganda, assessors must be certified by the National Environment Management Authority. However, they are usually hired and paid by the project developer.

The main aim in project planning is to first avoid harming the environment. If that’s not possible, developers need to reduce the damage they do. The last option – repairing damage and paying compensation – should only happen when there is no better option.

---

Read more: Environmental impact assessments don’t work in Nigeria: here’s why

---

The World Bank Environmental and Social Framework and the Convention on Biological Diversity stress that it’s best to avoid environmental damage rather than managing it later.

For this reason, it’s international best practice for developers to come up with alternatives to their planned projects. Considering more environmentally friendly alternatives is an important step in constructing new projects and is meant to shape decisions before projects are locked in.

What’s wrong with the system?

We examined 108 environmental impact assessment reports to see whether developers had properly considered different project options. We also interviewed 18 environmental assessment practitioners about how alternatives are chosen, whether environmental concerns are taken seriously, and why these assessments so often fail to change the final decision on projects.

Our findings are concerning.

Developers routinely include other project options in environmental impact assessment reports, but the study found these were often given only limited attention. The alternatives were usually described briefly, with little evidence-based comparison. In many cases, the reports did not explain why one option would be better for the environment than another. The researchers concluded that alternatives rarely appear to shape the final decision on which projects are approved.

Second, biodiversity gets very little attention in these assessments. Even where different options are considered, they are usually judged mainly on cost or whether they are technically possible, while environmental impacts are treated as less important or ignored. For example, different options were not compared based on their likely impact on habitats, species, ecosystem services, protected areas and other environmentally sensitive areas.

---

Read more: Uganda’s Batwa community are vulnerable to climate change, but aren’t involved in adaptation decisions

---

Sectors vary in how clearly reports set out different options, how carefully they compare them, and whether they consider biodiversity when explaining a choice. Projects in sectors that face strong outside scrutiny, such as oil and gas, tend to do this better. Manufacturing and urban development projects tend to do this poorly.

There has been little improvement over time. Uganda’s National Environment Act was passed in 2019, and emphasises that the first priority is to cause no damage to the environment. But in the assessments that followed, there was no clear evidence that biodiversity was being better integrated into decision-making.

Which alternatives get attention, and which are ignored?

Our research found that most environmental impact assessments describe what might happen if the project does not go ahead, but they focus on how the economy will lose out rather than on how the environment will gain.

Technology and design alternatives are sometimes considered, but rarely in depth. Moving a development to a different location is often not explored at all.

The areas where projects could most reduce harm to the environment are the ones that get the least attention. For example, we found that developers rarely compare whether a different way of building or running a project would cause less environmental damage. They rarely consider changing timing or building methods.

---

Read more: Kenya’s huge railway project is causing environmental damage. Here’s how

---

Environmental impact statements usually stick to one chosen approach, and then add mitigation measures afterwards, rather than properly testing whether other approaches might be better for nature from the start.

There is a clear pattern. Alternatives that could genuinely reduce environmental harm are the least explored.

What can be done to change this?

Our research developed a Biodiversity Inclusion Index to assess whether 108 environmental impact reports properly considered alternative options and their effects on species, habitats and entire ecosystems.

The index examines whether biodiversity was properly considered when different project options were compared. It looks at whether the assessment explained how different choices could avoid or reduce harm to species, habitats and ecosystems.

The results are stark. The average score was just 0.33. This indicates weak and inconsistent integration of biodiversity across most projects. A good score would be 1 – meaning that biodiversity is clearly included in how alternatives are identified and justified.

Only a small number of projects performed well. These are typically projects with international financing or higher regulatory scrutiny.

Why does this matter?

Once a project’s location, design, phasing and technology are fixed, environmental damage can only be fixed later. In other words, the focus shifts to mitigation. At that point, the best ways to protect the environment are already off the table.

This is not the way to protect Uganda’s biodiversity. Choosing a different site, adjusting a development’s layout, or changing when it is built can prevent irreversible damage. These decisions must happen before the development gets started because they determine whether ecosystems are protected or lost.

---

Read more: Wild animals leave DNA on plants, making them easier to track – here’s what scientists found in a Ugandan rainforest

---

Our research found that many Ugandan developments give the appearance of complying with environmental laws. But actually, they are locking in avoidable biodiversity loss.

The Biodiversity Inclusion Index offers a practical way to check whether alternatives analysis is genuinely considering biodiversity. It could be adapted by developers, regulators and reviewers to improve how project options are compared before decisions are locked in.

Environmental impact assessors can use this index to improve the quality of their assessments. Policymakers can use our research to find ways of better enforcing environmental protection.

– Are Uganda’s environmental impact reports just a box-ticking exercise? What a study of 108 projects reveals
– https://theconversation.com/are-ugandas-environmental-impact-reports-just-a-box-ticking-exercise-what-a-study-of-108-projects-reveals-281936

Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Brandon Marc Finn, Research Scientist at the School for Environment and Sustainability, University of Michigan

Agbogbloshie, in Ghana’s capital city, Accra, is a sprawling, open-air scrapyard located next to a lagoon and a growing informal settlement. Roughly 6,000 people dismantle, recycle and burn old and broken electronics there.

The world produces approximately 62 million tonnes of electronic or e-waste every year. The Agbogbloshie site is one of the world’s biggest.

E-waste is old, broken and thrown away electronic devices with cords or batteries, such as cellphones, household appliances, and televisions. Over 80% is dumped in landfills or processed informally by workers who have no health and safety protections, operating largely without government oversight, support, or occupational safety.

---

Read more: Why Nigeria needs to manage electronic waste better

---

Much of the world’s e-waste is shipped to countries like Ghana in west Africa where copper and aluminium are extracted, and batteries containing lithium and cobalt are recycled. The old electronics are burned out in the open to extract the minerals. Uncontrolled acid leaching is also used.

