Sudan Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment - Disasters and ...

SudanPost-Conflict Environmental AssessmentUnited Nations Environment Programme

First published in June 2007 by the United Nations Environment Programme.© 2007, United Nations Environment Programme.ISBN: 978-92-807-2702-9Job No.: DEP/0816/GEUnited Nations Environment ProgrammeP.O. Box 30552Nairobi, KENYATel: +254 (0)20 762 1234Fax: +254 (0)20 762 3927E-mail: uneppub@unep.orgWeb: http://www.unep.orgThis publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without specialpermission from the copyright holder provided acknowledgement of the source is made. UNEP would appreciate receiving acopy of any publication that uses this publication as a source. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any othercommercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from UNEP. The designation of geographical entities in thisreport, and the presentation of the material herein, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of thepublisher or the participating organisations concerning the legal status of any country, territory or area, or of its authorities, orconcerning the delimination of its frontiers or boundaries.Unless otherwise credited, all the photographs in this publication were taken by the UNEP Sudan assessment mission team.UNEP wishes to thank the following individuals and institutions for providing additional photographic material:Phil Snyder, Nick Wise – WFP/GTZ, Red Sea Enterprises, CARE International, USAID, UNOPS and the Ministry of Environmentand Physical Development, Government of National Unity.Cover Design and Layout: Matija PotocnikMaps and Remote Sensing: Yves Barthélemy & UNEP/DEWA/GRID~EuropeCover Image: Grant Wroe-Street – UNEP/PCDMBPrinter: SRO-Kundig Geneva, SwitzerlandPrinted on Recycled PaperUNEP promotesenvironmentally sound practicesglobally and in its own activities. Thispublication is printed on recycled paperusing vegetable-based inks and other ecofriendlypractices. Our distribution policyaims to reduce UNEP’s carbon footprint.

SudanPost-Conflict EnvironmentalAssessmentThis report by the United Nations Environment Programme was made possibleby the generous contributions of the Governments of Sweden and the United Kingdom

Table of contentsForeword 5Executive Summary 6Chapter 1: Introduction 181.1 Background...................................................................................................................................................201.2 Objectives .....................................................................................................................................................201.3 Assessment scope...........................................................................................................................................211.4 Methodology.................................................................................................................................................211.5 Assessment team and consultations ...............................................................................................................251.6 Report structure ............................................................................................................................................26Chapter 2: Country Context 302.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................................322.2 Society ..........................................................................................................................................................322.3 Governance and economy .............................................................................................................................362.4 Climate .........................................................................................................................................................382.5 Geography and vegetation zones....................................................................................................................42Chapter 3: Natural Disasters and Desertification 563.1 Introduction and assessment activities ...........................................................................................................583.2 Water shortages .............................................................................................................................................593.3 Desertification...............................................................................................................................................623.4 Water damage................................................................................................................................................663.5 Disaster risk reduction and mitigation of desertification................................................................................673.6 Conclusions and recommendations...............................................................................................................68Chapter 4: Conflict and the Environment 704.1 Introduction and assessment activities ...........................................................................................................724.2 Overview of conflicts in Sudan......................................................................................................................734.3 Analysis of the role of natural resources as a contributing cause of conflict in Sudan......................................774.4 Environmental linkages to local conflicts over rangeland and rain-fed agriculture..........................................804.5 Assessment of the environmental impacts of conflict .....................................................................................884.6 Conclusions and recommendations...............................................................................................................95Chapter 5: Population Displacement and the Environment 985.1 Introduction and assessment activities .........................................................................................................1005.2 Overview of population displacement in Sudan...........................................................................................1015.3 Overview of displacement-related environmental issues...............................................................................1045.4 Environment as one of three major causes of displacement in Sudan...........................................................1045.5 Environmental impacts of camps and settlements........................................................................................1055.6 Other environmental impacts of displacement ............................................................................................1125.7 Environmental implications of the return process........................................................................................1125.8 International aspects of environment and displacement in Sudan................................................................1155.9 Conclusions and recommendations.............................................................................................................115Chapter 6: Urban Environment and Environmental Health 1186.1 Introduction and assessment activities .........................................................................................................1206.2 Overview of demographics and major urban centres....................................................................................1216.3 Overview of urban environment and environmental health issues ...............................................................1226.4 Urbanization and urban planning................................................................................................................1226.5 Drinking water, sanitation and waterborne diseases.....................................................................................1272 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

6.6 Solid waste management .............................................................................................................................1306.7 Air pollution and urban transport ...............................................................................................................1336.8 Urban energy...............................................................................................................................................1336.9 Sustainable construction opportunities........................................................................................................1346.10 Urban and health sector environmental governance.....................................................................................1346.11 Conclusions and recommendations.............................................................................................................136Chapter 7: Industry and the Environment 1387.1 Introduction and assessment activities .........................................................................................................1407.2 Overview of the industrial sector in Sudan ..................................................................................................1417.3 Overview of industry-related environmental issues ......................................................................................1447.4 General industry-related environmental issues.............................................................................................1447.5 Environmental issues specific to the upstream oil industry ..........................................................................1487.6 Industrial sector environmental governance.................................................................................................1537.7 Conclusions and recommendations.............................................................................................................155Chapter 8: Agriculture and the Environment 1588.1 Introduction and assessment activities .........................................................................................................1608.2 Overview of agriculture in Sudan ................................................................................................................1618.3 Cross-cutting environmental issues and impacts..........................................................................................1638.4 Mechanized rain-fed agriculture sector impacts and issues...........................................................................1668.5 Traditional rain-fed agriculture sector impacts and issues.............................................................................1698.6 Mechanized irrigation sector environmental impacts and issues...................................................................1728.7 Traditional irrigation sector impacts and issues............................................................................................1788.8 Livestock husbandry impacts and issues ......................................................................................................1798.9 Agricultural sector environmental governance .............................................................................................1898.10 Conclusions and recommendations.............................................................................................................190Chapter 9: Forest Resources 1929.1 Introduction and assessment activities .........................................................................................................1949.2 Overview of forest resources ........................................................................................................................1969.3 Forest utilization .........................................................................................................................................2009.4 Forestry sector environmental impacts and issues ........................................................................................2039.5 Deforestation rates and causes .....................................................................................................................2039.6 Potential conflict ‘flashpoint’ over the charcoal industry in Southern Sudan ................................................2139.7 Development opportunities for the timber industry in Southern Sudan ......................................................2139.8 Forestry sector governance...........................................................................................................................2149.9 Conclusions and recommendations.............................................................................................................216Chapter 10: Freshwater Resources 21810.1 Introduction and assessment activities .........................................................................................................22010.2 Overview of the freshwater resources of Sudan ............................................................................................22110.3 Environmental impacts and issues of the water sector..................................................................................22410.4 Large dams and water management schemes ...............................................................................................22410.5 Sustainable use and conservation of wetlands ..............................................................................................23410.6 Invasive plant species...................................................................................................................................23610.7 Water pollution...........................................................................................................................................23710.8 Groundwater exploitation ...........................................................................................................................24110.9 Transboundary and regional issues...............................................................................................................24410.10 Freshwater fisheries......................................................................................................................................24510.11 Water sector environmental governance.......................................................................................................24510.12 Conclusions and recommendations.............................................................................................................248• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •3

Chapter 11: Wildlife and Protected Area Management 25011.1 Introduction and assessment activities .........................................................................................................25211.2 Overview of the wildlife and habitats of Sudan............................................................................................25311.3 Overview of protected areas.........................................................................................................................25911.4 Wildlife and protected area management issues ...........................................................................................26411.5 Wildlife and protected area sector governance .............................................................................................27211.6 Conclusions and recommendations.............................................................................................................273Chapter 12: Marine Environments and Resources 27412.1 Introduction and assessment activities .........................................................................................................27612.2 Overview of marine and coastal environments and resources.......................................................................27712.3 Environmental impacts and issues ...............................................................................................................27812.4 Marine and coastal environmental governance.............................................................................................28712.5 Conclusions and recommendations.............................................................................................................288Chapter 13: Environmental Governance and Awareness 29013.1 Introduction and assessment activities .........................................................................................................29213.2 Overview of environmental governance structures.......................................................................................29213.3 Overview of environmental and natural resource legislation ........................................................................29613.4 Environmental education and civil society...................................................................................................29913.5 Overview of environmental governance and awareness issues.......................................................................30113.6 Social, development and investment issues ..................................................................................................30113.7 Structure and legislative issues .....................................................................................................................30313.8 Environmental governance and peacebuilding.............................................................................................30513.9 Conclusions and recommendations.............................................................................................................306Chapter 14: International Aid and the Environment 30814.1 Introduction and assessment activities .........................................................................................................31014.2 Overview of international aid in Sudan .......................................................................................................31214.3 Overview of environmental aid programmes in Sudan ................................................................................31314.4 Overview of impacts and issues for aid and the environment.......................................................................31914.5 Conclusions and recommendations.............................................................................................................324Chapter 15: Conclusions 32615.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................32815.2 Key findings ................................................................................................................................................32815.3 Key recommendations and investment requirements...................................................................................33015.4 The way forward..........................................................................................................................................33215.5 Concluding remarks....................................................................................................................................333AppendicesAppendix I:Appendix II:Appendix III:List of acronyms and abbreviations.............................................................................................336List of references.........................................................................................................................338List of contributors.....................................................................................................................3514 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

ForewordThe peace deal signed in Nairobi by the Sudanesegovernment and the Sudan People’s LiberationMovement on 9 January 2005 put an end to morethan two decades of civil war in the country. TheUnited Nations family in Nairobi is proud to haveplayed a lead role in the conclusion of the peaceprocess by hosting an exceptional meeting of theUnited Nations Security Council in November2004, which facilitated negotiations that led to aComprehensive Peace Agreement being reachedin early 2005.For most of Sudan, it is now time to focus onrecovery, reconstruction and development. In thiscontext, the Government of National Unity andthe Government of Southern Sudan requestedUNEP to conduct an environmental assessment ofthe country in order to evaluate the state of Sudan’senvironment and identify the key environmentalchallenges ahead. This report presents the findings ofthe fieldwork, analysis and extensive consultationsthat were carried out between December 2005 andMarch 2007, and contains:• an overview of the environment of Sudan andthe assessment process;• analysisandrecommendationsforthemajorcrosscuttingissues of climate change, desertification,conflict, and population displacement; and• analysis and recommendations for key environmentalissues in nine different sectors(urban/health, industry, agriculture, forestry,water, wildlife, marine environment, law andforeign aid).Sudan will not benefit fully from the tangibledividends of peace as long as conflict rages on inDarfur. Despite the signing of a peace agreementin May 2006, violence and insecurity continue toprevail in the region. The United Nations, throughits Secretary-General, has designated the resolution ofthe crisis in Darfur as a main priority, and it is hopedthat the findings and recommendations presented inthis UNEP report will contribute to this goal.Indeed, UNEP’s investigation has shown clearly thatpeace and people’s livelihoods in Darfur as well asin the rest of Sudan are inextricably linked to theenvironmental challenge. Just as environmentaldegradation can contribute to the triggering andperpetuation of conflict, the sustainable managementof natural resources can provide the basis forlong-term stability, sustainable livelihoods, anddevelopment. It is now critical that both national andlocal leadership prioritize environmental awarenessand opportunities for the sustainable managementof natural resources in Sudan.We wish to sincerely thank the Governments ofSweden and the United Kingdom for their generousfinancial support, which enabled UNEP to carryout this assessment, organize two environmentalworkshops for national delegates in Sudan in 2006,and publish this report.In addition, this assessment would not have beenpossible without the support of our colleagues inthe UN Sudan Country Team, including thosein sister agencies such as UNDP, UNICEF, FAO,UNHCR, WFP and OCHA. The Ministries ofEnvironment of the Government of NationalUnity and the Government of Southern Sudanwere also active partners in the assessment process,providing both information and support. We hopethat UNEP can remain a long-term partner of theSudanese authorities and people as they address theenvironmental challenges ahead.Achim SteinerUnited Nations Under-Secretary-GeneralExecutive Directorof the United Nations Environment Programme• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •5

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTExecutive summaryIntroductionIn January 2005, the Sudanese Government andthe Sudan People’s Liberation Army signed aComprehensive Peace Agreement, putting an endto twenty-two years of continuous civil war. Withpeace and a fast-growing economy fueled by itsemerging oil industry, most of the country can nowfocus on recovery and development.Sudan, however, faces a number of challenges.Among these are critical environmental issues,including land degradation, deforestation andthe impacts of climate change, that threaten theSudanese people’s prospects for long-term peace,food security and sustainable development. Inaddition, complex but clear linkages exist betweenenvironmental problems and the ongoing conflictin Darfur, as well as other historical and currentconflicts in Sudan.Post-conflict environmentalassessmentWith a view to gaining a comprehensive understandingof the current state of the environment inSudan and catalysing action to address the country’skey environmental problems, the Government ofNational Unity (GONU) and Government ofSouthern Sudan (GOSS) requested the UnitedNations Environment Programme (UNEP) toconduct a post-conflict environmental assessmentof Sudan. The goal of the UNEP assessment wasaccordingly to develop a solid technical basisfor medium-term corrective action in the fieldof environmental protection and sustainabledevelopment.Assessment processThe post-conflict environmental assessment processfor Sudan began in late 2005. Following an initialappraisal and scoping study, fieldwork was carriedout between January and August 2006. Differentteams of experts spent a total of approximately 150days in the field, on ten separate field missions, eachlasting one to four weeks. Consultation with localand international stakeholders formed a large andcontinuouspartofUNEP’sassessmentwork,withthetotal number of interviewees estimated to be over twothousand. Parties consulted include representativesof federal, state and local governments, NGOs,academic and research institutions, internationalagencies, community leaders, farmers, pastoralists,foresters and businesspeople.The UNEP team on mission in Northern state. Different teams of experts spent 150 days in the field,on ten separate field missions, each lasting one to four weeks6 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYFigure E.1L IBY AC H A DEl GeneinaWESTERNDARFURL i bMarra Mts.C E N T R A LA F R I C A NGeneral map of Sudany a nR E P U B L I CD A R F U RWadi HowarNORTH E RNS OUTH E R NDAR F URBarW E S T E R Nel’ArabB A H RNORTHERNBAHREL GHAZALE LELolG H A Z A LW E S T E R ND E M O C R A T I C R E PD e s eJebel TeljoJebel Marra3088r t1954NyalaMeidobHillsEl FasherSAweilWauO F T H E C O NG Y P TWadi el MilkWARRABL A K E SLakeNubaN O RTHE R NNileN O R T H E RNK O R D O F A NS OUT H E R NK O R D O F A NU NE Q U AT O R I AI T YS uddCanalJongleiEL JABALAlbertNileN u b i a nD e s e r tM uqaddamKhartoumEl ObeidN I L ENileWhit eSobatPiborNileK H A R T O U MWHITENILEEd DamerE LU P P E RG E ZJ O N G L E II R AEAS T E R NR ED SEABlueAtbaraS E N N A RNileBLUE NILEN I L EG E D A R E FBAHR E Q U AT O R I ABuRabak SingataHALAIBTRIANGLEILEMITRIANGLER EK A S S A L AnaWad MedaniJebel Oda20 o Third CataractDongolaFourthCataractFifthCataractSixth Cataract15 oU D A NNuba Mts.RoseiresReservoirKadugli Jebel Otoro132510 oBentiuMalakalWarrabRumbek Bor5 oYambio Juba ToritImatongKinyeti Mts.3187U B L I C25 oGO30 o U G A N DA 35 oHeightThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.in metresInternational boundaryState boundaryAdministrative boundaryMarshLake and reservoirRiverImpermanent riverCanalNational capitalState capital2000100080060050040030020002259KassalaDS EERI T R E AE T H I O P I AR e dGedarefEd DamazinS e aH i ll sPort SudanJebel Hamoyet2780K E N Y AKilometres0 100 200 300 400 500Lambert Azimuthal Equal-Area ProjectionSources:SIM (Sudan Interagency Mapping); FAO; vmaplv0, gns, NIMA;srtm30v2, NASA; void-filled seamless srtm data, InternationalCentre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), available from theCGIAR-CSI srtm 90m database; various maps and atlases;UN Cartographic Section.UNEP/DEWA/GRID~Europe 2006A• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •7

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTThe UNEP team interviews a group of local men in Umm al Jawasir, in Northern state. Communityhearings and consultations were a critical component of UNEP’s assessment workThe assessment team was comprised of a coreUNEP team and a large number of national andinternational partners who collaborated in a rangeof roles. These partnerships were crucial to theproject’s success, as they enabled the fieldwork,ensured that the study matched local issues andneeds, and contributed to national endorsementof the assessment’s outcomes. UNEP also workedclosely with the Government of National Unityand the Government of Southern Sudan, andspecific efforts were made to align UNEP activitieswith a government initiative known as theNational Plan for Environmental Management.Summary of the findingsThe assessment identified a number of criticalenvironmental issues that are closely linked to thecountry’s social and political challenges.Strong linkages between environment andconflict: a key issue in the Darfur crisisThe linkages between conflict and environmentin Sudan are twofold. On one hand, the country’slong history of conflict has had significant impactson its environment. Indirect impacts such aspopulation displacement, lack of governance,conflict-related resource exploitation and underinvestmentin sustainable development have beenthe most severe consequences to date.On the other hand, environmental issues have beenand continue to be contributing causes of conflict.Competition over oil and gas reserves, Nile watersand timber, as well as land use issues related toagricultural land, are important causative factorsin the instigation and perpetuation of conflict inSudan. Confrontations over rangeland and rain-fedagricultural land in the drier parts of the countryare a particularly striking manifestation of theconnection between natural resource scarcity andviolent conflict. In all cases, however, environmentalfactors are intertwined with a range of other social,political and economic issues.UNEP’s analysis indicates that there is a very stronglink between land degradation, desertificationand conflict in Darfur. Northern Darfur – whereexponential population growth and relatedenvironmental stress have created the conditions forconflicts to be triggered and sustained by political,tribal or ethnic differences – can be considered atragic example of the social breakdown that canresult from ecological collapse. Long-term peacein the region will not be possible unless theseunderlying and closely linked environmental andlivelihood issues are resolved.8 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYPopulation displacement: significantenvironmental impactsWith over five million internally displaced persons(IDPs) and international refugees, Sudan has thelargest population of displaced persons in the worldtoday. In Darfur, internal displacement has occurredat an unprecedented rate since 2003, with some 2.4million people affected. This massive populationdisplacement has been accompanied by significanthuman suffering and environmental damage. Areasaround the larger camps – particularly in Darfur– are severely degraded, and the lack of controls andsolutions has led to human rights abuses, conflictsover resources and food insecurity. Although this isnot a new phenomenon, the scale of displacementand the particular vulnerability of the dry northernSudanese environment may make this the mostsignificant case of its type worldwide.In addition, the large-scale return of southernSudanese to their homeland following the cessationof the civil war is likely to result in a further waveof environmental degradation in some of the morefragile return areas.Desertification and the associated loss ofagricultural land are not an inevitable andunstoppable process. Good managementpractices can sustain agriculture even inseemingly arid and hostile environments,as in this dune belt in Northern KordofanDesertification and regional climate change:contributing to poverty and conflictCattle in poor condition on overgrazed land nearEl Geneina, Western Darfur. Intense competitionover declining natural resources is a contributingcause of the ongoing conflict in the regionAn estimated 50 to 200 km southward shift ofthe boundary between semi-desert and deserthas occurred since rainfall and vegetation recordswere first held in the 1930s. This boundaryis expected to continue to move southwardsdue to declining precipitation. The remainingsemi-desert and low rainfall savannah on sand,which represent some 25 percent of Sudan’sagricultural land, are at considerable risk offurther desertification. This is forecast to lead toa significant drop (approximately 20 percent) infood production. In addition, there is mountingevidence that the decline in precipitation due toregional climate change has been a significantstress factor on pastoralist societies – particularlyin Darfur and Kordofan – and has therebycontributed to conflict.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •9

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTNatural disasters: increasing vulnerability andimpactsSudan has suffered a number of long and devastatingdroughts in the past decades, which have underminedfood security and are strongly linked to humandisplacement and related conflicts. The vulnerabilitytodrought is exacerbated bythe tendencytomaximizelivestock herd sizes rather than quality, and by the lackof secure water sources such as deep boreholes thatcan be relied on during short dry spells.Despite serious water shortages, floods are alsocommon in Sudan. The most devastating occuron the Blue Nile, as a result of deforestation andovergrazing in the river’s upper catchment. Oneof the main impacts of watershed degradation andassociated flooding is severe riverbank erosion inthe narrow but fertile Nile riverine strip.Agriculture: severe land degradation due todemographic pressure and poorly manageddevelopmentAgriculture, which is the largest economic sector inSudan, is at the heart of some of the country’s mostseriousandchronicenvironmentalproblems,includingland degradation in its various forms, riverbankerosion, invasive species, pesticide mismanagementin the large irrigation schemes, and water pollution.Disorganized and poorly managed mechanized rainfedagriculture, which covers an estimated area of 6.5million hectares, has been particularly destructive,leading to large-scale forest clearance, loss of wildlifeand severe land degradation.In addition, an explosive growth in livestocknumbers – from 28.6 million in 1961 to 134.6million in 2004 – has resulted in widespreaddegradation of the rangelands. Inadequate ruralland tenure, finally, is an underlying cause of manyenvironmental problems and a major obstacle tosustainable land use, as farmers have little incentiveto invest in and protect natural resources.Forestry: a deforestation crisis in the drierregions, risks and opportunities in the southDeforestation in Sudan is estimated to be occurringat a rate of over 0.84 percent per annum at thenational level, and 1.87 percent per annum inUNEP case study areas. It is driven principally byenergy needs and agricultural clearance. Between1990 and 2005, the country lost 11.6 percentof its forest cover, or approximately 8,835,000The most serious and common natural disaster facing the population of Sudan is drought. Rural communitiessuch as this village in Khartoum state have faced waves of drought since the 1970s, which haveexacerbated rural poverty and precipitated large-scale displacement to the northern cities10 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYAbandoned degraded agricultural land in a former irrigation scheme near Tandelti in Northern Kordofanhectares. At the regional level, two-thirds ofthe forests in north, central and eastern Sudandisappeared between 1972 and 2001. In Darfur,a third of the forest cover was lost between 1973and 2006. Southern Sudan is estimated to havelost 40 percent of its forests since independenceand deforestation is ongoing, particularly aroundmajor towns. Extrapolation of deforestation ratesindicate that forest cover could reduce by over10 percent per decade. In areas under extremepressure, UNEP estimates that total loss couldoccur within the next 10 years.These negative trends demonstrate that this valuableresource upon which the rural population and a largepart of the urban population depend completelyfor energy is seriously threatened. The growing useof fuelwood for brick-making in all parts of Sudanis an additional cause for concern. In Darfur, forinstance, brick-making provides a livelihood formany IDP camp residents, but also contributes tosevere localized deforestation. If it were properlymanaged, however, the forestry sector couldrepresent a significant opportunity for economicdevelopment and sustainable north-south trade.A mango orchard in Juba, Central Equatoria.The combination of higher rainfall and lowerpopulation and development pressure resultsin Sudan’s remaining forest cover being concentratedin the southern half of the country• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •11

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTThe rusting wreckage of the Jonglei canal excavator lies in the unfinished main channel. This failedventure illustrates the risks associated with developing large-scale projects in socially andenvironmentally sensitive areas without local supportDams and water projects: major impacts andconflict linkagesUNEP considers the principal and most importantenvironmental issue in the water resource sector inSudan to be the ongoing or planned construction ofover twenty large dams. While its electrical outputis expected to bring major benefits to the country,the Merowe dam epitomizes environmental andsocial concerns over the country’s ambitiousdam-building programme. Although it is thefirst dam project in Sudan to have included anenvironmental impact assessment, the processdid not meet international standards, and wouldhave benefited from more transparency and publicconsultation. Major environmental problemsassociated with the Merowe dam include silt lossfor flood recession agriculture, dam sedimentationand severe riverbank erosion due to intensive flowrelease within short time periods.In addition, the active storage capacity of allof Sudan’s existing dam reservoirs (with theexception of Jebel Aulia) is seriously affectedby sediment deposition. Dams have also causedmajor degradation of downstream habitats,particularly of the maya wetlands on the BlueNile and of the riparian dom palm forests in thelower Atbara river.The infamous Jonglei canal engineering megaproject,which started in the 1970s, was closelylinked to the start of the north-south civil war. Asit was not completed, its anticipated major impactson the Sudd wetlands never came to pass. Theunfinished canal bed, which does not connect toany major water bodies or watercourses, now actsonly as a giant ditch and embankment hinderingwildlife migrations. Nevertheless, lessons learntfrom this project should be carefully studiedand applied to existing efforts in peacebuildingbetween north and south, especially as economicmotivations for the project still exist, includingfrom international partners.Urban issues and environmental health: rapidand chaotic urbanization and chronic wasteand sanitation issuesUncontrolled sprawl, chronic solid waste managementproblems and the lack of wastewatertreatment are the leading environmental problems12 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYfacing Sudan’s urban centres. The explosive growthof the capital Khartoum continues relentlessly,with 64 percent of the country’s urban populationresiding in the area. The larger towns of SouthernSudan are also experiencing very rapid growthfueled by the return of formerly displaced persons,estimated at 300,000 by end of 2006. In Darfur,the majority of the two million displaced are foundon the fringes of urban centres, whose size in somecases has increased by over 200 percent in the lastthree years.Sewage treatment is grossly inadequate in all ofSudan’s cities, and solid waste management practicesthroughout the country are uniformly poor. In themajority of cases, garbage of all types accumulatesclose to its point of origin and is periodically burnt.These shortcomings in environmental sanitationare directly reflected in the elevated incidence ofwaterborne diseases, which make up 80 percent ofreported diseases in the country.Waste pickers at the main Khartoumlandfill site. Waste management isproblematic throughout Sudan.Industrial pollution: a growing problem and akey issue for the emerging oil industryEnvironmental governance of industry wasvir-tually non-existent until 2000, and theeffects of this are clearly visible today. While thesituation has improved over the last few years,UNEP has found that major challenges remainin the areas of project development and impactassessment, improving the operation of older andgovernment-managed facilities, and influencingthe policies and management approach at thehigher levels of government.The release of industrial effluent from olderfactories lacking wastewater treatment facilitiesis an issue of particular concernDue to the relatively limited industrial developmentin Sudan to date, environmentaldamage has so far been moderate, but thesituation could worsen rapidly as the countryembarks on an oil-financed development boom.The release of effluent from factories and thedisposal of produced water associated with crudeoil extraction are issues of particular concern,as industrial wastewater treatment facilities arelacking even in Khartoum. Industrial effluentis typically released into the domestic sewagesystem, where there is one.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •13

