Impact assessment and heritage management in Africa: An Overview

Full text

Cultural Heritage Impact
Assessment in Africa
An overview
Edited by
Herman Kiriama, Ishanlosen Odiaua, Ashton Sinamai

Cultural Heritage Impact
Assessment in Africa
An overview
Edited by
Herman Kiriama
Ishanlosen Odiaua
Ashton Sinamai
Centre for Heritage Development in Africa
Mombasa, Kenya

First Published 2010 by Centre for Heritage Development in Africa,
Nkrumah Road, Mombasa, Kenya
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form by electronic, mechanical, or any
other means now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without the permission in writing from the
publisher.
© CHDA
ISBN: 9966-9650-0-7
Front Cover
Views of the World Heritage Site of Gebel Barkal and the Sites
of the Napatan Region, Sudan
Construction of the Merowe Dam, Sudan
Back Cover
Thaba Bosiu Cultural Village, Lesotho

i
Contents
List of figures............................................................................................iii
List of Tables.............................................................................................iv
List of Acronyms........................................................................................v
Notes on Contributors.............................................................................vii
Preface.....................................................................................................xi
1 Impact assessment and heritage management in Africa: An
Overview........................................................................................1
Herman Kiriama, Ishanlosen Odiaua, Ashton Sinamai
2 Cultural heritage impact assessment in Kenya .............................10
Wycliffe Oloo, Ibrahim B. Namunaba
3 The state of impact assessment and heritage and
management of heritage Nigeria.................................................28
Friday S. Awonusi, Aisha Aliyu-Mohammed
4 A brief overview of environmental and heritage
impact assessment legislations in South Africa.............................35
Sonia Warnich-Stemmet
5 The role of EIA studies in the management and conservation of
cultural heritage in the Sudan.......................................................44
Osman M. Mohamed Ali
6 The Practice of environmental impact assessment in Uganda:
challenges in cultural heritage impact assessment
.....................................................................................................51
Jackline Nyiracyiza and Leone Chadia
7 State of archaeological impact assessment in
Zimbabwe....................................................................................59
Tendai T. Musindo

ii
8 The state of impact assessment practice and heritage in
Botswana…………………………………………………………………………………68
Louis Moroka and Tsholofelo Dichaba
9 Impact Assessment in the conservation and management of
African heritage: What next? ......................................................77
Ashton Sinamai, Ishanlosen Odiaua, Herman Kiriama
Appendices
List of cultural heritage and environmental protection legislation in sub-
Saharan Africa ..............................................................................................83
Suggested Reading........................................................................................88

iii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Test archaeological excavations
at Koitatel Mausoleum 15
Figure 3: Ceramic vase excavated
at Kaptumo Fort 15
Figure 3: Map of Kenya 16
Figure 4: Children’s Park, Mama Ngina Drive
Heritage Site, Mombasa 17
Figure 5: The Children’s Park,
Mama Ngina Drive 18
Figure 6: Settlement in sand dunes, Lamu 18
Figure 7: Flow Chart of FEPA EIA
Review Procedure 32
Figure 8: The demarcated boundaries
of Cape Winelands Cultural Landscape Site 40
Figure 9a: Built environment,Meerlust Bosbou 42

iv
List of Tables
Table 1: Yearly comparison of Environmental
Impact Assessment reports in Kenya 22
Table 2: Regional Distribution of EIA reports
for the period between 2002 and 2007 22
Table 3: Sectoral distribution of EIA
reports between 2002and 2007 24
Table 4: Some EIA studies undertaken
in the Sudan 46

v
List of Acronyms
AFRICOM
International Council for African Museums
AIA
Archaeological Impact Assessment
CHDA
Centre for Heritage Development in Africa
CHIA
Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment
CWCL
Cape Winelands Cultural Landscape
DEA Department of Environmental Affairs
DMM
Department of Museums and Monuments
DNMM
Department of National Museum and Monuments
EIA
Environmental Impact Assessment
EIAA
Environmental and Impact Assessment Act
ENP
Equatorial Nile Project
EPA
Environmental Protection Act
FEPA
Federal Environmental Protection Agency
HCENR
Higher Council for Environment and Natural Resources
HIA
Heritage Impact Assessment
IEM
Integrated Environmental Management
IES Institute of Environmental Studies
JICA
Japan International Cooperation Agency
NCAM
National Corporation for Antiquities and Museums
NCMM
National Commission for Museums and Monuments
NEMA
National Environmental Management Authority/Act
NHRA
National Heritage Resources Act

vi
NMHA
National Museums and Heritage Act
NMK National Museum of Kenya
NMMZ
National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe
OPA
Ordinance for the Protection of Antiquities
OPG
Operational Guidelines
PEIS
Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement
RISSEA
Directorate of Research Institute for Swahili Studies in
Eastern Africa
RoD
Record of Decision
SAHRA
South African Heritage Resources Agency
SEA
Strategic Environmental Assessment
SEPA
State Environmental Protection Agency
UNESCO
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization
USAID
United States Agency for International Development
WHC
World Heritage Committee/Centre

vii
Notes on contributors
Dr Osman M.M. Ali is an Associate Professor at the Institute of
Environmental Studies, University of Khartoum. He got his PhD in
Limnology (Inland Waters) from the University of London, UK. He is an
expert in Environmental Impact Assessment, teaching and practicing. He
has led many EIA teams especially in the field of oil activities in Sudan. He is
a former member of the International Association for Impact Assessment
(EAAIA) and also a Member of the Sudan Archaeological Society. He
participated as a resource person in the 6th Technical Course on “Impact
Assessment as a Tool for Heritage Management” held in the New Amri-
Sudan. He has also participated in many international conferences and
workshops pertaining to fresh water management in Africa and published
many articles in international journals and books. He is an Environmental
Expert in the Advisory Committee of the Joint Multipurpose Programme of
the Nile Basin Initiative.
Aisha Mohammed Aliyu holds a degree in urban planning from Ahmadu
Bello University Zaria and works as a Monument Officer in the Department
of Monuments, Heritage and Sites of the Nigerian National Commission for
Museums and Monuments.
Friday Samson Awonusi holds a higher National Diploma and
Postgraduate Diploma in Urban and Regional planning from the Federal
Polytechnic, Nasarawa and Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria
respectively. He is currently working as a Heritage Officer with the
Department of Monuments Heritage and Sites of the Nigerian National
Commission for Museums and Monuments. He has carried out extensive
heritage assessments in Nigeria.
Leone Chadia holds a Bachelors degree in Botany and Zoology as well as a
post-graduate diploma in Education. He currently works as a conservator at
the Department of Museums and Monuments of the Ugandan Ministry of
Tourism, Trade and Industry.
Tsholofelo Dichaba holds a Bachelor of Science (Biology and
Environmental Management) from University of Botswana and a M.A in
Anthropology from Rice University. She is a Senior Curator with the
Botswana National Museum and has worked with local communities in the
management and conservation of heritage sites for the past 9 years. She has
participated in several Africa 2009 programmes including the Regional
Course on the Management and Conservation of Immovable Heritage in
Sub-Saharan Africa in Mombasa, Kenya.
Dr Herman Kiriama holds a PhD in Cultural Heritage Management from
Deakin University, Australia. He has taught archaeology and heritage

viii
management at both the University of Nairobi and Kenyatta University
respectively. He is currently the head of Coastal Archaeology of the National
Museums of Kenya, the Coordinator of Immovable Heritage at the Centre
for Heritage Development in Africa (CHDA) and is also a consultant with the
International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of
Cultural Property (ICCROM), in Rome. He has published widely on issues
in archaeology and heritage management. He is the author of The Swahili of
the Kenya Coast (2005), and co-author of Discovering the Kenya Coast
(2009).
Louis Moroka holds Bachelor of Arts degree from University of Botswana
majoring in Archaeology. He is a Principal Curator of Archaeology section of
the Botswana National Museum. He is the head of Salvage Unit which is
responsible for reviewing all Archaeological Impact Assessments. Moroka
was one of the pioneers of Africa 2009 program and he attended various
thematic sessions of the program, the last being“Impact Assessment as a
Tool for Heritage Management,” which was held in 2008 in Karima, Sudan.
Tendai Musindo is a Curator of Archaeology at Great Zimbabwe World
Heritage site. She has been involved in a number of Impact assessments on
cultural heritage both in the field and as an assessor of impact assessments
submitted to her organization, National Museums and Monuments of
Zimbabwe. She is currently studying towards an MSC in GIS and Spatial
Analysis in Archaeology at the University College London (UCL). Her
interests include heritage management and conservation particularly
working on how heritage management can benefit from GIS applications.
Ibrahim Busolo Namunaba, is an archaeology Lecturer at Pwani
University College and is currently studying for his PhD at the University of
Nairobi. He is also the Country Coordinator of African Archaeology Network
and previously worked as a research scientist and manager of archaeological
collections (Coastal Archaeology) with National Museums of Kenya. He has
served as a member of the National Steering Committee for Integrated
Coastal Zone Management Policy Formulation. Besides, he has been a
resource person at the Centre for Heritage Development in Africa (CHDA) as
well as provided consultancy in Cultural Heritage Impact assessment and
Audits for East African Cables and Telkom Kenya.
Jackline Nyiracyiza holds a degree in History from Makerere University
and a post-graduate diploma in Museums and Heritage Studies with
additional certificates in Cultural Heritage Assessment and Wood
Technology. She works as a Conservator of History and Archaeology in the
Uganda Department of Museums and Monuments. She has carried out
several impact assessments for various development projects in Uganda

ix
Ishanlosen Odiaua is an architect, specialised in earth architecture and
the conservation of African indigenous architecture. She is a lecturer at
the Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Nigeria and has consulted the
Nigerian National Commission for Museums and Monuments in the
development of conservation plans for national heritage sites and has also
published several papers on the conservation of earth architecture in
Nigeria. She has worked as the Coordinator of the Immovable Heritage
Programme of the Centre for Heritage Development in Africa, Kenya, where
she facilitated several training programmes in the management of
immovable cultural heritage in sub-Saharan Africa. She is also a member of
the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) and a
consultant to UNESCO. She is currently a PhD student at the Sorbonne
University (Paris 1) in Paris focusing on the history of architectural
conservation in the West African savannah.
Wycliffe Oloo has been a Research Scientist at the National Museums of
Kenya Directorate of Museums, Sites & Monuments and currently serves as
a Senior Curator at the Kisumu Museum. He has an M.A in International
Museums and Heritage Studies from Goteborg University- Sweden and a
B.A in Anthropology from University of Nairobi. He has researched,
documented, taught and lectured widely on cultural heritage management.
Ashton Sinamai is a lecturer in Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
Management at the Midlands State University, Zimbabwe. He has worked
an archaeologist at Great Zimbabwe and Khami World Heritage sites as well
as Chief Curator for the National Museum of Namibia. He has been a
resource person and coordinator for several ICCROM/Africa 2009 courses
and workshops, including the 6th Technical Course on ‘Impact Assessment
as a Tool for Heritage Management’ held in Merowe, Sudan in 2008, where
he was the academic consultant. He has carried out several cultural impact
assessment studies in Zimbabwe and has published several papers on
archaeology and conservation in southern Africa. Currently he is a Ph.D
student at Deakin University’s School of History, Heritage and Society in
Melbourne, Australia.
Sonja Warnich-Stemmet obtained her Magister Technologaie Town &
Regional Planning degree in 2007 with postgraduate studies in the field of
public transportation. She was also a part-time lecturer at the Town and
Regional Planning Department, Cape Peninsula University of Technology
from 2003-2006. She joined the South African Heritage Resources Agency
Western Cape provincial office in 2006 with heritage resources management
as her primary function.

x
Preface
Environmental Impact Assessment and Cultural
Heritage in Africa
This publication is one of the first in Africa to raise issues concerning the role
and responsibilities of conducting cultural heritage impact assessment in the
region. It is composed of country presentations with case studies on how
cultural resources are often treated in global Environmental Impact
Assessment. The papers emanate from an Africa 2009 workshop on impact
assessment for cultural heritage places. The papers presented in this book
pose several questions to those who are responsible for the management and
conservation of cultural heritage. These papers also challenge those
organisations that have the responsibility of protecting our environment as
well as government department that oversee development projects. The book
raises issues on the role of civic societies and local communities on the
management of not only cultural heritage but the natural heritage as well.
There has always been tension between development and conservation of the
environment and this has made the work of cultural heritage managers more
difficult as they often they don’t get any support from the government. Many
governments have reluctantly embraced the EIA as a result of pressure from
multilateral donors which demand them before funds are released. It
therefore lies with civic society, local communities and heritage organisations
to lobby for the recognition and safeguarding of cultural values in the
landscape in all development processes. This pressure should also be exerted
on government and government agencies to set up smoother systems for
mitigating negative impact and loss without negatively affecting national
development goals.
These case studies also present a challenge to environment and cultural
agencies to build capacity in impact assessment as it is clearly shown that
most national environmental bodies do not have capacity to efficiently and
transparently carry out Environmental Impact Assessments. Those involved
in the development process should also increase their capacity in environment

xi
so as to create points of linkage with environmental bodies. The papers also
call for an integrated multi-agency planning so that it would be easier to
mediate the tensions that often arise between the development agenda and
conservation of heritage resources.
Most of these papers have concentrated on the process and have not raised
the issue of how sites have fared after the projects have been implemented.
Continued monitoring of these sites is thus important if we are to protect
other sites that will face the same development problems. Heritage doesn’t
need to be a vulgar word to developers and it is our duty as cultural heritage
managers to inform those involved in development of the importance of
cultural heritage to local communities, ethnic groups as well as nations. I hope
this book will inform government development agencies and private
developers of their role in the protection of African heritage resources.
This book, which features papers from eight English speaking African
countries, was made possible by the generous financial support given to
CHDA by the Ford Foundation and facilitation from the International Council
for African Museums (AFRICOM). We are grateful to these two organisations
for playing a part in the protection of African cultural heritage resources. The
book is also a result of the commitment of Africa 2009 and the various African
heritage organisations to the management and conservation of the unique
heritage of Africa. We hope that this is a beginning to a series of publications
by CHDA on heritage management and conservation in Africa.
Deirdre Prins-Solani
Director, Centre for Heritage Development in Africa, Mombasa, Kenya

1
1
Impact assessment and heritage management in
Africa: an overview
Herman Kiriama, Ishanlosen Odiaua and Ashton Sinamai
As African countries endeavour to improve the standards of living for their
people, they have sought to attract new investments and also embarked on
accelerated development programmes meant to provide basic infrastructure
for their citizens. These developments inevitably lead to modifications to the
natural and cultural environments. In order to mitigate for such changes,
most African countries have legislated environmental laws to provide
guidelines for all developments that may change the social, cultural and
natural environments. These environmental legislations require the
implementation of Environmental Impact Assessment for all development
projects. However, few of these have included cultural heritage as a
component of the environment that needs to be studied. The aim of this book
is to show the different stages which African countries have reached in terms
of the general environmental legislations, as well as to address the
inclusion/exclusion of cultural heritage in impact assessments.
This book is a collection of papers presented by participants at an EIA course
organised by the Africa 2009 Programme1
1 The AFRICA2009 programme was launched in 1998 and was a joint effort between Sub-Saharan Africa
cultural heritage organizations, ICCROM, the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, and CRATerre-EAG.
The programme was rooted in the notion that the problems facing heritage conservation in Africa must be
addressed not only through technical solutions, but by also taking into account the relationship that
exists between the immovable heritage, local communities and the overall environment.
in Sudan from October to
November 2009. The course brought together a group of African heritage
professionals to work together and share experiences in the use of impact
assessment as a tool for the management of heritage resources in sub-Saharan
Africa. The main objectives were to introduce participants to Impact
Assessment and its use as a heritage management tool, familiarize
participants with the practical process of impact assessment as well as to

2
sensitize policy makers on the usefulness of impact assessment for heritage
protection. The course consisted of a series of lectures and practical hands-on
exercises geared towards developing competence in impact assessment
studies, especially as it relates to the protection of cultural heritage sites
threatened by development activities. It is hoped that the papers in this book
lead to a deepening of the knowledge of the problems and challenges that are
faced by African heritage managers in protecting cultural heritage in the face
of development.
What is Cultural Heritage?
Cultural heritage can be defined as those things which are of value to
communities, including tangible objects, the landscape, and intangibles such
as myths, legends and music that are articulated by the tangible objects
(Smith and Akagawa 2009; Blake 2009; Harrison et al 2008; Munjeri 2004;
UNESCO 2003). Cultural heritage denotes the means through which culture
is transmitted from one generation to another and it is what informs the
behaviour of current society. This perception of heritage operates at many
levels – there is that level of the people (elders) whose duty is not only to keep
these traditions and pass them on, but also to interpret them whenever there
is a dispute; a second level is of those who have to keep and uphold these
traditions (the community members); and then there is another level for the
visitors to this landscape who may have to know how to adhere to the
traditions (heritage) of the area. As Smith (2006:3) says ‘heritage is a multi-
layered performance – be this a performance of visiting, managing,
interpretation or conservation – that embodies acts of remembrance and
commemoration while negotiating and constructing a sense of place,
belonging and understanding in the present.’
Even though heritage is passed on from the past to the present and gives a
people identity, it is not static. It is constantly being negotiated and
renegotiated in order to meet the demands of the present: communities use
their heritage (their past) as a means of survival in the present (Harrison et al
2008). Heritage thus results from a process of using the past in order to meet
current needs (Harvey 2008:19). The past being the past means that there are
very many people, stakeholders, who make very many claims to that past. The
result of having many stakeholders with varying views is that there will
inevitably be contestation or conflict about the past (Graham and Howard
2008).