The exact value of the minerals fed back into the global supply chain is unknown. However, we do know that informal workers are shortchanged. This is because exporters buy recycled minerals like copper at prices well below international market rates.

Continually recycling and reusing goods, instead of throwing them away, is a core part of the “circular economy” concept. It is supposed to promote sustainability and help address climate change.

---

Read more: Toxic waste dumping in the Gulf of Guinea amounts to environmental racism

---

But as researchers who study informal economies and how materials move through global supply chains, my colleagues Patrick Cobbinah, Dimitrios Gounaridis and I recently found that the reality behind these supposedly “sustainable” supply chains in Agbogbloshie’s e-waste sites is very different.

We found that informal recycling provides an income for workers which is often relatively better than other available work. But the side effects of burning plastic and metal or using acid to extract minerals from the e-waste are devastating to human health and the natural environment.

---

Read more: How potential of massive e-waste dump in Ghana can be harnessed

---

The situation in Agbogbloshie is part of a global injustice. Wealthy countries enjoy the benefits of recycled materials like copper and aluminium, while some of the world’s most vulnerable people are forced to compromise their own health and environments to sustain these supply chains.

Rather than turn away from people living in informal settlements and working in the informal economy, community engagement should influence government policy to improve their working conditions. Supportive infrastructure must be developed at the e-waste site and in the informal settlement. Equally importantly, international regulatory bodies and policy makers from exporting and importing countries must better govern the flows of e-waste. It’s too easily dumped in countries like Ghana with little to no recourse.

Where earning a living means breathing toxic air

The men and women working in and supporting the informal e-waste economy in Agbogbloshie are navigating what we call the “informal paradox”. This is where workers have to expose themselves and their communities to toxic pollution in order to get short term livelihood gains. The informal paradox shows that the immediate need to survive replaces the need to avoid chronic threats to human and environmental health.

For example, open burning of electronics has, in part, led to extreme exposure to particulate matter 2.5 (millions of tiny particles of polluting matter such as dust, dirt, soot, or smoke that are released by burning).

The e-waste workers in Agbogbloshie breathe this in at concentrations five times higher than the World Health Organization’s safety standards. This increases the risk of heart attacks, cancer, nervous system damage and other diseases.

The toxic dust also spreads out across nearby informal settlements and the entire city of Accra. Agbogbloshie’s soil and water are also highly contaminated with these and other heavy metals. The effects spill over to the nearby produce market and lagoon.

What 20 years of satellite data revealed about pollution and survival

To understand how serious and complicated this problem has become, we studied 20 years of satellite data and interviewed 55 community members and city experts in Accra.

Our research found that between 2000 and 2020, air pollution and particulate matter 2.5 increased dramatically around Agbogbloshie. The number of people in nearby informal or shack settlements steadily increased during that time, so more people breathed in the toxic soot.

---

Read more: Humans generate 62 million tonnes of e-waste each year. Here’s what happens when it’s recycled

---

People migrate from rural areas to Agbogbloshie to escape famine, conflict, and worsening farming conditions linked to climate change. For many, processing and recycling e-waste is the only way to earn a living.

The e-waste workers told us they are aware of the dangers they face. As one said:

The hunter does not fear guns, the same way we don’t fear the weapon we work with.

Informal work is the global norm, not the exception

A huge 61% of the world’s workforce is employed informally. This means that working informally is not something that only people on the margins of society experience. It is global and commonplace.

Therefore, new ways to include informal work in the world’s development and supply chains are needed. These must be based on working with, not against, the people who have the least access to services and opportunities.

---

Read more: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa: how they stack up on reusing waste

---

Guaranteeing basic human and labour rights must be a non-negotiable foundation of the global circular economy. There are also very real economic opportunities in improving working conditions in the e-waste sector. Global e-waste stocks are estimated to be worth US$65 billion. Yet many e-waste workers earn less than US$1.25 a day.

If responsibly managed in the interests of local communities, recycling could lift thousands of people out of poverty and contribute to an actually sustainable circular economy.

What to do about it

Ghana has ratified both international conventions that regulate e-waste. The country also passed a law to manage e-waste in 2016.

But government intervention remains very weak and sometimes even actively harmful. The government has carried out hostile evictions and housing demolitions to remove people from the dumpsite. These have not reduced e-waste recycling though, and have only made workers’ lives more precarious.

To properly address these problems, the Accra Metropolitan Assembly must end home demolitions and evictions in Agbogbloshie’s informal settlements.

---

Read more: A rising tide of e-waste, made worse by AI, threatens our health, the environment and the economy

---

Instead, the government should invest in and strengthen the ways residents are already working together to share resources and improve their neighbourhoods. One way to do this is by providing safer equipment, such as mechanised wire-stripping machines to stop the burning as well as protective gear. Local government in Accra could also ensure that e-waste workers earn fair wages in return for using safer, more environmentally friendly methods.

Second, transparency at the point of e-waste sale is essential. New regulations are needed to compel large-scale scrap dealers to officially record the weight of the material they buy, and ensure they pay a publicly accessible market rate.

Third, working with the e-waste workers and community members to set up reliable, clean water sources, limit burning, and reduce the use of acid in e-waste recycling is also critical.

These steps require a transformation in the ways people think about and support those who live and work in informal economies and settlements. This process begins with treating people with the respect and dignity they and their work deserve.

– Poison or poverty: the impossible economic choices facing Ghana’s e-waste workers
– https://theconversation.com/poison-or-poverty-the-impossible-economic-choices-facing-ghanas-e-waste-workers-281479