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTThe all-women State Environment Council Secretariat in Gedaref state. The CPA and Interim Constitutiondevolve extensive responsibility to state governments in the area of environmental governance. Statelevelstructures, however, remain under-funded and in need of substantial investmentOther issues include air emissions, and hazardousand solid waste disposal. While UNEP observedgenerally substandard environmental performanceat most industrial sites, there were exceptionalcases of responsible environmental stewardship atselected oil, sugar and cement facilities visited.Wildlife and protected areas: depleted biodiversitywith some internationally significantareas and wildlife populations remainingThe past few decades have witnessed a majorassault on wildlife and their habitats. In northernand central Sudan, the greatest damage has beeninflicted by habitat destruction and fragmentationfrom farming and deforestation. Larger wildlifehave essentially disappeared and are now mostlyconfined to core protected areas and remotedesert regions. In the south, uncontrolled andunsustainable hunting has decimated wildlifepopulations and caused the local eradication ofmany of the larger species, such as elephant, rhino,buffalo, giraffe, eland and zebra. Nonetheless,Sudan’s remaining wildlife populations, includingvery large herds of white-eared kob and tiangantelope, are internationally significant.Approximately fifty sites throughout Sudan– covering 10 and 15 percent of the areas ofthe north and south respectively – are listed ashaving some form of legal protection. In practice,however, the level of protection afforded to theseareas has ranged from slight to negligible, andseveral exist only on paper today. Many of theseimportant areas are located in regions affected byconflict and have hence suffered from a long-termabsence of the rule of law. With three exceptions(Dinder, Sanganeb and Dongonab Bay NationalParks), the data on wildlife and protected areas iscurrently insufficient to allow for the developmentof adequate management plans.Marine environment: a largely intactecosystem under threatUNEP found the Sudanese marine and coastalenvironment to be in relatively good conditionoverall. Its coral reefs are the best preservedecosystems in the country. However, the economicand shipping boom focused on Port Sudan andthe oil export facilities may rapidly change theenvironmental situation for the worse. Steadydegradation is ongoing in the developed stripfrom Port Sudan to Suakin, and the symptomsof overgrazing and land degradation are asomnipresent on the coast as elsewhere in drylandSudan. Mangrove stands, for example, arecurrently under severe pressure along the entirecoastline. Pollution from land-based sources andthe risk of oil spills are further issues of concern.14 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYEnvironmental governance: historically weak,now at a crossroadsBy granting the Government of Southern Sudanand the states extensive and explicit responsibilityin the area of environment and natural resourcesmanagement, the CPA and new Interim Constitutionshave significantly changed the frameworkfor environmental governance in Sudan and helpedcreate the conditions for reform.At the national level, the country faces manychallenges to meet its international obligations, asset out in the treaties and conventions it has signedover the last thirty years. Although the technicalskill and level of knowledge in the environmentalsector are high and some legislation is already inplace, regulatory authorities have critical structuralproblems, and are under-resourced.In Southern Sudan, environmental governanceis in its infancy, but the early signs are positive.High-level political and cross-sector support isvisible, and UNEP considers the new structuresto be relatively suited to the task.Environment and international aid: reducedenvironmental impact of relief operationsand improved UN response to environmentalissues necessaryThe environmental assessment of the internationalaid programme in Sudan raised a number of issuesthat need to be resolved to avoid inadvertentlydoing harm through the provision of aid, and toimprove the effectiveness of aid expenditure in theenvironmental sector. UNEP’s analysis indicatesthat while most aid projects in Sudan do notcause significant harm to the environment, a fewclearly do and the overall diffused impact of theprogramme is very significant.One major and highly complex issue is theenvironmental impact of the provision of foodand other emergency aid to some 15 percent of thepopulation, and the projected impact of the variousoptions for shifting back from aid dependence toautonomous and sustainable livelihoods. Indeed, thecountry is presently caught in a vicious circle of foodaid dependence, agricultural underdevelopmentand environmental degradation. Under currentThe coral reefs of the Red Sea coast are the best preserved ecosystems of Sudan© RED SEA ENTERPRISES• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •15

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTcircumstances, if aid were reduced to encouragea return to agriculture, the result in some areaswould be food insecurity and an intensification ofland degradation, leading to the high likelihood offailure and secondary displacement.The integration of environmental considerationsinto the current UN programme in Sudan needsto be significantly improved. In addition, theenvironment-related expenditure that does occur– while acknowledged and welcome – suffers froma range of management problems that reduceits effectiveness. Priorities for the UN and itspartners in this field are improved coordinationand environmental mainstreaming to ensure thatinternational assistance ‘does no harm’ to Sudan’senvironment, and ‘builds back better’Recommendations1. Invest in environmental management tosupport lasting peace in Darfur, and toavoid local conflict over natural resourceselsewhere in Sudan. Because environmentaldegradation and resource scarcity are amongthe root causes of the current conflict inDarfur, practical measures to alleviate suchproblems should be considered vital toolsfor conflict prevention and peacebuilding.Climate change adaptation measures andecologically sustainable rural developmentare needed in Darfur and elsewhere to copewith changing environmental conditionsand to avoid clashes over declining naturalresources.A group of southern Sudanese travels down the White Nile aboard a ferry, returning to the homelandafter years of displacement due to the civil war. A massive return process is currently underway for thefour million people displaced during the conflict16 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYA food aid delivery awaits distribution at Port Sudan. Fifteen percent of Sudan’s populationdepends on international food aid for survival2. Build capacity at all levels of governmentand improve legislation to ensure thatreconstruction and economic developmentdo not intensify environmental pressures andthreaten the livelihoods of present and futuregenerations. The new governance contextprovides a rare opportunity to truly embedthe principles of sustainable development andbest practices in environmental managementinto the governance architecture in Sudan.3. National and regional governmentshould assume increasing responsibilityfor investment in the environment andsustainable development. The injection ofoil revenue has greatly improved the financialresources of both the Government of NationalUnity and the Government of Southern Sudan,enabling them to translate reform into action.4. All UN relief and development projectsin Sudan should integrate environmentalconsiderations in order to improve theeffectiveness of the UN country programme.Better coordination and environmentalmainstreaming are necessary to ensure thatinternational assistance ‘does no harm’ toSudan’s environment.The way forward and the UNEP Sudancountry programmeThis report’s 85 detailed recommendations includeindividual cost and time estimates, and nominateresponsible parties for implementation. While theyenvisage a central and coordinating role for theenvironment ministries of GONU and GOSS, thewholehearted support and participation of manyother government ministries and authorities, aswell as several UN agencies, are also needed. Thetotal cost of the recommendations is USD 120million with expenditure spread over five years.UNEP considers that the majority should befinanced by GONU and GOSS, with the balanceprovided by the international community.For its part, UNEP plans to establish a Sudancountry programme for the period of at least 2007-2009, and stands ready to assist the Governmentof Sudan and international partners in theimplementation of these recommendations.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •17

IntroductionFarmers in the Tokar delta, in Red Seastate. The rich silt deposited annually in theTokar delta historically supported intensiveagriculture in the region, including anexport cotton industry. From 1993 to2005, the conflict between Sudanand Eritrea forced the local populationoff the land, leading some 50,000hectares to become overgrown with adense thicket of the invasive mesquite tree.The land is now gradually being clearedand converted back to agriculture.

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTIntroduction1.1 BackgroundIn January 2005, after more than two decadesof devastating civil war, the Sudanese centralgovernment in Khartoum and the Sudan People’sLiberation Army in the south signed a historicComprehensive Peace Agreement. This landmarkachievement – which was followed by theadoption of an Interim Constitution – broughtpeace to most of the country for the first time ina generation.Now, thanks to the rapid development of its oilindustry, Sudan is one of the fastest-growingeconomies in Africa. Direct investment andinternational aid are starting to flow into thecountry on a large scale, and some parts of Sudanare undergoing brisk development.As it focuses on recovery and development,however, the country faces a number of keychallenges. Chief among them are severalcritical environmental issues – such as landdegradation, deforestation and the impacts ofclimate change – that threaten Sudan’s prospectsfor long-term peace, food security and sustainabledevelopment.Recent tensions in north-south border regionshave highlighted several environmental issuesthat constitute potential flashpoints for renewedconflict, including the environmental impactsof the oil industry and the management of thecountry’s water resources.In Darfur, where violence and insecurity continueto prevail despite the signing of a peace agreementin May 2006, complex but clear linkages existbetween environmental problems and theongoing conflict. Indeed, climate change, landdegradation and the resulting competition overscarce natural resources are among the root causesas well as the consequences of the violence andgrave humanitarian situation in the region.Natural resource management and rehabilitation,therefore, are not only fundamental prerequisites topeacebuilding in Darfur and the rest of Sudan – theymust become a national priority if the country is toachieve long-term social stability and prosperity.With a view to obtaining a comprehensive understandingof the current state of the environment inSudan, and catalysing action to address the country’skey environmental problems, the Governmentof National Unity (GONU) and Government ofSouthern Sudan (GOSS) requested the UnitedNations Environment Programme (UNEP) toconduct a post-conflict environmental assessment ofSudan. The present report is the principal productof the resulting national-scale assessment project,managed by UNEP over the period November 2005to January 2007.1.2 ObjectivesGoal and objectivesThe goal of the UNEP post-conflict environmentalassessment for Sudan was to develop a solidtechnical basis for medium-term (1-5 years)corrective action in the field of environmentalprotection and sustainable development. This goalwas expanded into five objectives:1. Provide neutral and objective information onthe most critical environmental problems facingthe country, and on the potential risks to humanhealth, livelihoods and ecosystem services;2. Recommend strategic priorities for sustainableresource management and identify theactors, timelines and costs necessary forimplementation;3. Facilitate the development of national environmentalpolicy and strengthen the capacityfor national environmental governance;4. Raise awareness and catalyse financial support forenvironmental projects by national authorities,UN actors, NGOs and donors; and5. Integrate environmental issues into therecovery and reconstruction process.This report aims to present the post-conflictenvironmental issues for Sudan in a singleconcise document accessible to a wide audienceof non-experts. A number of detailed studies wereprepared in parallel to provide the technical basisfor this PCEA report. Access to the technicalreport series and further information on Sudan’senvironment can be obtained from the UNEPSudan website at http://sudanreport.unep.ch.20 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

1 INTRODUCTIONLinks to the UN country team in Sudanand international UN processesThis report is designed to fit within the UnitedNations country- and global-level frameworks forSudan. At the country level, this study aims toassist the UN family to integrate or ‘mainstream’environmental issues into the UN programme forSudan, according to the framework provided bythe UN Country Team Forum, the annual UNSudan Work Plan process, and the Sudan Nationaland Darfur Joint Assessment Missions.At the global level, this report is designed to linkwith ongoing UN reform processes, which focuson issues such as aid effectiveness, improvedcoordination and better integration of crosscuttingissues like the environment.A new and developing theme at the global level– addressed by such high-level bodies as the HighlevelPanel on System-wide Coherence in theAreas of Development, Humanitarian Assistanceand the Environment – is the recognition thatenvironmental degradation has become a majorcontributor to food insecurity, conflict andvulnerability to natural disasters. It could beargued that this evident in Sudan today.1.3 Assessment scopeThe geographical scope of UNEP’s surveyextended to all states of the Republic of Sudan,the coastline, and to territorial seas.The assessment’s technical scope was developedin two stages – an initial broad scan was followedby a targeted study focused on identifiedkey themes. The final twelve themes, as reflectedin the chapters of this report were: natural disastersand desertification; conflict and peacebuilding;population displacement; urbanenvironment and environmental health; industry;agriculture; forest resources; freshwaterresources; wildlife and protected areamanagement; marine environments and resources;environmental governance and awareness; andinternational aid.To ensure linkages to the some of the majorhumanitarian and governance issues the UNand partners are attempting to address in Sudan,UNEP’s assessment work also included thefollowing six cross-cutting topics:1. Capacity-building: to build national capacityduring the process by maximizing the useof government counterparts and technicalexperts;2. Engagement with local partners: to link theUNEP process with existing and new localinitiatives for environmental assessment andmanagement;3. Livelihoods and food security: to explicitlylink the observed environmental issues withtheir impact on the poor, particularly on therural poor;4. Gender: to link environmental issues andimpacts with gender, as issues such as waterand firewood scarcity have a disproportionatelynegative impact on women;5. Peacebuilding: to analyse the linkages betweenconflict and environment in order to assistongoing conflict prevention and resolutionefforts; and6. Aid effectiveness: to critically assess the successof what has been attempted so far in this sectorand design a more effective response to theenvironmental issues identified.1.4 MethodologyAssessment processThe post-conflict environmental assessment processfor Sudan commenced in earnest in late 2005. Themajor components of this process were:• an initial appraisal and scoping study;• consultation;• desk studies;• fieldwork;• remote sensing;• analysis; and• development of the recommendations andreporting.The fieldwork and consultation process aredescribed in more detail below.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •21

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFieldworkUNEP’s fieldwork was carried out between Januaryand August 2006. Different teams of experts spenta total of approximately 150 days in the field, onten separate field missions, each lasting one to fourweeks. The states covered and the timing of eachmission are set out below, while the locations visitedand field trip routes are shown in Figure 1.1.The total distance travelled was in the orderof 12,000 km. The average fieldwork day includedthree to five stakeholder meetingsof varying formality; the total number ofinterviewees is estimated to have been over twothousand.Constraints and acknowledged gapsin assessment coverageTable 1.TimingFebruary 2006March 2006March 2006April 2006May 2006May 2006June 2006July 2006July 2006August 2006UNEP field missions in SudanStates visitedNorthern and Red Sea states, and thecoastlineNorthern and Southern KordofanInstitutional assessment in JubaKhartoum, Kassala, Gedaref, El Gezira,White Nile, and Blue Nile statesCentral Equatoria (Bahr el Jabal) andJonglei statesInstitutional assessment in KhartoumNorthern, Western and Southern DarfurLakes, Northern and Western Bahr elGhazal, and Upper Nile statesCentral Equatoria (Bahr el Jabal) state andthe town of YeiNorthern stateThe two major constraints encountered in thecourse of the assessment were security risksposed by ongoing military action and fieldworklogistics in Southern Sudan and Darfur. Lesserbut nonetheless significant limitations includedminefields and the lack of environmental data dueto extended periods of conflict.UNEP considers the technical and geographicalscope of the fieldwork to be adequate for thepurposes of this assessment. Given the size ofSudan, however, and the security and otherconstraints detailed above, it was not possible tosurvey all regions thoroughly. The following areasreceived only limited coverage:In the relatively undeveloped areas of Southern Sudan and Darfur, distances are great and roads arepoor. In the wet season, mud and flooded stream crossings preclude road travel and restrict aircraftlandings in many locations22 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

1 INTRODUCTIONFigure 1.1L IBY A20 o Third CataractDongolaFourthCataractFifthCataractSixthCataract15 oS U D A NNubaRoseiresMts.ReservoirKadugli10 oBentiuMalakalNORTHERNBAHREL GHAZALWarrabRumbekBor5 oJubaYambioToritImatongKinyeti Mts.3187U B L I C25 GO30 U G A N DAoo 35 oThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Kilometres0 100 200 300 400 500Lambert Azimuthal Equal-Area ProjectionC H A DEl GeneinaMorneiWESTERNDARFURL i bZalingeiEd El FursanC E N T R A LA F R I C A NR E P U B L I CNOR T H E R ND ARF U RS O U T H E RND A R F U RBarW E S T E R NB A H Rel’ArabE LES O U T H E R NLolG H A Z A LW E S T E R ND E M O C R A T I C R E PField MissionsTravel by airTravel by roadKutumUNEP/DEWA/GRID~Europe 2006UNEP fieldwork routesy a nKabkabiyaJebelMarra3088D e s er tNyalaMalhaMeidobHillsJebel Teljo1954El FasherRagaAweilO F T H E C O NWauG Y P TWARRABK O RDO FA NLakeNubaN O RTHE R NGaab El-SawaniNileN O R THE R NK O R D O FANHegligDillingU NE Q U AT O R I AI T YEl ObeidS uddCanalJongleiAlbertNileKN I L ENileWhit eSobatPiborNileLAK E S JON G L EIBAHRN u b i a nD e s e r tELHKhartoumAd DuwaymBarahHabilaHeibanYeiTalawdiWHITEJABALAKustiNILEEd DamerRE LTG E ZU P P E ROI R AURabakMazumMSingaEAS T E R NR ED SEABlueAtbaraNileBLUE NILEN I L EKAGEDAR EFS E N N A RSWad MedaniSennarEd DamazinSE Q U AT O R I AJebel OdaLANew HalfaA2259R EDS EERI T R E AE T H I O P I AR e dGedarefS e a Hi l l sJebel HamoyetKassala2780K E N Y AAPort SudanTokarSources:SIM (Sudan Interagency Mapping); FAO; vmaplv0, gns, NIMA; srtm30v2, NASA; void-filled seamless srtmdata, International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), available from the CGIAR-CSI srtm 90m database;various maps and atlases; UN Cartographic Section.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •23

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT• Abyei, Unity state and Upper Nile (oilfieldsin particular);• Eastern Equatoria (particularly the Imatongranges and the dry plains in the far east);• Western Equatoria (the tropical rainforest inparticular);• the Jebel Marra plateau in Darfur;• the far south of Southern Darfur, west ofWestern Bahr el Ghazal; and• the Eastern Front region on the border ofKassala and Red Sea state.UNEP link to national institutionsand processesIn order to maximize local engagement in theassessment process and its outcomes, UNEPworked closely with the Government of NationalUnity (GONU) and the Government of SouthernSudan (GOSS) throughout 2006. Specific effortswere made to align UNEP activities with agovernment initiative known as the National Planfor Environmental Management (NPEM).UN helicopters were the only viable methodof transportation in many parts of Darfur andSouthern SudanIn practical terms, UNEP provided technical andfinancial support for two major environmentalworkshops in 2006, one held in Khartoum inJuly and the other in Juba in November. At theseevents, technical papers were presented andnational delegates discussed and debated regionaland national environmental issues.The draft report consultation process also allowedfor UNEP material to be integrated into NPEMdocuments as they were being developed.GONU andGOSS reportreview andendorsementStakeholders consultation meetings were organized in early 2007 by the Ministryof Environment and Physical Development in Khartoum to discuss and reviewthe draft UNEP post-conflict environmental assessment reportUNEP engagedthe Governmentof NationalUnity and theGovernment ofSouthern Sudanin a formal processof draft documentreview. While itincorporates theagreed solutionsand wordingfrom that process,this final reportis, however, firstand foremostan independentUNEP report,with endorsementfrom the GONUand GOSS.24 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

1 INTRODUCTION1.5 Assessment team andconsultationsThe assessment team was comprised of a coreUNEP team and a large number of national andinternational partners who contributed in a rangeof roles. The full list of contributors is presentedin Appendix III and summarized below:• UNEP Post-Conflict Branch (core teamincluding seconded individual consultants);• UNEP Regional Office for Africa and UNEPGRID;• other UN agencies, including UNOPS,UNDP, WFP, FAO, UNHCR, UNICEF,OCHA, and DSS;• UN Mission in Sudan;• African Union Mission in Sudan;• USAID and the European Commission;• Government of National Unity Ministry ofEnvironment and Physical Development,including the Secretariat of the Higher Councilfor Environment and Natural Resources;• Government of National Unity Ministries ofAgriculture and Forestry; of Energy and Mining;and of Irrigation and Water Resources;• Government of National Unity RemoteSensing Authority and Forests NationalCorporation;• Government of Southern Sudan Ministryof Environment, Wildlife Conservation andTourism;• Government of Southern Sudan Ministry ofAgriculture and Forestry;• Sudanese Environmental Conservation Society;• Boma Wildlife Training Centre;• Kagelu Forestry Training Centre;• World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF);• Rift Valley Institute; and• Nile Basin Initiative.Consultation with local stakeholders formed a large and continuous part of UNEP’s assessment work,as here in the small village of Mireir, Southern Darfur• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •25

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTThe UNEP team discusses a local agricultural project with men from the village of Um Belut, Southern DarfurThese partnerships were absolutely crucial to theproject’s success, as they facilitated the fieldwork,ensured that the study matched local issues andneeds, and contributed to national endorsementof the assessment’s outcomes.ConsultationsConsultation with local and international stakeholdersformed a large and continuous part of UNEP’sassessment work. The list of parties consulted, whichis provided in Appendix III, included representativesof federal, state and local governments, nongovernmentalagencies, academic institutions,international agencies, local residents, agriculturists,pastoralists, foresters and business people.Key partners in the process were the twocounterpart ministries for UNEP, the Governmentof National Unity’s Ministry of Environment andPhysical Development, located in Khartoum, andthe Government of Southern Sudan’s Ministryof Environment, Wildlife Conservation andTourism, located in Juba. These counterpartsaccompanied UNEP staff on several of the fieldmissions and provided the main link to otherbranches of their respective governments.1.6 Report structureThis report has four main sections:1. An introduction providing the details of theassessment process;2. A ‘country context’ chapter offering generalbackground information on Sudan;3. Twelve thematic assessment chapters, each ina common format:• introduction and assessment activities;• overview of the sector or theme;• overview of the environmental impactsand issues related to the theme;• discussion of the individual impacts andissues; and• theme-specific conclusions and detailedrecommendations;4. A conclusion presenting a summary of findingsand recommendations, and a discussion of thegeneral way forward.The twelve thematic chapters are grouped andsequenced according to the type of issue underdiscussion, as follows:26 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

1 INTRODUCTIONCross-cutting issuesChapter 3 - Natural disasters anddesertification;Chapter 4 - Conflict and environment;Chapter 5 - Population displacement;Sectoral issuesChapter 6 - Urban environment andenvironmental health;Chapter 7 - Industry;Chapter 8 - Agriculture;Chapter 9 - Forest resources;Chapter 10 - Freshwater resources;Chapter 11 - Wildlife and protected areamanagement;Chapter 12 - Marine environments andresources;Institutional response to the issuesChapter 13 - Environmental governance andawareness;Chapter 14 - International aid.Recommendation formatIn each thematic chapter, recommendations areprovided in the following standard format:• Numbering: All recommendations arenumbered to aid collation and tracking;• Description: A one- to four-line descriptionof the recommendation, including a noteon the scope applicable to the stated cost, ifappropriate;• Category (CA): One of seven categories ofresponse the recommendation pertains to, asset out below;• Primary beneficiary (PB): The partyconsidered by UNEP to be the main targetor recipient of the project’s benefits. Notethat in many cases, projects have a largenumber of direct and indirect beneficiaries,and that many of the benefits will deriveThe post-conflict assessment process also included photography and filming: over35 hours of footage and 5,000 photographs were taken• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •27

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTfrom subsequent work done by the primarybeneficiary. This is particularly the case ingovernance or capacity-building projectsdirected at a specific government sector;• United Nations partner (UNP): The UNagency considered by UNEP to be mostsuitable to be the primary partner to thebeneficiary in the implementation of theproject. In the absence of a clear nominee,UNEP remains the default (although a defaultrole is not preferred for a number of reasons).The partner role may range from monitoringonly to full involvement through the provisionof advice, services and equipment;• Cost estimate (CE): The estimated cost for allparties combined (beneficiary and partners)to implement the recommendation. Notethat many governance recommendations willresult in laws, policies and plans that willhave a major economic impact. This followoncost is not included in the estimate. Allcosts are in USD million, in divisions ofUSD 100,000; and• Duration (DU): The estimated time requiredfor completion of the project from scoping toclose-out. Recommendations are given in therange of one to five years.The recommendations have been divided intoseven categories of response to align with UNand donor agency structures and strategies forassistance to Sudan, as follows:1. Governance and rule of law (GROL) coversthe areas of policy development, planning andlegislation. In some case, this entails the reformof existing structures, policies, plans and laws;2. Technical assistance (TA) covers the provisionof expert advice and technical services, with theobjective of addressing an immediate need;3. Capacity-building (CB) covers all topics wherethe main objective is to improve the ability of thebeneficiary to fulfill its mandate, through activitiessuch as mentoring, training and providingequipment and support services. Capacitybuildinglogically follows technical assistance;A UNEP expert interviews Chadian refugees in Um Shalaya camp, in Western Darfur28 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

1 INTRODUCTIONA UNEP expert documenting the mission4. Government investment (GI) covers a rangeof subjects for which UNEP considered thatall the factors needed to resolve the issue weregenerally already in place, except for sufficientfunding by the host government. This categorythus applied mainly to areas where localtechnical and human capacity were rated asrelatively high and solutions were alreadydevised, but lack of funding prevented theresponsible party from fulfilling its mandate.5. Awareness-raising (AR) covers all topicswhere the main objective is to expose awide audience to the concepts and issues ofenvironment and sustainable development(focusing on those specific to Sudan). Thisincludes activities such as environmentaleducation, stakeholder briefings, mediareleases and document distribution.6. Assessment (AS) covers all forms of proposedfollow-up assessments and related studieswarranted by UNEP. This includes specificstudies on subjects and regions that UNEPwas not able to include adequately in the scopeof this national report due to cost, time anddocument size constraints.7. Practical action (PA): the majority of theabove categories of recommendations focuson building human resources and generatingoutputs in the form of legislation, policies,plans and other documents. UNEP believesthat a certain percentage of projects in theenvironmental sector should also includeor consist of practical action, in order toprovide and promote the visible and concretebenefits of good environmental governanceand awareness. Such practical projects couldinclude tree-planting, waste clean-up andsustainable building construction. Thisreport strongly emphasizes demonstrationprojects to catalyse positive change on alarger scale.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •29

Country ContextSchool children in the Mandela campfor internally displaced persons,in Khartoum state. The combinedeffects of conflict and food insecurityhave caused over five millionSudanese to be displacedinto camps and urban fringes.