3
The notion of heritage was further expanded in 1992 when the UNESCO
World Heritage Committee (WHC) introduced the concept of cultural
landscapes to describe those natural environments that have been created for
either aesthetic reasons, such as gardens and parks; for utilitarian purposes
(e.g. cultivation) whereas others, such as mountains, lakes, or forests, have
been instilled by human beings with spiritual meaning and reflect humanity’s
conception of the relations between man, nature and God. In its Operational
Guidelines, the World Heritage Committee gives the following definition of a
cultural landscape:
Cultural landscapes are cultural properties and represent the
"combined works of nature and of man"… They are illustrative of
the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under
the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities
presented by their natural environment and of successive social,
economic and cultural forces, both external and internal (WHC
Operational Guidelines, 2008:86)
The definition and categorisation of landscapes by the World Heritage
Committee sees landscapes as being physical, iconographic and ideological
(Robertson and Richards 2003). In other words, other than their physical
presence in an area, landscapes also tend to be representative of some
processes that have taken place in an area and so they are an embodiment of
the values, symbols and meanings that societies have given them. Landscapes
thus, not only tell the story of people, events and places through time, but they
also offer a sense of continuity, a sense of the passage of time and more
importantly, they offer a cultural context for cultural heritage (Taylor and
Altenburg 2006). A cultural landscape can therefore be said to be the
memories people have left behind as well as their meanings and
interpretations. As the meanings and interpretations come from the memories
of the affected people, a cultural landscape can thus be said to be a landscape
full of memory, ‘a surface that is full of historical signs and stories that are
meant to strengthen, direct and validate both personal and the collective
memory of its places’ (Raivo and Attonen 2004: 4).
Cultural landscapes with a physical environment heavily imbued with
significant meanings for local populations are prevalent in Africa. In addition
there are also vestiges of human civilizations that exist all over the continent –
vestiges that will enable the telling of the story of the people of the continent.
For a continent that mostly depends on oral history, the remains of the past
lend credence to the African story. The present possibilities offered by

4
technological and academic advancements offer endless possibilities to tell
these stories. Viewed in the light of this, and inevitable development, it
becomes even more imperative for heritage institutions across the continent
to take advantage of every possibility offered to ensure the protection of
cultural heritage for research and for transmission of history to future
generations of Africans.
Cultural heritage from the above discussion would therefore include such
tangible things as archaeological sites and objects, architectural buildings,
memorials, sacred sites and objects, cultural landscapes, and intangible
heritage like performance and rituals, myths legends and folklore, music and
dance. It is all these resources that heritage managers seek to protect and are
often not known by developers as well as practitioners carrying out
environmental impact assessments. This problem probably arises from the
environmental legislations themselves. Most mention cultural heritage in
passing and do not explain to practitioners what cultural heritage is. Though a
few countries have had to create other regulations to sensitise the developers
about the need to protect this cultural heritage many are still working with
vague descriptions of what heritage is. Many who carry out these
environmental impact assessments are natural scientists who usually deal
with components that are easier to replace. If certain trees or plants are
affected other trees can planted to replace them. This is not a possibility with
cultural heritage: once a site has been destroyed it can never be replaced.
Sustainable development models are therefore quite difficult to apply when it
comes to cultural heritage as it is a non-renewable resource.
Impact assessments and the sustainable development movement
The concept of sustainable development was framed at the United Nations
conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm in 1972 and thereafter
several countries began to enact specific laws for Environmental protection
and assessments. The notion of sustainable development is strongly upheld
within the environmental impact assessment, and holds strongly to
“development that meets the needs of the present generation without
compromising the right of the coming generations to meet their needs”. In
this regard it is worth pointing out that many African societies have
expounded this notion through the sacred and religious attributes that have
been ascribed to many heritage sites. A critical examination of these sites will
show that in spite of their spiritual attributes, the local populations exploited
the resources of the sites in a respectful manner while still ensuring that the
site remained over long periods. Heritage resources are not finite and unlike

5
other components of the environment cannot be replaced. Sustainability of
cultural heritage is therefore much more difficult compared to natural
heritage.
The Nubia campaign associated with the construction of the Aswan Dam in
Egypt from the early 1950s to 1960s (Hassan 2007), created awareness about
the effects of large-scale development projects on heritage assets. It also led
countries of the world to realise that loss of heritage in one country also leads
to a loss of universal human history and this ultimately led to the adoption by
UNESCO of the Convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural
and Natural Heritage in 1972. Prior to the construction of the Dam, an
assessment of the heritage of the area was carried out and a report titled
Equatorial Nile Project (ENP) was published in 1954. The assessment was
probably, in all but name, the first environmental impact assessment carried
out in Africa (Osman 2002). Environmental awareness emanating from this
project also led to enactment of the first national statute for environmental
impact assessment - American National Environmental Policy Act – which
was signed into law in the United States of America in 1970. Surprisingly, in
spite of the effect of the Aswan Dam construction in Africa, the continent did
not enact any environmental laws until Libya enacted its legislation in 1982.
In the interim most countries had in place specific legislations that dealt with
production sectors in their own countries e.g. mining, fishing and forestry
legislations.
In view of the growing global environmental concerns, most international
donors and funding agencies require the inclusion of environmental
assessment (including EIA) in the project planning, implementation and
operation as a pre-requisite to facilitating loan approvals. The World Bank,
USAID, JICA, and other international donors have environmental policies,
(often based on their national legislations) which must be respected for
projects that they fund. It can be said that the emergent result of the joint
forces of local community activism, donor demand, and the global
environmental lobby, is that most African countries have now passed into law
environmental protection legislations. As will be evident from the following
chapters, most of the African environmental legislations, however, are more
concerned with the “physical cultural resources” to the exclusion of other
forms of heritage.
Why Cultural Heritage impact assessment?
Apart from the fact that cultural heritage is a non renewable resource and is a
link between the past, the present and the future, cultural heritage is often

6
used by communities to establish their identity as well as being an economic
resource. In most countries cultural heritage is an important resource that
generates significant tourism revenue. This in turn leads to creation of
employment in several other sectors of the economy. Therefore, if
development projects are not properly designed, they will not only damage the
cultural heritage but will also destroy a community’s way of life and source of
income. Impact assessments therefore allow countries to both conserve their
cultural heritage and also use it sustainably.
Impact assessments are meant to draw attention to the effects of the proposed
project on the heritage place and how these effects can be mitigated. A
cultural heritage impact assessment report will therefore include the
legislative framework, the consultation process, the cultural and
environmental baseline, mitigation as well as monitoring plans. Mitigation
measures aim to avoid, minimize, remedy or compensate for the predicted
adverse impacts of a proposed project on a cultural heritage resource or site.
The development of a cultural heritage impact assessment will involve a range
of parties with different roles and responsibilities including the project
proponent(s), independent consultants, the relevant authorities and
government departments, external reviewers, local residents and
communities and other interest groups (stakeholders). Stakeholders for a
cultural heritage site are all the individuals and groups who claim some
attachment to the heritage place, both physical and spiritual. This therefore
means that one can stay very far from a cultural heritage site and still claim to
be a stakeholder on account of the spiritual connection to that site.
Involvement of the stakeholders enables a smooth decision making process as
the views of the stakeholders are incorporated in the project design.
The following chapters will therefore show how individual African countries
are addressing these issues, through the intersection between heritage and
environmental legislation, as well as other relevant sectoral legislations. In
Chapter Two, Busolo and Oloo present the national frameworks for the
protection of the environment and national heritage in Kenya. The recently
enacted National Museums and Heritage Act (2006) makes provision for the
conduct of environmental impact assessments, subject to the provisions of the
national environmental legislation (Environmental Management and
Coordination Act 1999) which, however, as the authors say, makes passing
reference to cultural heritage but emphasizes natural heritage. Environmental
Impact Assessment in Kenya is conducted for large projects and the National
Museum of Kenya (NMK) is often only involved at the review stage or when

7
the developer ‘stumbles’ across heritage resources. The chapter goes on to
outline the EIA process in Kenya and also describes examples of impact
assessments that have been carried out by the NMK across the country and
gives an overview of EIA (including impacts on heritage resources) carried out
in Kenya from 2002 to 2006, by region and by sector. The paper then
concludes by recognising that though there is no national legislation that
deals with cultural heritage impact assessment, both national legislations for
heritage and environmental protection make provisions for regulating the
development process to reduce impact on natural and cultural heritage
resources.
Awonusi and Aliyu-Mohammed present the Nigerian case in Chapter Three.
The two principal legislations that protect national heritage are the National
Commission for Museums and Monuments Act of 1979 and the
Environmental Impact Assessment Decree of 1992. The chapter also goes on
to present other national legislations that play overarching roles in the
protection of heritage. The authors describe the national structures put in
place for the implementation and enforcement of the national environmental
policy. They further give an overview of the EIA process in Nigeria. Examples
of assessments carried out in the petroleum and manufacturing sectors, and
their impacts on heritage resources, are briefly outlined. Awonusi and Aliyu-
Mohammed argue that though there is a need for the review of the national
heritage legislation, the national heritage institution however, can take
advantage of the existing legislations to meet the challenges of protecting
heritage resources threatened by development projects.
In Chapter Four, Warnich-Stemmet shows that in South Africa while the
National Heritage Resources Act (1999) protects the heritage resources, the
National Environmental Management Act (1998) on the other hand,
guarantees environmental protection and these two legislations as well as
other sectoral laws require an undertaking of EIAs by project proponent(s).
She outlines the process of environmental impact assessments in South Africa
and shows that heritage impact assessment is an obligation within the general
environmental impact assessment.
In Chapter Five, Ali presents the Sudanese situation in which he shows that
the responsibility for cultural heritage protection is under the National
Corporation for Antiquities and Museums and the operating legislation is the
Ordinance for the Protection of Antiquities (1999). The Environmental
Protection Act (2001) ensures the protection of the environment while other
sectoral legislations make provisions for the implementation of EIAs. Ali

8
further outlines the EIA process and shows that there is provision for the
inclusion of a heritage professional in EIA teams to ensure the protection of
the rich archaeological heritage of the Sudan. A case is made for the extension
of the EIA into the realm of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) in
order to ensure that long-term goals are met. The chapter concludes with
some recommendations that are meant to improve the existing processes and
foster better interaction between the heritage and environmental protection
agencies.
In Chapter Six Nyiracyiza and Chadia show that in Uganda it is the Historical
Monuments Act of 1967 that sets the framework for the protection of cultural
heritage while the National Environment Act of 1995 protects the
environment. They argue that despite the fact that the heritage legislation
does not specifically provide for EIA, there are however, certain provisions
within the Act that can be used to enforce it. The authors go on to give
examples of the existing scenario of interactions between the environmental
protection agency and the national heritage institution in the monitoring of
development projects. The chapter concludes with a recommendation for the
review of the existing heritage legislation as well as for improved inter-
governmental agency cooperation.
Chapter Seven presents an evaluation of Environmental Impact Assessment
as it concerns cultural heritage sites in Zimbabwe. In the chapter, Musindo
outlines the development of the EIA process in Zimbabwe, taking into account
the political developments in the country and shows that just like in the other
African countries Zimbabwe too has two different legislations governing
heritage and environment protection. While protection of heritage resources
is governed by the National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe Act
(1999) the Environmental Management Act (2002) on the other hand, guides
environmental policy. Musindo shows how that the national heritage
institution, (the National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe), seeing the
inadequacy of the cultural heritage legislation on EIA, developed guidelines
for developers and planners. These guidelines were meant to sensitise these
groups on the inclusion of cultural heritage in EIAs. The chapter concludes by
outlining the problems faced in the effective implementation of the legislation
and also the potential of EIA in the management of Zimbabwe’s heritage.
In chapter eight Moroka and Dichaba show that though Botswana has two
legislations governing the heritage and environmental sectors, both
legislations however, are complimentary in as far as both demand for the
undertaking of both environmental and archaeological impact assessments.

9
Moroka and Dichaba argue that the environmental agency cannot grant a
development permit to a developer who has not carried out an archaeological
impact assessment and the heritage agency will also demand an
environmental impact assessment report before giving the developer a go
ahead. The Botswana case shows a situation where there is a harmonious
inter-agency cooperation in the regulation of impact assessment. This is the
position that other African countries can learn from.
References
Blake, J. 2009. UNESCO’s 2003 Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage:
the implications of community involvement in ‘safeguarding’. In L. Smith and
N. Akagawa (eds.), Intangible Heritage. London: Routledge, pp. 45-73.
Graham, B. and Howard, P. (eds.). 2008. The Ashgate Research Companion
to Heritage and Identity. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Harrison, R., Fairclough, G., Jameson, J. H. Jnr and Schofield, J. 2008.
Heritage, Memory and Modernity. In G. Fairclough, R. Harrison, J. H.
Jameson Jnr and J. Schofield (eds.). The Heritage Reader. London and New
York: Routledge, pp. 1-12.
Harvey, D. C. 2008. The history of heritage. In B. Graham and P. Howard
(eds.). The Ashgate Research Companion to Heritage and Identity.
Aldershot: Ashgate, pp.19-36.
Hassan, F. A. 2007. The Aswan High Dam and the International Rescue
Nubia Campaign. African Archaeological Review (24), pp. 73 – 94.
Munjeri, D. 2004. Tangible and intangible heritage: from difference to
convergence. Museum International, 56 (1-2), pp. 12-20.
Osman, M. 2002. Environmental impact assessment from a Sudanese
perspective. In B. Sadler and M. McCabe (eds.), Environmental Impact
Assessment Training Resource Manual. Geneva, UNEP.
Raivo, P., Antonnen, M. 2004. Historical Landscape and Geographical
Memory. Finnish Historical Landscape Project.
Smith, L. 2006. Uses of Heritage. London: Routledge.
Smith, L and Akagawa, N. 2009. Introduction. In L. Smith and N. Akagawa
(eds.), Intangible Heritage. London: Routledge, pp. 1-9.
Taylor, K. and Altenburg, K. 2006. Cultural Landscapes in Asia-Pacific:
Potential for Filling World Heritage Gaps. International Journal of Heritage
Studies, 12 (3), 267–282.
UNESCO, 2003. Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural
Heritage. Paris, UNESCO.
World Heritage Centre (WHC). 2008. Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris: UNESCO.

10
2
Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment in Kenya
Wycliffe Oloo and Ibrahim Busolo Namunaba
Introduction
Like many other countries in Africa, Kenya is experiencing rapid
industrialization and increasing population density with unprecedented
pressure on both natural and cultural resources. With each and every
development the environment is impacted either positively or negatively and
more often than not, cultural heritage resources are never spared the impact.
Hence the need to ensure the environment is safeguarded for not only the
benefit of all humanity but also for the sustainability of the ecosystem.
Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) has been used effectively as a
tool for assessing potential impacts on cultural heritage resources. CHIA
refers to the ‘potential impacts, negative and positive on the full range of
cultural resources of an area, which may result from proposed development or
works or environmental trends; and the design of measures to mitigate
impacts which are unacceptable and maximize those which are beneficial’
(Rogers 2008).
This paper looks at legislations that cover Cultural Heritage Impact
Assessment in Kenya, citing examples of project implementation before and
after the enactment of environmental impact assessment laws. Nonetheless it
is important to note that even before the enactment of the legislation,
environmental impact assessments that strived to address cultural heritage
aspects were still being conducted in Kenya.
Legislation
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process in Kenya is coordinated
by the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA), established
under the Environmental Management Coordination Act - EMCA - (No. 8 of
1999). Under the Act, EIA is defined as a ‘systematic analysis of projects,

11
policies, plans or programmes to determine their potential environmental
impacts’ and ‘the significance of such impacts and to propose measures to
mitigate the negative ones’ (EMCA 2001). However this Act focuses mainly on
environmental or natural issues, rarely touching on cultural heritage. Where
cultural heritage is mentioned it is seldom given the seriousness that it
deserves. Conversely, cultural heritage matters are mainly covered by the
National Museums and Heritage Act of 2006 that mandates the National
Museums of Kenya (NMK) to conduct Impact Assessments on areas of
cultural heritage interest prior to development taking place.
The objective and purpose of NEMA is ‘to exercise general supervision and
coordination over all matters relating to the environment and to be the
principal instrument of government in implementation of all policies
relating to the environment’ (Section 9 of EMCA, 1999). In essence NEMA
plays a supervisory role in any EIA in Kenya. To effectively achieve this NEMA
is ultimately responsible for issuing, verifying or cancelling environmental
impact assessment licenses. NEMA is responsible for coordinating all public
and private sector players who have a role in the implementation of EIA
Guidelines. Finally, NEMA oversees implementation of EIA guidelines at
Provincial and District levels through both Provincial and District
Environmental Committees respectively (EMCA 1999). Despite this, cultural
heritage managers are not represented in such regional committees.
For Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment, various sections in the National
Museums and Heritage Act 2006 (NMHA) which repealed the Antiquities and
Monuments Act 1984 (Cap 215) and National Museums Act 1983 (Cap 216),
address issues relating to the protection of heritage. The Act provides for the
‘establishment, control, management and development of national museums’
in addition to ‘the identification, protection, conservation and transmission of
the cultural and natural heritage of Kenya’. Section 35(1) of NMHA provides
for exploration licences, control of access to protected areas and
compensation to owners of land in protected areas. It states ‘…where private
land …..the rights of the owner or occupier are disturbed in any way, or
damage to the land, or to crops, buildings……the Government shall on
demand pay to the owner or occupier such compensation as is found and
reasonable…….’ In principal, this implies that in case of any project
development, heritage specialists have access to any land notwithstanding the
ownership status, and document any natural or cultural features that exist
within that specific piece of land and suggest probable mitigation including
compensation for any damages.

12
It is noteworthy that NMHA tries to embrace EMCA by clearly stating under
section 77 that it amends Section 38 of the Environmental Management and
Co-ordination Act by inserting in (j) … ‘The national environment action plan
shall…..prioritize areas of environmental research and outline methods of
using such research findings’. This section did not exist in the previous
Antiquities and Monuments Act (Cap 215) and National Museums (Cap 216)
NMHA further emphasizes the role of NMK in carrying out impact
assessments. In Section 5,(1)(n) the Act states in part ‘…The National
Museums may -subject to the provisions of the Environmental Management
and Coordination Act, conduct Environmental Impact Assessments’ on sites
earmarked for development projects and whose implementation threatens the
survival of heritage resources. In essence, every parcel of land has potential
for heritage interest unless proved otherwise through a professional study.
The NMHA also gives the National Museums the powers to put in place sound
policies for managing such heritage sites, monuments or materials. Hence the
Act empowers NMK to take into account and record all monuments and
protected areas declared or deemed to have been declared by the Minister
under section 25 of the Act.
EIA Process
The EIA process in Kenya provides decision makers with the information
necessary to determine whether or not a project should be implemented. The
process also involves community consultation and public participation. The
project approval process involves decision-making at various levels with the
necessary authorization only given once all EIA requirements have been
fulfilled and accepted by NEMA and the relevant lead agencies. NEMA makes
decisions at various stages whether to issue a license without conditions, with
conditions or reject a project proposal completely. If the NEMA is unable to
resolve any complaint regarding compliance with EIA requirements the
proposal becomes subject to a review by the Environment Tribunal. EMCA
even has provisions to bring proceedings in a court of law where necessary for
judicial review. EIA findings are accessible to the public upon request;
nonetheless certain sections of the same EMCA gives provision to make
certain parts of the report confidential.
A big plus for EMCA is the availability of EIA guidelines clearly stating the
EIA steps & requirements for EIA implementation and list of Thirty four
institutions including the National Museums of Kenya that are allowed to

13
carry out EIA in Kenya in accordance with EMCA third schedule sections ((37)
(1) (d) and 70 (2)).
Apart from the two Acts, EMCA and NHMA, another significant source of
mandate for the protection of cultural heritage in Kenya is derived from the
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural (UNESCO) Convention,
(usually referred to as the World Heritage Convention of 1972) concerning the
protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. The convention
confers obligations on State Parties to protect sites inscribed on the World
Heritage List which in Kenya’s case are Lamu Old Town, The Mijikenda
Kayas, Lake Turkana and Central Island and Mt. Kenya National Park.
The national commitment to protect cultural and natural heritage is contained
in Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Convention. Thus Kenya should make efforts to
identify, protect, conserve, present and transmit her heritage to the future.
The convention compels countries to effectively protect their heritage. This
now brings us to the question: do projects in Kenya embrace impact studies
on cultural heritage in their EIA?
Most projects rarely conduct EIA with the exception being those projects
funded by both bilateral and multilateral international donor agencies or
projects conducted by major quasi-government (parastatal) agencies such as
the Kenya Pipeline Authority, Kenya Power and Lighting Company or Kenya
Generation Company (KenGen). Moreover in such instances cultural experts
are normally brought on board only in the review process or in the event
where the developer stumbles on heritage resources. Generally, NEMA
neither forwards EIA reports to the NMK to provide input nor is NMK
represented in the review committees.
Nonetheless Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment is usually conducted in
most multi-sector projects in which the NMK is involved. For instance during
the construction of the Loiyangalani Desert Museum in Marsabit District in
Northern Kenya, an Environmental Impact Assessment was conducted. Even
though the Museum was commissioned in June 2008, the Environmental
Impact Assessment is yet to be made public to date. The NMK was also
involved in conducting CHIA during the construction of the Koitalel Samoei

14
Mausoleum, for Koitalel Samoei2
For the case of the Koitalel Samoei Mausoleum, which is located on a site that
the Nandi community believes Koitalel was interred, a CHIA was incorporated
in the planning and budgeting stage. Though archaeological excavations at the
proposed mausoleum site did not yield substantial findings, the excavations
however, enabled the community to open up and request the NMK to carry
out more archaeological research in other localities associated with Koitalel
Samoei and which the community believe to be of historical significance.
Consequently archaeological excavations were carried out at both Kaptumo
Fort and Kipture Fort areas of Nandi South District that are currently farms
and occupied by the Divisional Administration offices respectively.
, a National Hero, in Nandi South District in
the year 2006.
The only archaeologically visible marks in both areas are the depressions that
were once deep trenches that surrounded the forts. Nonetheless the
archaeological excavations at the sites led to the discovery of a number of
material remains that included gun barrels, bullet slugs and a ceramic vase,
indicating that military fortresses may have existed in the two sites in the
beginning of 20th century. This is an example of CHIA practice that not only
leads to more research but also to creation of trust and acceptance with
members of a community as the result of engaging the community at the
earliest time possible.
In the Coast Province, the NMK has conducted CHIAs for three major
projects. One was the expansion of NMK premises at Fort Jesus meant to host
the Directorate of Research Institute for Swahili Studies in Eastern Africa
(RISSEA) (Busolo 2008a). The second was the Optical Fibre cable project at
Fort Jesus Museum. In the latter case, CHIA was conducted in the inter-tidal
zone and seabed of the channel to mitigate the impact on both terrestrial and
marine cultural resources. Of particular interest was the impact of the projects
on the military landscape of Fort Jesus monument and the shipwrecks on the
seabed of the channel leading to the old port of Mombasa (Busolo 2008b). A
number of cultural materials were excavated and stored for posterity. Fossil
shells were also recovered and have been helpful in the reconstruction of the
palaeo-marine environment of the island of Mombasa. Following seabed
2 Koitalel Samoei Barbarani arap Turugat was a freedom fighter from the Nandi Community
who was killed by the British in October 1905 for resisting their invasion into Nandi
ancestral land. Kenya recognizes him as one of its National Heroes.

15
surveys, NMK now has a revised map of shipwreck sites in the channel and
has recommended alternative routes for the optical cable.
Figure 1: Test Archaeological excavation at Koitalel Mausoleum Site
Figure 2: Ceramic Vase excavated at Kaptumo Fort

16
Figure 3: Map of Kenya showing location of Loiyangalani Desert Museum, Koitalel
site and Sondu Miriu.

17
Other developments subjected to CHIA included the proposed Children’s Park
project at Mama Ngina Heritage Site. This project was subsequently stopped
due to adverse impact of the heritage at the site. Through a CHIA it was
established that the site was a cemetery of an ancient Tuaca settlement, one of
the earliest occupations on the Island of Mombasa.
In Lamu, NMK has spearheaded an assessment of the impact of human
settlements and development on the sand dunes and has since advised
developers and government agencies to safeguard the fresh water aquifers.
The Lamu sand dunes are scientifically proven to be a source of fresh water
for Lamu and its surroundings (NMK 2009).
Figure 4 : Children’s Park at Mama Ngina Heritage site, Mombasa.

18
Figure 5 : The Children’s Park project at Mama Ngina Heritage site was halted after
CHIA found the site was a cemetery of an ancient Tuaca settlement
Figure 6: Settlement in the sand dunes in Lamu. The National Museums of Kenya has
conducted CHIA and advised public and private developers to protect freshwater
aquifers and respect the government’s 60 meter high water mark requirement.

19
Besides, many non-NMK projects have been subjected to the CHIA albeit at a
slow pace. The case of the Sondu Miriu hydropower project in Nyanza
province is a good example. The project consists of a run-of-the-river power
plant of 60 MW capacities that utilizes water of the Sondu River and is
envisaged to produce an average annual generation of 330 GWh (Africa Water
Network 1999). The Project does not have a major dam and associated
reservoir but relies on the flow of the river with only a small storage capacity
at the intake. Some water is diverted to the power station via the intake tunnel
while the rest is left to flow approximately 13 km downstream into the original
course.
Given the magnitude of the project, the law requires an EIA to be carried out
before such a project commences. Accordingly an EIA was carried out in 1991,
followed by a Socioeconomic Impact Assessment in 1993 by the Nippon Koei
Company Limited of Japan and RPS International of Kenya, following the
request of the Kenya Power Company (KPC, now known as KenGen). The
results were included in an EIA summary completed in September 1993.
An Archaeological Impact Assessment within the area designated for
destruction by the building of the 60MW hydroelectric power plant along the
Sondu-Miriu River was also carried out in 1999 by a team of NMK
archaeologists. During the excavation at the plant, a site rich in pottery, lithics
and faunal remains was discovered (Onjala et.al. 1999). In February 2000 a
preliminary test excavation was carried out to determine the degree of
preservation and the depth of the cultural deposits. These test excavations
documented a rich Holocene cultural sequence with clear stratification
(Onjala et.al. 1999). The findings were exceptionally well preserved, including
vast amounts of ceramics, worked stone, iron implements, beads and faunal
remains as well as the earliest domesticated banana dating to 4th millennium
BC (Lejju et al 2006).
It should be noted that this CHIA research focused mainly on the area that
would be directly destroyed by the hydroelectricity power plant. The emphasis
was never on the surrounding environments and the cultural landscape. Thus
the impact and mitigation for the change in the river course was never
addressed. The National Environment Management Authority (NEMA)
assessed the EIA, audit and monitoring reports as stipulated in the EMCA
(part vii). NEMA then approved the project in 2004, eleven years after the
submission of the EIA report. The project was given the green light but on
condition that an annual environmental audit is carried out (CDM, 2007). The
delay in the approval of the EIA for the project was probably due to lack of an

20
existing implementation machinery since EMCA was enacted in 1999 and
NEMA was created thereafter in the year 2000 before being fully operational
in 2004.
Impact of Project on Heritage
Upon commencement of the project, the Sondu Miriu Community, through a
number of NGO’s such as Africa Water Network, Climate Network Africa and
Sondu Miriu River Advocacy Group raised objections concerning the
implementation of the project, through letters to KenGen and the
Parliamentary Energy Committee. Their grievances among others that
touched on heritage included,
i) The fact that the project was not environmentally friendly. They
argued that….the project should be environmentally sustainable and
that …. major natural resources like forests and water should not be
put at risk because they are important sources of livelihood for the
affected. (Otieno. 2001)
The community argued that indiscriminate destruction of large tracts of
forestland and pasture to give way for roads, tunnels, staff quarters, offices,
will lead to the disappearance of many water springs and streams. The
deteriorating health conditions associated with the project such as the
prevalence of respiratory, water–bone and water related diseases became
common. No hospitals were built as promised in the project document.
Instead a clinic constructed at the site was meant for project staff members
only since community members were always turned away from the clinic.
ii) The fact that cultural heritage sites were in danger…That the project
should not violate the affected communities' cultural beliefs and
heritage (Odera, 2001).
The community cited the destruction of cultural shrines as an example. They
argued that the magnificent Wang’ Odino falls was being obliterated due to
the drying up of the river after the diversion of the river upstream. According
to the community, the falls is the harbinger of good and bad omen. It is the
home of prosperity or death. So fearful is the community of the wrath of the
falls that only a few selected adults are allowed to venture deep into the forest
and the belly of the precarious Odino hills to visit the falls. Every time the
roaring falls are disturbed, according to the community, “the gods of Odino

21
react with thunder and lightning, consuming those it finds on its path” (Odera
2001).
To keep the local community at ease, the project managers assured the
community that Odino falls will not be disturbed because there will be some
"little" water let to flow over the falls. Borrowing experience from other dam
projects, critics of the project believed the river will dry up completely because
of the prevailing drought situation (Africa Water Network, 2001) Thus, the
community which attaches a lot of cultural values and beliefs to the
breathtaking falls felt that the project did not address adequately mitigation
strategies for Odino falls heritage site. Other grievances ranged from the
secretive manner in which the project was implemented, land compensation
issues, corruption and nepotism among others.
Following the pressure from various advocacy groups and the community, the
Japanese government eventually suspended funding to the controversial
hydroelectric power project in June 2001, while it was still in the first phase of
construction, citing “environmental disruption and corruption” (Wanjiru,
2001). Thereafter Japan had to organize a total of six fact-finding missions to
assess the situation before proceeding with the project.
In order to address issues raised by the community members, a Technical
Committee was formed in 2000. The Technical Committee comprised of
thirty one members encompassing major stakeholders with voting rights
including the affected community members, elected leaders, professionals of
relevant disciplines, representatives of locally based Civil Society
organizations, Governmental institutions responsible for development
coordination in the region, and KenGen (CDM, 2007).
National Data on Environmental Impact Assessments
The national data presented here is for the period between 2002 and 2007
and includes figures for both EIAs and CHIAs combined. The year 2002
marked the implementation of EMCA (1999). NEMA itself was created one
year after the enactment of EMCA and took approximately four years to put in
place its administrative structure including recruitment of qualified personnel
with orientation in environmental science, environmental management and
policy formulation.

22
YEAR Number of EIA reports
(includes CHIAs)
Year 2002 10
Year 2003
48
Year 2004
95
Year2005 725
Year 2006 345
TOTAL
1445
Table 1: Yearly comparison of Environment Impact Assessment reports 2002-2006
The data in table 1 above shows a general trend of increasing number of EIAs
conducted during the period between 2002 and 2006. This is an indicator of
growing awareness and sensitization of the public on the importance of EIAs
prior to commencement of development projects. The drop in the number of
EIA reports in 2006 may be attributed to the electioneering phobia that
characterized the country. The political agenda during 2006/2007 focused on
the tenuous land issues and many investors were not ready to develop their
property, and rather chose to suspend development plans. It may also be
explained by the high rate of inflation that that affected the cost of materials
and fuel at this period. From Table 2, Nairobi region had the highest number
of EIA reports (896) processed with North Eastern region recording the
lowest at 15 reports only.
REGION
NUMBER OF EIA REPORTS
(INCLUDES CHIAs)
Western Kenya
28
2%
Rift Valley 217 15%
North Eastern 15 1%
Eastern
101
7%
Central 87 6%
Coast
58
4%
Nyanza 43 3%
Nairobi
896
62%
Total 445 100%
Table 2: Regional distribution of EIA reports for the period between 2002 and 2007.
(Source NEMA 2007)

23
This is explained by the fact that Nairobi region is relatively more
sophisticated and sensitive to environmental issues than other regions. Most
establishments in Nairobi already underscore the need for EIAs. The
population around the Metropolis of Nairobi is relatively educated in
environmental issues and the majority of the people are most likely to notice
development projects that are adverse to their environment. The number of
reports from the coast region does not demonstrate the magnitude of
development projects that take place there. This is alarming, given that this is
a rapidly developing tourism development zone with numerous remains of
Swahili cities. Its ranking at the fifth position, with only 58 reports against the
national level of 1445 reports, implies vulnerable resources are much more at
risk of being destroyed in this region as many projects are not subjected to
EIAs. The same would apply for the Western and Nyanza regions with 2% and
3% respectively.
Table 3 below on the other hand, shows that the highest number of EIA
reports was received from projects in human settlements and infrastructure,
reflecting increasing population density in the areas of concern. Besides, the
need for increased supply of housing, public infrastructure such as roads,
sewage, water systems and industrial development and expansion has
superseded efforts for preservation of heritage resources. It also appears that
there were minimal developments in other sectors which recorded less than
100 EIA reports.
This may be as a result of some developers not complying with the legal
requirement for EIA. It is also possible that not all EIA reports were
submitted for review as inter-agency communication is sometimes lacking.
The tourism and heritage sector is one of the main focal points of
development in the coast region yet it posted only 43 EIA reports out of a total
national figure of 1445. Transport, Communication and Agriculture each
posted 29 EIA reports, which is quite low compared with the large public
works on roads and heightened agricultural activities in the Rift Valley and
Western regions of the country. The general trend indicated by the foregoing
data shows a steady appreciation of EIAs as a tool for the management of
resources in Kenya. More input is however required to increase awareness
among the developers and the general public. It is also necessary for an
integrated approach towards resource utilization to mitigate adverse impacts
and enhance positive benefits from development projects.

24
Table 3: Sectoral distribution of EIA reports between 2002 and 2007
Conclusion
It is important to note that even though in Kenya there is no legislation that
deals with CHIA specifically, the EMCA and NMHA try to regulate project
impacts on heritage. However, there are a number of short falls in both Acts
that to some extent compromise their effectiveness. . For instance cultural
heritage is not mentioned or addressed in the EIA guidelines. The Act
confines the definition of the environment to the natural and biophysical
environments only - air, land, fauna, flora and water (EMCA, 1999). NEMA is
not obliged by law to give EIA reports to the NMK to provide input on cultural
heritage. The NMK is thus obliged, like any other institution or individual, to
seek for such reports from NEMA. It would be better if a modality is put in
place that will make it mandatory for NEMA to forward reports touching on
Cultural Heritage to the NMK for review purposes given that NMK is
mandated by NMHA section (d) to research and advice on Cultural heritage
matters. Alternatively NMK should be represented in EIA review committees.
Sector Number of EIA
Reports Percentage
(%)
Human settlement and
information 737 51
Commerce and Industry
260
18
Water Resource 231 16
Tourism and Heritage
43
3
Energy 10 7
Transport and
communication 29 2
Agriculture
29
2
Others 1 1
Total
1445
100

25
Even though EIA guidelines exist, there is no clear guideline on the minimum
requirements for public participation. Inclusion of the community members
at the earliest stage of a project development will eventually lead to avoidance
of future stand offs like the case of Sondu-Miriu. Therefore there is need to
create awareness among the public on a project, for it to be accepted by the
local community like in the case of Koitalel Samoei Mausoleum. Moreover
results of CHIA often end up with significant results like the case of Sondu-
Miriu, Wadh Lang’o site where one of the earliest domesticated bananas was
discovered.
It is the mandate of the National Museums of Kenya as stipulated in NMHA
section (d) to ‘promote cultural resources in the context of social and
economic development’ by sensitizing the public on the importance of cultural
heritage impact assessment. In the long run potential impacts to heritage will
be assessed and mitigation strategies proposed. For effective preservation and
conservation of heritage in Kenya more needs to be done in terms of the legal
framework to make sure that various legislations that deal with heritage
matters are not in conflict but in harmony with programmes, projects or new
policies.
The challenge to balance between development and conservation of heritage
remains a major concern for heritage managers especially as the general
public does not appreciate the role of heritage in national development. In
most cases people have sold artefact products and destroyed monuments
without knowing that these are part of the heritage they need to preserve and
protect. They view heritage as static and irrelevant in terms of economic
livelihoods. For this reason the NMK has set a precedence to make heritage
sites economically relevant and beneficial to the host communities. This way it
is expected that the local communities will see reason to preserve monuments
in their vicinity and use CHIA as prerequisites for better management of
resources.
There is need to sensitize lead agencies to appreciate inter-agency cooperation
as a means towards better management of heritage besides other vulnerable
resources. This will enhance exchange of information between them especially
those agencies whose role involve land and/or affect the survival of heritage
resources. Enormous resources are required for awareness campaigns to
educate the public on the need for CHIA prior to development initiatives. It is
noteworthy that NEMA is playing a notable role in registering EIA consultants
as well as forwarding some reports to NMK for review. However, a lot more

26
has to be done in checking the standards of the EIA consulting agencies. The
trend experienced so far indicates a significant appreciation of EIAs and many
agencies are going to follow the guidelines for development.
References
Africa Water Network, 1999. The Impacts of Sondu Miriu River Hydro-
Electric Power Project on the People of Nyanza. Available at:
http://internationalrivers.org/en/africa/impacts-sondu-miriu-river-hydro-
electric-power-project-people-nyanza
Busolo, I. N., 2008a. Archaeological Impact Assessment for the expansion of
National Museums Premises at Swahili Cultural Centre. [Unpublished
report] Mombasa: National Museums of Kenya.
Busolo, I. N., 2008b. Archaeological Impact Assessment for the Optical Fibre
Cable at Swahili Cultural Centre, Mombasa. [Unpublished report] Mombasa:
National Museums of Kenya.
CDM, 2007. Report on Clean Development Mechanism for Sondu Miriu.
[Unpublished report]
KenGen., 2008. Hydro Power Stations. Sondu Miriu Hydropower Project.
KenGen Website http://www.kengen.co.ke.
Lejju, B.J., Robertshaw, P., Taylor. D., 2006. Africa’s Earliest Bananas?
Journal of Archaeological Sciences, January 2006, 33 (1), pp. 102-113.
National Museums and Heritage Act, 2006. Nairobi: Government Printers
Press.
National Museums of Kenya, 2009. Ground water assessment: Geo-
hydrological study of Lamu/Shela sand dunes. [Unpublished report]
Mombasa: National Museums of Kenya.
Nippon Koei Co., Ltd., Japan and RPS International, Kenya, 1991.
Environmental Impact Assessment Project Report, Sondu Miriu hydro
power project.
Nippon Koei Co., Ltd., Japan and RPS International, Kenya, 1993.
Socioeconomic Impact Assessment, Sondu Miriu hydro power project.
Odera, A., 2001. Declaration by People affected by Sondu Miriu. Letter to
Project Implementers (KenGen, JBIC, Govt. of Japan) by Sondu Miriu
Community.
Onjala I., Kibunja M., Odede F. and Oteyo G., 1999: Recent Archaeological
Investigation along the Sondu Miriu River, Kenya. Azania 34 (1), pp. 116 –
122.
Otieno, P., 2001. NGO-Coalition on Sondu Miriu HEP. Letter to House
Committee on Energy, Communications and Public Works. .
The Environmental Management and Coordination Act No. 8., 1999.
Nairobi: Government Printers Press.
Wanjiru J., 2001. Japan Suspends Funding for Kenya's Sondu Miriu Dam. In
Environmental Newswire WRM bulletin. 2001. Kenya: Resistance to the

27
Sondu Miriu Dam Project Nº 42, January.
http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/42/Kenya.html
World Commission on Dams. 2000. Dams and Cultural Heritage
Management. Cape Town. WCD.