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTCountry context2.1 IntroductionIntroduction to the nationalcontextThe Republic of Sudan is the largest country inAfrica. Its highly diverse landscape ranges fromdesert to tropical forest, and its abundant naturalresources include oil, timber, extensive agriculturalland, and marine and inland fisheries. The countryis also culturally diverse, as it bridges the Islamicculture of North Africa with the largely Christiansouth, and comprises hundreds of distinct tribaland ethnic groups.Unfortunately, Sudan has long been plagued by civilwar and regional conflict. In the fifty years sinceachieving independence, the country as a whole hasbeen at peace for only eleven years (1972-1983).While a historic peace agreement was reached forSouthern Sudan in 2005, conflict rages on in Darfur.Adding to the burden of war, Sudan has experiencedseveral severe droughts in the past thirty years, andfood production in many regions has dropped at thesame time as the population has increased.The combined impacts of conflict and foodinsecurity have caused over five million Sudaneseto be both internally and internationally displacedinto camps and urban fringes, and over five millionto receive international food aid [2.1, 2.2].Introduction to the internationalcontextThe international community currently providesSudan with over USD 2 billion per annum in aid,through humanitarian crisis response programmes,recovery and development programmes, andpeacekeeping operations. This major investmentis delivered through a number of organizations,including the Sudanese Government, donorcountry governments, the UN family of agenciesand the World Bank, bilateral agencies, andnational and international non-governmentalorganizations [2.1, 2.2].The objectives of this vast and complex programmeof assistance are threefold: 1) to prevent, contain andresolve conflict, 2) to save human lives and reducesuffering, and 3) to assist sustainable development. Inpractical terms, this translates into the achievementand maintenance of peace agreements, and positivenumerical indicators in poverty reduction andsustainable development as provided by the UNMillennium Development Goals.2.2 SocietyPopulationA detailed national census has never been carriedout for all of Sudan; all population figures musttherefore be regarded as broad estimates that arerapidly made obsolete by a swelling populationwith a growth rate estimated to exceed 2.6 percent[2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6]. In addition, all detaileddata collection to date has excluded SouthernSudan, whose population is broadly estimated at7-10 million [2.1, 2.7]. Taking these limitationsinto account, the population of Sudan in 2006could be estimated to be between 35 and 40million, with approximately 70 percent livingin rural areas, and the other 30 percent living inthe capital Khartoum and the country’s six otherlargest cities: Port Sudan, Kassala, Omdurman, ElObeid, Wad Medani, Gedaref and Juba [2.8].Farmers in Mornei, Western Darfur. The majorityof Sudanese live in rural areas and depend onagriculture for their livelyhood32 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

2 COUNTRY CONTEXTL IBY AE G Y P T20 o Figure 2.1 Sudan population densityDongolaR EDS EPort SudanAC H A DEd DamerKhartoumKassalaE R I T R EA15 oWad MedaniEl GeneinaEl FasherSU D A NEl ObeidRabak SingaGedarefNyalaKadugliEd Damazin10 oC E N TRA LA F RICANR E P UBL I CAweilWauWarrabBentiuRumbekMalakalBorE T H I OPI A5 oUninhabitedD E M O C R A T I C R EPopulation DensityPersons per square kilometre0O F T H E C O N25 o2 10 50 200 and aboveUNEP/DEWA/GRID~Europe 2006YambioPUGOB L ICJubaThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.ToritU G A N DA30 o 35 oK E N Y AKilometres0 100 200 300 400 500Lambert Azimuthal Equal-Area ProjectionSources:SIM (Sudan Interagency Mapping);Africa population database 2000, UNEP/GRID-Sioux Falls and CIESIN;vmaplv0, NIMA; UN Cartographic Section.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •33

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTDevelopment statusSudan is rated as a least developed country byUNCTAD, and this is reflected in the most recentMillennium Development Goals Report, HumanDevelopment Report and related figures for thecountry.It should be noted that these national and regionalfigures mask very wide regional variations, aswealth and development are concentrated inurban areas and northern states.Gum arabic farmer from the Jawama’a tribe inEl Darota, Northern KordofanTable 2. Development context for SudanIndicators Value YearPopulation size (million) 37 2006Population growth rate (%) 2.6 1998-2003Life expectancy at birth (years) 56.5 2004GDP per capita (USD) 640 2005Prevalence of HIV/AIDS in adult population (age 15-49) (%) 1.6 2003Contraceptive prevalence (women age 14-49) 7 2004Population with access to improved water supply (%) 70 2004Population with access to improved sanitation (%) 34 2004Population undernourished (%) 26 2000Percentage of malnourished children under five (%) 27 2003Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 62 2004Children immunized against measles (%) 50 2000Gross enrolment rate in primary education (%) 59.6 2004Youth literacy rate (age 15-24) (%) 60.9 2004Ratio of girls to boys in primary education (%) 88 2000Under five mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 90 2005Birth attended by skilled health staff (%) 57 2004Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births) 590 2000Fixed lines and mobile telephone subscribers (per 1,000) 69 2003Table 3.Key socio-economic indicators for Southern SudanIndicators Value YearPopulation size (million) 7,514 2003Refugees or internally displaced persons (million) 4.8 2002Population growth rate (%) 2.9 2001Life expectancy at birth (years) 42 2001GNP per capita (USD) < 90 2002Percentage of population earning less than one USD a day (%) > 90 2000Prevalence of HIV/AIDS in adult population age 15-49 (%) 2.6 2001Population without access to drinking water (%) 73 2001Adult literacy rate (%) 24 2001Net enrolment ratio in primary education (%) 20 2000Ratio of girls to boys in primary education (%) 36 2000Under five mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) 250 2001Maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births) 1,700 200034 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

2 COUNTRY CONTEXTDinka tribe children in the town of Bor, Jonglei stateEthnicity and religionSudan comprises hundreds of ethnic and tribaldivisions and language groups, with two majordistinct cultures: Arab and Black African. Arabpopulations generally live in the northern states,which cover most of Sudan’s territory and includemost of the country’s largest urban centres. TheBlack African culture has its heartland in the southbut extends north into Blue Nile state, the Nubamountains region, and the three Darfur states.In addition, several million internally displacedpeople, mainly from the south, have relocated tothe cities and agricultural regions in the north andcentre of the country.Beja tribesman in Gadamayai, Red Sea stateMost of the estimated 25-30 million Sudaneseliving in the northern regions are Arabic-speakingMuslims, though traditional, non-Arabic mothertongues are also widely used. Among these areseveral distinct tribal groups: the Kababish ofNorthern Kordofan, a camel-raising people; theJa’alin and Shaigiyya groups of settled tribes alongthe rivers; the semi-nomadic Baggara of Kordofanand Darfur; the Hamitic Beja in the Red Seaarea and the Nubians of the northern Nile areas,some of whom have been resettled on the Atbarariver; as well as the Negroid Nuba of SouthernKordofan, the Fur in the western reaches of thecountry, and the Funj in southern Blue Nile state[2.12].The southern states, with a population of around7-10 million, are home to many tribal groups andmany more languages than are used in the north.Though some practice indigenous traditionalbeliefs, southern Sudanese are largely Christian.The Dinka – whose population is estimated atmore than one million – is the largest of the manyBlack African tribes. Along with the Shilluk andthe Nuer, they are ‘Nilotic’ tribes. The Azandeare ‘Bantus’; the Moro and the Madi, who livein the west, are ‘Sudanic’, while the Acholi andOtuho, who live in the extreme south, are ‘Nilohamites’.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •35

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTHistorySudanese civilization dates back to at least 3000BC [2.12]. It long concentrated along the northernreaches of the Nile river, the area that came to beknown as Nubia. The region’s three principalkingdoms were converted to Coptic Christianityby missionaries in the 6 th century AD. These BlackChristian kingdoms coexisted with their MuslimArab neighbours in Egypt for centuries, until theinflux of Arab immigrants brought about theircollapse in the 13 th to 15 th centuries. Sudan wasthen partly converted to Islam.By 1874, Egypt had conquered all of Sudan andencouraged British interference in the region. Thisaroused Muslim opposition and led to the revoltof the Mahdi, who captured Khartoum in 1885and established a Muslim theocracy that lasteduntil 1898, when their forces were defeated by theBritish in the Battle of Omdurman. The countrywas then run jointly as the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan,a ‘condominium’ in which the British were thedominant partner. When Egypt became a Britishprotectorate in 1914, Sudan was taken underBritish rule until it achieved independence in1956 [2.12].The recent history of Sudan has been markedby turmoil, with several periods of conflict anda series of natural disasters leading to massivepopulation displacement. Civil strife began withthe Torit mutiny in 1955 and intensified until1962, by which time the south was effectivelyat war with the north. This situation lasted until1972. A fragile peace then prevailed for elevenyears, but from 1983, the war was more or lesscontinuous until January 2005, when it wasofficially ended by the signing of a ComprehensivePeace Agreement (CPA) between the SudaneseGovernment based in Khartoum and the SudanPeople’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) and alliesin the south.Low-level conflict, which had been ongoing inDarfur for a generation, developed into a newregional civil war in 2003. The war continuestoday, despite the signing of the Darfur PeaceAgreement in 2006. Low-level conflict also tookplace in eastern Sudan from the 1990s, thougha provisional peace agreement was concluded inOctober 2006.A detailed account of historical and currentconflicts in Sudan is provided in Chapter 4.2.3 Governance and economyGovernance structureIn accordance with the provisions of the 2005peace agreement, Sudan is now ruled by a centralgovernment, the Government of National Unity(GONU), headed by the President, Omar HassanAhmed El Bashir, and the First Vice-President,Salva Kiir Mayardit. The First Vice-President isalso the leader of the SPLM and the President ofthe new Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS),which has substantial regional autonomy. Thisstructure will stay in effect until 2011, at whichtime Southern Sudan may choose through areferendum either to remain an autonomousregion or to become independent.Sudan is divided into twenty-five states. Eachhas its own state government and a measure ofexecutive and legislative authority. The GOSSadministers ten states. Two states, Blue Nile andSouthern Kordofan, as well as part of a third state(the Abyei region), are geographically part of thenorth, but have historical, tribal and ethnic linksto the south [2.12]. A compromise was reachedfor these three areas in the peace agreement. Thenation’s capital Khartoum is subject to a specialregime that differs from the rest of the north: asthe peace accord states that Khartoum ‘shall be asymbol of national unity and reflect the diversityof Sudan’, it is administered by an eight-membercabinet composed of four members from theNational Congress Party (NCP), two members ofthe Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM)and two from other northern parties. While Sharia(Islamic law) continues to be the legal system inthe north, non-Muslims – mainly Southerners– are exempt from it.The governance system in Sudan has been severelyaffected by the four decades of instability thecountry has undergone. Developing governanceand the rule of law is accordingly one of the majorchallenges set out in the UN and Partners WorkPlan for 2007 [2.1].A detailed discussion of Sudan’s governancestructures is provided in Chapter 13.36 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

A2 COUNTRY CONTEXTFigure 2.2 Sudan political mapL I B Y AE G Y P TR EDN O R THE R NR E D SEAS E20 o 100N ILEC H A D15 o10 o5 oWESTERNDARFURC E N TRA LA F RICANR E P UBL I CNOR T H E R ND A RFU R N O RTH E RNSOU T HER ND ARF U RW E S T E R NB A H RNORTHERNBAHREL GHAZALE LG H A Z A LD E M O C R A T I C R EO F T H E C O N25 oSW E S T E R NK O RDO F A NS O U T H E R NAbyeiWARRABK O R D O FANU NI T YL A K E SE Q U AT O R I ABAHR EQUATORIAEL JABALKHAW H I T ERT OE LN I L EU P P E RU MG E ZU D A NN I L EJON G L EII R AEASTERNS E N N A RK A SSA LAG E DAR E FNubaMountains BLUESouthernS O U T H EPUGOB L ICSR NU D A NThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Three AreasUNEP/DEWA/GRID~Europe 2006NILEU G A N D A30 o 35 oBlue NileE R I T R E AE T H I OPI AK E N Y AKilometres0 200 300 400 500Lambert Azimuthal Equal-Area ProjectionSources:SIM; vmaplv0, NIMA; various maps; UN Cartographic Section.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •37

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTEconomyDespite relatively abundant natural resources,Sudan is currently a very poor country dueto underdevelopment, conflict and politicalinstability. In 2004, the gross domestic productper person was estimated at USD 740 (usingPurchasing Power Parity figures), as compared toUSD 3,806 and USD 1,248 for neighbouringEgypt and Kenya respectively.While the production and export of oil aregrowing significantly in importance, Sudan’sprimary resources are agricultural. Sorghum isthe country’s principal food crop, and livestock,cotton, sesame, peanuts and gum arabic are itsmajor agricultural exports. Sudan, however,remains a net importer of food and a majorrecipient of food aid.Industrial development, which consists ofagricultural processing and various light industrieslocated in Khartoum North, is limited inSudan. The country is reputed to have greatmineral resources but the real extent of these isunknown.Extensive petroleum exploration began in the mid-1970s and export began in 1999. Sudan’s currentproduction is approximately 500,000 barrels perday, and it is expected that the oil industry willsoon rival agriculture in importance.While Sudan remains poor overall, an 11.8percent growth of the GDP is forecast for 2007[2.3] and parts of the country have recently startedA sandstorm in Khartoum in May 2006. Sand anddust storms are common throughout northernand central Sudanto experience rapid development. The presentoil-financed economic and construction boom isfocused on Khartoum, Port Sudan and a limitednumber of mega-projects such as the Merowedam. Most of the major projects are managedand partly financed by foreign investors andmultinational firms, including Middle Easternand Asian companies.Sudan’s industrial sector, including its oil industry,is discussed in more detail in Chapter 7.© UNOPS SUDAN2.4 ClimateAverage monthly temperatures in Sudan varybetween 26°C and 36°C. The hottest areas, wheretemperatures regularly exceed 40°C, are found inthe northern part of the country.Spate irrigation crops in the Tokar delta, Red Seastate. Agriculture is the largest economic sectorin SudanThe dominant characteristic of Sudan’s climateis a very wide geographical variation in rainfall[2.15]. In the north, annual precipitation rangesfrom close to zero near the border with Egypt,to approximately 200 mm around the capital,Khartoum. Sand and dust storms that can covervast regions and last for days at a time are adefining feature of this low rainfall belt.38 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

2 COUNTRY CONTEXTA camel herder in Northern state. The northernmost third of Sudan has a desert climateIn central Sudan, a division of seasons can beobserved:• winter or dry season (December-February);• advancing monsoon season (March-May);and• retreating monsoon season (October-November).Just south of Khartoum, annual precipitationrarely exceeds 700 mm. In addition, precipitationis relatively erratic, with a combination of shortandlong-term droughts, and periods of heavyrainfall.The extreme south-west is almost equatorial: thedry season is very short and falls in between twopeak rainy seasons, and annual precipitation canexceed 1,600 mm.The issue of climatic variability and its link toenvironmental problems is covered in more detailin Chapter 3.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •39

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFigure 2.3L IBY ASudan average annual temperatureE G Y P TR EDS EDongolaPort SudanAC H A DSUDAEd DamerN15 oKhartoumWad MedaniKassalaE R I T R E AEl GeneinaEl FasherEl ObeidRabak SingaGedarefNyalaEd DamazinKadugli20 o 10010 oC E N TRA LA F RICANR E P UBL I CAweilWauBentiuWarrabRumbekMalakalBorE T H I OPI A5 oD E M O C R A T I C R EO F T H E C O N25 oPUGOYambioB L ICJubaThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Mean Annual Temperature(1961-1990)ToritU G A N D A30 o 35 oK E N Y AKilometres0 200 300 400 500Lambert Azimuthal Equal-Area Projection20 22 24 26 28 30 o CUNEP/DEWA/GRID~Europe 2006Sources:IPCC and CRU; SIM (Sudan Interagency Mapping); vmaplv0, NIMA;UN Cartographic Section.40 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

2 COUNTRY CONTEXTFigure 2.4L IBY ASudan average annual precipitationE G Y P TR EDS EDongolaPort SudanAEd DamerC H A DEl GeneinaNyalaS U D A NEl FasherKhartoumEl ObeidRabak SingaWad MedaniKassalaGedarefEd DamazinE R I T R E AKadugli10 oAweilWarrabBentiuMalakalE T H I OPI A20 o 10015 oC E N TRA LA F RICANR E P UBL I CWauRumbekBor5 oD E M O C R A T I C R EO F T H E C O N25 oYambioPUGOB L ICJubaThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Mean Annual Precipitation(1961-1990)ToritU G A N D A30 o 35 oK E N Y AKilometres0 200 300 400 500Lambert Azimuthal Equal-Area Projection0 25 100 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 mm per yearUNEP/DEWA/GRID~Europe 2006Sources:IPCC and CRU;SIM (Sudan Interagency Mapping);vmaplv0, NIMA; UN Cartographic Section.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •41

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT2.5 Geography and vegetationzonesA large and geographicallydiverse countryWith an area of 2.5 million km², Sudan is the largestcountry in Africa. Its territory crosses over 18 degreesof latitude, which results in an extremely diverseenvironment ranging from arid desert in the northto tropical forests in the south. Sudan is borderedby ten countries: Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya,Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, theCentral African Republic, Chad and Libya.The majority of Sudan is very flat, with extensiveplains in an altitude range of 300 to 600 m abovesea level. Isolated mountain ranges are foundacross the country, including the Red Sea hills inthe far north-east, the Jebel Marra plateau in thewest, the Nuba mountains in the centre, and theImatong mountains in the south-east. The averageelevation of these mountains is 1,000 m above sealevel, but the highest point is Mount Kinyeti inthe Imatong range, which reaches 3,187 m.The dominant river system in Sudan is the Nile,whose basin extends over 77 percent of the country.The river’s two main tributaries, the Blue and WhiteNile, flow into Sudan from Ethiopia and Ugandarespectively, and meet in Khartoum before flowingnorth into Egypt. In an otherwise arid terrain, theNile plays a crucial role in the country’s variousecosystems. Sudan also has over 750 km of coastlineand territorial waters in the Red Sea, which includean archipelago of small islands.across the country. To provide context for theissues under discussion in the following chapters,the most ecologically significant regions andgeographic features of Sudan are briefly describedbelow. From an environmental perspective, themost important regions and features are:1. territorial seas;2. the coastline and islands;3. northern, central and south-eastern aridregions, including mountain ranges;4. the central semi-arid region known as theSahel belt;5. the Marra plateau;6. the Nuba mountains;7. wetlands;8. the southern clay plains;9. savannah of various types based on rainfalland soil profile;10. subtropical lowlands and the plateau in theextreme south of Sudan; and11. the Imatong, Dongotona, Acholi and JebelGumbiri mountain ranges.It should be noted that many different versionsof ecological, soil, vegetation and livelihoodzoning for Sudan are in circulation, for a rangeof purposes [2.15, 2.16, 2.17, 2.18]. The zoneslisted above and discussed in more detail beloware a simplified blend of these classifications, witha focus on major variations between ecosystems.Twenty-nine percent of Sudan’s total area isclassified as desert, 19 percent as semi-desert, 27percent as low rainfall savannah, 14 percent ashigh rainfall savannah, 10 percent as flood region(swamps and areas affected by floods) and less thanone percent as true mountain vegetation [2.15].Note that the precise figures in each class are highlydependent upon the classification system and date;the above are based on recent FAO figures.Different regions and associatedenvironmental issuesDue to its geographic and climatic diversity,environmental issues affecting Sudan differ radicallySandstorm in Northern Darfir42 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

2 COUNTRY CONTEXTFigure 2.5LibyaSudan regional environmentsEgypt±3c,d,e3bChad3 c,d,e3f3a3bKhartoum3bEritrea59Identified approximate northern4 Sahel beltlimit of intensive rain-fed agriculture677EthiopiaCentral AfricanRepublic78LegendVegetation zones (report reference)Coastal plain (3 a )Coastal and arid region mountain ranges (3 b)Stony and sandy plains; dune fields; wadis (3 c, d, e)Nileriverinestrip(3f)Marra plateau (5)Nuba mountains (6)Wetlands (7)Flood plains (8)Savannah (9)Subtropical lowlands (10)Imatong mountains and Jebel Gumbiri ranges (11)Sahel belt (4)Sources: Admin layers (Vmap0, GRID).Vegetation zones: adapted from Sudan InternationalTravel Maps and Ecological zones (Ecologytextbook for the Sudan, 1984).Sahel belt: adapted from "Variability of annualmaximum vegetation index (NDVI)"10Democratic Republicof Congo11KenyaUgandaKilometres0 100 200 300 400 500Projection: Lambert Azimutal Equal-Area ProjectionThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •43

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT1. Territorial seasThe Sudanese Red Sea is famous for its attractiveand mostly pristine habitats, and particularly forits coral reefs. The Red Sea is home to a varietyof pelagic fish including tuna, but the overall fishdensity is relatively low due to limited nutrientinput. Sudan’s territorial waters host importantpopulations of seabirds and turtles, as well asmammals like dugong, dolphins and whales.Sudan is a member of the Regional Organizationfor the Conservation of the Environment of theRed Sea and the Gulf of Aden (PERSGA).2. Coastline and islandsThe coastline of Sudan on the Red Sea isapproximately 750 km long, not including allthe embayments and inlets. Numerous islands arescattered along the coast, the majority of which haveno water or vegetation. The dominant coastal formsare silty beaches, rocky headlands and salt marshes.Fringing coral reefs are very common and waterclarity is high due to the lack of sedimentation.Average precipitation in the coastal areas isextremely low, ranging from 36 mm per yearat Halaib to 164 mm per year at Suakin, soA Manta ray in Sanganeb Marine National Parkthat the desert extends all the way to the tidemark. The only exception is the Tokar delta,which receives substantial run-off from seasonalstreams originating in the Ethiopian and Eritreanhighlands. The islands and most of the coastline arerelatively undisturbed and host important feedingand nesting sites for a variety of seabirds.Barren headland with fringing reef 100 km north of Port Sudan44 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

2 COUNTRY CONTEXTThe coral reefs fringing the Sudanese coastline and islands are generally in excellent condition© RED SEA ENTERPRISES, PORT SUDANA salt marsh 40 km south of Port Sudan. Offshore, seagrass beds support various marine life• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •45

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT3. Northern and south-eastern arid regionsThe majority of Sudan can be classified as aridland, with approximately 29 percent classifiedas true desert (less than 90 mm of rain per year).Four of the northern states are located within theSahara desert and its margins. A small area in theextreme south-east of the country (the Toposaregion) is also semi-arid.The common features of the northern deserts areextreme temperatures, very low rainfall and, as a result,sparse vegetation. Within this pattern, variations aredue to nuances in precipitation, geology, topography,and isolated riverine regions. Important sub-regionswithin the northern deserts include:a. The coastal plain. This gently sloping plain,which is some 56 km wide in the south near Tokarand approximately 24 km wide near the Egyptianborder, is intersected by spurs of the adjacentmountain ranges and wadis (intermittently flowingrivers). A notable feature is the Tokar delta, whichhas sufficient groundwater and seasonal floodingto support intensive agriculture.The coastal plain 10 km south of Suakinb. Coastal and arid region mountain ranges. Thecoastal mountain range runs virtually uninterruptedalong the entire coastline, with peak elevationsgenerally in the order of 1,100 m. Mountains alsoextend along the Eritrean and Ethiopian borders,where they form the western edge of the Ethiopianplateau. The coastal and other hyper-arid regionalmountain environments are characterized by verythin or absent soil cover and negligible vegetation,except in alluvial valleys and isolated oases.Coastal Jebel46 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

2 COUNTRY CONTEXTFigure 2.6Coastal plain and mountain range3D view of JabalDanai TohadalDrainageJabal Danai TohadalKilometres0 2 4 6 8 10The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.c. Stony and sandy plains. The majority of desertsin Sudan are stony and sandy plains, which representareas of wind erosion. In the most extreme cases, soilcover is completely absent over large areas.d. Dune fields. Sand dunes occur across most ofthe Sahara and Sudanese deserts, although theirtypes and density vary significantly from regionto region. The largest dune fields are found in thenorth-west, in Northern state. Dunes can be mobileor immobile/fixed; the former present major threatsto agricultural land in arid regions.Stony plain 60 km north of Port SudanMobile dune in Northern state• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •47

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTe. Wadis. Wadis or khors (generally dry seasonalwatercourses) are ecological hotspots withindesert and semi-desert environments. Drainageand infiltration from seasonal rainfall eventsconcentrate beneath the dry stream beds, andsupport trees and short-lived grasses, in additionto higher densities of the more drought-resistantshrub species.f. The Nile riverine strip. The waters of the Nilehave sustained civilizations in the arid regionsof Egypt and Sudan since the development ofagriculture over 10,000 years ago. The annual wetseason flow surge results in regular flooding andsediment deposition on a narrow strip along nearlythe entire length of the Nile, in an otherwise veryarid environment. The width of the cultivatedand heavily developed strip has been expanded byirrigation schemes, but outside of these areas, it isgenerally no more than two kilometres wide.With the exception of the Nile riverine strip andthe coastal plain, the desert regions of Sudanare relatively undeveloped, as the land can onlysupport low-intensity pastoralism and isolatedoasis communities.4. The central semi-arid region: the Sahel beltThe Sahel, which extends from Senegal eastwardto Sudan, forms a narrow transitional bandbetween the arid Sahara to the north and thehumid savannah to the south. With eight toeleven dry months per year, it has an approximateannual precipitation of 300-600 mm. As thebulk of agriculture in Sudan is practised withinand to the south of the Sahel belt, most of theoriginal landscape has been altered: the majorityof central Sudan, where rain-fed and irrigatedagriculture predominate, is now covered by flatand open fields with limited tree cover.In its natural state, the Sahel belt is characterizedby baobab and acacia trees, and sparse grass cover.Since the late 20th century, it has been subjectedto desertification and soil erosion caused bynatural climate change, as well as overgrazingand farming. The countries of the Sahel zonealso suffered devastating droughts and famine inthe early 1970s, and again in the 1980s. Apartfrom long-term droughts, the Sahel is prone tohighly variable rainfall, with associated problemsfor livestock- and crop-rearing.Nile riverine agriculture, Northern state. A narrow strip of irrigated land on either side of the main Nile inthe desert regions supports up to three crops a year48 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