28
3
The state of impact assessment and heritage and
management of heritage in Nigeria
Friday Samson Awonusi and Aisha Mahomed Aliyu
Introduction
Cultural and natural heritage are increasingly threatened, not only by the
traditional causes of decay, but also by the changing economic and social
conditions (UNESCO, 1982). In Nigeria priceless heritage, especially
immovable heritage faces serious threats from the development process and,
if not monitored, could cause harm to finite resources. This chapter will
examine the state of environmental impact assessment (EIA) in Nigeria as
related to cultural heritage. The main issues that will be examined will include
the assessment of the various legislations that deal with EIA, with specific
emphasis on how they relate to cultural heritage. It will also examine the
regulatory framework for EIA in Nigeria. We will also assess the process and
practice of EIA as well as outlining the shortcomings using two case studies
from existing literature. Finally, the chapter concludes with a discussion on
how the present EIA practice, the relevant legal provisions and the
institutional frameworks can be properly harnessed in the management of
cultural heritage in Nigeria.
Nigeria is a multi-ethnic nation blessed with diverse natural and cultural
heritage. The frenetic pace of development is spurred on by the wealth
accrued from sales of petroleum products which in turn fuel infrastructure
and housing development and the attendant onslaught on cultural heritage
Before independence in 1960 the protection and management of cultural
heritage was not centrally regulated until the 1950s when various legislations
such as the Antiquities Ordinance of 1953, and the Antiquities [Export Points]
Regulation of 1957 came into existence. After independence, the Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 was enacted. In line with the government’s efforts to

29
protect and preserve this heritage and as well as ensure proper management,
the National Commission for Museums and Monuments (NCMM) was
established by Decree 77 of 1979 and charged with the responsibility to
acquire, declare, exhibit and manage national cultural heritage. An all-
encompassing environmental protection programme was first nationally
embraced after the 1972 Stockholm conference on the human environment.
Since then, the government has made concerted efforts to properly manage
the environment by putting in place various institutional and legal
frameworks. For instance in 1988 the government established the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA) in 1988 and promulgated the
Environmental Impact Assessment Decree in 1992.
The Legal Framework
There are various legal frameworks in Nigeria that deal with the issues of the
management of the environment and cultural heritage. These include the
Decree No 77 of 1979 establishing the National Commission for Museums and
Monuments (NCMM) for the protection of all cultural heritage sites, known
and unknown. The NCMM has the power to protect and preserve all heritage
in danger of being destroyed or under threat from injurious treatment
(section 14/15). It also has the power to take legal action against anyone who
“wilfully destroys, defaces, removes or excavates any monument”. The
legislation is however, not clear on the enforcement of cultural heritage
impact assessments. However some sections, like sections 14 and 15
mentioned above have been used to enforce cultural heritage impact
assessments.
The most important Nigerian legislation in terms of Environmental Impact
Assessment is the Environmental Impact Assessment Decree of 1992. This
decree enforces impact assessment on all development projects carried out in
Nigeria. It requires that a study of the environmental effects of any activity to
be undertaken by any developer, whether a public or private body, be
undertaken (section 1a). In section 7, the Decree gives opportunity to
government agencies, members of the public, experts in any relevant
discipline and interested groups to make comments on environmental impact
assessments of any activity awaiting approval (Federal Republic of Nigeria,
1992). It therefore accommodates all grievances that may emanate from
project execution.
The Urban and Regional Planning Decree is another legislation that seeks to
protect heritage in the wake of development. The Decree was promulgated in

30
1992 and amended in 1999 to replace the Town and Country Planning Act of
1946. It regulates physical planning activities and gives measures for
development control as well as the protection of natural and cultural heritage.
The Decree enables the NCMM to list all buildings of special architectural or
historic interest as well as obtain a list of the owners of those buildings.
Provision is also made for the owners of listed buildings to seek permission
from the NCMM in the event of any likely demolition, alteration or extension
of such buildings (Section 69). Furthermore, the control department is
empowered by Section 70 to take appropriate action against anyone who
executes, or causes to be executed, any work aimed at the demolition,
alteration or extension in any manner that changes the character of a listed
building. Section 33 requires the developer to submit a detailed
environmental impact assessment for residential land in excess of 2 hectares
or building or expanding a factory in an area in excess of 5000sqm. It also
requires an impact assessment for major recreational developments (Federal
Republic of Nigeria, 1999).
The Land Use Act, promulgated in 1978, is another legal instrument that can
be applied in the quest for the protection of heritage in Nigeria. The Act vests
the land in the territory of each state of the Federation in the Government of
the state, (except land vested on the Federal Government or its agencies)
which is to be held in trust and administered for the use and common benefit
of all Nigerians (Federal Republic of Nigeria 1978). Section 8 (1) empowers
the Governor to revoke the rights of occupancy for overriding public interest
or when the Federal Government requires such land for public purpose –
section 28(4). Land that has important cultural heritage can thus be acquired
through this Act. The challenge of this Act therefore is the absolute power
given to the governors, power which could be abused.
Institutional and regulatory framework for impact assessment in
Nigeria
The Federal Environmental Protection Agency (FEPA), of the Ministry of
Environment, was created directly out of the requirements of the
Environmental Impact Assessment Decree of 1992. It is charged with the
responsibility of protecting the environment from the development process
(FEPA 1995). To facilitate the conduct of EIA, FEPA had to develop standards
and update the guidelines and codes of practice. It also established advisory
bodies that are means of exchanging information at the Federal level. At the
state and local government levels it was recommended that EIA
implementation require the merging of environmental protection functions

31
with urban and regional planning functions. In the implementation, FEPA
carries out impact assessments, evaluates and monitors the EIA process.
Consultants may also be privately hired by the developer to carry out impact
assessments that would then be evaluated by FEPA. At the state level, State
Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) was established to work closely
with FEPA
FEPA has developed the National Policy on the Environment and the
Environmental Impact Assessment Procedural Guidelines. Part of the cardinal
objective of the National Policy on the Environment is to ensure that
environmental impact assessments are carried out before any major
development projects are embarked upon. The policy also outlines the need
for environmental monitoring and auditing. It seeks to ensure that, at every
stage of a sustainable development plan, the inter-relationships between
culture, the natural environment and the rational utilization of available
resources are comprehended (Federal Environmental Protection Agency,
1999).
The Environmental Impact Assessment Procedural Guidelines outline:
i the various EIA procedure as well as actors in each stage,
ii the sectoral guideline for each sector and sub-sector of the
economy,
iii checklists for the categorisation of EIA projects,
iv information content required for project proposals.
v EIA report writing format
In the checklist for the categorization of projects, the issue of cultural heritage
is given prominence among the environmentally sensitive areas and these
elements of the environment are important criteria to be considered by the
EIA secretariat in making a decision. The heritage elements in the
environmentally sensitive areas are areas of historic or archaeological
interests, areas of importance to threatened ethnic groups and areas which
harbour protected or endangered species (FEPA, 1995).
The EIA procedure covers the submission of project proposal, processes
involve in subjecting the project to screening, impact monitoring and auditing
(See figure 7 below for details).

32
Figure 7: Flow Chart of FEPA EIA Review Procedure
(Source: Environmental Impact Assessment Procedural Guideline)
Discussion and Conclusion
The various legal and institutional frameworks examined above are indeed
veritable tools that can be used to ensure quality environmental management,
and the sustainable conservation and management of Nigerian cultural
heritage. The major problem is the lack of coordination among the relevant

33
authorities in charge of cultural heritage management and their counterparts
in the environmental sector. SEPA has not been adequately involved in the
EIA process - other than review - and the various interest groups such as
NCMM have not been involved in any way. It is also clear that Cultural
Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) is often not considered by the NCMM as
its enabling decree does not make provision for it.
The EIA decree and procedural guidelines make adequate provision for the
protection for cultural heritage but federal agencies and developers often
ignore the law. FEPA, SEPA and Urban and Regional Planning Bodies should
perhaps have a list of all protected national monuments and sites as well as
location maps to be provided to developers from the onset of the EIA process.
While it is necessary to review the NCMM decree to accommodate CHIA, the
Commission is appropriately positioned, as reflected in the Urban and
Regional Planning Decree (section 69) and EIA Decree (section 7), to enhance
better inter-relationship between it and FEPA on the one hand and the Urban
and Regional Planning bodies on the other. However, the relevant portion of
the Land Use Act is not explicit and any allusion towards the protection of
heritage is a matter of interpretation. The structural framework of urban and
regional planning, as presently operational, can be exploited by the NCMM to
control impacts on immovable cultural heritage in the existing national sites.
It can equally be used to take inventory of immovable cultural heritages.
In conclusion, development actions have impacts not only on the physical
environment but also on the social and economic environment, tradition and
culture, employment opportunities etc. The EIA has the potential to be a basis
for negotiation between the developers, public interest groups and the
planning regulator. This can lead to an outcome that balances the interests of
the development action and the environment.
References
CASSDA, 1999. Report on the workshop on the Technique of Environmental
Impact Assessment and Preparation of Environmental Impact Assessment.
[Unpublished report] Ibadan: Centre for Urban and Regional Planning.
Environmental Impact Assessment Procedural Guidelines, 1995. Abuja:
Federal Environmental Protection Agency.
Federal Environmental Protection Agency, 1998: Geographical Information
System and Environmental Monitoring. In: Workshop Proceedings, Ibadan:
University of Ibadan.
Land Use Act 1978. Lagos: Federal Government Press.

34
National Policy on the Environment, 1999. Abuja: Federal Environmental
Protection Agency.
Nigeria Environmental Impact Assessment Decree, 1992. Lagos: Federal
Government Press.
Nigeria National Commission for Museums and Monuments Decree, 1979:
Federal Government Press.
Nigeria Urban and Regional Planning (amendment) Law, 1999. Lagos:
Federal Government Press.
Omole F.K. 1999. Planning Issues in Nigeria: Land Tenure System and the
Land Use Act. Lagos, Frontline Publication Limited.
UNESCO. 1982. Information Bulletin, No 18.

35
4
A brief overview of environmental and heritage
impact assessment legislations in South Africa
Sonja Warnich-Stemmet
Introduction
The environmental legislation has a longer history in South African than the
heritage legislation. The first guidelines to be published were the Integrated
Environmental Management (IEM). This was not a law but guidelines that
were not really enforced and as a result many of the Environmental Impact
Assessments (EIAs) carried out in the 1980s were voluntary. Though heritage
and environmental authorities were in a position to require EIAs for any
development, it was however, not until 1989 when a new EIA legislation -
Environmental Conservation Act - was promulgated. Since then EIA is
mandatory for all development projects. In 1997 the Minerals Act (1991) was
amended to include environmental management as a requirement for all
mining projects. Section 39 (5) of this Act enforces EIA in the mining sector
and also requires an environmental management programme (Staerdahl et al,
2004: 7). There are also other sector-specific legislations that enforce EIAs in
the various sectors of the South African economy (e.g. Minerals and
Petroleum Act).
The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) is the key legislation
governing EIAs in South Africa. The act was which was enacted in 1998 was
further amended in 2003. This act provides for an administration and
enforcement of environmental management laws. It regulates the EIA
procedure and creates an organization that monitors EIAs, and authorises
projects to go ahead if it is satisfied with the report prepared (South Africa
government, 1998: 9) NEMA recognises that cultural heritage is a component
of the environment and a decision cannot be made without a cultural heritage
impact assessment.

36
Cultural Heritage Legislations
There are several acts of parliament that govern the management and use of
cultural heritage in South Africa. These include the Cultural Institutions Act of
1998, and the National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) 1999. Both mention
the need for heritage impact assessments as part of any development project.
The key cultural heritage legislation is the National Heritage Resource Act of
1999. This Act clearly states that any development that is accompanied by a
change the planning status or by the disturbance of an area with a heritage
resource such as national heritage sites, provincial heritage sites, protected
areas, heritage area, archaeological & paleontological sites as well as
shipwrecks as well as meteorites, then permission from the relevant heritage
authority should be sought (South Africa, 1999). This permission can only be
obtained after a full EIA process has been carried out. Other legislations that
are linked to EIA include Urban and Regional Planning and Land
Management laws. Though most urban planning laws and land use planning
laws do not make specific reference to EIA or HIA, there are listed
development activities that require EIA. For instance, Section 31 of the
Development Facilitation Act 1995) indicates that any development
application must also include an environmental evaluation in their
application.
The Local Government Municipal Systems Act (Act no 32 of 2000) aims at
assisting local authorities to ‘move progressively towards the social and
economic upliftment of local communities, and ensure universal access to
essential services that are affordable to all’ (South Africa, 2000: 2). This Act
also mentions environmental management and expects municipalities to
monitor all development projects so that they conform to required
environmental standards. Most of these laws and policies are fairly recent and
are not similarly enforced. Some sectors like mining for instances are far more
advanced. Natural heritage is also more emphasized in EIA practise in South
Africa. The 1999 Heritage Act is supported by these various laws, in which
various sections demand that all projects be approved by the relevant heritage
authority. Applications submitted to local authorities in terms of planning
legislation are therefore referred to the relevant heritage authority if the
activities trigger the NHRA.

37
Methods & Processes of Environmental Impact Assessments in
South Africa
Guidelines on how to carry out an EIA have been developed by the
Endangered Wildlife Trust and are widely used. Though these guidelines
cannot be taken as legal advice, they are informative with regards to the
processes that need to be followed, requirements and stakeholders that should
be involved in the process. The guidelines are published on the Internet and
are therefore accessible to most Internet users. The guidelines are based on
the new EIA Regulations enacted under the National Environmental
Management Act (NEMA), Act 107 of 1998. The guidelines list all projects that
require EIA and no project can be approved without Environmental
Authorization from a competent authority. The outcome of the Environmental
Impact Assessment that the applicant submits will determine whether the
competent authority will grant or refuse authorization. The applicant can also
apply to be exempted from any provision of the EIA regulations (Endangered
Wildlife Trust, 2008). The EIA document that needs to be compiled is
determined by the nature of the activity that the developer /applicant intends
to carry out on the site. The activities are also categorized by the possible
impact that they might have on the surrounding environment (Endangered
Wildlife Trust, 2008).
Basic Assessment Report
This document is to be completed and submitted to the Department of
Environmental Affairs & Tourism by the developer. The document should also
be accompanied by site plans, photographs, facility illustrations, specialist
reports, comments and responses report, information in support of
applications for exemption, and any other information that the applicant
deems as relevant. This is sometimes referred to as the screening or initial
scoping stage.
Scoping Report and EIA
Scoping is a stage that is required for projects that are regarded as ‘high risk’
in terms of the impact that they will have on the environment. It requires the
developer to give a description of property activity as well as feasible and
reasonable alternatives to the project. The developer also has to provide a
description of the property and environment that might possibly be affected
by the project. This environment includes the biological, social, economic and
cultural aspects that may be impacted upon by the project. The developer also
has to list all environmental concerns raised by different stakeholders during
the scoping stage and show their potential impacts as well as provide the

38
record of the public participation process. Lastly the developer also has to
provide a plan on how the EIA would be carried out (i.e. the road map of the
EIA study (Endangered Wildlife Trust, 2008). NEMA emphasizes public
participation and everyone who could be affected by the project has to be
notified by means of public notices in newspapers as well as government
gazettes. Further to the public notifications, all owners and occupiers on site
and within 100 meters of the site, the municipal councillor of the ward, the
local authority and any organ of state that has jurisdiction in the area where
the site is situated, should receive a written notification (Endangered Wildlife
Trust, 2008). All stakeholders should also be identified and listed and their
opinion sought. Legal stakeholders, especially those managing cultural
heritage also have to provide comments.
Compliance and Monitoring Of EIA
The Act states that ‘criminal sanctions may apply if a person is found guilty’ of
any one of the offences listed below:
• Providing incorrect or misleading information
• Failure to disclose information
• Contravention or failure to comply with condition of a grant of
exemption
• Continuation of activity after the environmental authorization has
been withdrawn or suspended (Endangered Wildlife Trust, 2008)
According to the regulations, if it is established that a violation is causing or
has potential to cause environmental damage, the competent authority may
ask for an environmental audit report on the harm, or any other matter. This
report must be submitted on a form and within a period determined by the
competent authority. The holder must pay all costs of the environmental audit
and the associated report. The competent authority may also require that an
independent Environmental Assessment Practitioner, who has been approved
by the competent authority, may perform the environmental audit report. If
the holder fails to do so or fails to submit the report within the set period, the
Competent Authority may appoint an independent person to perform the
audit (Endangered Wildlife Trust, 2008). Compliance of conditions and
monitoring of the development project after an impact assessment has been
carried out is extremely important.

39
Case Study: Drakenstein Rural Housing Settelement – Meerlust
Bosbou
This is a project that has been active for a number of years but has not been
completed. This case presents a number of concerns especially with the
heritage component of the EIA process. The site is located in the Cape
Winelands Cultural Landscape (CWCL) which is a World Heritage landscape
and that comprises of four main areas/valleys contributing to its unique
cultural and heritage significance. The CWCL enjoys Grade 1 heritage status
and is currently in the process of being formally declared a national heritage
site.
The Meerlust Bosbou site was identified, out of a list of 15 sites, as the most
suitable for the intended 600 unit low-cost housing development. The extent
of the site is 20ha and it is zoned for agricultural purposes. In order to allow
for the proposed housing development, the property had to be rezoned to
residential use. This rezoning application triggered the 1997 Regulations
promulgated in terms of Sections 21, 22 & 26 of the then Environmental
Conservation Act of 1989, and it is in this respect that the EIA process started.
Background & current status of EIA & HIA process
This process was initiated in 1993 and the consulting engineers were
appointed to undertake the EIA process. The Final Scoping Report for the
proposed development of Social Housing at Meerlust Bosbou was submitted
in 2000 to the competent authority. The record of decision (RoD) was issued
in 2001, providing authorization for the of agricultural land use to be rezoned
to any other land use to permit the proposed housing project. The Provincial
Minister upheld the decision after it was appealed, and two more conditions
were added to the RoD. A group of stakeholders, however, took the matter to
the High Court in 2003, where the decisions were reviewed and set aside. At
the end of that year, the EIA process continued and the final scoping report
was submitted in 2005. The Final Scoping Report identified the
environmental concerns and was submitted to the Department of
Environmental Affairs and Development Planning with the recommendation
that a full EIA be undertaken (Gibb, 2005).

40
Figure 8. The demarcated boundary of the Cape Winelands Cultural Landscape that
was provisionally protected from June 2005 – June 2007, and now enjoys Grade one
heritage status (Source: SAHRA Western Cape case file).

41
The full EIA process is currently under way and at the present moment the
heritage component is to be completed before the EIA process can continue. A
heritage impact assessment has been submitted to the relevant authority in
respect of a housing application for 600 residential units. The authority is
currently reviewing the matter before the formal heritage comment will be
forwarded to the Department of Environmental Affairs to consider before a
Record of Decision is issued.
Challenges experienced in this project
There are a number of specific concerns with regards to the heritage
component of this EIA process. The landscape where the site is located is
extremely sensitive in terms of both tangible and intangible heritage values. A
Consideration of Heritage Issues in the Groot Drakenstein Rural Settlement
Scoping Study was conducted in 2005 with a brief assessment of all the
alternative sites. Lists of tangible and intangible issues were identified in this
document. In the Heritage Conservation Component of the Spatial
Development Framework for the Dwars River Valley (Winter 1998: 15-16)
identified the following key threats:
• Pressures for non-agricultural development
• Inappropriate siting, form and treatment of new buildings.
• Scale and nature of modern agriculture,
Pressures for non-agricultural development
There is an increasing demand for non-agricultural development in rural
areas, generally, because of its unparalleled beauty. ‘Of concern is anticipated
increased use of development of valuable farmland for non- or limited
agricultural purposes, which will lead to the progressive suburbanization and
subsequent degradation of rural Landscape’ (Winter, 1998:15). Winter
explains the direct influence that the increase in non-agricultural
development would have on the rural landscape. This, together with the dire
need for housing in the Dwars River valley, provides for great concern as the
valley is under immense pressure for housing development, especially low-
income housing development. This means that the location, design and scale
of such developments should be carefully considered to ensure that valuable
farmland is not destroyed and the cultural values and rural character are
retained (Winter, 1998: 15).

42
Inappropriate siting, form and treatment of new buildings
Winter expresses the concern of a ‘general lack of aesthetic control over the
form, treatment and siting of new structures in the rural areas’ (Winter, 1998:
15). This statement is as a result of buildings that are very visible, almost
obtrusive, and it is considered that these new buildings should be located in
more appropriate areas and not along the major through route or on
mountain slopes. The location of the houses will have a direct impact on the
views and visibility of the landscape. Therefore the location and the
materiality of the buildings should be considered.
Figure 9a Built Environment, Meerlust Bosbou.
Conclusion
This brief overview has shown that even though South Africa has legislation in
place for the protection of natural and cultural heritage resources, this alone is
however, not sufficient. It is more important that focus is placed on the
monitoring of projects. Continued studies should be encouraged to investigate
the processes and procedures in order to find ways to better the systems to
function more efficiently and effectively. This will ensure that the necessary
management tools for effective management of natural and cultural resources
are put in place.

43
References
CNDV AFRICA, 2005.Provincial Spatial Development Framework.
Cultural Institutions Act, no 119, 1998. Pretoria: Government Printers.
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 2005. Guideline 3:
General Guide to the Environmental Management Guideline Series. Pretoria:
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT).
Development Facilitation Act, no 67, 1995. Pretoria: Government Printers.
Endangered Wildlife Trust, 2008. A guide to the Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA) Process. Available at http://www.eiatoolkit.ewt.org.za.
Environmental Conservation Amendment Act, no 50, 2003. Pretoria:
Government Printers.
Environmental Management Amendment Act, no 46, 2003. Pretoria:
Government Printers.
Gibb, A., 2005. Groot Drakenstein Rural Settlement Scoping Report.
[Unpublished report] Cape Town: Cape Winelands District Municipality.
Land Use Management Bill, 2007. Pretoria: Government Printers.
Land Use Planning Ordinance, Ordinance 15, 1985. Pretoria: Government
Printers.
Local Government Municipal Systems Act, no 32, 2000. Pretoria:
Government Printers.
Marine Living resources Act, no 18, 1998. Pretoria: Government Printers.
Mineral & Petroleum Resources Development Act, no 28, 2002. Pretoria:
Government Printers.
National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, no 39, 2004.
Pretoria: Government Printers.
National Heritage Resources Act, no 25, 1999. Pretoria: Government
Printers.
National Water Act, no 36, 1998. Pretoria: Government Printers.
Regulations in terms of Chapter 5 of the National Environmental
Management Act, 1998. Pretoria: Government Printers.
South African Heritage Resources Agency (SAHRA), 2008. [Unpublished
report] Western Cape, case files.
Western Cape Planning and Development Act, no 7, 1999. Pretoria:
Government Printers.
World Heritage Convention Act, no 49, 1999. Pretoria: Government Printers.
Van Breda, S., 2006. Property Law update – the ABC of Town Planning. De
Rebus, the SA Attorneys’ Journal.
Winter, S. 1999. Heritage Conservation Component of the Structure Plan for
the Dwars River Valley. [Unpublished report]
Winter, S. and Baumann, N., 2005. Guideline for involving heritage
specialists in EIA processes: Edition 1. CSIR Report No ENV-S-C 2005 053 E.
Cape Town: Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning.

44
5
The Role of EIA Studies in the Management and
Conservation of Cultural Heritage in the Sudan
Osman Mirghani Mohamed Ali
Introduction
Sudan is the largest country in Africa and is endowed with diverse natural and
cultural heritage. The longest river in Africa, the Nile, traverses it in a South-
North axis. Agriculture is the leading economic activity and includes farming
and livestock production that largely depends on the rearing of cattle, goats,
sheep and camels. Despite the variety of mineral resources, only petroleum
and gold have reached exportation levels. The country also has a rich cultural
heritage with archaeological sites dating from prehistoric period through to
the Kerma, Napata, Meroitic and to the recent Islamic civilizations. The Sudan
has, in these different periods, important centres that are regarded as the
cradles of human civilization. Archaeological monuments from those eras are
still present; some of them such as the site of Jebel-Barkal have been
inscribed on UNESCO’s list of world heritage sites. The management and
conservation of these archaeological sites and monuments is the responsibility
of the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports through the National Corporation
for Antiquities and Museums (NCAM). Although there are many sectoral laws
and regulations regarding natural resource conservation, desertification
control and wildlife protection, the adequate protection of cultural heritage is
the most challenging and formidable issue facing Sudanese heritage today.
This paper assesses the process and practice of Environmental Impact
Assessment within the context of management and conservation of the
Sudan’s cultural heritage.
The profile of EIA in Sudan
The establishment, within the University of Khartoum, of the Institute of
Environmental Studies (IES) in 1978 provided a scientific arena for
commencing and carrying out EIA. However, EIA were carried out with no

45
legislations specifically tailored to its process. Though EIA was carried out for
many proposed projects (See Table 1 below), the rate of conducting EIA
however, only intensified after the discovery of oil in Sudan and the
subsequent infrastructural developments linked with it such as the
construction of roads and dams.
The EIA process in the Sudan received formal legal support when the
Environmental Protection Act (EPA) was passed in 2001. This is a policy-
oriented legislation for the protection of the environment and natural
resources. Despite the passage of this legislation, EIA practice is still
constrained by flaws in legislative, administrative, institutional and
procedural frameworks. In spite of the big stride achieved by the passing of
the 2001 Environment Protection Act which made the practice of EIA
mandatory, it was not followed by other sequential steps necessary for
institutionalizing the process.
No regulations or by-laws have yet been developed from it. On the other hand,
the situation is comparatively brighter in the Petroleum Wealth Act of 1999,
which regulates the operations of exploration, production, transportation,
refinery and export of oil. The Protection of the Environment in Petroleum
Industry Regulations were promulgated in 2002 and enacted in 2005.
The regulations require a baseline study and the preparation of an EIA in
areas where the petroleum operations are to be undertaken. They further state
that any agreement in relation to petroleum operations shall also comply with
any international agreements to which Sudan is a party (Ministry of Energy
and Mining, 2005). The implication of this is that environmental standards
and best practices could be taken on board during contract preparation and
project implementation.
Under the Federal governance system that operates in the Sudan, there are no
State Ministries for the environment except in the Red Sea and Khartoum
States. In other states the environmental affairs are catered for, indirectly and
inefficiently, within the ministries of agriculture, irrigation and health. This
has meant that EIA is just another activity in different ministries that have
their own core business.

46
Project
Year
Environmental Impact Assessment of Sudan’s
Southern Stock Route
1984
Environmental Impact Assessment of the
Locust
Control Project 1988
The Heightening of Roseiris Dam EIA 1994
El Muglad Oil Production Facilities
1998
El Muglad - Bashayer Pipeline 1998
El Renk- Malakal Road
2003
El Selaim-Halfa Road 2005
Bashayer 2 Oil Marine Terminal
2005
Port Sudan New Oil refinery 2006
El Shereik Dam Project 2009
Kajbar and El Shereik Dam
2009
Upper Atbara and Selait Dams 2009
Table 4: Some EIA studies undertaken in Sudan (Source: Ali, 2007)
The practice of EIA in the Sudan shares the same features with other African
countries, vis-à-vis its scope which is restricted to certain development
projects like dams, establishing agricultural schemes and as well as exploiting
oil reserves. It is not applied on the many programmes and policies that have
been proposed and implemented in the country in the last two decades such
as the Federal Governance Policy and Vehicles Importation Programme. Thus
as result of political considerations, State programmes of far reaching impacts
on the economy, society and environment of the country have not been
subjected to environmental assessment prior to passing and implementation.
EIA and the Conservation of Cultural heritage in Sudan
Although emphasis is often laid on the natural heritage, the cultural heritage
is always an important part in EIA studies in Sudan. In every EIA study the
documentation of cultural heritage and the impact that could befall it is
included. Thus, each EIA team includes a national expert in archaeology. The

47
role of the archaeologist is to document the existing archaeological
monuments and artefacts in the sites where the proposed developmental
project is to be implemented and, with the other team members, identify and
assess the likely impacts on the cultural heritage. The mandate of the
archaeologist also includes proposing measures to prevent or alleviate such
adverse impacts and he is also expected to delineate the sites and rank them
according to the degree of their sensitivity and susceptibility to impact. Such
information is invaluable to both the owner of the project and the contractor.
This data is even more useful when it comes to assessing the alternatives in
the project design or location and later for the salvage and protection
measures. Unfortunately, in Sudan, there is usually no room available to
achieve all these goals as in some cases the EIA process commences after the
project construction has already started. In such circumstances the only
option available is to salvage the archaeological sites. Another problem is the
time factor during and after the EIA. As the process usually starts very late,
both the contractor, who is eager to commence construction work, and the
funding agency that requires a clearance certificate from the national EIA
authority, put pressure on the EIA team. Time is also critical for salvage
operations, as in most cases the contractor starts work on the development
project immediately after the EIA is submitted to the authority and a
development certificate is issued. In some cases construction work even starts
prior to the issuance of the clearance certificate of the EIA authority.
With the current speed of development in Sudan, there are situations where
the concomitant construction of a group of projects is proposed. At times
these projects can include the construction of several highways or dams. Most
of these projects are usually carried out in the River Nile and Northern States,
both of which are renowned for their rich cultural heritage and antiquities,
making it almost impossible to conserve the rich cultural heritage that may be
affected by the developments. In such situations classical EIA procedures
would not provide holistic and integrated measures that could be used in
saving the archaeological heritage. Usually practitioners resort to Strategic
Environmental Impact Assessment (SEA) which consists of the formal
extension of EIA to policies, plans and programmes. The basic rationale of a
SEA is that it can take into account the cumulative effects of a number of
projects in the same area. The Island of Sai in northern Sudan could be taken
as a case in point. The island is regarded as the most comprehensive
archaeological unit of Nubia and contains records of all eras of Sudanese
history from prehistory to the recent Islamic period. It is an island on the Nile
River situated between two proposed dams, Dal in the north and Kajbar in the

48
south. The former will create a reservoir that will impound the southern
region, threatening to inundate the Island, while the former will control the
Nile discharge aggravating the problems of bank erosion on the island.
Besides the two dams, two highway roads are being constructed on the
western and eastern banks of the River Nile linking northern Sudan with
Egypt, central and southern Sudan and Equatorial Africa as well.
Unfortunately SEA has never been applied in a Sudanese situation as there is
no clear legislative framework for it.
The prevailing Ordinance for the Protection of Antiquities (OPA) 1999,
replaced the Antiquities Protection Act of 1952. Although it states in Article
10.2 of Chapter II, under the title: Prohibition of building bakeries,
laboratories or factories on archaeological sites that "Development projects
may be initiated after completion of archaeological studies and surveys
provided the benefiting parties bear the expenses incurred by the studies,
surveys and salvage operations", the clause does not specifically call for an
impact study on cultural heritage. Further, this cultural heritage legislation
also does not create a link with the current environmental legislations. There
is thus no coordination between the OPA and the EPA in the realm of cultural
heritage management and conservation.
The Regulation of the Protection of the Environment in Petroleum Industry in
the Sudan does not overtly call for the protection of cultural heritage during
the various oil activities. Nevertheless, it has called for the protection of
environment adopting a broad and holistic definition " which includes the
total of natural systems and their basic components such as water, air, soil,
flora, including the socio-cultural systems". Section 17 of the EPA 2001, on the
other hand, provides directives to guide the activities of various concerned
authorities. One of these directives is the "preservation of the antiquities and
touristic sites".
The Sudanese do not typically appreciate and value the antiquities dating to
the Kushite Meroitic eras, and mostly revere heritage places from the Islamic
period. Therefore, the role of local communities in preservation of cultural
heritage, especially the material one, is often not very prominent. However,
the ethical dimension of local communities' perception of tangible heritage is
only encountered when these monuments are iconized as religious places, for
example, mosques, churches and burial tombs of holy people. There is, thus, a
need for policy makers and administrators to create awareness amongst the

49
Sudanese public through education, awareness programmes, and heritage
tours for school children and via the mass media like radio and television.
One major hindrance to proper, sustainable policies and programmes for the
management and conservation of archaeological sites in Sudan is the adoption
of the Federal system of governance in 1993. The system gave huge powers to
the State governments over the exploitation of their state resources. With all
states keen to increase their revenue bases, some states sacrifice cultural
heritage sites within their territory for the sake of rapid economic driven
investments.
Conclusion and recommendations
From the above review, it is obvious that neither the current EPA nor the OPA
provide the necessary strong legal support that is comprehensive enough to
guarantee the development of critically needed policies and measures for the
preservation of the Sudanese cultural heritage. As argued by Dupagne and
Teller (2003), the situation raises important governance challenges especially
in two domains: the identification of new criteria for value assessment and the
introduction of new commitment procedures. The message for the
government is a reiteration of Denny’s call (1984) “Exploitation need not be
the antitheses of conservation”. The following steps and scenarios are
presented for consideration by both the NCAM and the Higher Council for
Environment and Natural Resources (HCENR):
• Revise and upgrade the EPA 2001
• Establish guidelines and regulations for conducting EIA studies.
• Include the implementation of SEA within the EPA and provide
specific regulations for its practice.
• Revise and upgrade OPA (1999) with the introduction of a clause that
calls for carrying out of EIA to assess the likely impacts on the cultural
heritage and come up with clear recommendations for alternatives,
mitigation and prevention measures.
• To formulate regulations and guidelines stemming from both the EPA
and OPA calling for the application of Cultural Heritage Impact
Assessment (CHIA) for the protection and preservation of cultural
heritage in Sudan.
• Draw from similar regional and international experiences and solicit
help from other international institutions dealing with CHIA.

50
• Arrange training courses for EPA and development ministries on the
importance of cultural heritage conservation and the need to use
impact assessment as an indispensable tool.
• Allowing more stakeholders’ participation in EIA studies particularly
in areas where cultural heritage and archaeological sites exist. In such
areas local communities are better informed and the indigenous
knowledge they possess could be very valuable in the baseline study
and could prove vital for impact identification.
• The NCAM needs to be strengthened institutionally, equipped by
sufficient qualified cadre and financially supported. The NCAM has
been domiciled variously, in the last fifteen years, in many ministries
ranging from Environment and Tourism in 1994 to Tourism and
National Heritage in 1999 to the current Ministry of Culture, Youth
and Sports since 2005. To provide NCAM with the institutional
backing it badly needs, it has to be independent of such ministries and
be put under the patronage of the Council of Ministers if not directly
under the Presidency of the Republic.
References
Ali, O. M. M., 2007. Policy and institutional reforms for an effective EIA
system in the Sudan. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and
Management, 9(1), pp. 67-82.
Denny, P., 1985. The Ecology and Management of African Wetlands
Vegetation. The Hague: Dr Junk Publisher.
Dupagne, A. and Teller, J., 2003. The Application of EIA/SEA procedures to
the urban cultural heritage active conservation. In Proceedings of the 5th
European Commission Conference on Research for Protection, Conservation
and Enhancement of Cultural Heritage. Cracow, Poland May 16-18 2002.
Ordinance for the Protection of Antiquities, 1999. Khartoum: Government of
the Sudan.
The Environmental Protection Act, 2001. Khartoum: Government of the
Sudan.
The Regulation of the Protection of the Environment in Petroleum Industry
in the Sudan, 2005. Khartoum: Government of the Sudan.