2 COUNTRY CONTEXTFigure 2.7Nile riverine stripDesertIrrigated agriculture all alongtheNileriverinestripKilometres0 2 4 6 8 10The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Figure 2.8Sahel belt and Gezira irrigation schemeSahelian vegetationIrrigation schemesKilometres0 5 10 15 20 25The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •49

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTA baobab tree in the Sahel during the dry season, Northern KordofanAccurately mapping and defining the Sahel in Sudanis problematic due to the limited records availableand the changing climate. Accordingly, UNEP hasused three different indicators for the Sahel belt andthe associated limits of rain-fed agriculture:• historical rainfall records converted to annualaverage contours for 300-600 mm;• the approximate northern limit of intensiverain-fed agriculture as indicated by UNEP50 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

2 COUNTRY CONTEXTFigure 2.9Jebel Marra and Sahel belt3D view ofJebel MarraWetter mountain regionswith woodland savannahDrier plains withopen savannahRiverine woodlandsKilometres0 10 20 30 40 50The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.analysis of Landsat images dating from2000 to 2005 (note that scattered rain-fedagriculture and pastoralism occur well northof this line); and• a measure of annual rainfall and associatedvegetation variability recorded by satelliteimages (analysis by the Vulnerability Analysisand Mapping Unit, WFP-Khartoum), usingan annual change rate of 15 percent or morefor the period 1982-2003 [2.11].5. The Marra plateauBushland and wadi on the southern limit of theSahel, Southern DarfurThe Marra plateau is a rugged volcanic range thatoccupies approximately 80,000 km² in centralDarfur, with an average altitude of 1,500 mand a maximum elevation of 3,088 m at JebelMarra. The higher and more southerly parts ofthe plateau have a wetter microclimate (over600 mm of rain per year) than the surroundingarea, which is relatively arid with erratic rainfall.The plateau originally had extensive woodlands,which have been partly removed for agriculturaldevelopment.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •51

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT6. The Nuba mountainsThe Nuba mountains are a set of widely spacedsmall mountains located in the state of SouthernKordofan. Their average altitude is 900 m with amaximum elevation of 1,326 m at Jebel Heiban.They are relatively steep-sided, with extensivehinterlands and a wetter microclimate thatresults in higher-density forest coverage than thesurrounding savannah.7. WetlandsPermanent wetlands make up approximately fivepercent of the area of Southern Sudan, whilea much greater area, both north and south, isseasonally flooded. The largest wetlands and floodplains are all linked to the Nile tributaries thattraverse the southern plains. The largest wetlandis the Sudd, which is formed by the White Nile invery flat topography between the towns of Bor andMalakal. Covering more than 30,000 km 2 , the Suddcomprises multiple channels, lakes and swamps,with a maze of thick emergent aquatic vegetation.Fringing swamps on the White Nile, Jonglei stateIn the south, the wetlands are essentiallyundeveloped and represent a safe haven forwildlife, including migratory birds.Villages perched on steep hillsides in the Nuba mountains, Southern Kordofan52 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

2 COUNTRY CONTEXTFigure 2.10Sudd wetland and flood plainsPermanently floodedzonesSeasonally flooded zonesOpen watersKilometres0 2 4 6 8 10The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.and cracks. These areas are relatively fertile butdifficult to cultivate.Mongalla gazelles grazing in the tall grass of theclay plains in Padak district, Jonglei stateThe geographic border between flood plainsand the drier Sahel belt is somewhat arbitrary inthe clay soil regions, as even the dry areas floodeasily during high rainfall events. The boundarybetween flood plains and wetlands is also oftenarbitrary, as many parts of Southern Sudan consistof a network of seasonally variable wetlandsinterlacing multiple small flood plains.8. Flood plainsMuch of central and south Sudan is covered bysediment deposited in the Nile basin and knownlocally as ‘black cotton’ soil. Due to its high claycontent, the soil in these areas retains water inthe wet season to form very soft and virtuallyimpassable shallow flood plains. In the dry season,the water disappears from all but a few swamps,waterholes and tributaries, and the clay shrinksWhite-backed vultures resting on the new grassof the seasonally flooded ‘toic’ in Padak district• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •53

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT9. SavannahLarge areas of central and south Sudan areconsidered to be savannah, classified as low-densitywoodland, mixed scrub and grassland. Within thisbroad class, the density and proportions of thethree vegetation types vary significantly accordingto regional climates, soil types, topography andthe influence of deliberate seasonal burning, whichtends to favour the development of grasslands.10. Subtropical lowlandsThe extreme south and south-west of Sudan canbe classified as subtropical. This is reflected inthe vegetation, which changes relatively abruptlyfrom savannah to semi-tropical forest in the regionsouth and south-west of Juba.The land bordering the Democratic Republicof Congo in the south-west rises to form acontinuous low range known as the Ironstonehills. These hills also form the boundary betweenthe Nile and Congo watersheds. The regionsupports intensive agriculture and some forestry,but is otherwise undeveloped.High rainfall woodland savannah in Bor district,Jonglei state11. The Imatong, Dongotona, Acholi and JebelGumbiri mountain rangesThe Imatong, Dongotona and Acholi mountainranges flank the White Nile in the extreme southof Southern Sudan. Their average altitude is 900m, with a peak elevation of 3,187 m at MountKinyeti, which is the highest point in Sudan.They are characterized by steep slopes and highrainfall, resulting in dense forest and high-yieldagriculture. The Jebel Gumbiri mountains, furtherwest, support extensive teak plantations.High rainfall woodland savannah with a small seasonal wetland in Wau district, Western Bahr el Ghazal54 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

2 COUNTRY CONTEXTFigure 2.11Imatong, Dongotona and Acholi mountain rangesAcholi mountainssteep and forested slopesLowlandsdrier open plainsUgandan borderThis is a 3D view extracted fromGoogle Earth software.Terrain is exaggerated tohighlight mountainous areas.Kilometres0 5 10 15 20 25The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Subtropical vegetation and red ironstone soil in Yei district, Central Equatoria• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •55

Natural Disastersand DesertificationA Beja nomad village in Kassalastate. Climate change anddesertification threaten thelivelihoods of millionsof Sudanese living on theedge of the dry Sahel belt.

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTNatural disasters anddesertification3.1 Introduction andassessment activitiesIntroductionNatural disasters in the contrasting forms ofdrought and flooding have historically occurredfrequently in Sudan, and have contributedsignificantly to population displacement and theunderdevelopment of the country. A silent andeven greater disaster is the ongoing process ofdesertification, driven by climate change, drought,and the impact of human activities.In Sudan, desertification is clearly linked toconflict, as there are strong indications thatthe hardship caused to pastoralist societies bydesertification is one of the underlying causes ofthe current war in Darfur.Given the severity of the impact of such eventsand processes, there is a clear and urgent need forimproved climate analysis, disaster prediction andrisk reduction for Sudan in general, and for Darfurin particular. The current and forecast impact ofdesertification, especially, is poorly understood,and major efforts are required to investigate,anticipate and correct this phenomenon.This chapter discusses the key linkages betweennatural disasters, desertification and the environment,as well as options for mitigating boththe risk of disasters occurring and their impactwhen they do occur.Assessment activitiesUNEP’s work on climate change and naturaldisasters in Sudan was part of the larger investigationof the agricultural, forestry and water resourcesectors; fieldwork details are accordingly providedin Chapters 8, 9 and 10 respectively.Though relatively little background literaturecan be found on flooding in Sudan, a significantbody of documentation is available on drought.In addition, a detailed and authoritative projecton climate in Sudan was completed in 2003 withthe assistance of the UN Framework Conventionon Climate Change (UNFCCC) [3.1]. The finalreports from this project provide much of thetechnical basis for the country-specific climatechange work presented in this chapter.Rainfall in the Sahel commonly falls in short torrential bursts, resulting in extensive but short-lived flooding58 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

3 NATURAL DISASTERS AND DESERTIFICATIONEven though 2006 was a relatively ‘good’ year, this small dam in Western Darfur dried up completely.Rain only falls during four months of the year, so surface reserves do not last through the dry season3.2 Water shortagesSudan suffers from a chronic shortage offreshwater overall. In addition, water distributionis extremely unequal, with major regional,seasonal and annual variations. Underlying thisvariability is a creeping trend towards generallydrier conditions.Annual climate variability and droughtInsufficient and highly variable annual precipitationis a defining feature of the climate of most ofSudan. A variability analysis of rainfall recordsfrom 1961 to 1990 in Northern and SouthernKordofan found that annual precipitation rangedfrom 350 to 850 mm, with an average annualvariation of 65 percent in the northern partsof Northern Kordofan and 15 percent in thesouthern parts of Southern Kordofan [3.1].Annual variability and relative scarcity of rainfall– in the north of Sudan in particular – have adominant effect on agriculture and food security,and are strongly linked to displacement andrelated conflicts. Drought events also change theenvironment, as dry spells kill otherwise longlivedtrees and result in a general reduction of thevegetation cover, leaving land more vulnerable toovergrazing and erosion.Together with other countries in the Sahel belt,Sudan has suffered a number of long and devastatingdroughts in the past decades. All regions have beenaffected, but the worst impacts have been felt inthe central and northern states, particularly inNorthern Kordofan, Northern state, Northern andWestern Darfur, and Red Sea and White Nile states.The most severe drought occurred in 1980-1984,and was accompanied by widespread displacementand localized famine. Localized and less severedroughts (affecting between one and five states)were also recorded in 1967-1973, 1987, 1989,1990, 1991, 1993 and 2000 [3.1].Isolated drought years generally have littlepermanent effect on the environment. In the case ofcentral Sudan, however, the eighteen recorded yearsof drought within the last half-century are certainto have had a major influence on the vegetationprofile and soil conditions seen in 2006.Recent research has indicated that the most likelycause of these historical droughts was a medium-term(years) change in ocean temperature, rather thanlocal factors such as overgrazing [3.2]. Therefore, thepotential for such droughts to occur again remains.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •59

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTLong-term regional rainfall reductionIn addition to and separately from the variationin precipitation noted above, there is mountingevidence of long-term regional climate change inseveral parts of the country. This is witnessed by avery irregular but marked decline in rainfall, forwhich the clearest indications are again found inKordofan and Darfur states.Table 4 below summarizes the long-term trendsnoted, as indicated by thirty-year moving averagesof annual precipitation for three locations inDarfur.Precipitation records have been kept in Darfursince 1917. However, there are still only threecontinuously monitored stations for an area ofover 0.8 million km 2 . The data below shows anoverall trend of declining rainfall, with the mostmarked decrease on the northern edge of the Sahelin Northern Darfur. Since records began, the tenyearmoving average for El Fasher has declinedfrom 300 mm per annum to approximately 200mm, while the last time rainfall exceeded 400 mmwas in 1953 [3.3].The scale of historical climate change as recordedin Northern Darfur is almost unprecedented: thereduction in rainfall has turned millions of hectaresof already marginal semi-desert grazing land intodesert. The impact of climate change is consideredto be directly related to the conflict in the region, asdesertification has added significantly to the stresson the livelihoods of pastoralist societies, forcingthem to move south to find pasture.A more detailed discussion of linkages betweenclimate change and conflict in Darfur is providedin Chapter 4.The foundations of an abandoned villageon the steep hills of the northern limits of theJebel Marra plateau, Northern Darfur. Evidenceof abandonment of rural land can be found allalong the northern edge of the SahelClimate change model predictions providegrim warnings for dryland SudanThe Sudan climate change study conducted in2003 provides a solid technical basis for discussion.Moreover, a range of very recent regional studies,as well as a number of additional assessments ofthe potential impacts of climate change, indicategood agreement with earlier work. Following is aconcise summary of this work, to set the contextfor the findings of UNEP’s assessment.Table 4.Rain gaugelocationEl Fasher,Northern DarfurNyala,Southern DarfurEl Geneina,Western DarfurLong-term rainfall reduction in DarfurAverage annualrainfall (mm)1946 - 1975Average annualrainfall (mm)1976 - 2005Reduction (-)Percentage272.36 178.90 - 93.46 - 34 %448.71 376.50 - 72.21 - 16 %564.20 427.70 - 136.50 - 24 %60 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

3 NATURAL DISASTERS AND DESERTIFICATIONof viability for rain-fed crop production, whereeven small increases in temperature and minorreductions in precipitation could tip the balancetowards desert-like conditions.Other climate models covering all of Africagenerally predict similar problems, although thereare some major differences in predicted annualrainfall [3.4, 3.5]. One model, which focused onchanges in the growing season, predicted that in theSahel belt, growing seasons would reduce and thepercentage of failed harvests would increase [3.6].The scale of the change varies from region to region,but in Darfur it is predicted to be in the order of 5to 20 percent from 2000 levels by 2020.There is generally no clear edge to the desert, but inthis case in Northern Darfur, the boundary betweenthe overgrazed sandy rangeland and the threatenedrain-fed agricultural zone is quite markedThe 2003 study selected Northern and SouthernKordofan for detailed analysis; all the resultspresented thus relate to those areas only. A‘baseline climate’ was determined using rainfalland temperature data from 1961 to 1990. A rangeof global warming scenarios were then modelledto predict changes in temperature and rainfallfrom the baseline to the years 2030 and 2060.Summary: history and modellingcombine for a downward forecastHistorical data, anecdotal field reports andmodelling all point to the same general trend.Overall, rainfall is becoming increasingly scarceand/or unreliable in Sudan’s Sahel belt, and thistrend is likely to continue. On this basis alone,large tracts of the Sahel will be severely impactedby declining food productivity over the nextgeneration and beyond.The climate model results indicated a 0.5 to 1.5°Crise in the average annual temperature and anapproximate five percent drop in rainfall, thoughresults varied across the study area. These findingswere then used to project the scale of potentialchanges in crop yields for sorghum, millet andgum arabic.The final results are alarming: the crop modelsshow a major and potentially disastrous decline incrop production for Northern Kordofan and lesserbut significant drops further south. For example,the modelled sorghum production in the regionof El Obeid is predicted to drop by 70 percent,from 495 kg/hectare to 150 kg/hectare.These dramatic findings are due principally tothe fact that the region is situated on the fringesof the Sahara desert and on the northern limitSettlements like Malka in Northern Darfur arealready on the margins of survival; a small reductionin rainfall could suffice to render large parts of thesemi-arid desert fringe unviable. Land degradationis clearly visible as large swathes of bare red subsoil• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •61

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT3.3 Desertification: Sudan’sgreatest environmentalproblemDesertification, as defined in the UN Conventionto Combat Desertification, is the degradation ofland in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areascaused by climatic change and human activities.In northern Sudan, there is high awareness ofthe issue of desertification within the academiccommunity, and historical evidence of a numberof attempts to quantify and/or limit the extent ofthe problem since at least the 1950s [3.7]. As earlyas 1953, a landmark study discussed several of thesources of the problem (such as overgrazing), aswell as its implications (long-term damage andreductions in productivity) [3.8].UNEP considers that three compoundingdesertification processes are underway in Sudan,which are relatively difficult to distinguish,separate and quantify on the ground:1. Climate-based conversion of land types fromsemi-desert to desert. The scale and duration ofthe reduction in rainfall noted above is sufficientto have changed the natural environment,irrespective of human influence. This type ofchange occurs as a regional process, where lessdrought-resistant vegetation gradually dies offor fails to reproduce, resulting in a lower-densitymix of different species. In a shift as rapid asthat observed in Northern Darfur and NorthernKordofan, this is manifest first and foremost in thewidespread death of trees during drought events,which are not followed by recovery. This has beenthe case for Acacia senegal, the tree that producesgum arabic (see Case Study 8.2), for example. Thelimited figures available indicate a southward shiftin desert climate of approximately 100 km over40 years [3.7].2. Degradation of existing desert environments,including wadis and oases. At least 29 percent ofSudan is already true desert. Within this large area,however, are hundreds of smaller wetter regionsFuelwood vendors in Red Sea state. Deforestation is a major cause of land degradation in desertenvironments. Tree cover is concentrated in seasonal wadis, where it helps retain soil that wouldotherwise be swept away by wind and flash floods62 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

3 NATURAL DISASTERS AND DESERTIFICATIONFigure 3.1Desertification in Bara district, Northern KordofanBara townshipSand duneencroachmentDevegetatedzoneBaraExpanding rain-fedagricultureActive desertificationprocessKilometres0 2 4 6 8 10The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.resulting from localized rainfall catchments,rivers and groundwater flows. Virtually all suchareas inspected by UNEP were found to bemoderately to severely degraded, principally dueto deforestation, overgrazing and erosion.3. Conversion of land types from semi-desertto desert by human action. Over-exploitation ofsemi-desert environments through deforestation,overgrazing and cultivation results in habitatconversion to desert, even though rainfall may stillbe sufficient to support semi-desert vegetation. InSudan, a particular problem has been the conversionof dry and fragile rangelands into traditional andmechanized cropland. A detailed analysis of theseprocesses is provided in Chapter 8.These date palms are submerged by shiftingsands. Farmers have attempted to hold backthe sands by building walls around the trees,but these will eventually be submerged as wellRegional differences in soil types and topographyalso play a part in this complex three-prongedprocess. The soil in the north and west of Sudan,for instance, is sandy and prone to water andwind erosion, while the south and east have moreresistant clay soil. In addition, mountain rangessuch as the Jebel Marra plateau form high rainfallwatersheds in otherwise arid areas.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •63

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTTo summarize, there is sufficient disseminatedevidence to support the following findings:• Moderate to severe land degradation isongoing in the desert and semi-arid regionsthat cover the northern half of Sudan;• A 50 to 200 km southward shift of theboundary between desert and semi-desert hasoccurred since rainfall and vegetation recordsbegan in the 1930s. This shift, however, hasnot been well quantified and is based largely onanecdotal evidence and small-scale studies;• The desert and semi-desert boundaries areexpected to continue to shift southwardsdue to declining precipitation/reliability ofprecipitation;• Most of the remaining semi-arid and low rainfallsavannah on sand, representing approximately25 percent of Sudan’s agricultural land, is atconsiderable risk of further desertification,to the extent that food production in theseregions will at minimum plateau, and morelikely continue to drop significantly (i.e. up to20 percent or more); and• Modelled predictions of a future 70 percentdrop in food production in Northern Kordofanhave actually already taken place on a smallerscale and on a short-term and local basis,due to reduced rainfall and ongoing landdegradation and abandonment. This trendis expected to worsen with time and thepredicted result is that in the absence ofmajor changes in agricultural patterns, foodinsecurity will only increase in these regions.The area at greatest risk is the Sahel belt, as shownin Figure 2.5. It includes the conflict-affected partsof Darfur, the previously drought-stricken partsof Northern Kordofan and Khartoum states, andconflict- and drought-stricken Kassala state.Much of the evidence for the above findings ispiecemeal, anecdotal and/or based on site-specificdata. The limited numerical data available doesvalidate the anecdotal findings, but further solidand comprehensive analysis is clearly needed.A thin tree belt prevents a dune fromoverwhelming irrigated fields in Northern stateThe fields’ survival is threatened by uncontrolledcutting in the nearby protective tree belt64 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

3 NATURAL DISASTERS AND DESERTIFICATIONThis abandoned field within a collapsed irrigation scheme in Khartoum state previously supportedlow density rangeland. It is now barren and its remaining topsoil is being blown away• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •65

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT3.4 Water damageFloodingDespite serious water shortages, floods arecommon in Sudan. The two predominant types offloods are localized floods caused by exceptionallyheavy rains and run-off (flash floods), andwidespread floods caused by overflow of the Nileand its tributaries.Severe flash floods were recorded in 1962-1965,1978-1979, 1988, 1994, 1998, 1999 [3.1] and2006. This last flood was directly observed byUNEP in the field. Though generally short induration, these events can cause major damage tovillages and urban and agricultural areas locatedin catchment and drainage zones.Nile floods usually originate from heavy rainfall inthe (now largely deforested) catchment areas of theEthiopian mountains, which causes unpredictablesurges in the flow of the Blue Nile. The sequenceof severe Nile floods – which were recorded in1878, 1946, 1988, 1994, 1998 and 2006 – clearlyshows that the frequency of flooding has increaseddramatically over the last twenty years.Riverbank erosionRiverbank erosion is a natural phenomenon inSudan that can, in extreme cases, be characterized asa local disaster due to its social and environmentalOn the main Nile in Northern state. One of the causesof riverbank erosion is the increased frequency ofsand dune migration into the Nile, as the rapid influxof sand alters the riverflow, resulting in downstreamerosion as well as sediment depositionimpacts. This problem is most acute on the mainNile downstream from Khartoum, where peakwet season flows and river channel changes resultin very rapid removal of land from riversideterraces.The destruction witnessed by UNEP field teams isimpressive. For example, an estimated 17 percentof Ganati (1,420 ha), 25 percent of El Zouma(200 ha) and 30 percent of El Ghaba (1,215ha) cooperative societies in Northern state havebeen swept away in flood peaks [3.9]. Moreover,bank erosion leads to sedimentation problemselsewhere.Flash flooding 20 kmnorth of Khartoum,September 2006The submerged Sunut Forest wetland in themetropolitan Khartoum area, August 2006. Theflooding of the Nile is an annual natural event66 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

3 NATURAL DISASTERS AND DESERTIFICATIONFarmers in Northern state watch as the date palms on which their livelihoods depend are washed awayby riverbank erosion3.5 Disaster risk reductionand the mitigation ofdesertificationThe potential to predict and limitimpactsThe past thirty years have seen major developmentsin the field of disaster prediction and riskreduction. It is now generally recognized thatwhile the natural phenomena causing disastersare in most cases beyond human control, thevulnerability (of affected communities) is generallya result of human activity. This is particularly clearin Sudan.Drought. The vulnerability to drought is partlyrelated to social and development factors such asthe tendency to maximize herd sizes rather thanherd quality, and the lack of secure water resourcessuch as deep boreholes which can be relied uponduring short-term droughts.Completely degraded rangeland in NorthernDarfur. This area immediately outside a largeIDP camp has been subject to a combination oflong-term overgrazing and fodder gathering, withtopsoil largely removed and virtually no remnantvegetation or seed stock• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •67

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTrisk reduction. Environmental protection is onecomponent of an integrated response to theissue. For Sudan, this translates into the need forpractical risk-reduction measures, such as betterrangeland management to create a buffer capacityto deal with periodic droughts, or catchmentprotection to mitigate flood risk.As a result of overgrazing, the thin topsoil of thisrangeland near El Geneina in Western Darfur isbeing eroded by wind and waterDesertification. While climate-related desertificationcannot be easily addressed, desertification due tohuman activity can be limited through appropriateland use planning and regulation, to avoid overexploitationof fragile semi-desert regions.Flooding. The increase in Blue Nile flooding isconsidered to result partly from deforestation andovergrazing in the Ethiopian highlands. Besides,the impact of floods in Khartoum state is generallyhighest in the slums and IDP camps located inlow-lying areas previously left unoccupied as theyare known by locals to be flood-prone.Riverbank erosion. While adjustments in rivermorphology are a natural phenomenon, humanaction in altering stream discharge and sedimentloads has played a significant role in acceleratingthe process. The main impacts include watersheddegradation from deforestation, overgrazingand poor farming practices that increase streamturbidity, and the effects of dams on the BlueNile and Atbara rivers. The removal of riverbankvegetation through fires or grazing furtheraggravates the problem, as it weakens the banks’ability to withstand the erosive power of floodpeaks. In this context, UNEP anticipates thatpulsed water released from the new Merowe damwill become a major cause of downstream riverbankerosion on the main Nile (see Case Study 10.1).Action required in addition to morestudies and plansReducing the vulnerability of communities tonatural disasters is the core principle of disasterThere are already numerous policies, strategypapers and small-scale projects aimed at tacklingdrought and desertification in Sudan [3.7],and similar work is commencing on flood riskreduction. These positive early steps should besupported with substantial follow-up actions.3.6 Conclusions andrecommendationsConclusionConflict, displacement and food insecurity arethree of the most pressing issues facing Sudan,and the main reasons for the current internationalhumanitarian aid effort. Natural and partly manmadedisasters such as drought, desertificationand floods are major contributing causes to theseproblems.For the Government of Sudan, tackling theseissues will require a major investment in improvingnatural resources management, as well as theelaboration of new policies for the sustainableuse of natural resources. Investment by theinternational community is also warranted as partof the shift from humanitarian relief to sustainabledevelopment assistance.The role of vegetation in controlling desertification isexemplified in this photograph of degraded rangelandin Khartoum state. The clump of grass has beengrazed but its roots still retain the underlying soil, whilesurrounding soil has been removed by wind erosion68 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

3 NATURAL DISASTERS AND DESERTIFICATIONRiverbank erosion removed the supports of this irrigation pump intake system within months of its installation,and threatens to destroy it completely. Without mitigatory measures, the site is not suitable for such a projectBackground to the recommendationsRather than establish major investment programmesfocused solely on natural disasters anddesertification, it is recommended that these issuesbe integrated into development and food securityprogrammes at the national level. Accordingly,many recommendations relevant to this topicare spread throughout specific sector chapters,including agriculture, forestry, water resourcesand environmental governance (Chapters 8,9, 10 and 13 respectively). In this chapter,recommendations are limited to data collection,analysis and coordination.Because the areas of disaster risk reduction,desertification and adaptation to climate changein Sudan could benefit greatly from better data,robust analysis and improved data accessibility,investing in science is a main theme for theserecommendations. A second theme is awarenessraising,as alarming findings such as those expressedin climate change work to date should be validatedand widely communicated to promote a nationalresponse to these challenges.Finally, international assistance should play a strongrole in the fields of climate change adaptation anddisaster risk reduction, as these are global issues forwhich extensive expertise and financial resourcesare available to help countries like Sudan.Recommendations for the Governmentof National UnityR3.1 Invest in national weather and droughtforecasting services, including in measuresto increase data collection and existing dataaccessibility, and provide improved early warningof drought episodes. This work should tieinto existing international early warning andforecasting programmes, such as the US-basedFamine Early Warning System.CA: GI; PB: GONU MAF; UNP: UNEP; CE:3M; DU: 5 years, ongoingR3.2 Undertake a major study to trulyquantify desertification in Sudan. This shouldinclude a combination of fieldwork and remotesensing on both local and national scales.CA: GI; PB: GONU MAF; UNP: UNEP; CE:0.5M; DU: 2 yearsR3.3 Validate and disseminate climate changefindings together with desertification findings.The results of the two studies should be used as thebenchmark for land use planning in the drylandstates of Sudan.CA: AS; PB: GONU MAF; UNP: UNEP; CE:0.5M; DU: 2 years• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •69

Conflict and theEnvironmentThe African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS)military escort for UNEP fieldwork nearEl Geneina, Western Darfur. Intensecompetition over declining naturalresources is one of the underlyingcauses of the ongoing conflict.