51
6
The Practice of Environmental Impact Assessment
in Uganda: Challenges in Cultural Heritage Impact
Assessment
Jackline Nyiracyiza and Leone Chadia
Introduction
Uganda is a land-locked country with a total land area of 241,020 Km2; of
which approximately 15.1% is open water, 11% National Parks and Game
reserves or protected areas and 5.9% forest reserve. It has an estimated
population of 28.4 million people. The country has a mosaic of geographic
features: glacier-topped mountain ranges, tropical rain forests, dry deciduous
acacia woodlands, lakes, rivers, wetlands, swamps and fertile soils. Some
unique natural features include: one of the sources of the river Nile, Africa’s
largest fresh water lake (Lake Victoria) and diverse mammalian groups.
About 357 sites, monuments and cultural landscapes have been identified and
documented as part of Uganda’s cultural heritage. Of this number, three have
been declared world heritage sites and inscribed on UNESCO’s world heritage
list. These are: the tombs of Buganda Kings at Kasubi, the Bwindi
Impenetrable National Park, and the Rwenzori Mountains National Park. The
country is currently undergoing a socio-economic transformation as it seeks
to improve it’s the livelihoods of the people. One of the sectors being
developed is that of tourism and this has necessitated road and hotel
developments in different parts of the country. Industries are also being
planned so as to make the country self-sustaining.
This chapter looks at the mandate of the Ugandan heritage management
institution on the protection of cultural heritage. It will also look at the
mandate of the Environmental Management Agency (NEMA) on
environmental impact assessment and its implementation in Uganda,
especially as relates to cultural heritage. This is important especially in view of

52
developments in the Oil and gas exploration sector from which a case study
will be taken. The chapter will conclude with recommendations on how best
Uganda can guarantee the implementation of environmental impact
assessment (EIA) while ensuring that cultural heritage is taken care of and
avoiding wanton destruction of heritage resources.
Heritage Protection in Uganda
The Historical Monuments Act of 1967 and the Amendment Decree of 1977
protects Ugandan heritage. The Department of Museums and Monuments of
the Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry is responsible for the
management of these heritage resources.
The Department of Museums and Monuments (DMM) is mandated to take
care of heritage relics above and below the earth surface. Whereas the law
(Historical Monument Act section 8:1) prohibits certain acts so as to protect
objects, it does not define any course of action in case of such threats from
development projects. It also does not protect cultural heritage properties
from any mining, which is regarded as an important sector of the Ugandan
economy (section 20: 1 - 3).
Environmental Assessment in Uganda
Uganda has a legal and institutional framework for EIA and environmental
audit through which EIA are implemented, monitored, supervised and
coordinated. This framework takes its root in the Constitution of the Republic
of Uganda (1995), which provides (Objective No.XXVII) that:
i) The utilization of natural resources shall be managed in such a
way as to meet the development and environmental needs of
the present and future generations of Uganda, particularly
taking all measures to prevent or minimize damage and
destruction to land, air and water resources resulting from
pollution or any kind of natural resource degradation.
ii) The state shall promote sustainable development and public
awareness of the need to manage land, air and water resources
in a balanced manner for present and future generations.
Article 237(b) provides that Government or Local Government as determined
by an Act of Parliament shall hold in trust for the people and protect natural
lakes, rivers, wetlands, forests, game and forest reserves, National Parks and
any land to be reserved for ecological and touristic purposes for the common

53
good of all citizens. This right carries with it the duty of the citizens to protect
the environment.
The National Environment Act Cap 153, 1995 on the other hand, contains
specific provisions for EIA implementation and enforcement in Uganda. It
emphasises the provision of a decent environment (Section 3); the importance
of public participation (Section 2(2)(b)); the sustainable utilization of the
environment [Section 2(2)(c)]; the reclamation of lost or degraded ecosystems
[Section 2(2)(f)]; carrying out of EIA [Section 19 and the Third Schedule]; and
the need for international cooperation [Section 2(2)(l)]. The Environmental
Impact Regulations, Statutory Instrument No.13 of 1998 are the guidelines
that support the Environment Act. This instrument details how an EIA is to be
carried out, by whom, for which projects, and the components of the EIA
process. The first schedule of the Regulation provides for the historical and
cultural issues to be considered in making EIA. The National Environment Act
(1995) creates a statutory body, The National Environmental Management
Authority (NEMA) that is in charge of monitoring and evaluating
Environmental Impact Assessment.
Other legislations and regulations related to management of the Environment
and/or EIA include: Environmental Audit Guidelines for Uganda, 1999,
National Environment (Conduct and Certification of Environmental
Practitioners) Regulations, 2003, The Uganda Wildlife Act, 2004, The Water
Act, 2004, The National Forestry and Tree Planting Act, 2003, The Land Act,
1998 and the National Environment (Wetlands, River Banks and Lake Shores
Management) Regulations, S.I.No.3/2000. Most of these acts only deal with
the natural environment as well as protection of the nation’s waterways, dams
and lakes.
An Environmental Impact Assessment required under the Uganda EIA
legislation is supposed to be appropriate to the nature, scale and possible
effects of the proposed project, and to the nature of the proposed site for its
location. The level and number of stages the assessment will pass through
usually depends on the expected extent and significance of the environmental
impacts. There are three major categories of projects:
• Small scale projects whose potential adverse environmental impacts
can easily be identified and for which mitigation measures can readily
be prescribed, and can be included in the design and/ or
implementation of the project. The environmental aspects of such

54
projects would normally be approved on the basis of the mitigation
measures so identified, without the need for a detailed Environmental
Impact Study requiring field investigations.
• Projects for which there is some level of uncertainty on the nature and
level of impacts, thus requiring a more in-depth Environmental
Impact Review to determine if mitigation measures can be identified,
or a more detailed Environmental Impact Study would be required. If
during the review adequate mitigation measures can be identified and
incorporated in the project design, the necessity for a detailed
Environmental Impact Study may be eliminated and the
environmental aspects of the project may be approved.
• Projects that clearly have significant impacts whose mitigation
measures cannot be readily prescribed, unless a detailed EIA of the
project and its possible alternatives is conducted.
Cultural Heritage Management and Impact Assessment in Uganda
The Historical Monuments Act, 1967 which provides for the protection of
heritage areas, objects and acquisition of land with heritage places or objects,
does not expressly mention EIA. Some of its provisions, however, could be
used to enforce EIA. Section 8 prohibits engaging in acts that may endanger
or alter a protected or preserved object or place The Act however does not
outline any course of action to take in case of such threats from the
environment. The National Environment Act (Cap 153 of 1995) in section 50
makes provision for natural heritage with reference to cultural heritage. It
states (emphasis ours):
“The authority shall, with the assistance of local environment
committees, district environment committees and the lead
agency, identify those elements, objects and sites in the natural
environment which are of cultural importance to the various
peoples of Uganda.
“The authority shall, in such manner as may be prescribed,
maintain a register of all elements, objects and sites identified
under subsection (1).
The authority shall, in consultation with the lead agency, issue
guidelines and prescribe measures for the management or

55
protection of cultural elements, objects and sites registered
under this subsection.
It becomes clear from the above that there is a place for cooperation between
the Department of Museums and Monuments (DMM) and NEMA as the
DMM is one of the lead agencies of NEMA. This shows that before a developer
does any work that may involve excavation, the DMM should be contacted to
carry out impact assessment and also be present in the development process.
Aspects of cultural heritage likely to be affected by development projects
include burial grounds, archaeological sites, as well as scared sites that are of
spiritual significance to the communities. Unfortunately, however, this is not
done as the first port of call for most developers is NEMA and there is no
inter-departmental cooperation to ensure an overlap in functions of the two
government agencies.
In spite of the difficulties, a recent collaboration between both agencies gives
hope for the future of heritage protection in Uganda. During the preparation
for the construction of a new dam in Bujagali, it became apparent that the site
has significant cultural sites. NEMA approached the DMM to carry out the
necessary assessment of possible impacts of the dam development on the
cultural sites. Unfortunately, at this period, the DMM did not have the
necessary capacity to carry out such a study. As a result of this lack of
experience, the staff involved produced an inaccurate report that did not
indicate the presence of all the important cultural sites inadvertently leaving
out very important spiritual sites. This obvious inexperience might be one of
the reasons, why the DMM has not been involved, by the NEMA, on any other
important development projects such as the current exploration of oil and gas
in the western parts of the country.
The case studies below will give examples of assessments carried out by
consultants, whose reports have however, not been respected by NEMA in its
approval procedures, showing that the problem is not only with DMM. We
shall give an example of work done by the Environmental Resources
Management Southern Africa Limited and Environmental Assessment
Consult Limited (ERM) who gave a clear report, showing the significant sites
in the region of Oil exploration and the activities that are supposed to be done
by the DMM of museums and monuments as a lead agency on cultural
heritage. Our recommendations will be derived from the case studies.

56
Case study: impact assessments for exploration and production of
gas and oil in western Uganda.
Impact assessments have been carried out in the gas and oil rich Albertine
areas of Western Uganda. The main purpose of the impact assessments was to
explore the possibility of exploiting recently discovered oil and gas deposits in
the region without negatively affecting the environment. The report, entitled
‘Environmental Impact Assessment for the proposed Early Production
System, Kaiso-Tonya Area, Block 2, and Lake Albert, Uganda’, was prepared
by Environmental Resources Management Southern Africa Limited and
Environmental Assessment Consult Limited on behalf of the developers,
Tullow Uganda Operation (Pty) Limited. (ERM, March 2008). The
archaeological section of the report states that stakeholders were widely
consulted. However, the Department of Museums and Monuments (DMM)
was not a part of this ‘comprehensive’ consultation in a region known to be
rich in cultural heritage. A closer examination shows that the procedure
adopted by the consultants was to meet the stakeholders and lead agencies at
their respective offices. The Uganda Wildlife Authority, which was consulted,
occupies the same premises as the DMM. This clearly demonstrates the lack of
the will to involve the DMM thus denying the right to performing its legal
mandate.
The proceedings of the stakeholder meetings do not have a record of any
issues raised in relation to cultural heritage indicating that no stakeholder
with an interest in cultural heritage was consulted or the level of awareness
and significance of cultural heritage is low (ERM report, 2008: 26). Ironically
the report gives details of archaeological studies conducted. This is the real
concern of the DMM because any such study should have been
done/supervised by archaeologists recognized by the Department.
It is however relieving to note that the report recognized the presence of the
earthworks of Ensa za Kateboha, Kibiro salt processing and the fossil history
of the area (ERM 2008: 26). The consultant seems to have relied on archival
evidence, as only previously known cultural heritage properties were reported
in the environmental statement. Existing archives at the DMM however point
to the existence of many other sites in the area of the proposed project.
A part from Kibiro salt processing village, which was excavated between 1989
and 1991 by Graham Connah, other sites like Hoimo, a few kilometers from
Kibiro, were not recorded in this report. (Connah, 1996). The DMM is
concerned that the Kibiro salt processing area could be one of the

57
archaeological/historical sites to be directly affected by oil exploration and the
development also threatens the existing salt gardens. It should be noted that
this site has existed for the past 900 years (Connah, 1996; Connah,
Kamuhangire & Piper 1990). It should also be noted, that the area once had
the fort of Emin Pasha, (the German explorer, Carl Oscar Theodor Schnitzer)
which he built in his bid to conquer Bunyoro (Dunbar 1968). We were
informed by one of the local inhabitants of Kibiro that the fort of Emin Pasha
started disappearing in the water in the 1950’s due to the expansion of the
lake (Oral interview by M.Ponsinasky). This points to a need for underwater
archaeology in this area to find physical evidence of the fort.
The EIA report as also included some sections on impacts and mitigation
analysis and outlined the ideal relationship between the national heritage
institution and the developer. The reporting of accidental finds of fossil and
archaeological sites, arrangements for salvage archaeology, curation and
documentation of salvaged materials, carrying scientific studies and
provisions for on -site experts in archaeology were also recommended by the
report (ERM, 2008).
Conclusion
There is a great need for inter-agency communication in Uganda. As a lead
agency/department, the entry point for the Department of Museums and
Monuments is supposed to be after the project brief is submitted to NEMA.
DMM can in this way participate in shaping the terms of reference for
carrying out of an impact assessment. This however depends on the
coordinating agency, NEMA. Besides, public hearings provide opportunity to
make contributions as an institution. The DMM however, has to be proactive
and take advantage of Regulation 22 of the National Environment Statute
1995 to participate in these public hearings. According to some officers of the
department, the Department of Museums and Monuments has not utilized
the provision because it has been marginalized by NEMA. For the department
to be more effective there is a need to amend the Historical Monuments Act
and make specific provisions for Cultural Impact Assessment. It also has to
make sure that all development projects for which EIA is sanctioned
undertake cultural impact assessment. As a lead agency the Department of
Museums and Monuments should be represented through all the EIA stages -
from screening, scoping, up to evaluation and monitoring as well as
compliance with regulations for EIA.

58
References
Connah, G., 1996. Kibiro: The salt of Bunyoro, Past and Present. London:
British Institute of East Africa.
Connah, G., Kamuhangire, E., and Piper, A., 1990. Salt production at Kibiro.
Azania (25), pp. 27 – 39.
Mahachi, G., and Kamuhangire, E., 2009. Administrative arrangements for
heritage resource management in sub-Saharan Africa. In Ndoro, W., Mumma,
A., and Abungu, G. (eds), Cultural Heritage and the Law: Protecting
immovable heritage in English speaking countries of Sub-Saharan Africa.
Rome: ICCROM.
The Environmental Impact Regulations, Statutory Instrument No.13, 1998.
Kampala: Government Press.
The Environmental Resources Management Southern Africa Limited and
Environmental Assessment Consult Limited, 2008. Environmental Impact
Assessment for the proposed Early Production System, Kaiso-Tonya Area,
Block 2, and Lake Albert, Uganda’. [Unpublished report] Kampala: Tullow
Uganda Operation (Pty) limited.
The Historical Monument Act, 1967. Kampala: Government Press.
The National Environment Act, 1995. Kampala: Government Press.
The Popular version of The National Environmental Statute 1995 (No.4 of
1995), 1995. Kampala: Government Press.
Uganda National Cultural Policy, 2006. Kampala: Government Press.

59
7
State of Archaeological Impact Assessments in
Zimbabwe
Tendai T.Musindo
Introduction
This chapter presents an evaluation of Environmental Impact Assessment,
hereafter EIA, as it concerns cultural heritage sites in Zimbabwe. In
Zimbabwe, Environment Management Act of 2002 governs the EIA process.
EIA components include both natural and cultural heritage. The natural
heritage is managed by several organizations ranging from National Parks and
Wildlife, Natural Resources Board. The National Museums and Monuments of
Zimbabwe (NMMZ) as well as Department of Culture in the Ministry of
Education and Culture manage cultural resources. The cultural heritage of
Zimbabwe includes archaeological sites, historical buildings, monuments as
well as sacred landscapes. As the government agency responsible for the
preservation and management of this cultural heritage, the NMMZ has
developed guidelines for the implementation of impact assessment for
archaeological sites. (NMMZ 2002) Archaeological Impact Assessments are
done within the broader context of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
This paper will outline how Environmental Impact Assessment is conducted
in Zimbabwe with emphasis on its legal framework, process and practice.
Environmental Impact Assessment is defined as studies done to identify the
potential negative or positive impacts of a proposed project and to
recommend mitigation measures to avoid or reduce potential negative
impacts and enhance the positive impacts. Chinamora (1995: 154) points out
that EIA is not meant to stifle development but to study effects of a proposed
action and compare various alternatives available. Mbiba (1999: 321) also
emphasizes the point and notes that EIA is meant to empower communities to
negotiate how such activities can proceed. Attention in this chapter is given to
the Archaeological Impact Assessment, an area in which the NMMZ is

60
involved. More often archaeology and other forms of cultural heritage are
ignored in the EIA process as some of the sites are not recorded and therefore
unknown.
Background to EIA in Zimbabwe
There has always been a way of managing the environment in Africa.
Mukwindidza (2008) categorizes the management practice into three broad
phases; pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial phase with the pre-colonial
period characterized by traditional management systems where traditional
leaders and beliefs played a major role in managing the environment. The
colonial period witnessed a shift from this system to one where management
was governed by legislation that however, alienated the people from their
environment. The postcolonial period has seen amendments of legislation to
suit the prevailing situation and changes on the global scene.
In Zimbabwe the environment was initially managed through the Natural
Resources Act that was first enacted in 1941 and last amended in 1996. The
emphasis of this legislation was mainly on natural resources. Effects on
resources were often seen as the project progressed as there was no
assessment that could predict the effects of development. Mitigation was often
carried out as the effects of the project became apparent. Hence at Kariba
Dam, animals were only rescued when it was noticed that many would be
drowned. In the 1970s, as a result of the Unilateral Declaration of
Independence (UDI) by the Rhodesia government in 1965, the country was
isolated through sanctions and did not benefit from global initiatives on the
environment. After independence in 1980, the government was more
concerned with getting development to the people at any cost and thus no
impact assessments were carried out on many projects, except for those that
had donors or sponsors who required EIA before the project is implemented.
In fact EIA was often viewed as an impediment to development in government
circles, which is the major reason why the first EIA regulations (Environment
Management Policy, 1994) made it voluntary to carry out EIA for a project
In 1997, an Environmental Management Bill was drafted and this
subsequently led to the Zimbabwe Environmental Management Act of 2002,
which made EIA compulsory prior to the commencement of any project. This
was a huge departure from all the preceding legislations in which EIA had
been made voluntary as part of a drive to attract new investments. The Act
created the Environmental Agency whose main duties are to advice the
Minister for Environment and Tourism on matters pertaining to the planning,

61
development, exploitation and management of the environment.
Furthermore, the Agency is also expected to regulate the processes of
environment impact assessments; the management and utilisation of
ecologically fragile ecosystems; and undertake, in the public interest, any
works deemed necessary for the protection of the environment (Nhamo
2003). Section 2e (b) of the Environmental Management Act includes cultural
heritage in the definition of the environment. The Act defines the
environment as “ecosystems, habitats, spatial surroundings or other
constituent parts, whether natural or modified or constructed by people and
communities, including urbanized areas, agricultural areas, rural landscapes,
and places of cultural significance” (emphasis mine) (Environmental
Management Act 2002, Chapter 20:27; emphasis mine).
The Environment Management Act is supported by other Acts of Parliament
like the Public Health Act 15:09, Water Act 20:24, Mines and Minerals Act
(1990), Parks and Wildlife Act 20:15 and National Museums and Monuments
of Zimbabwe Act 25:11. The National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe
Act 25: 11 is the legislation that is used to manage and protect ancient
monuments and relics in Zimbabwe. This Act is not very different from the
colonial legislation, the National Museums and Monuments Act of 1972. Like
the colonial legislation it is not explicit on EIA for cultural heritage. There are
however, sections of the Act which have been used to develop EIA guidelines
for heritage sites. Section 4 (25) of the act also states that no one should alter
any cultural heritage without the permission of NMMZ The Act recognizes
that monuments and relics are non-renewable hence the need for their
protection.
Despite the fact that the Environment Management Act recognizes cultural
heritage as part of the environment, Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments
were for a long time, ignored and projects were often approved without
consultation of the National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe. This
resulted in a number of heritage sites being destroyed by the development
process. In some cases developers reported to National Museums and
Monuments of Zimbabwe (NMMZ) that heritage sites, such as rock art sites,
graves and relics, had been discovered during processes of development. In
most cases, however, these reports only came in when the sites had already
been destroyed. This forced National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe
to develop guidelines for carrying out impact assessment for cultural heritage
(NMMZ 2002).

62
There are also other administration provisions and policies
(international/national) that guide heritage impact assessments in Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe is a signatory to conventions like the 1972 UNESCO World
Heritage Convention on the Protection of Cultural Heritage. The Convention
seeks to protect cultural heritage and this is taken into consideration when
carrying out Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment. Donor or bilateral
agencies’ funding requirements sometimes enforce EIA for their respective
projects. Projects funded by the World Bank, for example, follow guidelines
provided by the Bank. According to World Bank’s Cultural Property
Operational Directive 4:50, it is the World Bank’s policy to assist in protecting
and enhancing cultural property by sponsoring projects that enhance cultural
property and to decline funding those that could result in damage.
EIA in Zimbabwe
The Environmental Management Agency (EMA) is the government
department that is charged with the mandate of enforcing Zimbabwe’s EIA
legislation. If a developer decides to proceed with development without an
EIA, EMA has the authority to stop the projects until corrective measures are
undertaken. There are some cases where projects have been stopped after
realization that they did not have an EIA. For example, The Herald newspaper
of 15 March 2007, reported that one of the oldest mines in the country, Globe
and Phoenix, had been closed for failing to meet certain conditions laid down
in the Environmental Management Act. The mine did not have an EIA report,
a prerequisite for new mining activities. EMA has however found it very
difficult to enforce legislation and monitor development effectively as it never
receives enough resources from its parent ministry.
EIA in Zimbabwe is an interdisciplinary approach where experts with
different specialization create interdisciplinary teams to carry out
assessments. The need for an interdisciplinary team for Environmental
Impact Assessments has the benefit of making sure that effects of the
development on most of the aspects ranging from health of human beings to
animal welfare are considered before commencement of a project. Prior to
commencement of a project, the developer is required to contract EMA
registered consultants, who then subcontract professionals from different
disciplines like ecology, geology, ethnography and archaeology. It is the
principal role of the consultancy company to assemble these professionals to
carry out an EIA. The consultancy companies in some instances have
permanent staff.