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTConflict and theEnvironment4.1 Introduction andassessment activitiesIntroductionSudan has been wracked by civil war and regionalstrife for most of the past fifty years, and at thetime of finalizing this report, in June 2007, amajor conflict rages on in Darfur. At the sametime, Sudan suffers from a number of severeenvironmental problems, both within and outsidecurrent and historical conflict-affected areas.UNEP’s assessment has found that the connectionsbetween conflict and environment in Sudan areboth complex and pervasive: while many of theconflicts have been initiated partly by tension overthe use of shared natural resources, those sameresources have often been damaged by conflict.This chapter is divided into three main sections:1. a conflict overview, presenting a summary ofthe history of recent conflicts in Sudan;2. an overview of the role of natural resourcesin the instigation and continuation ofhistorical and current conflicts, listing themajor resources of concern and focusingspecifically on conflicts involving rangelandsand rain-fed agricultural land; and3. a brief environmental impact assessment ofthe various conflicts, evaluating the directand indirect impacts of conflict on Sudan’senvironment.Chronic environmental problems are covered inother chapters, though it should be noted thatat the local level, the boundary between chronicand conflict-related environmental issues is oftenunclear.Assessment activitiesThe assessment of conflict-related issues was anintegral part of fieldwork throughout the country.In addition, UNEP carried out a number ofspecific activities, including:• walkover inspections of destroyed militaryequipment in Juba, Bor and Padak, inSouthern Sudan;Visible remnants of war: abandoned armoured vehicles in Juba, Jonglei state, Southern Sudan72 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

4 CONFLICT AND THE ENVIRONMENT• viewing of unexploded ordnance (UXO) andmined areas (where walkovers were not possible)in Juba, Yei, Malakal and the Nuba mountains;• walkover inspections of burnt and destroyedvillages and forests east of El Geneina inWestern Darfur, and low flyovers in otherconflict-affected parts of Darfur;• viewing of weaponry held by various armedparties throughout Sudan;• interviews with de-mining and militaryexperts within Sudan; and• interviews with conflict-affected communitiesin Darfur, Southern Kordofan and SouthernSudan.These activities were considered sufficient to obtainan overview of the direct impacts of conflict andrelated issues for most of Sudan, though UNEPwas not able to carry out sufficient fieldwork inDarfur to allow for a full analysis. Moreover,UNEP chose not to investigate in detail the socialand political aspects of conflicts in Sudan, focusinginstead on their environmental dimension.4.2 Overview of conflicts inSudanA complex mosaicConflicts have directly affected over 60 percentof the country for the last 50 years, and hencegreatly influenced its development [4.1, 4.2].Understanding Sudan’s complex mosaic ofconflicts is an essential first step in establishingthe linkages between conflict and environmentin the region. This section accordingly provides abrief summary of the chronology and geographyof the various confrontations, together witha short account of the tactics and weaponryused. A thorough review of social and politicalfactors might be taken into consideration in acomprehensive conflict analysis, but is outside thescope of this environmental assessment.Tribal and small-scale conflictsTribal and small-scale conflicts fought onlywith small arms have occurred continuouslythroughout the history of Sudan [4.3]. No part ofthe country has been exempt from such clashes,but they have been concentrated in the south,west and east of the country for the last thirtyyears. Their causes are generally poorly recorded,but include disputes over cattle theft, access towater and grazing, and local politics [4.3]. Many– though not all – of the large-scale conflicts inSudan have a connection to tribal friction.The major conflictsThe majority of large-scale conflicts in Sudan havebeen long-term (five years or more) confrontationsbetween forces aligned with the central Sudanesegovernment based in Khartoum and an array ofanti-government forces. The government side hascomprised conventional army and air forces, andallied local militias. The opposition has consistedof local militias which – in the case of the SudanPeople’s Liberation Army (SPLA) in Southern Sudan– evolved into a united resistance army with a parallelgovernance and administration structure (the SudanPeople’s Liberation Movement or SPLM).Major conflicts have at times extended over as muchas 60 percent of the territory of Sudan, principally inthe ten southern states, but also in the west (all threeDarfur states), the centre (Blue Nile and SouthernKordofan states), the east (Kassala state) and thenorth-east (Red Sea state). In total, over 15 millionpeople have been directly affected, not includingthe approximately six million people currently stillimpacted in Darfur. Total conflict-related casualtiesare unknown, but estimated by a range of sources tobe in the range of two to three million [4.4].Although the government forces’ weaponry hasincluded tanks and heavy artillery, most militaryconfrontations have been fought mainly with lightweapons such as AK47 assault rifles. The oppositionforces’ armament has been generally light, with asmall number of tanks and other heavy weapons.Only government forces have had airpower.Landmines have been used widely in most majorconflicts. Minefields have been abandonedwithout marking or extraction and are mostlyunmapped. As a result, Sudan now suffers from asevere landmine legacy which continues to causecivilian casualties. It should be noted that thereare no reports of extensive use of landmines inthe ongoing war in Darfur.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •73

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFigure 4.1 Conflicts in Sudan: 1957–2006NorthernRed SeaEastern frontNileDarfurNorthern DarfurKhartoumKhartoumKassalaNorthern KordofanEl GeziraGedarefWestern DarfurNuba MountainsWhite NileSennarSouthern DarfurSouthern KordofanBlue NileUpper NileSouthern Blue NileNorthern Bahr El Ghazal UnityAbyeiWarrabWestern Bahr El GhazalJongleiLakesWestern EquatoriaBahr El JabalLRA conflictEastern EquatoriaLegendConflict areasStates mostly under SPLA controlStates mostly under government controlSource: Admin layers (Vmap0, GRID).Conflict: adapted from Reuters map.Kilometres0 100 200 300 400 500Projection: Lambert Azimutal Equal-Area ProjectionThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.74 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

4 CONFLICT AND THE ENVIRONMENTA destroyed village and badly eroded land seen from the air in Northern DarfurThere is no firm field or documented evidence ofany unconventional weapons (chemical, nuclearor biological) ever being held or used in Sudan.Some local communities reported that drinkingwater wells had been poisoned in Darfur, but in theabsence of detail and opportunity for inspection,UNEP did not investigate this issue further.The history and current status of each of themajor conflict areas is briefly described below.The geographical extent of the various conflicts asinterpreted by UNEP is shown in Figure 4.1.DarfurFighting in Darfur has occurred intermittentlyfor at least thirty years. Until 2003, it was mostlyconfined to a series of partly connected tribal andlocal conflicts [4.5]. In early 2003, these hostilitiesescalated into a full-scale military confrontationin all three Darfur states, which also frequentlyspills into neighbouring Chad and the CentralAfrican Republic.The ongoing Darfur conflict is characterized bya ‘scorched earth’ campaign carried out by militiasover large areas, resulting in a significant numberof civilian deaths, the widespread destructionof villages and forests, and the displacementof victims into camps for protection, foodand water. Over two million people are currentlydisplaced, and casualties are estimated bya range of sources to be between 200,000 and500,000 [4.6].• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •75

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTA downed fighter-bomber near Padak, Jonglei stateSouthern SudanIn the fifty years since Sudan’s independence, thesouth has experienced only eleven years of peace.During most of the civil war, the central Sudanesegovernment held a number of major towns andlaunched air attacks and dry-season groundoffensives into the surrounding countryside. Theopposition forces, the Sudan People’s LiberationArmy (SPLA) and their allies, fought guerrillaactions, besieged towns and conducted groundoffensives in both wet and dry seasons. Mostof the countryside, however, saw little or nomilitary activity. Frontlines with prolonged,active fighting were confined to northern-centralborder regions and besieged towns. The fiercestfighting took place in the 1990s, with frontlineschanging constantly and several towns beingtaken many times.The conflict extended to areas in central Sudan,such as Abyei district, Blue Nile and the Nubamountains in Southern Kordofan. Known as the‘Three Areas’, these regions retain a high level ofpolitical uncertainty today. Small-scale conflictdue to the Ugandan militia the Lord’s ResistanceArmy (LRA) has also occurred intermittentlyin the far south even after the signing of theComprehensive Peace Agreement in January2005, and some instability persists in other borderregions, particularly in Upper Nile.Nuba mountainsThe Nuba mountains were a SPLA stronghold inthe 1990s. The SPLA held the forested regionsand steeper terrain, while the open ground andsurrounding plains were largely occupied bygovernment forces. The area saw extensive fightingand aerial bombardment [4.7].Kassala state - Eastern frontThe region bordering Eritrea in Kassala state wasa stronghold of the Beja people, who were alliedwith the SPLA. Conflict flared up in the 1990s,but a separate peace agreement between thecentral government and eastern forces – knownas the Eastern Sudan Peace Agreement – wasconcluded in October 2006.Red Sea state - Eritrean conflictThe Tokar region in Red Sea state was affected bylow-level conflict between Sudan and Eritrea andlocal allied groups for twelve years, beginning in1992. Hostilities ceased completely only with thesigning of the CPA in early 2005.76 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

4 CONFLICT AND THE ENVIRONMENTThe ongoing LRA conflictTraditionally based in northern Uganda, directlysouth of the Sudan’s Eastern Equatoria state, theLord’s Resistance Army (LRA) has fought against theUgandan armed forces for over twenty years. In 2005and 2006, the conflict spread to Southern Sudanand the Democratic Republic of Congo. As of June2007, a ceasefire is in effect but peace negotiationshave stalled and sporadic conflict is ongoing.4.3 Analysis of the role of naturalresources as a contributingcause of conflict in SudanIt is acknowledged that there are many factors thatcontribute to conflict in Sudan that have little orno link to the environment or natural resources.These include political, religious, ethnic, tribaland clan divisions, economic factors, land tenuredeficiencies and historical feuds. In addition, whereenvironment and natural resource managementissues are important, they are generally contributingfactors only, not the sole cause for tension.The Nuba mountains were the sceneof sustained fighting in the 1990sThe conflict on the Eastern front was fought in the barren hills of Kassala state, near Ethiopia• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •77

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAs noted previously, ‘non-environmental’ factorshave been excluded from detailed examinationin this assessment to allow for a tighter focuson the environmental dimensions of conflict.Also excluded is any analysis of the subsequentbehaviour of the conflicting parties, except where itis directly relevant to the environment, as is the casefor the targeted destruction of natural resources.Four natural resources closely linkedto conflict in SudanIn Sudan, four categories of natural resources areparticularly linked to conflict as contributingcauses:1. oil and gas reserves;2. Nile waters;3. hardwood timber; and4. rangeland and rain-fed agricultural land (andassociated water points).Potential conflicts over oil, Nile waters andhardwood timber are national-scale issues.Tensions over rangeland and rain-fed agriculturalland are primarily local, but have the potential toescalate and exacerbate other sources of conflictto the extent of becoming national-scale issues,as is presently the case in Darfur.Of more relevance to UNEP, in this context, arethe environmental impacts of the oil industry andtheir potential to catalyse conflict in the future.Consultations in central and south Sudan revealedwidespread and intense dissatisfaction with the oilindustry’s environmental performance, coupledwith the above-mentioned general concerns aboutownership and benefit-sharing. In summary, thepopulation in the vicinity of the oilfields saidthey felt subjected to all of the downsides ofthe presence of the oil industry (including itsenvironmental impacts) without receiving a sharein the benefits. Experience from other countries,such as Nigeria, shows that the root causes for thistype of resentment must be addressed in orderto avoid long-term instability and conflict at thelocal level. Part of the solution is to improve theenvironmental performance of the industry.The environmental aspects of this issue are coveredin a more detailed assessment of the oil industryin Chapter 7.The linkages between these resources/land uses andconflict are discussed below; the fourth category isexamined in more detail in a separate section, as ithas strong ties to the ongoing conflict in Darfur.Note that groundwater (on a regional scale),wildlife, freshwater fisheries and all types of marineresources are excluded from this list of importantcontributing causes, as there is no evidence thatthey have been major factors in instigating conflictin Sudan to date.Competition over oil and gas reservesThough the major north-south conflict startedwell before oil was discovered in central Sudan,competition for ownership and shares in the benefitsof the country’s oil and gas reserves was a drivingforce for the conflict and remains a source of politicaltension today [4.4]. This is, however, considered tobe primarily an economic, political and social issue,and is hence not addressed in detail in this report.Camels graze in a destroyed village in WesternDarfur. The trees have been cut for fuelwoodand to provide the animals with fodder. Fightingover grazing land has been ongoing in Darfursince 1920 at least78 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

4 CONFLICT AND THE ENVIRONMENTTimber and the war economyWhile there is no indication that timber has beena major contributing cause of the instigation ofconflict in Sudan, there is clear evidence thatrevenue from hardwood timber sales helpedsustain the north-south civil war. Timber becamepart of the war economy, and there are now signsthat this process is being repeated with charcoalin Darfur. Overall however, the timber-conflictlinkage in Sudan is considered to be mainly anenvironmental impact issue (rather than a conflictcatalyst). This is discussed in more detail in thenext section, and in Chapter 9.Water is the most precious natural resource in thedrier regions. Goats, cattle and camels all use thiscrowded water point in Southern KordofanConflict over water rights and benefitsfrom the NileCompetition for the benefits accrued fromthe use of surface water was also an importantcontributing factor of the civil war, as illustratedby the Jonglei canal project (see Case Study 10.2),which was a cause as well as a victim of the conflictthat flared up in Southern Sudan in 1983. Thesignificance of this issue has not declined overtime and tensions over attempts to re-start theproject are still high.However, a number of institutional safeguards arelikely to prevent a re-instigation of conflict over waterrights alone at the state and federal level. First, as ahigh profile and easily identifiable issue, it receivessignificant attention from GONU and GOSSleadership, as well as international assistance in theform of programmes like the Nile Basin Initiative.Second, major projects such as new dams or canalsrequire both large investments and long periods oftime, and this development process (in its modernform at least) has a range of built-in safeguards toidentify and mitigate the risk of conflict. Water issuesare covered in more detail in Chapter 10.Local conflicts over rangeland andrain-fed agricultural landLocal clashes over rangeland and rain-fedagricultural land have occurred throughout Sudan’srecorded history. In the absence of demographicand environmental change, such conflicts wouldgenerally be considered a social, political oreconomic issue and not warrant an assessmentpurely on environmental grounds. However,environmental issues like desertification, landdegradation and climate change are becomingmajor factors in these conflicts. This topic isaddressed in more detail in the following section.Low quality degraded rangeland in Northern Darfur.To survive in these regions, pastoralists must travelacross agricultural areas to find water and fodder fortheir herds, which commonly leads to conflict• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •79

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT4.4 Environmental linkages tolocal conflicts over rangelandand rain-fed agricultural landIntroduction and limits to the observedlinkagesIt is important to note that while environmentalproblems affect rangeland and rain-fed agriculturalland across virtually all of Sudan, they are clearlyand strongly linked to conflict in a minority ofcases and regions only. These linkages do exist,but their significance and geographic scale shouldnot be exaggerated.That said, there is substantial evidence of astrong link between the recent occurrence oflocal conflict and environmental degradation ofrangeland and rain-fed agricultural land in thedrier parts of Sudan.The actors of conflict at the local level:three major competing and conflictinggroupsThe rural ethnic and livelihood structures of Sudanare so complex and area-specific that any summaryof the issue of resource competition on a nationalscale is by definition a gross simplification. Forinstance, traditional pastoralist and agriculturalsocieties in Sudan are not always clearly separated:in many areas, societies (families, clans and evenwhole tribes) practice a mixture of crop-growingand animal-rearing. Nonetheless, there are somerelatively clear boundaries – defined as muchby livelihoods as by any other factor – betweendifferent tribes, clans and ethnic groups.For the purposes of this discussion, UNEP has classifiedthe hundreds of distinct rural social units present inthe current and historical conflict regions into threemajor groups, based on livelihood strategies:Unexploded ordnance partially buried in a pit outside Juba, Jonglei state80 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

4 CONFLICT AND THE ENVIRONMENTThis mined road in Jonglei state has not been used by vehicles for a decade, but locals still walkalong it to collect firewood and access farm plots1. predominantly sedentary crop-rearingsocieties/tribes;2. predominantly nomadic (transhumant)livestock-rearing societies/tribes; and3. owners of and workers on mechanizedagricultural schemes.All three groups depend on rainfall for theirlivelihood. The other major rural group iscomprised of farmers using river and groundwaterfor irrigation. To date, however, irrigatedagriculture has not been a major factor in localconflicts in Sudan.Most of the recorded local conflicts are withinand between the first two groups: pastoralistsand agriculturalists fighting over access to landand water. The third group, the mechanizedfarming lobby, is generally not directly involvedin conflict, but has played a very strong rolein precipitating it in some states, throughuncontrolled land take from the other twogroups. In the Nuba mountains and in Blue Nilestate, combatants reported that the expansion ofmechanized agricultural schemes onto their landhad precipitated the fighting, which had thenescalated and coalesced with the major northsouthpolitical conflict [4.7, 4.8, 4.9].The historical background: a traditionof local conflict and resolutionViolent conflict resulting partly from competitionover agricultural and grazing land is a worldwideand age-old phenomenon. In Sudan – andparticularly in Darfur and Kordofan – there is anextensive history of local clashes associated withthis issue [4.3, 4.5, 4.10, 4.11]. A 2003 studyon the causes of conflict in Darfur from 1930 to2000, for example, indicates that competition forpastoral land and water has been a driving forcebehind the majority of local confrontations forthe last 70 years (see Table 5).• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •81

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTTable 5. Causes of local conflicts in Darfur from 1930 to 2000 [4.3, 4.5]No. Tribal groups involved Year Main cause of conflict1 Kababish, Kawahla, Berti and Medoub 1932 Grazing and water rights2 Kababish, Medoub and Zyadiya 1957 Grazing and water rights3 Rezeigat, Baggara and Maalia 1968 Local politics of administration4 Rezeigat, Baggara and Dinka 1975 Grazing and water rights5 Beni Helba, Zyadiya and Mahriya 1976 Grazing and water rights6 Northern Rezeigat (Abbala) and Dago 1976 Grazing and water rights7 N Rezeigat (Abbala) and Bargo 1978 Grazing and water rights8 N Rezeigat and Gimir 1978 Grazing and water rights9 N Rezeigat and Fur 1980 Grazing and water rights10 N Rezeigat (Abbala) and Bargo 1980 Grazing and water rights11 Taaisha and Salamat 1980 Local politics of administration12 Kababish, Berti and Ziyadiya 1981 Grazing and water rights13 Rezeigat, Baggara and Dinka 1981 Grazing and water rights14 N Rezeigat and Beni Helba 1982 Grazing and water rights15 Kababish, Kawahla, Berti and Medoub 1982 Grazing and water rights16 Rezeigat and Mysseriya 1983 Grazing and water rights17 Kababish, Berti and Medoub 1984 Grazing and water rights18 Rezeigat and Mysseriya 1984 Grazing and water rights19 Gimir and Fallata (Fulani) 1987 Administrative boundaries20 Kababish, Kawahla, Berti and Medoub 1987 Grazing and water rights21 Fur and Bidayat 1989 Armed robberies22 Arab and Fur 1989 Grazing, cross-boundary politics23 Zaghawa and Gimir 1990 Administrative boundaries24 Zaghawa and Gimir 1990 Administrative boundaries25 Taaisha and Gimir 1990 Land26 Bargo and Rezeigat 1990 Grazing and water rights27 Zaghawa and Maalia 1991 Land28 Zaghawa and Marareit 1991 Grazing and water rights29 Zaghawa and Beni Hussein 1991 Grazing and water rights30 Zaghawa, Mima and Birgid 1991 Grazing and water rights31 Zaghawa and Birgid 1991 Grazing and water rights32 Zaghawa and Birgid 1991 Grazing and water rights33 Fur and Turgum 1991 Land34 Zaghawa and Arab 1994 Grazing and water rights35 Zaghawa Sudan and Zaghawa Chad 1994 Power and politics36 Masalit and Arab 1996 Grazing, administration37 Zaghawa and Rezeigat 1997 Local politics38 Kababish Arabs and Midoub 1997 Grazing and water rights39 Masalit and Arab 1996 Grazing, administration40 Zaghawa and Gimir 1999 Grazing, administration41 Fur and Arab 2000 Grazing, politics, armed robberies82 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

4 CONFLICT AND THE ENVIRONMENTThe scorched earth tactics used by militias in Darfur include cutting and burning trees in a haphazard mannerUntil 1970, there is also a well-documentedhistory of local resolution for such conflicts,through established mediation and disputeresolution mechanisms. Since then, however, legalreforms have essentially destroyed many of thesetraditional structures and processes, and failed toprovide a viable substitute. In addition, the lastthirty years have seen an influx of small arms intothe region, with the unfortunate result that localconflicts today are both much more violent andmore difficult to contain and mediate.Theories of natural resource scarcity andapplication to local conflict in SudanAcademic research and the discourse on the roleof natural resource scarcity as a driver of conflicthave developed significantly over the last decade[4.12, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15]. In light of the ongoingDarfur crisis, Sudan is a prime example of theimportance, complexity and political sensitivity ofthis topic. The following analysis borrows heavilyfrom the language and concepts used by leadingresearchers in this field.As a basis for discussion, the environmentallysignificant factors that contribute to conflictrelated to rangeland and rain-fed agricultural landhave been divided into four groups:• supply: factors affecting the available resources;• demand: factors affecting the demand forresources;• land use: changes affecting the way remainingresources are shared; and• institutional and development factors.While all the purely environmental factors are‘supply’ issues, they have to be put into the contextof ‘demand’ and ‘institution-specific’ factors.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •83

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTDuring the major north-south conflict, the town of Wau in Western Bahr el Ghazal was a centre forthe logging and regional export of teak. The trade was effectively halted by the closing of the raillink; only a small-scale local teak trade subsists todaySupply – an unreliable and dwindlingresourceThe noted environmental issues affectingagriculture in Sudan all result in a dwindlingsupply of natural resources:• Desertification,soilerosionandsoilexhaustion(depletion of nutrients and compaction) loweragricultural productivity and, in the worst cases,take land out of use for the long term. This hasbeen well documented but poorly quantified inSudan (see Chapters 3 and 8);• Deforestation, particularly in the drylands,has resulted in a near permanent loss ofresources including seasonal forage forpastoralists and natural fertilizer/soil recoveryservices for farmers. Deforestation rates in theareas studied by UNEP average 1.87 percentper annum (see Chapters 8 and 9);• Historical climate change has reducedproductivity in some areas due to a declinein rainfall. A major and long-term drop inprecipitation (30 percent over 80 years) hasbeen recorded in Northern Darfur, for example.The implications of such a decline on dryrangeland quality are obvious (see Chapter 3);and• Forecast climate change is expected to furtherreduce productivity due to declining rainfalland increased variability, particularly in theSahel belt. A drop in productivity of up to70 percent is forecast for the most vulnerableareas (see Chapter 3).Ever increasing demands on resourcesThe demand for natural resources in Sudanis uniformly increasing, due to the followingfactors:84 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

4 CONFLICT AND THE ENVIRONMENT• Human population growth is the underlyingdriver of increased demand for naturalresources. Sudan has an overall growth rate ofover 2.6 percent per annum, masking muchhigher localized rates. In central Darfur, forexample, government statistics indicate aregional population (linear) growth rate of12 percent per annum, from 3 persons/km²in 1956 to 18 persons/km² in 2003 [4.16].These growth rates are indicative of largescalein-migration, in this case mainly fromthe north and possibly due to environmentalfactors such as desertification; and• Livestock population and growth rates;government officials and academics havetracked the population increase of livestocksince the 1960s. In northern and centralSudan alone, it is estimated to have increasedby over 400 percent between 1961 and 2004(see Chapter 8) [4.17].Land use changes –adwindling shareof resources for pastoralistsThe horizontal expansion of agriculture into areasthat were previously either rangeland or foresthas been a well recognized trend for the last fourdecades. The northwards expansion of rain-fedagriculture into marginal areas historically onlyused for grazing has been particularly damaging.Three examples from the recent UNEP-ICRAF[4.18] study of land use changes illustrate a majorreduction in rangeland areas due to expandingagriculture (see Chapters 8 and 9):• In Ed Damazin, Blue Nile state, agriculturalland (mainly mechanized), increased from 42to 77 percent between 1972 and 1999, whilerangeland effectively disappeared, droppingfrom 8.3 to 0.1 percent;• In the El Obeid region of Northern Kordofan,rain-fed agricultural land increased by 57.6percent between 1973 and 1999, whilerangeland decreased by 33.8 percent andwooded pasture by 27 percent; and• In the Um Chelluta region of SouthernDarfur, rain-fed agricultural land increased by138 percent between 1973 and 2000, whilerangeland and closed woodland decreased by56 and 32 percent respectively.In addition to the loss of grazing land, agriculturalexpansion has also blocked livestock migratoryroutes between many of the widely separated dryand wet season pastures, and between the herdsand daily watering points. A further complicationis that sedentary farmers are increasingly raisingtheir own livestock, and are hence less willing togive grazing rights to nomads in transit [4.19](see Chapter 8 for a more detailed discussion ofthese issues).Institutional factors – failing to rectifythe issuesAgricultural institutions and environmentalgovernance in Sudan are discussed in detail inChapters 8 and 13 respectively. In summary,the rural environment has been impacted by acombination of ill-fated reform and developmentprogrammes, as well as legal reforms and failuresin environmental governance. One key issue is thedifficulty of developing and applying a practical,just and stable system of rural land tenure inan ethnically complex society of intermingledsedentary farmers and transhumants/nomads.This has not been achieved in Sudan so far.A lack of development and livelihoodoptionsOutside of the main urban areas, Sudan remainsvery poor and underdeveloped. Rural populationsconsequently have very few options to solve theseagricultural crises, as solutions like agriculturaldevelopment, improvements in pasture and stockquality, and using working capital to cover shorttermneeds and alternative employment are simplynot available [4.19].The net result – disappearing livelihoodsfor dryland pastoralist societiesThe clear trend that emerges when these variouselements are pieced together is that of a significantlong-term increase in livestock density onrangelands that are reducing in total area,accessibility and quality. In environmentalterms, the observed net result is overgrazingand land degradation. In social terms, thereported consequence for pastoralist societies isan effectively permanent loss of livelihoods andentrenched poverty.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •85

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTPastoralist societies in Sudan have always beenrelatively vulnerable to losing their livelihoods dueto erratic rainfall, but the above-noted combinationof factors has propelled many pastoralists into anegative spiral of poverty, displacement, and in theworst cases, conflict. Their coping strategies, whichhave been well documented [4.16, 4.19], include:• Abandoning pastoralism as a livelihood infavour of sedentary agriculture, or displacementto cities;•Increasing or varying the extent of annual herdmovements where possible, with a general trendtowards a permanently more southerly migration;• Maximizing herd sizes as an insurance measure(assisted by the provision of water points andveterinary services);• Changing herd composition, replacingcamels by small animals, mainly sheep, inresponse to the curtailment of long-distancemigration;• Competing directly with other grazersfor preferred areas of higher productivity(entailing a conflict risk);• Moving and grazing livestock on croplandwithout consent (entailing a conflict risk); and• Reducing competition by forcing otherpastoralists and agriculturalists off previouslyshared land (as a last resort - the proactiveconflict scenario).Variations of all of these strategies can be observedthroughout Sudan, particularly in the drier regions.Displaced populations settle on the outskirts of existing towns, as seen here in El Fasher, NorthernDarfur, where the new settlement is distinguished by white plastic sheeting. These new arrivals addto the environmental burden on the surrounding desert environment86 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

4 CONFLICT AND THE ENVIRONMENTCamel herders from the Shanabla tribe at a water point in El Tooj, Southern Kordofan. Thesouthward migration of camel herders is a harbinger of renewed conflict in the Nuba mountainsCS 4.1The southward migration of camel herders into the Nuba mountains andsubsequent resource competitionThe Nuba mountains region in Southern Kordofan provides an example of the increase in natural resource competition andlocal conflict that results from the combination of agricultural expansion, land degradation and the southward migrationof pastoralists.At the start of the civil war in the 1980s, cattle-herding pastoralists from the Hawazma Baggara tribe started penetratingdeeper into the Nuba mountains in search of water and pasture for their cattle, due to the loss of grazing land to mechanizedagriculture and drought. The rivalry that ensued with the indigenous Nuba tribe, who practised a combination of sedentaryfarming and cattle-rearing, contributed to the outbreak of large-scale armed conflict. Meanwhile, as some of the dry seasonpastures around Talodi were off-limits during the conflict years, the Hawazma had to remain in their wet season grazinglands in Northern Kordofan, exerting greater pressure on the vegetation there.In 2006, UNEP observed the return of Hawazma Baggara to their former grazing camps in conflict zones in SouthernKordofan, for example near Atmoor. UNEP also witnessed the presence of the camel-herding Shanabla tribe in the midstof thick woodland savannah at El Tooj (now reportedly reaching up to lakes Keilak and Abiad).This new southward migration of camel herders constitutes an indicator of livestock overcrowding and rangeland degradationin Northern Kordofan, and is a harbinger of further conflict with the Nuba. At Farandala in SPLM-controlled territory, theNuba expressed concern over the widespread mutilation of trees due to heavy lopping by the Shanabla to feed theircamels, and warned of ‘restarting the war’ if this did not cease.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •87

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTConclusions on the role ofenvironmental issues in conflicts overrangeland and rain-fed agricultural landPastoralist societies have been at the centre of localconflicts in Sudan throughout recorded history. Themost significant problems have occurred and continueto occur in the drier central regions, which are alsothe regions with the largest livestock populations,and under the most severe environmental stress.As there are many factors in play – most of which arenot related to the environment – land degradationdoes not appear to be the dominant causative factorin local conflicts. It is, however, a very importantelement, which is growing in significance and isa critical issue for the long-term resolution of theDarfur crisis. The key cause for concern is thehistorical, ongoing and forecast shrinkage anddegradation of remaining rangelands in thenorthern part of the Sahel belt.Much of the evidence for UNEP’s analysis isanecdotal and qualitative; it has been gatheredthrough desk study work, satellite images andinterviews of rural societies across Sudan. Theconsistency and convergence of reports from arange of sources lend credibility to this analysis,although further research is clearly needed, with aparticular emphasis on improved quantification ofthe highlighted issues and moving beyond analysisto search for viable long-term solutions.A conference on the topic of environmentaldegradation and conflict in Darfur was heldin Khartoum in 2004. The proceedings [4.20]illustrated the depth of local understanding ofthe issue. Given the situation observed in 2007,however, UNEP must conclude that this highqualityawareness-raising exercise was unfortunatelyapparently not transformed into lasting action.4.5 Assessment of the environmentalimpacts of conflictIntroductionThis section approaches the linkages betweenconflict and environment from the reverseangle to the above analysis, by examining if andhow armed conflict has resulted in negativeor positive impacts on the environment inSudan. Direct impacts, indirect impacts andkey conflict-related issues are identified anddiscussed in this chapter. Detailed discussion andrecommendations on the various environmentalissues of concern (e.g. deforestation) are referredto the corresponding sector chapter.Definitions and impact listingsThe following definitions are used for direct,indirect and secondary environmental impactsof conflict in Sudan:• Direct impacts are those arising directly andsolely from military action;• Indirect and secondary impacts are allimpacts that can be credibly sourced in wholeor in part to the conflicts and the associatedwar economy, excluding the direct impacts.On this basis, UNEP has developed the followinglist of impacts for discussion:Direct impacts include:• landmines and explosive remnants of war(ERW);• destroyed target-related impacts;• defensive works; and• targeted natural resource destruction.Indirect and secondary impacts include:• environmental impacts related to populationdisplacement;• natural resource looting and war economyresource extraction;• environmental governance and informationvacuum; and• funding crises, arrested development andconservation programmes.Direct impactsLandmines and explosive remnants of warLandmines and other explosive remnants of war(ERW) are a major problem in Sudan. Thirty-twopercent of the country is estimated to be affected[4.4], with the greatest concentration in SouthernSudan (see Case Study 4.2). As many as twenty-oneof the country’s twenty-five states may be impacted,although the true extent of Sudan’s landmine problemremains unknown, as a comprehensive survey of theissue has not been undertaken to date.88 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

4 CONFLICT AND THE ENVIRONMENTIn 1983, southern military forces sabotaged these generators powering the Jonglei canal excavator.Plans to restart the giant water project constitute a major potential flashpoint for renewed conflictThe reported and registered number of landminecasualties over the past five years totals 2,200,though again, no systematic data collection andverification mechanism exists. In addition, there isno data at all on animal casualties from mines inSudan, but these are expected to be much higherthan the human casualty rate. The impacts oflandmines on wildlife would only be significant(at the ecosystem level) if individual losses affectedlocally threatened populations of key species.The potential impacts of landmines and ERW canbe divided into chemical and physical categories.Conventional explosives, such as TNT and RDX,found in artillery shells and mines are highly toxicand slow to degrade. While they present an acutetoxic hazard if ingested, the toxic risk is consideredinsignificant compared to the risk of injury fromexplosion.Apart from human casualties, another majorimpact of landmines is impeded access to largeareas for people and their livestock. In Sudan,access to some areas has been reduced for decades,as they have remained mined or suspected as suchsince the beginning of the conflict.In all but the driest areas, the result of reducedaccess has been the relatively unimpeded growth ofvegetation. UNEP fieldwork, in the Nuba mountainsin particular, revealed extensive areas of woodlandregrowth in suspected minefields. Such regrowthcan have a beneficial effect on the affected areasand associated wildlife populations, but the flow ofbenefits to people is usually reduced, as they cannotsafely extract resources (e.g. water, fuelwood, fodder)from these sites. Despite the risks, however, UNEPteams witnessed people walking, herding cattle andgathering fuel in clearly marked minefields.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •89

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTThe dumping of waste on minefields and on top of unexploded ordnance creates a major safetyproblem (top); unexploded ordnance is loosely stacked and scattered across the area (bottom)CS 4.2Unexploded ordnance, minefields and deforestation at Jebel Kujur,Juba districtThe Jebel Kujur massif near the city of Juba in the state of Central Equatoria (Bahr el Jabal) clearly illustrates the localizedbut severe impacts of conflict affecting many urban centres in Southern Sudan, as well as the environmental governancechallenges facing the new government.During the 1983-2005 conflict, Juba was a garrison town for the central government military, and was continuously undersiege and frequently attacked by SPLA forces. The town itself still shows extensive scarring, and overgrown entrenchments,minefields and scattered unexploded ordnance are visible on the fringes. Deforestation and soil erosion are severe, particularlyat Jebel Kujur, which originally supported a dense forest cover. A quarry is also operating at one end of the range.In late 2006, clean-up was ongoing, but there were still minefields and areas of stacked ordnance in the foothills of JebelKujur. Despite the obvious risks, cattle grazing, scrap recovery and waste dumping were routinely taking place in theseareas. Plastic waste was being dumped directly on top of unexploded artillery shells and rocket-propelled grenades, creatingobvious serious hazards for site users and greatly increasing the future cost of de-mining and rehabilitation.The removal of explosive remnants of war (ERW) from Jebel Kujur is a difficult but short-term activity. The greater challengesare sustainable solutions for waste management for the growing city and reforestation of the massif.90 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

4 CONFLICT AND THE ENVIRONMENTDestroyed target-related impactsTarget-related impacts refer to the effects onthe environment of direct military action ontargets, irrespective of the method. The physicaldestruction of the environment from conventionalweaponry (bombs, artillery shells and mortars)principally takes the form of cratering, anddamaged or destroyed buildings, trees, andindustrial facilities.Though cratering has been reported by de-miningstaff in Southern Sudan, there is no indicationthat more than a few hectares are affected at eachconflict location. Similarly, the destruction of treesby direct military action is considered negligiblecompared to other causes of deforestation in Sudan.No lasting environmental damage is expected eitherfrom the destruction of buildings, apart from thegeneration of inert solid waste as rubble.The single most significant industrial target inconflicts to date is the Jonglei canal excavator,which was sabotaged 40 km north of Padak inJonglei state. The rusting excavator is currentlyused as a nesting site by eagles and is home toseveral beehives. UNEP experts inspected theexcavator and its surroundings, and concluded thatits direct environmental impact was negligible.Neither the oilfields in the south, nor the transferpipeline to Port Sudan were ever successfullyattacked to the extent that significant environmentaldamage ensued.UNEP concludes that the absence of vulnerableindustrial targets in historical conflict zones hasprevented any major environmental contaminationfrom chemical spillage, and that other targetrelatedimpacts have been insignificant inenvironmental terms.Defensive worksMajor defensive works such as trench networks andbunkers were noticeably absent throughout thecountry, but de-mining staff in Southern Sudanreported that limited defence works could be foundon the outskirts of besieged garrison towns.Southern communities gave consistent reports ofgovernment forces clearing trees from the peripheryof the garrison towns to deny cover to attackingforces. UNEP site inspections of the outskirts ofJuba, Malakal and Aweil certainly indicated thatdeforestation has occurred, but it was not possibleto attribute this solely to defensive works, as severalother causes of deforestation were also evident atthese locations (see Chapter 9).In many rural areas of Southern Sudan, the only direct and lasting evidence of the conflict is scatteredsteel scrap, such as this grenade fragment outside Juba, Jonglei state• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •91

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTTargeted natural resource destructionIn Darfur, the deliberate targeting of vitalnatural resource-related infrastructure, such asrural water pumps, has been well documentedby NGOs and inspection reports from theAfrican Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS)[4.21].Local populations in Darfur have also reportedmany instances of deliberate natural resourcedestruction by raiding militia, whose principaltargets are trees, crops and pastures. Crops andpastures are burned and trees are cut. UNEPdirectly observed evidence of destructive treecuttingin destroyed and deserted villages east ofEl Geneina in Western Darfur (see Case Study4.3). Aid workers have reported similar targetedtree-cutting in other parts of Darfur.Given the lack of quantifiable data on fieldconditions in Darfur, it is not possible to estimatethe significance of this phenomenon. UNEP canonly state that it is occurring and that it will addto the deforestation problem in the region (seeChapter 8).Indirect and secondary environmentalimpacts of conflictThe environmental impacts of populationdisplacementAfter civilian deaths and injuries, the mostsignificant effect of conflict on the populationof Sudan has been displacement – people fleeingconflict zones seeking security. An estimated fivemillion people (7 to 12 percent of the estimatedtotal population of Sudan) have been displacedto date, and less than one million have returned.The number of displaced is rising due to thecontinuing conflict in Darfur. The great majorityof the displaced have come from rural areas andmigrated to camps on the outskirts of towns andcities. Over two million have relocated to thecapital city, Khartoum.The severe and complex environmental consequencesof displacement include: deforestation in camp areas; devegetation in camps areas; unsustainable groundwater extraction incamps; water pollution in camp areas; uncontrolled urban slum growth; the development of a ‘relief economy’ which canlocally exacerbate demand for natural resources; fallow area regeneration and invasive weedexpansion; and return- and recovery-related deforestation.Not all displacement in Sudan is due to conflict.Drought and economic factors are also majorcontributing causes. For this reason, the environmentalimpacts of all the different types of displacement areseparately discussed in Chapter 5.Looting of natural resources - war economyresource extractionNatural resource looting is defined as the uncontrolledand often illegal extraction of naturalresources that commonly occurs during extendedconflicts. In this context, natural resources are oftenbadly impacted and also have a role in sustainingthe conflict.In Sudan, the resources in question are timber(lumber and charcoal), ivory and bushmeat.Although oil is a contested natural resourcein Sudan, it is excluded from this discussionas UNEP found no evidence of significantuncontrolled, concealed or illegal extraction. Thepotential and actual environmental impacts of theoil industry are covered in Chapter 7.The looting of timber occurred on both sides in thenorth-south conflict. The most significant extractionconcerned high value timber in Southern Sudan andfuelwood for charcoal in the Nuba mountains.In Southern Sudan, UNEP received consistentverbal reports, backed by literature [4.22], ofextraction and export (regional and international)of plantation teak and natural mahogany bygovernment as well as SPLA forces and associatedmilitias, though extraction was limited on bothsides to areas within their respective controland close to transportation corridors. Northerngovernment forces extracted timber from Wau,exporting it north via the rail link, and from Jubaand other Nile towns, exporting by barge. TheSPLA exported plantation teak southwards, fromthe Equatoria states to Uganda.92 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

4 CONFLICT AND THE ENVIRONMENTAn abandoned grinding stone in the former village of Hashaba, south-east of El Geneina,destroyed in the conflictCS 4.3Targeted natural resources destruction in Western DarfurOne of the defining impacts of the current conflict in Darfur has been the displacement of people from rural areas, and thedestruction of villages and surrounding land by militias. During its field mission in June 2006, the UNEP assessment team,under armed escort from African Union forces, visited some of the areas south-east of El Geneina in Western Darfur. Themission found that the outlying villages had been damaged to the extent that hardly any evidence of their former existenceremained. In addition to the demolition of infrastructure, the trees within village limits had been systematically cut down.These observations from the areas around El Geneina were consistent with anecdotal information collected throughinterviews with IDPs in the camps of Northern, Western, and Southern Darfur.While some trees may have been felled to provide fodder for livestock or to be sold for firewood in IDP camps, there is evidencethat some were undoubtedly cut down maliciously. This is the case for mango trees, for instance, as their leaves are inediblefor livestock. From a military perspective, destroying trees severs the former community’s links to the land and reduces thelikelihood of resettlement. The environmental consequences of the loss of tree cover include a net deficit of biomass availableto the soil, as well as the loss of the trees’ ability to fix nitrogen. Both result in a decrease in soil fertility.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •93

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTUNEP has no data or basis on which to quantifythe extent of this reported trade. It is clear, however,that it has come to an end or has at least beensignificantly reduced. For the northern forces, tradehas been stopped by the closure of the Wau raillink and the demobilization of northern garrisonsfrom the south, while the SPLA’s extractions havebeen curtailed by the newly formed Governmentof Southern Sudan’s 2005 ban on timber exportsand customs controls on border roads.In the Nuba mountains, UNEP field teamsobserved charcoal for sale at military checkpoints,indicating that the military may still play a rolein this business in the area.Both UNEP teams and the follow-up Darfur JointAssessment Mission field teams found an activelumber industry in central Darfur, in historicalas well as current conflict areas. While it was notpossible to determine who the main actors in thistrade were, it was clear that some uncontrolledlogging linked to the conflict was occurring.The elephant population in Southern Sudan wasdecimated during the north-south conflict. Whileit is likely that much of the ivory was shipped toKhartoum, which is the centre of ivory carving inthe region, there is no firm evidence to identifythe main actors of elephant poaching and ivorytransportation. Note that while rhinoceros hornwas undoubtedly a poaching target in SouthernSudan during the early stages of the conflict, thistrade has stopped due to the virtual extinction ofrhino in the region.Though UNEP did not find proof of an ongoingwidespread commercial bushmeat trade, localpeople in Southern Sudan reported that both sidesin the north-south conflict had taken bushmeatto feed their forces, with the result that the largeredible mammals such as buffalo, giraffe, zebraand eland are locally extinct throughout muchof the south.In sum, the looting of natural resources hasundoubtedly occurred in Sudan and has causedsignificant damage. However, the signing of theComprehensive Peace Agreement has reduced thescale of such activities, though looting remainsan issue for Darfur, and to some extent for theNuba mountains.Environmental governance andinformation vacuumConflict zones generally suffer from a lack ofstable governance and limited observance of therule of law. In environmental terms, this resultsin a complete lack of environmental protection aswell as impunity for those, military or otherwise,who extract or process natural resources in anuncontrolled manner or cause other forms ofenvironmental damage.Conflict zones are also usually inaccessible forscience-based data collection. In the case of Sudan,conflict-related security constraints have denied theenvironmental science community access to at leasthalf of the country for over two decades. As a result,the true status of much of Sudan’s environmentalresources remains unknown or open to speculation,limiting rational decision-making for resourcemanagement and conservation.Funding crises - arrested development andconservation programmesExtended and major conflicts drain nationalresources and can lead to isolation from theinternational community. Decades of war inSudan have helped ensure that it remain one of theworld’s poorest countries. Political issues have alsoconstrained the flow of international knowledgeand assistance to Sudan.The result has been that conservation of theenvironment and the sustainable managementof natural resources have not been regarded aspriorities for Sudan since independence, and thateven when they have been considered, they havegenerally not been sufficiently funded to bringabout positive change.The financial burden of virtually continuouswarfare and the ensuing poverty can thus beconsidered as one of the root causes of the currentstate of the environment in Sudan.Summary of the environmentalimpacts of conflictThe findings of UNEP’s assessment of theenvironmental impacts of conflict in Sudan canbe summarized as follows:94 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

4 CONFLICT AND THE ENVIRONMENTDirect impacts are overall minor:• landmines and explosive remnants of war:significant;• destroyed target-related impacts: notsignificant;• defensive works: not significant; and• targeted natural resource destruction:significant for Darfur, but currently notquantifiable.Indirect and secondary impacts are major:• environmental impacts related to populationdisplacement: very significant;• looting of natural resources: significant;• environmental governance and informationvacuum: significant; and• funding crises: very significant.These findings indicate that the way forward onenvironmental issues in post-conflict Sudan shouldnot focus on the direct legacies of conflict (whichare relatively minor). Attention should insteadbe paid to the indirect and secondary impactrelatedissues, as well as to chronic problems. Thiswould be best achieved by integrating all of theissues into a holistic recovery programme ratherthan attempting to separate them on the basis ofconflict linkages.4.6 Conclusions andrecommendationsConclusionThe linkages between conflict and environmentin Sudan are twofold. On one hand, thecountry’s long history of conflict has had asignificant impact on its environment. Indirectimpacts such as population displacement, lack ofgovernance, conflict-related resource exploitationand underinvestment in sustainable developmenthave been the most severe consequences to date.On the other hand, environmental issueshave been and continue to be contributingcauses of conflict. Competition over oil andgas reserves, Nile waters and timber, as well asland use issues related to agricultural land, areimportant causative factors in the instigation andperpetuation of conflict in Sudan. Confrontationsover rangeland and rain-fed agricultural land inthe drier parts of the country are a particularlystriking manifestation of the connection betweennatural resource scarcity and violent conflict.In all cases, however, environmental factors areintertwined with a range of other social, politicaland economic issues.UNEP’s analysis indicates that there is avery strong link between land degradation,desertification and conflict in Darfur. NorthernDarfur – where exponential population growthand related environmental stress have createdthe conditions for conflicts to be triggered andsustained by political, tribal or ethnic differences– can be considered a tragic example of thesocial breakdown that can result from ecologicalcollapse. Long-term peace in the region will notbe possible unless these underlying and closelylinked environmental and livelihood issues areresolved.Background to the recommendationsThe analysis of the linkages between conflict andenvironment in Sudan has so far been largelyconfined to academic circles. In Sudan, onlyUSAID has explicitly integrated peacebuildinginto the design of its environmental programmein Southern Sudan [4.24]. It is important thatthis discussion be broadened to include thegovernment and the United Nations. Internationalpeacekeeping initiatives and implementingorganizations, such as the African Union Missionto Sudan (AMIS) and the United Nations Missionto Sudan (UNMIS), should particularly take thisissue in account.In addition to political solutions, practicalmeasures to alleviate natural resource competitionare urgently needed to help contain the currentconflict and present a viable long-term solutionfor the development of rural Darfur. Elsewhere inSudan, efforts should be focused first and foremoston identified environmental ‘flashpoints’, whichare specific issues that constitute a potential triggerfor the renewal of conflict. The most importantof these is the environmental impact of the oilindustry, but there are several others, including thecharcoal industry in central Sudan, the potentialfor ivory poaching and the development of atimber mafia in Southern Sudan.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •95

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTParched and overgrazed land surrounding a dry livestock supply dam south of El Fasher, NorthernDarfur, in June 2006. Environmental scarcity and degradation are two of the important contributingfactors in the Darfur crisis96 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

4 CONFLICT AND THE ENVIRONMENTPossible measures – which are listed asrecommendations in this and other chapters– include agricultural policy reform, developing thetimber industry, and strengthening environmentalgovernance. Such measures should be consideredvital investments in conflict prevention andresolution rather than purely environmentalconservation projects.In summary, in the context of the CPA andthe ongoing Darfur crisis, the attention ofthe environmental sector should be focusedon the following three areas in order to assistpeacebuilding and conflict resolution in Sudan:1. reducing the environmental impact of the oilindustry in central Sudan;2. promoting more sustainable agriculture andpastoralism in dryland Sudan; and3. providing information and technical assistanceon environment-conflict issues to the nationaland international community working onpeacebuilding and conflict resolution throughoutSudan, with an initial focus on Darfur.Recommendations for theinternational communityR4.1 Bring the issue of environmentaldegradation and ecologically sustainable ruraldevelopment to the forefront of peacebuildingactivities in Sudan. This will entail a majorawareness-raising exercise by UNEP and theinternational community in Sudan, and will need tobe incorporated into response strategies for bodiessuch as the African Union, the UN DevelopmentGroup (UNDG) and the UN Department ofPeacekeeping Operations (UNDPKO).CA: AW; PB: UNDPKO; UNP: UNEP; CE:0.5M; DU: 1 yearR4.2 Bring natural resource assessmentand management expertise into the existingpeacebuilding and peacekeeping efforts inSudan. UNEP or other organizations wouldprovide technical assistance to the existing actorsin this area for the south, east and Darfur, joiningin the decision-making process. This shouldinclude significant direct support to governmentsand to both the African Union Mission to Sudanand the United Nations Mission to Sudan.CA: TA; PB: UNMIS; UNP: UNEP and FAO;CE: 2M; DU: 3 yearsR4.3 Conduct a specific environmentalassessment for rural Darfur conflict regions assoon as security conditions and political stabilitypermit. The major conflict which flared up innorthern and central Darfur in September 2006is expected to change and worsen the situation,in both humanitarian and environmental terms.An updated, detailed assessment focusing on landquality is needed to assist in the development ofan appropriate recovery plan (when the time forrecovery arrives). This very technical work wouldbe used to supplement the existing body of largelyqualitative work presented in the Darfur JAMinterim report.CA: AS; PB: UNMIS; UNP: UNEP and FAO;CE: 0.4M; DU: 1 yearRecommendations for the Governmentof National UnityR4.4 Undertake strategic reform of theagricultural and pastoral sector. Withoutresolution of the underlying rural land useproblems, the issue of the links betweenenvironmental degradation and conflict willremain insoluble. This recommendation is notcosted as it is essentially an internal culture andstrategic policy issue for GONU.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •97

PopulationDisplacement andthe EnvironmentSudan has the largest population ofdisplaced persons in the world today.Nearly two million are in Darfur, in largesettlements such as Abu Shouk IDPcamp in El Fasher, Northern Darfur.