63
Archaeologists carry out Cultural Heritage Impact Assessments. These
archaeologists are mainly from the National Museums and Monuments of
Zimbabwe and the local universities. The NMMZ is also tasked by EMA with
the monitoring of cultural heritage impact assessments. The issue of
transparency has been raised especially when the experts who have carried
out the impact assessment are often the same people who monitor the process
and results of the impact assessment.
As mentioned above, NMMZ has developed Archaeological Impact
Assessment guidelines that archaeologists and developers follow during the
process of the study. The guidelines for example specify that it is the
developer who pays for all the costs incurred during the process of the study.
They also stipulate the procedure to be followed when conducting an EIA.
There are three major phases in carrying out the EIA. Phase one is the desktop
survey in which the developer has to consult the National Museum and
Monuments’ Archaeological Survey (the national site register) for sites that
are known in the area that could be disturbed by the development. This phase
mainly involves consultation of the Archaeological Survey Unit of the National
Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe, which has over 16 000 sites in its
records. The records contain information on the location of sites, names of
sites, condition of sites and current threats. Through information on site
location one can determine the density and condition of sites in the area
before any surveys are carried out. The Archaeological survey is one of the
most important tools for establishing the archaeological baseline in the area
where development is to be carried out. The list of sites in the archaeological
survey includes archaeological sites, sacred sites, landscapes as well as
historical sites like buildings, graves as well as battlefields.
Phase two is field assessment, the physical survey of the area to record any
sites of significance that may not be on the archaeological survey list. This
survey establishes the location of old and new sites as well as identifying the
new threats from the development project. The third phase is the mitigation of
any threat that may affect the sites recorded in the area and this may require
further surveys, mapping and excavation of the most important sites.
Originally Archaeological Impact Assessments had a principal focus on
archaeological sites. Recently, archaeological impact assessments have been
widened to include other forms of cultural heritage like intangible heritage
and cultural landscapes. This is in line with the global movement in heritage
management, where focus has been widened to include other once ignored

64
forms of heritage like the intangible heritage, which form the core of Africa’s
heritage. Many cultural impact assessment reports now include all forms of
heritage places.
Another major issue included in the heritage impact assessment is public
participation in the EIA process. During the colonial era in Zimbabwe, land
management policies uprooted many communities from their areas of origin.
Many of these communities still have sacred places and graves of ancestors in
those areas. These sites could be desecrated by the development hence the
need to involve communities. Of course there are other social issues that could
be raised including how pollution or a new social structure may affect the
communities.
The product of the above-mentioned phases is a report, to be later
incorporated into the main EIA report. On its own, the Archaeological Impact
Assessment report describes the project and activities and the likely impacts
on heritage sites within the project area. The major issues in the report are the
rationale, which justifies the need for the heritage impact assessment, and
mainly it is to meet the National Museums and Monuments Act, the
environmental baseline, and the environmental statement. The report must
include an inventory of all existing sites in the development area, the impact
of the development and mitigatory measures to protect the heritage places.
The heritage impact assessment report further specifies the elimination of
adverse effects and suggests mitigation measures.
The archaeologist compiles the heritage impact assessment report, which is
only a component of a broader EIA statement. This report combined with
other reports from the different disciplines form the integrated EIA report,
which is then sent to Environmental Management Authority (EMA) for review
and evaluation. EMA reviews and evaluates most of the disciplines with the
exception of the archaeological section that is sent to NMMZ for review and
evaluation. According to NMMZ guidelines, the reviewing should be done
within 60 days of submission. NMMZ is also mandated to monitor all
Archaeological Impact Assessments and review process as well as the
mitigation procedures. To improve on transparency, the NMMZ guidelines
provide for an independent body to review all Impact Assessment reports.
However, this is rarely done. If the report satisfies the requirements of the
NMMZ Act, the project is approved. The developer is issued with a certificate
that allows him/her to start the project. Monitoring during the process of
development is done depending on the recommendations on the

65
Archaeological Impact Assessment statement. As some archaeological sites
may be underground the developer has to report any signs of an
archaeological site during development. All projects often have watching
briefs to check if sites are not being destroyed by development.
Case Studies
The EIA report for the Mutoko black granite quarry is one in which the
different cultural heritage aspects have been included in the whole assessment
process. The area proposed for quarrying of black granite was of cultural
significance to the local communities where spring and mountains provide
crucial cultural domains where the dead are buried. Quarrying of granite was
seen as a threat to the cultural heritage since in the process, hills disappear
and the loss of land could also be coupled with loss of cultural and
environmental heritage. Mbiba (1999) noted that the EIA for Mutoko black
granite is very clear in presenting the conflict and losses to the community
brought about by mining activities.
There are a number of success stories on AIA in Zimbabwe particularly to the
cultural heritage management. One of these success stories is the case of
Mazowe valley, where an EIA was done before the mining activities currently
taking place. The heritage impact assessment aspect brought about the issue
of the cultural landscape protected by the National Museums and Monuments
of Zimbabwe. To protect this heritage, relevant stakeholders were consulted
and this led to mitigation measures, which were proposed and implemented
to protect the cultural landscape. One of the mitigation measures proposed
was for the developer to consult with the traditional leadership in making
decisions to alter the environment. The mitigation measure proposed has led
to the co-existence of the heritage and development within this area. More
success stories have been on relocation of graves from the area of the Tokwe
Mukosi dam in National Museums and Monuments Southern region and
Kunzvi Dam in the northern region.
Discussion and Conclusions
The EIA legislation has just been enacted and there are still a few teething
problems affecting the process. EIA was voluntary before this act and many
developers still think the act is a policy that is not binding. There is therefore a
need to raise awareness amongst the general public, and corporate bodies as
well as government and quasi-government organisations on the new
legislation. The formation of EMA has in a way brought a more powerful

66
player in the environment sector and many companies are now complying
with the requirements.
Wood (2000) notes some of the issues that need to be attended to in EIA
carried out in developing countries. Among these are legislation,
organizational capacity and training. These challenges are also reflected in the
environmental and heritage sectors especially with the political, social and
economic problems Zimbabwe is currently facing. The political and economic
challenges have resulted in the loss of skilled staff in most institutions,
environment and heritage institutions included. The economic problems have
also meant that the environment takes a back seat as the government tries to
bring in much needed investment. Mining companies in Chiadzwa, in the
eastern part of the country where diamonds were recently discovered, spent
several months mining without assessing the impact of their mining activities.
Some projects are therefore implemented without impact assessments
depending on how much they contribute to the national budget.
In terms of the legislation, the Environmental Management Act clearly states
that cultural heritage is part of the environment. It however does not refer to
the NMMZ Act. The NMMZ Act itself is vague on EIA. The legislation has a
limited definition of cultural heritage often only referring to archaeological
sites, sacred sites and caves. It does not include cultural landscapes as part of
cultural heritage. The NMMZ itself has not aggressively followed its mandate
to protect heritage and thus it is often excluded in many issues concerning the
environment. Though they have guidelines, these guidelines need to be
distributed to the different industries. Within EMA not many people are
aware of the existence of the NMMZ guidelines.
Another challenge faced in Zimbabwe in the execution of EIA is the lack of
monitoring and enforcement. Lack of monitoring of projects is mainly due to
lack of human resources to do the work. The economic problems that
Zimbabwe is facing have meant that NMMZ has been heavily affected by brain
drain as most professionals in the institution have moved out of the country in
search of greener pastures. This has left NMMZ without the capacity to
execute some of its duties efficiently. Usually a development is only assessed
before project is started. Once the project has started monitoring is hardly
done. Mitigation procedures often include monitoring of any project that goes
10m into the ground. However this is never done due to lack of staff and
resources on the part of the NMMZ. The penalties, given to developers for not
complying with EIAs have not been effective as developers can easily afford to

67
pay them. Between 2000-2008, these penalties were set in Zimbabwean
dollars, which in the inflationary environment that existed then was
insignificant. This resulted in developers embarking on their projects without
an EIA, as it was cheaper for them to pay the fine than to go through the EIA
process. Other challenges faced with the EIA process in Zimbabwe include the
lack of cooperation from government departments. Many government
department, city councils and district councils do not carry out any EIAs for
their own projects. An example is the siting of the Great Zimbabwe State
University within the buffer zone of the Great Zimbabwe World Heritage Site.
However, using the available ‘inadequate’ legislation on the part of NMMZ
Act, and the guidelines, Environmental Impact Assessments can go a long way
in the protection of heritage.
References
Appiah Opoku, S., 2001. Environmental Impact Assessment in Developing
countries: The Case of Ghana. Environmental Impact Assessment Review,
21(1), pp. 59-71.
Chinamora, W., 1995. Zimbabwe’s Environmental Impact Assessment Policy
of 1994: Can it achieve sound environmental management. Zambezia (xxii),
pp. 153-163.
Mbiba, B., 1999. Security of Tenure, development victims and the limits of
Environmental Impact Assessment in Zimbabwe’s communal lands.
Development and Practice, 9(3): 316-322.
Mukwindidza, E., 2008. The Implementation of Environmental legislation in
Mutasa district of Zimbabwe. MA. University of South Africa.
Nhamo, G. 2003. Institutional and Legal Provisions for Environmental
Management in Zimbabwe. A Jeam-Regee (7), pp. 14-20.
Wood, C., 2003. Environmental Impact Assessments in Developing countries:
An Overview. Paper presented at the conference on New Directions in Impact
Assessment for development: Methods and Practice 24 – 25 November 2003.
Manchester: University of Manchester.
EIA reports (Archaeological Survey, Zimbabwe Museum of Human
Sciences)
Black granite quarrying in Mutoko District Environmental Impact Assessment
Report, 1997. Department of Natural Resources.
Turf Housing Development for ZimPlats - Zimbabwe Platinum Mines Pvt. Ltd
Environmental Impact Assessment Report, 2004. Environmental
Management Agency.
Rio Tinto Zimbabwe Ltd Murowa Mine Environment Impact Assessment
Report, 2002. Environmental Management Agency.
CC Base Minerals Environmental Impact Assessment Report, 2007.
Environmental Management Agency, Zimbabwe.

68
8
The State of Impact Assessment Practice and
Heritage in Botswana
Louis Moroka and Tsholofelo Dichaba
Environmental Impacts Assessments (EIAs) are a prerequisite for the
implementation of development projects in Botswana. This requirement
came into force in 2005 when the Environmental Impact Assessment
legislation was passed by Parliament. Before then, only Archaeological
Impact Assessments (AIA) were a requirement by the law, though this was
not fully implemented. The main objective of both Environmental Impact
Assessment and Archaeological Impact Assessment is to identify negative
and positive impacts that proposed project(s) could have on cultural and
natural resources. These impacts could either be short term, medium or long
term. They could either be economic, immediate or delayed as well as
localized or wide-spread. These impacts are assessed against the
understanding that heritage resources are non-renewable and that once
destroyed or tampered with they lose their authenticity. This paper is going
to outline the evolution of EIA legislation and the framework of EIA and AIA
in relation to the management of cultural heritage in Botswana.
Evolution of heritage legislation in Botswana
Heritage management in Botswana reflects the history of the country in
terms of legislation development and implementation of heritage laws.
Colonial legislations were selective as to what could be protected and
preserved as heritage.. During the colonial period, (1885 to 1965), Botswana
enacted a number of legal proclamations which dealt with both natural and
cultural heritage resources (Mmutle 2005, Dichaba 2009). Among these,
were the 1911 Bushman Relics and Ancient Ruins Protection Proclamation
which addressed looting of San relics, the 1934 Natural and Historical

69
Monuments, Relics and Antiquities Proclamation which was however,
repealed in 1935. In 1951, the Bechuanaland Protectorate Bushman Relics
Amendment Proclamation was enacted. These Proclamations concentrated
mainly on identifying and protecting monuments, a few of which, were
declared national monuments. The 1951 Proclamation was repealed after
independence in 1966 and replaced by the 1970 Monuments and Relics Act
(MRA) which was amended in 2001 (Mmutle 2005, Dichaba 2009). This
Act is enforced by the Department of National Museum and Monuments
(DNMM). The MRA (2001) protects heritage resources as well as having
provisions for the carrying out of Archaeological Impact Assessments (AIA)
prior to any developments taking place (Mmutle 2005, Dichaba 2009).
Section 19 of the Act is mainly devoted to two kinds of impacts assessments:
pre-development Environmental Impact Assessment and Archaeological
Impact Assessment. According to Section 19 of the MRA (2001) pre-
development archaeological impact assessment means:
a) The study, by an archaeologist, of an area in which the
development or any ground disturbing activity is to be carried out, to
determine the likelihood of the development or activity impacting
negatively on any cultural material or evidence that may be present
in the area to be disturbed and;
b) Any recommendation made by the archaeologist on how to
prevent or mitigate any negative impact to the cultural material or
evidence referred to under paragraph (a) and
Environmental impact assessment study means the study of an area
in which the development or any ground disturbing activity is to be
carried out, to
a) determine the possible extent of damage to the natural
environment
b) determine means to-
i) preserve as far as possible, the natural environment
ii) minimize and control waste or undue loss of or
damage to natural and biological resources

70
iii) prevent, and where inevitable, promptly treat
pollution or contamination of the environment.
The Act further states that the developer shall undertake impact
assessments and that the report shall be given to the Commissioner of
Monuments (in this case, the Director of the DNMM) within sixty days
together with the application for the development. The Act does not state the
time frame in which the Commissioner shall have responded to the
application of the developer, but makes it clear that should the developer go
ahead without the permission of the Commissioner, then the developer will
be contravening the Act. The developer is responsible for the payments for
the undertaking of the Archaeological Impact Assessment. The Act further
states that the offence for contravening the Act (if one is convicted) with
regard to this is P10 000.00 ($US 1400.00) or a prison term not exceeding
one year or both. If inadequate and/false information is knowingly given in
the report, then such permission could be withdrawn and costs of damages
or extra archaeological work shall be borne by the developer and not the
state.
Though the Act provides for these two kinds of impacts assessment, the
DNMM has only been actively involved in the Archaeological Impact
Assessment. This could be attributed to the growth of the Archaeology
Division, which is one of the five Divisions of the DNMM. Walker (1991)
notes that the Archaeology Division was the first to start identifying and
protecting archaeological monuments in Botswana using the MRA of 1970.
It is the identification and need for management of archaeological
monuments that ultimately led to the establishment of the unit called
Salvage Archaeology under the Archaeology Division, which is responsible
for AIAs. However, on the other hand, the Natural History Division of the
DNMM, which identifies and manages natural sites and monuments based
on the definition of monuments from the MRA (1970), did not initiate the
Environmental Impacts Assessments. Dichaba (2009) argues that this
selective administration of monuments by the DNMM ultimately influenced
how impacts assessments are carried out and was a drawback to heritage
management as each Division was interested only in the sites it managed.
The Archaeological Impact Assessments (AIAs) are administered by the
Department of National Museum and Monuments. These are carried out by
consultant archaeologists accredited and approved by the Department of
National Museum and Monuments.

71
The first archaeological impact assessments were conducted in the late
1980’s. Since then, there has been a significant growth in the number of
development projects carrying out impact assessments before
implementation. This increase was maintained in the 1990s and to date the
Department of National Museum and Monuments receives about 40 reports
per month for review, approval or disapproval. The Department of National
Museum and Monuments has to make a decision within seven days and has
achieved a target of more than 80% in meeting this goal. On average the
department receives and reviews about 428 archaeological impact
assessment reports annually.
Other laws Governing Impacts Assessments in Botswana
Other than the Monuments and Relics Acts, Botswana has always been
concerned with the state of environment as indicated by the number of
conventions signed and/or ratified by the state, which include the African
Convention on Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (1968); The
Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
and Flora(1977); Convention on Biological Diversity(1995); Convention to
Combat Desertification (1996); RAMSAR Convention(1997);World Heritage
Convention (1998) among others (Department of Environmental Affairs,
2009:6-7). The country being largely has always recognized the fragility of
its natural environment and this has meant that these conventions are taken
seriously and are coordinated at ministry level through various departments.
Through the coordination of the Ministry of Environment Affairs, the
Environmental Impact Assessment Act (EIAA) was enacted in 2005. This
Act is regulated by the Department of Environmental Affairs under the
Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism. This Act was followed by
the guidelines to regulate the Act developed by Department of
Environmental Affairs in 2009 (DEA 2009). The Environmental Impact
Assessment Act (EIAA) provides for the steps to be undertaken when
carrying out EIA, and fines for contravening the Act, registration and
qualifications of Consultants as well as Post Environmental Impact
Assessment of implemented activities (DEA 2009:14). In order to determine
whether projects need an EIA or not, the Act classifies proposed
developments into two categories: Mandatory List and Department of
Environmental Affairs Discretionary List. The mandatory list development
projects are those that require EIAs while the DEA Discretionary List are
those that the DEA uses its own discretion based on the set criteria to
determine which projects would require an EIA. The decision to carry out an

72
EIA depends on the outcome of the Preliminary Environmental Impact
Statement (PEIS). This PEIA is a report that is meant to provide sufficient
information to allow DEA to determine if the developer needs to carry out an
EIA or not. This is reviewed by the Department of Environmental Affairs
(DEA), and usually gives a response to the customer within seven working
days. The EIAA encourages public participation during the development of
EIA, so that the economic, cultural, social and environmental factors are
factored in during the process, to reduce the costs and allow for ownership
of the development project by local communities.
The Act provides for the developer to bring the EIA report for review by
DEA, of which DEA shall review and check if the EIA report complies with
the EIAA. Furthermore, if the EIA report complies with EIAA, DEA places
the summary statement of the EIA report in the government gazette, or a
newspaper that circulates once a week for four consecutive weeks, inviting
the public(especially those who are likely to be affected) to comment or
object to the proposed activity. Depending on how DEA evaluates the public
comments, a public hearing may be conducted.
The EIAA (2005) has punitive fines for those who contravene the
requirements of the Act. According to Section 4, a person who develops
without an EIA, where one is required, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding
P100 000,00 (approximately $US14 300.00) or to a term of imprisonment
not exceeding two years or both. Furthermore, such a developer shall
rehabilitate the area affected. If the developer fails to rehabilitate the
affected area, he/she shall be liable to pay P15 000.00 (approximately $US2
150.00) or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years or both. If
one continues to contravene the Act and fails to do as mentioned above,
he/she shall be liable to pay a further fine of not more that P2000.00
(approximately $US 285.00) per day until one complies with the law (EIAA
2005). The EIAA also requires that all the EIAs be carried out by qualified
consultants who have at least two years experience and are knowledgeable in
the EIA process, international guidelines for preparation of terms of
reference and statements/reports.
In executing the EIAA, the DEA has recognized that there are other equally
important stakeholders that are to enforce the law. It for instance recognises
the Land Boards, Department of Mines, Department of Waste management
and Pollution Control, Department of Geological Surveys and Botswana
Bureau of Standards and the Department of National Museum and