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTPopulation displacementand the environment5.1 Introduction andassessment activitiesIntroductionOver five million internally displaced persons(IDPs) and international refugees currently livein rural camps, informal settlements and urbanslums in Sudan. This represents the largestpopulation of displaced persons in the worldtoday. Living conditions in these settlements arein many cases appalling: they are crowded andunsanitary, food and water are in short supply,insecurity is high, and livelihood opportunitiesare generally lacking. Some of these temporarysettlements have existed for over twenty yearswith no improvement, and the conflict in Darfuris generating a new wave of displacement that isworsening the situation.This massive population displacement has beenaccompanied by major environmental damage inthe affected parts of the country. This is not a newphenomenon, but the scale of displacement andthe particular vulnerability of the dry northernSudanese environment may make this the mostsignificant case of its type worldwide. Moreover,environmental degradation is also a contributingcause of displacement in Sudan, so that haltingdisplacement will require concurrent action tohalt environmental degradation.Assessment activitiesThe assessment of displacement-related issues wasincluded in UNEP’s general fieldwork, whichcovered many of the areas where displacement hadoccurred and where returnees were expected. Theenvironmental impact of displaced populationswas a principal theme of the fieldwork in Darfur,while the impact of returnees on the ruralenvironment was one of the main subjects ofUNEP’s work in Jonglei state. Locations visitedinclude:Dinka teenagers, who were raised in Ugandan refugee camps, wait to board the barge bringing themback to Bor district, Jonglei state100 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

5 POPULATION DISPLACEMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENTFigure 5.1Displaced persons camps in DarfurChadEl GeneinaNorthernDarfurKafodEl FasherBurushNorthernKordofanWesternDarfurWadaahRama-kaiaGegarNyalaAbou AdidNyimeriTulusEl FerdousCentral AfricanRepublicAm DafokSouthernDarfurDisplaced persons camps in DarfurKilometresSource: Admin layers (Vmap0, HIC).IDP locations: UNOCHA Sudan, January 2007.0 100 200 300 400Projection: Lambert Azimutal Equal-Area ProjectionThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.BuramHigiligUnity• IDP and refugee camps in Darfur: Mornei-Um Shalaya, Zalingei, Kalma, El Fasher-Abu Shouk, Kebkabiya, and Kutum-Kassab;• villages on the outskirts of El Geneina,Western Darfur, destroyed and deserted as aresult of conflict;• IDP settlements in Port Sudan, Khartoumand Juba;• Jonglei state way stations and return sites inBor and Padak districts; and• rural return sites in the Nuba mountains,Southern Kordofan.Interviews with displaced persons took place atall of the above locations.These displacement-specific activities wereconsidered sufficient to obtain an overview of theissues, particularly for Darfur camps and for theSouthern Sudan return process.5.2 Overview of populationdisplacement in SudanThe world’s largest displaced populationOver the past few decades, Sudan has witnessedmore involuntary movement of people within andaround its territory than any other country in theworld. At the end of 2005, UNHCR estimatedthat some 700,000 Sudanese refugees livedoutside the country [5.1]. Sudan has also offeredasylum to a significant number of refugees fromother countries in recent years, primarily fromChad, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC),Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia and Uganda.Some of the highest numbers of refugees in thecountry were recorded during the 1990s: in 1993,for example, Sudan was host to some 745,000refugees, the majority from Eritrea (57 percent),Chad (19 percent), and Ethiopia (2 percent) [5.2].By the year 2000, the overall number had dropped toaround 418,000 [5.3]. Estimates for 2005 indicatethat approximately 147,000 refugees were officiallyrecognized in Sudan [5.1]. The steady decline in• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •101

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTnumbers over this period is attributable to restoredpeace and security in neighbouring countries, andto a series of successful repatriation exercises.The majority of refugees now seeking asylum inSudan (77 percent) are Eritrean people [5.4] wholive mainly in formal camps in the east. The influxof Eritrean refugees has been steady since 2003, astension has increased in that country. In addition,there are 29,000 refugees from Uganda, DRC,Somalia, Ethiopia and other countries. With theexception of some 5,000 refugees from Chad, mostlive in Khartoum, Juba and other urban areas.Besides hosting hundreds of thousands of refugees,Sudan has also generated more IDPs than any othercountry in the world – an estimated 5.4 million (seeTable 6), or more than half the total IDP populationon the continent [5.6, 5.5]. The InternationalDisplacement Monitoring Centre estimates thattwo million IDPs now live in Khartoum, most ofwhom have moved in with family members or setup squatter communities in neighbourhoods andfields around the capital. IDPs today account for40 percent of Khartoum’s total population [5.5].In addition to squatter areas such as Soba Arradi,which hosts some 64,000 people, four official campshave been established to house IDPs: Omdurman esSalaam (120,000 people), Wad el Bashier (74,800people), Mayo Farms (133,000 people) and JebelAulia (45,000 people).Table 6. Location and number ofinternally displaced people inSudan [5.5]Location (state) Number of IDPsKhartoum 2,000,000Northern 200,000Red Sea 277,000Kassala 76,000Gedaref 42,000Sennar 60,000Blue Nile 235,000White Nile 110,000Upper Nile 95,000Kordofan 189,000Unity 135,000Bahr el Ghazal 210,000Equatoria 26,000Greater Darfur 1,950,000Total 5,805,000Since 2003, internal displacement has occurredat an unprecedented rate in western Sudan. TheDarfur crisis is reported to have affected some 2.4million people, of whom 1.8 million are IDPs.Hundreds of thousands of people have alreadydied, while conditions in many camps are farbelow international standards. In 2004, it wasestimated that 465,000 households in Darfurwould be in need of food assistance early in 2005due to crop failure [5.7]. The same report notedthat 90 percent of IDPs had lost their livestock,impeding income generation and water collection,and hindering return. Forty percent of the residentpopulation had also lost their livestock.The duration of displacement and theprospects for returnIn Sudan as elsewhere, displaced populationsreturn to their homelands if and when it ispossible. For returns to take place on a largescale, however, a number of pre-conditions mustbe met:• The original cause for displacement shouldhave been removed, and physical securityrestored;• Prospects for a livelihood in the homelandshould be better than in the displacedlocation;• Essential or important services (such as water,medical aid and schooling) should be availablein the homeland and ideally equivalent tothose in the displaced location;• A practical means to travel back to thehomeland safely (with possessions) should beavailable; and• The return process must be sponsored oraffordable for the displaced.Because of these conditions, temporary displacementsfor any reason tend to turn into long-term processesor even permanent moves. Temporary settlementsthat exist for over a decade are not uncommon inSudan. In Port Sudan, for instance, the UNEP teammet IDPs from Northern Kordofan who had livedin informal settlements for twenty-three years andhad no intention of returning to their homeland(see Case Study 5.1).102 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

5 POPULATION DISPLACEMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENTIDP camp residents told UNEP that they would rather remain in the Port Sudanarea than return home, due to employment opportunities and improved educationCS 5.1Fringe dwellers at Port Sudan: rural populations fleeing drought and seekinglivelihoods in the citiesThis informal settlement located in a wadi (seasonal riverbed) adjacent to the Port Sudan landfill is a typical example ofuncontrolled urbanization triggered by natural causes. It houses over 500 families, the majority of which came from the ElObeid region in Northern Kordofan.Interviewed residents stated that they had originally abandoned their farms due to extended drought and arrived in theregion twenty-three years ago. The community was forcibly moved from a better site nine years ago by a land dispute andexpanding urban development. The current site is seasonally flooded and has few amenities, aside from local schools anda water point installed by an aid project.Despite the long-term nature of the settlement, all of the dwellings are temporary constructions. When asked aboutthe potential for return to Northern Kordofan, the residents expressed no desire to do so, explaining that localemployment and availability of schools were the determining factors in their decision to remain in Port Sudan. As theresidents have no land tenure, however, they are at risk of being moved to even more distant fringes of Port Sudanas the city expands.Large-scale returns of southern Sudanese currentlyin northern Sudan and in neighboring countriesare now taking place but are expected to takeseveral years to complete (see Figure 5.2). Asof November 2006, over 17,000 refugees hadreturned to Southern Sudan through movementsorganized by UNHCR. An estimated total of500,000 people returned to Southern Sudan,Abyei, and Southern Kordofan and Blue Nilestates in 2006.In Darfur, large camps appeared in 2003 andare presently increasing in population due to theintensification of the conflict in late 2006.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •103

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFigure 5.2 Forecast returns for Southern Sudan in 2007Western DarfurNorthern DarfurNorthern KordofanWhite NileSennarGedarefSouthern DarfurSouthern Kordofan185500Blue Nile49500*Abyei35,000Upper Nile41250Northern Bahr El Ghazal68400Unity 20600EthiopiaCentral AfricanRepublicWestern Bahr El Ghazal10400Warrab25400Jonglei41800Lakes 14200LegendProjected IDP and refugee returns in 2007< 25,00025,001 - 50,00050,001 - 75,000> 75,000*NoteAbyei is a disputed area; the boundary is not yet finalizedData Sources: JLC/FAO, SIMDate: 03 December 2006DRCWestern Equatoria37400KilometresBahr El Jabal663000 100 200 300 400 500Projection: Lambert Azimutal Equal-Area ProjectionThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Eastern Equatoria23250UgandaKenya5.3 Overview of displacementrelatedenvironmental issuesDisplacement-related environmental issues arewidespread and often highly visible in majorcamps, settlements, urban slums and return areas.The most significant are:1. environmental issues as a cause for displacement;2. impacts related to the concentrations of peoplein camps or settlements:• deforestation and the fuelwood crisis in drylandcamp areas;• land degradation;• unsustainable groundwater extraction; and• water pollution;3. other impacts related to the initial displacement;• uncontrolled urban and slum growth; and• fallow area regeneration (generally apositive impact);4. the impacts of returnees and the environmentalsustainability of rural returns; and5. international environmental impacts.5.4 Environment as one ofthree major causes ofdisplacement in SudanThere are three principal causes of displacementin Sudan:• conflict-related insecurity and loss of livelihoods;• natural and environmental causes: drought,desertification and flooding; and• government-sponsored development schemes.The principal cause of displacement has historicallybeen the major conflicts that have afflicted Sudansince its independence. The second is natural disasters:drought, desertification and flooding, which arediscussed in detail in Chapter 3. The third cause ofdisplacement is government-sponsored developmentschemes, specifically mechanized rain-fed agriculturalschemes, such as the Aswan dam and the newMerowe dam. In these cases, displacement takes theform of organized resettlements and land allocationfor new agricultural schemes. The environmentalimpact of agricultural schemes and dams are coveredin Chapters 8 and 10 respectively.104 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

5 POPULATION DISPLACEMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT5.5 Environmental impacts ofcamps and settlementsGovernance of settlements includingenvironmental issuesThe environmental impacts of camps in Sudanvary not only according to their physical locationbut also to their type (IDP or refugee camps), andto how long they have been in existence.Oversight of refugee camps is the responsibilityof the UN High Commissioner for Refugees(UNHCR) which, in turn, works with a governmentcounterpart (the Commissioner forRefugees) and a range of other agencies andinstitutions, national and international, asrequired.Responsibility for IDP camps is much less clear,particularly in Sudan, where some are run bythe government and others by local authorities,militant groups, or international NGOs. Resources(funds, technical assistance and so forth) availableto IDP and refugee camps also vary considerably.In general, IDP camps tend to have fewer reliefresources than refugee camps. UNEP field teamsencountered many families who deliberatelyelected to go to a refugee camp in preference toan IDP camp, because conditions were better inthe former.Environmental concerns have rarely – if ever – beena factor in the choice of sites for refugee or IDPcamps in Sudan. No environmental assessment hasever been carried out prior to the site selection andestablishment of any existing camp, nor is this alegal requirement.A rapid environmental assessment conducted byOCHA at three camps in Darfur in 2001 highlightedanother common concern which is addressed in thisreport: ‘While the environment is an importantfactor in the Darfur crisis, there is no internationalagency with a specific mandate to consider orincorporate environmental issues into reliefoperations and peace efforts. This contrasts with thecase for Darfur refugees in Chad, where UNHCRhas a mandate to incorporate environmental issuesinto relief and return efforts’ [5.8].Deforestation and the fuelwood crisisin camp areasOne of the most significant environmentalimpacts of displaced population settlements is thesevere deforestation that has occurred around thelarger camps in the drier parts of the country.Camp residents in Western Darfur cut wood chippings from a fallen tree for cooking fuel. Theconcentration of people into large settlements has also concentrated the demands on naturalresources, resulting in severely deforested areas• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •105

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTThis problem is related to the scale of the campsand to the standard of aid provision for displacedpopulations. Indeed, the level of assistance thatdisplaced people receive in temporary settlementsvaries greatly. International refugees automaticallyqualify for assistance from UNHCR, while manyIDPs do not. The assistance provided can includefood aid, a water supply, basic sanitation facilities,tented accommodation or simply cover sheets andsome basic household items.What is virtually never provided is a source of energyfor cooking food, boiling water or heating. In addition,when no formal accommodation is supplied, timber isneeded to construct temporary dwellings. As a result,people living in camps and settlements are forced tofind timber and fuelwood in the surrounding area.Livelihood strategies and the relief economy also playa role in the deforestation of camp areas: the collectionof wood to fuel brick kilns, for example, is a majorsource of deforestation in a number of settlements inDarfur (see Case Study 5.2).Deforestation is clearly visible around all majorcamp locations and can easily be detected bysatellite in regions with otherwise good forestcover. In Nimule county on the border withUganda, for instance, the illicit felling of treesfor firewood and to clear land for slash-and-burnagriculture on the outskirts of a local IDP camphas resulted in the deforestation of a large areasurrounding the camp (see Figure 5.3).In drier regions, the effects are more difficultto detect but even more damaging. Much ofnorthern and central Sudan is relatively dry, withlow woodland density and slow growth rates. Treecover is particularly sparse in Northern Darfurand northern parts of Kassala, two regions thathost large displaced populations. Besides, themajority of settlements have been established inlocations that were already occupied, and wherethe existing burden on forest resources may ormay not have been sustainable.In eastern Sudan, camp-related deforestation hasbeen occurring for at least twenty years. Correctivemeasures (prohibitions) were put into place byUNHCR and the Forests National Corporation(FNC) to prevent refugees from cutting downtrees for fuel, but as their ongoing energy needswere not addressed, these were not effective.Figure 5.3Deforestation at NimuleInternational borderNimule countyUGANDADeforested area(around 2,200 hectares)Kilometres0 2 4 6 8 10The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.106 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

5 POPULATION DISPLACEMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENTA brick kiln at Abu Shouk camp in NorthernDarfur. One large tree is needed to fireapproximately 3,000 bricksIn this mango orchard near Kalma IDP camp inNyala, Southern Darfur, large amounts of clayhave been extracted for use in brick-making.This has exposed the trees’ root systems andwill eventually lead to their deathCS 5.2IDP brick-making, water use and deforestation in DarfurBrick-making has become an important source of income for IDPs in Darfur, but has also caused considerable environmental damagearound the camps. The impacts of the process include increased water consumption, damaged farmland and deforestation.The clay for the bricks is dug from borrow pits by hand, in areas that were often previously farmed. In the wet season,these pits fill with stagnant water and contribute to environmental health problems such as malaria. The water necessaryfor the manufacturing process is obtained either from watercourses or from deep boreholes with submersible pumpsinstalled by the aid community. The rate of extraction from such boreholes is not monitored, and may in some cases notbe sustainable. Finally, trees are needed to fire the bricks in temporary kilns – local studies have found that one large treeis needed to fire approximately 3,000 bricks.Simply banning such activities is not an appropriate or feasible option. A practical solution that still provides a livelihood forbrick workers is urgently needed for Darfur as well as other parts of Sudan. One such option could be to use compressedearth technology rather than bricks. This would require a comprehensive introduction programme addressing both thedemand and supply issues.It should be noted that the international relief community is a major customer for the bricks, particularly to build the two-metrehigh compound walls required by international security standards. In Darfur especially, the relief economy has become asignificant factor in the deforestation process.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •107

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTIn Darfur, fuelwood collection is effectivelyuncontrolled. Camp residents reported journeyingup to 15 km to find timber, and UNEP fieldworkinspections revealed extensive deforestation extendingas far as 10 km from the camps. This has contributedto a major security issue, as displaced women andgirls are often at risk of rape, harassment and otherforms of violence when they leave the camps to collectwood. This risk, however, is one they often have nochoice but to take, since there are few other sourcesof cooking fuel or income available to them [5.9].The fuelwood outlook for the major camps inNorthern and Western Darfur is unpromising.Substantial deforestation has taken place over thelast three years and the camps are likely to remainoccupied for a number of years to come. In addition,renewed fighting since late 2006 has created a newwave of displacement and new camps.It is possible that some camps in Darfur willexhaust virtually all viable fuelwood supplieswithin walking distance, resulting in major fuelshortages and/or high fuel prices. Without fuelfor cooking, aid food such as cereals, legumesand flour cannot be eaten. This would add anadditional facet to the ecological and humanrights issues already troubling Darfur.Some fuel conservation measures were notedby UNEP and reported by others. Though itis not universal, the use of fuel-efficient stoves,for instance, was found to be well established inDarfur. However, a detailed 2006 study by theWomen’s Commission on fuelwood and associatedgender-based violence in Darfur showed that fuelconservation measures alone would not suffice, asthe wood saved through the use of efficient stoveswould continue to be gathered to be sold on localmarkets [5.9].Finally, a number of very small tree plantationsand nursery projects have been set up in Darfur,Khartoum state and Kassala (principally in theform of ‘food for work’ programmes for campresidents), but these are much too limited to meetcurrent needs.Land degradation in camp areasLand degradation in camp areas is caused by overharvestingof seasonal fodder and shrubs by campresidents and their livestock (commonly goats).Aside from its environmental impact, this activityplaces camp residents in direct competition andpotential conflict with local residents (see CaseStudy 5.3).The zone outside Abu Shouk camp in El Fasher, Northern Darfur, is completely devegetated108 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

5 POPULATION DISPLACEMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENTCamp residents seekingout livelihoods comb thedrylands surrounding thecamps. In this case, womenare gathering fodder 13 kmfrom the camp to sell on thelocal marketThe prime agricultural landadjacent to the wadi in ElGeneina has been cultivatedby townspeople for manyyears, and is hence notavailable for camp residentsThe IDP camps are alllocated on the fringes oftown, facing waterless plains.Over the last four years,they have gradually becomeextensions of the town, whichis benefiting economicallyfrom the associated influx ofaid and labourCS 5.3Krinding IDP camp, Western DarfurThe Krinding IDP camp on the outskirts of El Geneina, Western Darfur, provides an example of the emerging urban environmentalissues associated with the Darfur crisis. In economic terms, El Geneina in 2007 is a thriving town driven in part by the reliefeconomy associated with the concentration of IDP camps and related activities in the region. Krinding (one of several campsin the El Geneina area) is located approximately four kilometres south-east of the town centre. Satellite images (see Figure 5.4)and photographs clearly show that the camp is effectively becoming an extension of the town, a fact confirmed by groundinspections. The environmental implication of this situation is that town and camp residents must now share or compete forthe natural resources of this relatively dry and infertile region.Most of the IDP camp residents were originally farmers, but the circumstances here and in most camps in Darfur severelyrestrict the potential for agricultural self-sufficiency and rural livelihoods. In El Geneina, the prime agricultural land nextto the wadi was already being intensely utilized (principally for orchards and market gardens) prior to the creation of thecamps. Unable to obtain a share in this prime land, the camp residents are left with very limited opportunities for agriculturallivelihoods, as other available lands (to the east of the camps) are essentially waterless and suitable only for low-intensitygrazing, fodder and fuel collection.Thirteen kilometres outside the camp, UNEP interviewed a group of women from Krinding harvesting fodder for sale in Geneinamarkets. This provided a small insight into the practical links between the environment, natural resource competition, camplife and human rights. The women had walked from the camp without escort in a region UN security specialists consideredso violent that the UNEP site visit required a dedicated armed escort from the African Union peacekeeping troops. The rapeof female camp residents on such gathering missions is unfortunately routine in this region.Money from the sale of gathered fodder and fuelwood is a small but vital supplement for camp residents who are otherwisecompletely dependent upon aid. Such efforts, however, bring camp residents in direct competition with locals (both pastoralistsand agriculturists) for scarce natural resources, and undermine the sustainability of rural livelihoods in the area.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •109

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFigure 5.4a El Geneina (12.02.2002)Site 1Satellite image acquired by QuickBird.Acquisition date: 12/02/2002.The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Figure 5.4b El Geneina (15.06.2006)Krinding I campKrinding II campSatellite image acquired by QuickBird.Acquisition date: 15/06/2006.Metres0 200 400 600 800 1,000The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.110 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

5 POPULATION DISPLACEMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENTThe water container queue at a wellpoint in Abu Shouk camp. Each water point services over a thousand peopleUnsustainable groundwater extractionin Darfur campsThe provision of clean water is a standardcomponent of the aid supplied to the major campsand settlements in Sudan by the internationalcommunity. This can be difficult to achieve fora combined camp population of several million,particularly in arid regions. The acknowledgedstandard for water supply is 15 litres per personper day, and wherever possible aid agencies aimfor this as a minimum.In Darfur, the larger camps are commonlysupplied with water via a network of groundwaterboreholes fitted with either hand pumps orelectric submersible pumps. For the larger camps,supplying to standards all year round is proving tobe possible but difficult, requiring numerous deepboreholes (between 30 and 40 m in most cases),and there is a major uncertainty as to whether thisrate of supply is sustainable in the drier regionsand areas with low-yield aquifers.In some cases, there are signs that it is not: AbuShouk camp in Southern Darfur has a populationof 80,000 and rising, requiring more than1,000 m 3 of water per day. In 2006, five of twelveboreholes ran dry, indicating a substantial dropin the water table. Unfortunately, as of March2007, groundwater level monitoring is not beingconducted for any camp in Darfur, making itimpossible to determine whether incidents such asthe dry wells at Abu Shouk are isolated or ratherthe foretaste of a much larger problem loomingin the future.Short- to medium-term localized groundwatershortages are unlikely to have a major orpermanent environmental impact. However,camps without a viable water supply may need tobe moved, with all of the attendant issues, costsand risks that this would entail.Water pollutionThe concentration of a large number of people intemporary dwellings raises concerns for sanitationand bacteriological contamination of surfaceand groundwater. The standard solution is theconstruction of pit latrines, though these are notin place everywhere (this is particularly the casefor IDP camps).The most severe pollution problems were observedin IDP camps in the more humid regions of Sudan.UNEP field teams found major water pollutionissues surrounding all informal camps visited inSouthern Sudan. These same areas were epicentresfor the cholera epidemic of 2006 (see Chapter 6).As detailed in Chapters 6 and 10, a lack of field dataconstrains more detailed analysis of this topic.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •111

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT5.6 Other environmentalimpacts of displacementUncontrolled urban and slum growthThe majority of displaced people in Sudan arelocated in or close to towns and cities; there areover two million in the Khartoum region alone.Large-scale migration from the countryside tourban centres has been largely uncontrolled,with the result that a large number of urbanslums or informal squatter settlements have beenestablished. Urban slums are associated with aseries of environmental and social problems, andare covered in detail in Chapter 6.The urban issues associated with the north-southconflict have been ongoing for over twenty years.In contrast, the Darfur crisis is now creatingnew urban problems, as the majority of thedisplaced person camps are tightly linked to theregional towns and cities and are fast becoming apermanent part of those settlements.Fallow area regenerationOne minor positive impact of historicaldisplacement has been the natural regenerationof vacated lands. Large areas in the conflict zoneshave been partly or completely depopulated for anumber of years, and this has eased the pressureon the land from farming, grazing, burning andtimber-cutting. The fallow period for the vacatedareas ranges from five to twenty-five years. In themoderate to high rainfall regions, the result hasbeen the re-growth of forests. UNEP field teamssaw ‘new’ forests of this type throughout the Nubamountains and north of Bor in Jonglei state. Thedistinguishing characteristics of ‘new’ forests areheavier undergrowth, the lack of fallen and oldertrees and fairly uniform maximum tree sizes.The ‘new’ forests represent a return to a wild habitatthat is expected to be reversed if the displacedpopulations return in equal or greater numbersthan were originally present. As such, they representboth a livelihood burden (as trees need to be clearedto grow the first crops) and a windfall asset thatcould in theory be sustainably managed.5.7 Environmental implicationsof the return processThe population return process for Sudan has verysignificant environmental consequences, whichare presently not being addressed. Two majorreturn processes are currently underway:1. The ongoing return process for the approximatelyfour million people displaced by the north-southconflict. Due to a range of practical, economicand political constraints, this is expected to takeseveral years;The population return and recovery process in Southern Kordofan has led to a surge in deforestation112 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

5 POPULATION DISPLACEMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENTBadly degraded drylands cannot support highdensityrural populations: crop yields are lowand livestock-rearing is problematic due to a lackof fodder. Populations living on badly degradedland are frequently forced to move; this is alreadya common occurrence in the drier states such asNorthern Kordofan.UNEP has conducted a preliminary analysis ofthe environmental sustainability of the returnprocess for each of the twenty-five states, basedon the following factors:1. current population density;2. future return population and net impact onpopulation density;3. current land quality/extent of degradation,estimated by using a combination of desk studies,field reconnaissance and satellite data; and4. rainfall, as the strongest indicator of resilienceto environmental stress, particularly fromovergrazing.Wau township, Western Bahr el Ghazal. Oneenvironmentally significant consequence ofthe return process for Southern Sudan willbe the rapid growth of urban centres2. The future return process for the approximatelytwo million displaced in Darfur. The currentinstability is preventing this process from evenbeing planned.The key environmental question is whether thereturn areas will be able to support the newpopulations. Unfortunately, in some specificcases, it is clear that the return process will notbe environmentally sustainable in the mediumto long term. In the worst cases, environmentalissues will make the process unsuccessful and leadto renewed displacement.The strongest evidence for this unwelcomeprediction is the current condition of manyof the proposed return areas, where long-termland degradation is visible even with a reducedpopulation. This is particularly clear in thedrier Sahel belt and the area immediatelysouthwards.While virtually every state has environmentalissues associated with displacement and returns,the most vulnerable states are considered to beDarfur (all three states, but especially NorthernDarfur), Southern Kordofan, eastern Kassala,northern Blue Nile, northern Upper Nile, andnorthern Unity state.The situation in Darfur is particularly clear. Manyregions of Northern and Western Darfur areundergoing desertification and land degradationat a significant rate. The rural areas of these regionsare now partially depopulated due to the conflict,though some tribes (principally pastoralists) arestill present. Given the current condition of theland and the increasingly dry climate, traditionalrural livelihoods are no longer viable, so large-scalereturns to these areas cannot be recommended.For most of Southern Sudan, the situation isrelatively positive in that the higher rainfallprovides for greater agricultural productivity,and hence a greater capacity to absorb returnees.Nonetheless, certain areas – particularly thosesurrounding major towns – are expected to comeunder significant stress from the predicted largescalereturns.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •113