73
Monuments as licensing authorities to enforce the law (Department of
Environmental Affairs 2009). Department of Environmental Affairs (2009
12-13) stipulates that the DNMM, shall be responsible for reviewing AIA,
and that the developer shall consult with the DNMM on matters concerning
archaeology and history.
Thune Dam: A Case Study
The Thune dam project is one of the many Government dam construction
projects for provision of portable water to 9 vilages in Bobirwa sub-district.
The dam is located on the Thune River in the Central District in the Bobirwa
sub-district area. It will provide portable water for 9 villages in the sub-
district as well as for a proposed irrigation scheme in the area (Thebe 2009).
The dam is proposed to have a storage capacity of 90 million cubic metres
and expected to cover an area of 13 square kilometers (Modikwa 2005,
Mosothwane 2009). Other than the dam, there will be road re-alignment, a
bridge, water treatment works and pipelines to supply water to the villages,
staff houses and a road leading to one of the 9 villages (Thebe 2009).
The project was commissioned by the Government in 2002 through the
Department of Water Affairs and because of the nature and size of the
project, a mandatory EIA was required. According to Mosothwane (2009),
the various stakeholders including the Department of Water Affairs,
Department of National Museum and Monuments and the communities of
the 9 villages within the proximity of the proposed dam area, held
consultations, planning meetings and negotiations regarding the project.
The Geoflux Company carried out an EIA and AIA in 2005. The area for the
proposed project has some archaeological resources from the Stone Age
Period (including rock art), Iron Age Period to Historical Period - including
features such as stonewalls (Modikwa 2005, Thebe 2009).
The Geoflux (2005) report indicated the various potential impacts that the
project would have on the local heritage. These are direct and indirect as
well as short, medium and long term effects. The dam will inundate
important features of the environment including human settlements,
cultural heritage places and natural resources.
After Geoflux (2005), the Water Resources Consultants were commissioned
by the Government through the Department of Water Affairs, to come up

74
with mitigation measures for several resources found in the project area.
Subsequently, the Water Resources Consultants (2009) submitted
archaeological mitigation reports prepared by various specialists
(Sekgarametso-Modikwa, 2009; Modikwa, 2009; Thebe, 2009; Walker,
2009 and Mosothwane, 2009). The mitigation reports were for the burial
sites, Iron Age sites, rock art, and Rank 5 sites. This ranking conforms to
DNMM ranking of sites from 1 to 5 with Rank 5 being archaeological sites
that are not significant and can be destroyed after thorough recording and
research.
Thebe (2009) and Sekgarametso-Modikwa (2009) carried out surveys, test
pit excavations and stratigraphic excavations to salvage cultural material
and made recommendations. They both noted that a lot of material culture
will be destroyed by the project. Thebe (2009) however, concluded through
his surveys and excavations, that no further work should be done as the
recovered material is enough to reconstruct the archaeology of the area. He
further went on to recommend the fencing of some stonewalled
archaeological sites so that they are not destroyed during the project
implementation phase.
As for the burials, Mosothwane (2009) noted that after thorough
consultations with the stakeholders (those directly and indirectly affected),
it was agreed that the bodies needed to be exhumed and reburied at the
preferred areas of the living families of the deceased as leaving them in situ
will mean the graves being inundated. The relatives signed consent letters
for exhumations and agreements on where they would want their relatives to
be reburied. After further consultations between the Minister for Mineral
Resources and Energy and the affected families as well as other residents in
the dam area, the burials were exhumed and reburied. As for rock art the
sites that were going to be directly or indirectly affected were copied in detail
and important sites were selected based on clarity, scientific importance and
degree of threat (Walker, 2009). The traced copies of these rock paintings
were then taken to the sites for verification and this process was supported
by photography as well. Walker (2009:60) recommended that expert advice
would be required on the feasibility of removing some of the rock art sites.
He also recommended further work on some rock art as well as the
identification of lichens and salts growing on the rock surfaces on which the
rock paintings are executed. There was also a need to monitor some
inundated sites to see the nature of impacts so that future projects affecting
rock art sites could benefit from the knowledge.

75
Challenges to EIA and heritage management in Botswana
The major challenge associated with impact assessments practice in
Botswana is shortage of human resources for monitoring and/ or auditing
purposes. There is always shortage of manpower to visit the sites where all
these projects are taking place. In cases where the manpower within the
institution may be available, finances and vehicles remain a problem. It
should be noted that though some of these problems could be overcome as
the laws and guidelines provide for out-sourcing, especially the auditing
process, finances remain a constraint as the DNMM and other licensing
authorities are still expected to pay for reviewing and monitoring EIAs.
Because of this most projects are not well monitored and this has often led
to non-compliance on the part of the developer, to the recommendations
made by the licensing authority. As a result of the shortage of manpower
some ‘consultants’ produce very poor reports which often lead to delays in
the implementation of the development projects as well as increase in costs
as the assessment have to be re-done.
Overall, however, despite the challenges of impacts assessment, the
government of Botswana is committed to ensure the protection of heritage
resources through the rigorous processes of impacts assessment procedures.
Communities are also involved in the processes to ensure that their values
on heritage resources are taken into consideration. All these will help in the
sustainable management and conservation of heritage resources.
Bibliography
Department Of Environment Affairs: 2009, General Environmental Impact
Assessment Guidelines, Gaborone, Botswana Printers.
Dichaba, Tsholofelo 2009. From Monuments to Cultural landscapes:
Rethinking Heritage Management in Botswana. Unpublished Masters
Degree Thesis. Rice University, Houston, Texas.
Geoflux (PTY) Ltd. 2005. Environmental Impact assessment for Thune
Dam. TB No: 10/3/19/99-2000, Gaborone.
Government of Botswana 2001. Archaeological Impact Assessment Act.
Gaborone, Botswana Printers.
Government of Botswana, 2005. Environmental Impact Assessment Act.
Gaborone, Botswana Printers
Mmutle, Matlhodi 2005. Legal Frameworks for the Protection of Immovable
Cultural Heritage in Africa. In Protection of Cultural Heritage in Botswana,
edited by W. Ndoro and G. Pwiti, pp. 49-53. Rome: ICCROM.

76
Modikwa B, 2009, Archaeological Mitigation Measures for the Thune Dam
Construction And Associated Works: Rank 5 Archaeological Sites,
Gaborone.
Mosothwane N, 2009. Archaeological Mitigation Measures for the Thune
Dam Construction And Associated Works: Mitigation Of Burial Sites.
Gaborone.
Sekgarametso – Modikwa P, 2009. Archaeological Mitigation Measures for
the Thune Dam Construction And Associated Works: Mitigation Of Iron Age
Sites In The Inundation Area. Gaborone.
Thebe P, 2009. Archaeological Mitigation Measures For The Thune Dam
Construction And Associated Works: Mitigation Of Iron Age Sites In The
Thune Dam Wall Area. Gaborone.
Walker, Nick 1991. Monuments in Botswana. Botswana Notes And Records
23:283-285. Gaborone.
Walker N, 2009, Archaeological Mitigation Measures For The Thune Dam
Construction And Associated Works; Rock Art Mitigation Report. Gaborone.

77
9
Conclusion: Impact Assessment in the conservation
and management of African heritage. What next?
Ashton Sinamai, Ishanlosen Odiaua and Herman Kiriama
What lessons from the presentations?
The papers in this book give a general picture of the situation of the
interaction between national heritage and environmental protection
frameworks across most of English-speaking Africa. It is obvious that in as
much as the existing legislations, in some cases, are silent on the assessment
of impacts of development projects on heritage resources, there is ample room
for leverage through interpretation. In some other cases, existing legislations
are explicit in outlining the roles of both the national heritage institution in
carrying out impact assessments as well as the obligation of the national
environmental agency to collaborate with relevant agencies in the
implementation of environmental controls. In either of the two cases outlined
above, what is evident is that the national heritage institutions need to
position themselves to be relevant in their national environmental protection
programmes. Most of the papers have shown that EIA legislation is not strong
in the protection of cultural heritage in the face of development. It is
recommended therefore that existing heritage legislations in African countries
be reviewed to incorporate the various dimensions of heritage and
conservation practice including the intangible aspects. In the review of these
legislations there should be harmonisation between heritage and
environmental laws, and there should also be more communication between
heritage and other government agencies and concerned communities.
One of the major problems encountered in implementing impact assessment
legislations in Africa is that most African governments are reluctant to carry

78
out EIA for projects they are funding and developing. Considering that most
development projects in Africa are funded through government departments,
there should be a way to force the governments to respect the laws that they
legislated. In most countries represented here, legislation is seen as too
complicated not only for the developers but for the heritage managers as well.
Heritage institutions should therefore produce guidelines on the assessment
of impacts on development projects, in line with existing national heritage
and environmental laws in order to simplify the legislation as well as
stimulate possible amendments to existing EIA legislation.
As Musindo, Moroka and Dichaba and Warnich-Stemmet have shown
elsewhere in this publication, countries such as Zimbabwe, Botswana and
South Africa have developed guidelines for impact assessment for cultural
heritage resources. Guidelines should have clear criteria that allow for
transparent implementation of the impact assessment on heritage resources,
to meet ethical requirements and avoid conflict of interest with clear
demarcation between the roles of the practitioners, reviewers and other
affected parties. These guidelines should be explicit on procedures (including
funding) and timelines for the implementation of Impact Assessments,
especially as relates to cultural and natural heritage.
Several papers have shown that legislation is not always the problem but the
implementation as well as the practice of EIA. Heritage institutions are not
consulted and in many cases cannot monitor the EIA process. Cultural
heritage institutions should sensitise environmental bodies on the need for
heritage impact assessment involved in impact assessment. They should also
be proactive in the monitoring of EIA for the whole duration of the project
cycle. These heritage institutions should also make sure that they are
represented on national EIA decision-making bodies.
Busolo and Oloo have shown in Chapter One that very often some aspects of
heritage, such as intangible elements, are ignored in the EIA process. This in
most cases is as a result of not consulting local communities. Heritage and
EIA legislations, guidelines and policies should therefore be made to respect
the concerns of the local communities.
What role for impact assessments?
Change and development are inevitable facets of human society. The concern
of the heritage manager is primarily how to conserve non-renewable heritage
resources while ensuring that these resources and the populace, benefit from
the improvements and advancements that development can offer. This

79
symbiotic relationship is the tightrope that must be addressed in the light of
the possibilities of the environmental assessment process.
Impact Assessments can serve heritage institutions, which are often cash-
strapped and cannot mobilize the necessary capital for archaeological work or
heritage documentation work, in facilitating the discoveries of new sites. The
involvement of heritage institutions in the planning and implementation of
EIA opens up new vistas that would hitherto have been closed to them.
Development projects are often large-budget affairs and the percentage
allocation to environmental assessment, is often up to, and not less than, 1%
of total project cost. According to the World Bank Environmental Handbook,
mitigation costs can reach up to 10% in extreme cases but is frequently not
more than 3 – 5%. While relatively small, in comparison to total project cost,
it offers possibilities that can be appropriated by the relevant government
agencies, in the implementation of their statutory mandates.
Heritage institutions in Africa, like in many parts of the world, are often cash-
strapped and lack support of governments that understandably have a bias
towards unhindered development. They are often unable to carry out
archaeological research and conservation as overhead costs consume the
largest portion of their operational costs. Most development projects are earth
moving, putting undetected archaeological sites and artefacts underground at
risk. In addition they do not have the capacity or adequate funding that allow
the involvement of specialists required for the life cycle of project
implementation.
The Ugandan example clearly shows some of the issues faced: some national
heritage institutions are often ill equipped to deal with the requirements of
the impact assessment process especially with the problem of manpower. The
majority of case studies presented here mention that EIA are carried out by
foreign consultants, who often have little understanding of the cultural
heritage of Africa.
One of the issues raised at the 9th Directors Seminar of the Africa2009
programme held in October 2009, was the ethical issue of implementation
and review of the heritage component of EIA. What became clear from this
debate was that in most of the countries represented at that seminar, qualified
heritage professionals (especially archaeologists) are often already working
within national heritage institutions. In some cases, the same archaeologists
are contracted to carry out the environmental impact assessments and the
review the same EIA reports in their official capacity as museum

80
archaeologists. This makes the process less transparent and can lead to
corruption in the EIA process.
Where do we go from here?
Development projects affecting both tangible and intangible cultural heritage
resources are increasing in Africa. This is at a time when universities in Africa
are producing less archaeologists and heritage managers. Heritage
institutions often have no financial capacity to employ more heritage officers
needed for the effective management of heritage resources. The ethical
questions raised by the national directors are also engendered by the fact that
there are often no independent heritage professionals (archaeologists,
architects et al) outside of the national institutions, who can be called upon to
carry out impact assessments. African heritage institutions could take
advantage of this shortage and facilitate the creation of independent units that
can carry out EIA.
Another strategy that might be adapted by the heritage institutions might be
liaising with the environmental protection agencies and planning authorities
to approach development using the Strategic Environmental Assessment
(SEA) approach. SEA forces the carrying out of EIA for all planned
development projects well before they are implemented. This could open up
the possibility for integration at policy level and foster better inter-agency
collaboration. SEA allows for long term planning and does not delay projects.
Conclusion
Impact assessment can be effective tool for management of national cultural
resources. Taking into account that the mandate for environmental protection
in most countries is often vested in a different organization from the cultural
heritage institution, the need for a strategic approach to ensure the inclusion
of cultural heritage resources in the environmental protection process cannot
be overlooked.
The concern of the heritage manager remains primarily how to conserve non-
renewable heritage resources while ensuring that these resources and the
populace, benefit from the improvements and advancements that
development can offer. This symbiotic relationship is the tightrope that must
be addressed in the light of the possibilities of the environmental assessment
process. Impact assessments can be effective tools for harnessing and
improving upon the management of national cultural resources. Taking into
account that the mandate for environmental protection in most countries is
often vested in a different organization from the heritage institution, the need

81
for a strategic approach to ensure a better consideration for heritage resources
in the environmental protection process cannot be over looked. Such an
approach must work towards a more efficient management of available
resources to achieve set objectives for the different institutions involved in the
EIA process, thus facilitating the sharing of information while ensuring the set
tasks are carried out.
It is obvious that some existing legislations are silent on the assessment of
impacts of development projects on heritage resources, there is ample room
for leverage through interpretation. In some other cases, existing legislations
are explicit in outlining the roles of both the national heritage institution in
carrying out impact assessments as well as the obligation of the national
environmental agency to collaborate with relevant agencies in the
implementation of environmental controls. In either of the two cases outlined
above, what is evident is that the national heritage institutions need to
position themselves to be relevant in their national environmental protection
programmes.
Another issue that this book has also clearly shown is that on a continent
where cultural practices are inextricably linked to the natural environment,
one way to make sure that cultural heritage is included is to sensitise
environmental agencies about the new concept of heritage-cultural
landscapes. There is therefore for cultural institution to understand cultural
landscapes so that they can also transmit this knowledge to their counterparts
in environmental conservation.
References
Africa2009, 2007. 9th Directors’ seminar report. [pdf] Mombasa: Centre for
Heritage Development in Africa.
http://africa2009.net/common/reports/rep_dirsem07.pdf [Accessed 5 May
2010].
Centre for Heritage Development in Africa. 2008. Report on the 6th Africa
2009 Technical Course: Impact Assessment as a tool for Heritage
Management. Unpublished Report, Mombasa: Centre for Heritage
Development in Africa.
International Association for Impact Assessment, 2002. EIA Training
resource Manual. 2nd Edition. [pdf]
http://www.iaia.org/publicdocuments/EIA/ManualContents/Sec_E_Topic_1
4.PDF [Accessed 15 May 2010].
The World Bank, 1999. Environmental Assessment
Sourcebook:http://web.worldbank.org/Wbsite/External/Topics/Environmen

82
t/Extenvass/0,,contentMDK:20480588~pagePK:210058~piPK:210062~theS
itePK:407988,00.html
[Accessed 5 May 2010].

83
Appendix
List of cultural heritage and environmental legislations in sub-Saharan
Africa
Country
Cultural Heritage
Legislation
Environmental Protection Legislation
Angola
Decret no 80/76 du septembre
1976
Environmental Framework Act, No. 5
(Lei de Bases do Ambiente), 1998
Benin Ordonnance no 35/PR/MENJS
relative à la protection des biens
culturels 1967
Botswana
Monuments and Relics Act,
2001 Environmental Impact Assessment
Act, 2005
Burkina Faso
Ordonnance no 85-
04/CNR/PRES portant
protection du patrimoine
culturel, 1985
Décret no. 94-086/PRES Portant
promulgation de al Loi no. 002/94/ADP du
10 janvier 1994
Loi no. 002/94/ADP du 19 janvier 1994
Portant Code de l'Environnement au
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Loi no 1/6 du 25 mai 1983
portant protection du
patrimoine culturel, 1983
Loi n° 1/010 du 30 juin 2000 portant
Code de l'Environnement au Burundi
Cameroon Loi fédérale no 63-22 du 19 juin
1963 organisant la protection
des monuments, objets et sites,
de caractère historique ou
artistique, 1963
Loi N°96/12 Du 5 Aout 1996 Portant
Loi-Cadre Relative A La Gestion De
L’environnement
Chad
Loi no 14-60 du 2 novembre
1960 ayant pour objet la
protection des monuments
LOI Nº 014/PR/98 définissant les principes
généraux de la protection
de l’environnement
Comoros Loi no. 94-022/AF portant
protection du patrimoine
culturel national, 1994
Décret N° 94-
100/PR Portant promulgation
de la loi relative au Cadre
de l’Environnement
Congo
Décret no. 68/45 du février 1968
fixant les modalités d’application
de la loi 32/65 du 12 aout 1965,
article 5 donnant à l’Etat la
possibilité de créer des musées,
1968
Loi No. 003/91/ du 23 Avril 1991 sur la
protection de l'environnement
Cote d’Ivoire
Loi no. 87-806 du 28 juillet 1987
portant protection du
patrimoine culturel, 1987
Loi n° 96-766 du 3 octobre 1996 portant
Code de l'Environnement
D. R. Congo
Ordonnance – Loi no. 77-
016 du
15 mars 1971 relative à la
protection des biens culturels,
1971
No environmental legislation