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFood distribution at the Borway station. UN-supportedreturnee families are suppliedwith two months worth offoodstuffs, seeds, tools andother items to assist theirre-establishmentPart of a group of 75orphans delivered to Padakcounty under the care ofthree women and an elder.The urgent priority forreturnees such as these is toestablish a livelihood, usuallycrop-raisingThe dominant livelihood formost rural Dinka peopleis a combination of cattlerearingand slash-and-burnagriculture. While the plannedreturn areas were found to begenerally in good to moderatecondition, it is doubtful thatthey could provide sustainablelivelihoods for the projected 47percent increase in populationCS 5.4The environmental impact of the returnof the Dinka to Bor county, Jonglei stateThe return of the Dinka people to Bor county in Jonglei state provides a case study in the likely impact of returnees onthe rural environment of the south. The Dinka people are agro-pastoralists, combining cattle-rearing with wet seasonagriculture, and migrating seasonally according to the rains and the inundation of the toic (seasonal floodplains). A largeproportion of the Dinka in Jonglei state were displaced from their home rangelands by the north-south conflict, and fled tothe far south of the country or to refugee camps in Uganda. Localized displacement also took place as people left conflicthotspots and fled to the towns for safety. The conflict and displacement were accompanied by major cattle losses due totheft and abandonment, though some stock was retained and transported south.In 2006, the UN and a range of NGOs commenced a managed return programme for the Dinka. Able-bodied men drovethe cattle up from the far south of the country to the rangelands, while women and children were transported by bargeand truck. This organized process of preparation, transportation and provision of supplies resulted (by the second half of2006) in approximately 7,000 people returning to Jonglei state over a period of six months. This was accompanied by asubstantial number of spontaneous and unassisted returns. Each assisted family was supplied with approximately twomonths worth of food, shelter items, seeds and agricultural tools. Livestock was not supplied.For the people arriving at the start of the rainy season, the immediate priority was to establish shelter, clear a smallholdingand plant a range of crops. This resulted in an upsurge of slash-and-burn clearance and tree felling in the return areas.The geographic extent of this clearance was focused on areas with permanent water supplies and access to communityservices (roads, schools, and clinics).The UNEP team inspected a wet season agricultural area located 5 km east of the Nile and 10 km north of the townshipof Padak. Residents within the local payam (district administrative unit) provided relatively detailed statistics on whatthe returnee process meant for them: for a 180 km² area, the payam had a population of 19,000, giving a density ofapproximately 100 per square kilometre or one person per hectare. The Jonglei state government had provided the localadministrator with an estimate of 9,000 returnees to the payam over a few years. Several hundred had already arrived asof April 2006, but when or whether the figure of 9,000 would be reached (particularly when contrasted with the rate ofreturn monitored by the UN) was unclear.The region still had good tree cover and large patches of fallow land. There was no sign of major overgrazing, soil erosionor soil fertility problems. As such, it was determined that the agricultural livelihood of the current population was probablysustainable. However, whether the area could sustain the projected 47 percent population increase was far from clear, anda significant risk of environmental degradation and food insecurity remained for the longer term, as well as the possibilitythat some of the population might have to migrate further.114 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

5 POPULATION DISPLACEMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT5.8 International aspects ofenvironment anddisplacement in SudanThe export of environmental problemsto neighbouring countriesThe countries neighbouring Sudan host some700,000 Sudanese refugees. In addition to arange of chronic environmental problems, thesecountries suffer from the impact of numerouslarge camps.Refugees from Darfur in north-eastern Chad, forexample, are a considerable burden to their hostcommunities due to their sheer number (400,000people). Since their arrival in 2003, pressure hasmounted significantly on scarce natural resourcessuch as water, fuelwood and fodder for livestock,access to which has often been a source of conflictin the region.Uduk refugees from the Upper Nile provincenow living in Gambella refugee camp in westernEthiopia have, in the thirteen years since the campwas established, seriously degraded an area of almost400 km 2 by clearing it for agriculture. Rehabilitatingthis and other areas will require considerable timeand resources if the welfare of hosting communitiesis not to be further degraded.5.9 Conclusions andrecommendationsConclusionThe links between displacement and the environmentin Sudan are clear and significant.Environmental degradation is one of the underlyingcauses of displacement in dryland Sudan. Unlessthe process of widespread desertification and otherforms of land degradation are halted, large-scaledisplacement is expected to continue, whether ornot major conflict goes on.The displacement of over five million Sudaneseinto slums, camps and informal settlementshas been accompanied by major environmentaldamage to the often fragile environments wherethese settlements have developed. The largercamps, particularly in Darfur, have been epicentresof severe degradation, and the lack of controls andsolutions has led to human rights abuses, conflictsover resources and food insecurity.The population return process is expected to result ina further wave of environmental degradation in someof the more fragile and drier return areas. In the worstcases, such as Northern Darfur, large-scale ruralreturns may be simply untenable as the remainingnatural resources are so limited and degraded thatrural livelihoods can no longer be supported.Background to the recommendationsBecause international humanitarian aid organizationsare by far the strongest actors in thearea of IDP and refugee camp management,recommendations linked to camps and returnsare generally addressed to this community.Nonetheless, close government involvement(by both GONU and GOSS) is necessary andassumed. All recommendations are short-term(0.5 - 2 years).Two key policy issues must be addressed by therelief community. First, the current approach tothe environmental impact of camps in Sudan,particularly regarding deforestation, is largely toignore it (with some creditable exceptions). Thisis not due to local attitudes or a lack of standardsor other guidance on this topic – what is missingis sufficient investment in this area. This needs tobe addressed at the highest level to improve thecurrent imbalance between daily humanitarianneeds and long-term sustainability.Second, a fundamental principle of displacedpopulation assistance is the ‘right to return’ to theoriginal site of displacement. For the drier parts ofDarfur, however, this issue needs to be criticallyexamined in the context of desertification andintense competition for natural resources.Assisting people to return to areas which can nolonger sustain them is not a viable solution forcamp closure.In the detailed recommendations set out below, itshould be noted that while UNHCR is designatedas the primary beneficiary for its role in theoversight of the displaced population issue, theactual beneficiaries are the displaced populationsthemselves.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •115

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTElders from Shaggarab camp and hostingcommunities inspect a year-old acacia treeplantationTogether with officials from the ForestsNational Corporation and the Commissionerfor Refugees, representatives from both thehosting and the refugee communities inspectprogress on preparations for a communitytree nursery in Fau 5 campCS 5.5Community-based rehabilitation of refugee-impacted areas in eastern SudanSome of the largest and longest-lasting refugee caseloads in Africa have been those of Ethiopian and Eritrean refugeessettled in eastern Sudan (principally in Gedaref and Kassala states). The impact of such a large number of people – some1.1 million refugees at its climax in 1985 – has been significant in environmental as well as social and economic terms.In October 2002, a multidisciplinary assessment mission developed a comprehensive proposal to address the issue of campclosure and rehabilitation needs in the affected area. Initiated by UNHCR and the Government of Sudan, the SustainableOptions for Livelihood Security in Eastern Sudan (SOLSES) Programme was conceived as a scaling-down exercise of UNHCR’spresence in the region, with simultaneous preparation for the hand-over of assets to local communities and authorities, aswell as some environmental rehabilitation. Needs assessments were carried out to evaluate peoples’ actual and anticipatedneeds from a range of environmental resources, as well as for health and education facilities, and water and sanitation.The environmental component of the SOLSES Programme is managed by IUCN - The World Conservation Union. Itspoint of departure is the engagement of beneficiaries (both refugees and local communities) with clear links to the state’sdevelopment plan and processes, through community environmental management planning.By November 2006, Community Environment Management Plans had been established for nine refugee-impacted areas in thecentral states (Sennar and El Gezira), as well as for the Setit region in Kassala state. The development of such plans has beenan important part of the overall needs assessment of affected communities, some of which include refugees who are not ableto return to Eritrea. Many of these people have lived in camps for more than thirty years, and are essentially already integratedinto the local community (in some instances it is no longer possible to determine between a camp and a local village).Support through SOLSES is intended to build peoples’ capacities and expertise so that they might become self-sufficientand, at the same time, less reliant or better able to manage the natural resources they still depend on.Agroforestry and community/compound tree-planting have become an important component of the work to supportsustainable development and income generation. In its first year alone, the sale of products from a two-hectare irrigatedagroforestry plot in the Mafaza former refugee camp generated USD 1,200 in revenue. Developing management plansfor forests that were established in the past fifteen to twenty years, and ensuring that these resources are cared for in thefuture are also part of the overall strategy. In 2005, for example, more than 14,000 ha of forest were handed over to localcommunities or state authorities for future management. In addition, the programme is working with local communitiesand forestry authorities to reafforest important areas as community forests.As community members become more familiar and convinced of the approaches promoted through SOLSES, theprogramme is also helping to respond to other pressing needs, far beyond the original concept of environmental rehabilitation,such as the provision of clean water and waste disposal, the use of agricultural chemicals, and the diseases caused bydirty water or mosquitoes. It is important that environmental concerns, issues and opportunities be pro-actively built intoall SOLSES and related activities in the future.116 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

5 POPULATION DISPLACEMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENTRecommendations for theinternational communityR5.1 Implement an IDP and refugee campenvironmental and technical assistance projectfor Darfur. This project should include theprovision of training, technical advice andguidelines for camp planners and managementstaff, and a number of small demonstrationprojects at the larger camps.CA: TA; PB: UNHCR; UNP: UNEP; CE: 1.5M;DU: 3 yearsR5.2 Develop and implement a plan toresolve the Darfur camp fuelwood energycrisis. There are numerous options availableand many studies have been conducted, so anymajor programme should be preceded by a rapidoptions analysis and feasibility assessment. Majorinvestment is needed to address this large-scaleproblem.CA: PA; PB: UNHCR; UNP: UNEP; CE: 3M;DU: 3 yearsR5.3 Conduct an environmental impactassessment for the return process for SouthernSudan and the Three Areas, and develop plansfor impact mitigation. The assessment shouldalso provide guidelines for state, county and payam(district administrative unit) officials. Area plansshould be developed for identified hotspots.CA: AS; PB: UNHCR; UNP: UNEP; CE: 0.5M;DU: 1 yearR5.4 Conduct an environmental impact andfeasibility assessment for the return process inDarfur. The assessment should be a multi-agencyeffort and focus on the potential for the projectedreturn areas to adequately sustain rural livelihoodsin the event of peace.CA: AS; PB: UNHCR; UNP: UNEP; CE: 0.3M;DU: 1 yearThe devegetated outskirts of this IDP camp near Zalingei in Western Darfur clearly illustrate the impact ofthe concentrated exploitation of natural resources that were scarce to begin with• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •117

Urban Environmentand EnvironmentalHealthThe Port Sudan dumpsite.Improvements in solid waste managementwill first and foremost require increasedgovernment investment in disposal facilities.

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTUrban environment andenvironmental health6.1 Introduction andassessment activitiesIntroductionUrban environment and environmental healthissues are some of the most visible symptoms ofthe challenges facing Sudan. Sprawling slums,litter and polluted waterways are prevalent inmost urban centres, and health and developmentstatistics quantify in some detail the massiveimpact of this situation on the quality of life ofthe Sudanese population.Shelter, potable water, sanitation and wastemanagement are cross-cutting issues, anddeficiencies in any of these areas can be categorizedas development, health or environmental problems.This chapter focuses on the environmental aspectsof these issues and the associated challenges indevelopment and governance.Assessment activitiesDetailed desk study information was available onurban and environmental health issues, thoughstatistical data on Southern Sudan was relativelyscarce. UNEP’s fieldwork included visits to urbancentres of all sizes in twenty states. Particularattention was paid to the investigation of unplannedsettlements, camps, waste management andsanitation. Three cities – Khartoum, Port Sudanand Juba – were selected for a closer assessment ofurban services and housing.Available statistics on environmental health andservices, which are a combination of governmentand UN data, tell a sombre story of poverty andunderdevelopment. On the national scale, eventhese numbers are overly optimistic, as much ofthe detailed data has historically been collectedin the more developed areas of the northernstates. On a more positive note, however, theeconomic development resulting from the oilboom is completely absent from older statistics,so that some areas such as Khartoum state areexpected to show significant improvement from2000 onwards.Introductory field training in Juba for the newly recruited staff of the GOSS Ministry of Environment,Wildlife Conservation and Tourism120 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

6 URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTHThe capital Khartoum is by far thelargest city in SudanIn Southern Sudan, the major towns, such asWau, consist of a small centre built in colonialtimes and a large fringe of informal settlementsThe scope of the assessment was consideredadequate to address but not fully quantify theissues at the national level. In addition, thestatistical evidence collected and presented hereshould be treated with caution; it is consideredsufficient to present trends but not to form thebasis for detailed planning.6.2 Overview of demographicsand major urban centresDemographicsThe majority of Sudan’s population (estimated tobe between 35 and 40 million) lives in villages andhamlets in rural areas. Exact figures on the rural andurban populations are not available, but UNEPestimates, from a compendium of incomplete andobsolete sources, that approximately 70 percentlive in villages, hamlets or lead a semi-nomadicexistence, and 30 percent are town and citydwellers, or live in displaced persons settlements[6.1, 6.2].Major urban centresThe urban population is concentrated in only a fewcities. Greater Khartoum is by far the largest: itspopulation was 2,918,000 in 1993, but it is estimatedto have grown to more than five million in 2006. Astudy using 1993 census data for the northern citiesshowed that 64 percent of the total population of thenine largest urban centres lived in Khartoum.Table 7. Populations of the major citiesin northern Sudan in 1993 [6.1]City Population Percentage of totalKhartoum 2,918,000 64Port Sudan 308,616 7El Obeid 228,139 5Nyala 220,386 5Wad Medani 212,501 5Gedaref 185,317 4Kosti 172,832 4El Fasher 141,600 3El Geneina 127,187 3Total 4,427,578 100• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •121

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTThe busy port of Malakal, on the White Nile. Virtually all of the major urban centres in Sudan are located on riversData on the size of the urban centres in SouthernSudan is extremely scarce. The largest towns are thestate capitals of Juba, Wau, and Malakal, and thetown of Yei. A 2005 urban planning study of Jubaestimated the town population at 250,000 [6.3].6.3 Overview of urban environmentand environmentalhealth issuesThe UNEP assessment identified a long list ofurban and environmental health issues in Sudan,but focused on those with the strongest link tothe environment. In this sector, most issues areclosely linked, so while the assessment couldfocus on individual problems, the solutions willneed to be integrated. The issues investigated byUNEP were:•••••••rapid urbanization;urban planning;drinking water, sanitation and waterbornediseases;solid waste management;air pollution and urban transport;urban energy; andsustainable construction.6.4 Urbanization and urbanplanningRapid urbanizationThe two dominant demographic trends in Sudanare rapid population growth (estimated to beover 2.6 percent) and even faster urbanization,fuelled by population growth and a range ofcompounding factors including:••••drought and desertification eliminating rurallivelihoods;mechanized agriculture schemes taking ruralland from traditional farming communities;conflict-related insecurity forcing abandonmentof rural livelihoods; andgeneral flight from rural poverty in searchof better livelihoods and services, such ashospitals and schools in the cities.Moderately good data is only available forKhartoum (see Case Study 6.1). It shows growthestimates of over five percent per year from 1973to 1993. Anecdotal evidence and data from studiesconducted between 1993 and 2006 indicate that122 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

6 URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTHthe explosive growth of Khartoum has not ceased[6.4, 6.5, 6.6]. Given the Khartoum-centredeconomic boom, the Darfur crisis, and the ruralenvironmental problems of the north, UNEP’sforecast for the capital is continued growth, withrapid inflows from northern states somewhatcountered by outflow to Southern Sudan.Following the signing of the Comprehensive PeaceAgreement (CPA) in January 2005, displacedpersons from the north and outside of Sudanhave started to return to their homelands in thesouth. Only very approximate numbers of returnsare available as of the end of 2006, but these arethought to be in the order of 300,000.The exact percentage of these returnees relocatingto southern towns is unknown, but the largerurban centres, such as Juba, Yei, Malakal, Wauand Rumbek, are clearly experiencing very rapidgrowth. Available data and estimates for Juba, forexample, show a population increase from 56,000in 1973 to 250,000 in 2006, which converts toa growth of 450 percent, or 14 percent (linear)per year [6.3, 6.7]. Growth rates since 2005 areexpected to be much higher than this thirty-threeyear average.This explosive urbanization is a severe challengewhich has not been – and still is not – managedor adequately controlled by regional or localauthorities. The result is chaotic urban sprawl andwidespread slums, which are in turn associatedwith a number of health, environmental andsocial problems. UNEP teams observed informalsettlements or slums on the outskirts of virtuallyevery town visited in Sudan.Urban planningTo date, not only has urban planning mostlybeen focused on metropolitan Khartoum, butthe plans that have been developed have notbeen fully implemented due to under-investmentin infrastructure and utilities, and underlyingdeficiencies in land tenure and the rule of law.While the capital has recently seen considerableinvestment, its size, high growth rate and historicallack of planning still constitute major challenges(see Case Study 6.1).Large-scale informal settlements have multiplied in the Khartoum area since the 1980s. Most of thesesettlements have very limited access to water, and no sewage or waste management• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •123

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTCS 6.1Urban planning and informal settlements in KhartoumMetropolitan Khartoum, which comprises Khartoum, Khartoum North and Omdurman, has an area of 802.5 km 2 . It islocated at the point where the White Nile, flowing north from Uganda, meets the Blue Nile, flowing west from Ethiopia.Founded as a military outpost in 1821, Khartoum soon became established as an important trading centre. It was chosen asthe seat of government in 1823. Within the past century, the city has expanded 250 times in area and 114 times in population.The population of metropolitan Khartoum is now estimated to be more than five million, and it has a current estimated annualaverage growth rate of four percent, making it by far the largest and most rapidly increasing concentration of people in thecountry [6.6]. Some 40 percent of Khartoum residents are internally displaced persons (or children of IDPs) [6.17].The capital is sprawling rather than dense: population density in metropolitan Khartoum was estimated at approximately163 persons/km² in 2004 [6.4]. This low figure is due to the fact that 92 percent of Khartoum’s dwelling plots containone-level developments of 300-500 m² per plot. There are few multi-story residential buildings.Key statistics for Khartoum are all obsolete and incomplete, but nevertheless illustrate the challenges in urban planning,transportation and provision of utilities and services.Four master plans have been established for the development of Khartoum since independence. Most were only partiallyimplemented, and a new plan is currently in process.The most significant environmental health problems can be observed on the outskirts of the city, where the majority ofunauthorized settlements are located. These settlements cover vast areas, contain no paved roads and offer negligiblefacilities for water, sanitation and solid waste management. The result is very poor sanitation, high disease rates, anddifficulties in accessing basic services.Khartoum authorities have attempted to address the issue of unauthorized settlements and squatters through a range ofplans, initiatives and new settlement deals. Almost all of these have failed, and over the last ten years, authorities haveturned to removing squatters by force, by bulldozing slum areas with little warning or compensation. Displaced personssettlements have been particularly vulnerable to this campaign.At the same time, a sixty-five hectare central business district is currently being developed at the junction between theBlue and While Nile. The Almogran business district development, which is probably the largest such development in theregion, includes plans for a six-hundred hectare residential estate and an eighteen-hole golf course built partly over theSunut Forest Nature Reserve.In sum, Khartoum’s urban planning and utility provision challenges are considerable. In the absence of major investmentand fundamental reforms in areas such as land tenure, the situation is likely to get significantly worse as the capital’spopulation continues to grow.Table 8. Key statistics for Khartoum [6.5]IndicatorStatisticAnnual growth rate 4 %Number of shanty towns surrounding metropolitan Khartoum (1986) 96Estimated population of unauthorized settlements2-3 millionPercentage of central Khartoum covered by water network 71 %Percentage of Khartoum connected to sewage system 28 %Percentage of Khartoum using pit latrines or other basic systems 68 %In Darfur, the cities of El Fasher, Nyala andEl Geneina, as well as other urban centres,are severely impacted by the massive influx ofdisplaced persons since the start of the conflict in2003. The majority of the two million displacedare found on the fringes of urban centres which,in some cases, have increased in population byover 200 percent in three years [6.8, 6.9]. Theexperience of Southern Sudan indicates thata significant percentage of these ‘temporary’settlements in Darfur will become permanentadditions to the towns.In Southern Sudan, urban planning challengesare twofold. First, urban populations are swellingdue to the return of displaced people, and second,124 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

6 URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTHFigure 6.1 Growth of Khartoum 1972-20001972 19872000LegendResidential areaCultivated areaIndustrial areaAirportSandsBare landRiver NileIslandsOpen spaceNo dataThese maps show land-usechanges that have occurerdin Khartoum over the last30 years.These maps are obtained fromthe classification of Landsatimages.Classification was performedby RSA (Remote SensingAuthorities) in 2006.Satellite images1972: Landsat MSS1987: Landsat TM2000: Landsat ETM+Datum: WGS 84Projection: UTM Zone 36Kilometres0 2 4 6 8 10The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •125

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTsome of the towns are inherently badly located:the Nile swamps and floodplains are home toseveral million people, but are very difficult placesto develop urban centres in, due to high watertables, annual flooding and a lack of buildingmaterials such as sand, gravel, rock and suitableclay. Malakal is a classic example of the constraintsimposed by location (see Case Study 6.2).The Government of Southern Sudan launched amajor urban development initiative for the tenstate capitals in 2005. Planned infrastructureworks include water and sanitation, roadsand drainage, power supply and governmentbuildings. The Juba civil works contracts, fundedpartly through the Multi-donor Trust Fund, wereawarded in 2006 and on-site work is in progress.Discussions are currently being held to explorethe financing of works in the other nine statecapitals.In parallel, UNDP has set up an UrbanManagement Programme for 2006-2009 toprovide broad policy and technical support. UNHabitat has also commenced operations, and aninternational aid programme funded by USAIDhas started to conduct assessments and capacitybuildingin urban planning for Southern Sudan.With limited soil absorption capacity and no gradient to allow for drainage, sewage remainsstagnant in Malakal’s town centre, increasing the risk of waterborne diseasesCS 6.2Malakal: the environmental health challenges of urban developmentin the southern clay plainsMalakal (population approximately 200,000) is the capital of Upper Nile state. It is located on a flood plain near the junctionof the White Nile and Sobat river. The town’s location and local geology exacerbate the usual water and sanitation problemsthat afflict all of the major towns in Southern Sudan.Indeed, the town is located on very flat ground consisting of heavy clay soil, and the water table is only 0.5 to 1.5 m belowthe surface. As a result, drainage is difficult. In the wet season, the town is frequently flooded for long periods of time.Because there are no significant rock or gravel deposits in the region, straightforward corrective measures like surfacepaving, minor relocations and raising settlements above the flood level are all extremely complex and costly, due to theneed to import bulk materials.Malakal’s population is rising rapidly as people return from the north and from Ethiopia, and the limited public services arecompletely overstretched. There is no effective sewage system, and the open rainfall drains that serve as sewers in mostof the town’s streets commonly overflow in the wet season. Unsurprisingly, Malakal was one of the towns affected by thecholera epidemic of 2005-2006. Unless the problem of town sewage is addressed through a combination of investmentand urban planning, preventing further outbreaks of waterborne diseases will be problematic.126 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

6 URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH6.5 Drinking water, sanitationand waterborne diseasesAccess to safe and adequatedrinking waterSudan is one of the few countries in the worldwhere the percentage of people with access to safeand adequate drinking water has declined over theTable 9. Overview of potable waterstatistics in Sudan [6.10, 6.11, 6.12]IndicatorStatisticNorthern and national figuresUrban populations without access to 40 %20 litres per day (North, 2005)Rural populations without access to 60 %20 litres per day (North, 2005)Khartoum population with improved 93 %water access (2005)Blue Nile state population with 24 %improved water access (2005)Primary schools without access to 65 %safe waterPercentage of daily income spent on Up to 40%water purchase by the urban poorAverage water consumption per < 6 litresperson per day from rural water pointsDarfurAverage water consumption per < 7 litresperson per daySouthern SudanRural population without access to 75 %safe water supplies (2005)Percentage of the estimated 6,500 65 %water points currently not functioningproperlylast decade. Water access rates are comparable topoorer countries in sub-Saharan Africa.Sudan actually has sufficient natural water resourcesin the form of rivers, lakes, seasonal streams andgroundwater to supply drinking water for thepopulation in virtually all areas, except for someparts of the northern desert (see Chapter 10).The constraint in supplying adequate and safedrinking water is principally due to a lack ofextraction and purification infrastructure. Underinvestmentand poverty are core obstacles for thesupply of water throughout Sudan, and historical andcurrent conflicts have exacerbated the problem.Water availability for agriculture and industry (whichcan use over twenty times the amount required percapita for potable purposes) is much more limited,and constrained by the scale and reliability of theresources rather than just under-investment.Water carts in Kassala state. Reliable water pointsare few and far between in the drier parts of Sudan.Many people rely on water purchased from vendorsA major aid-funded water drilling programmein Darfur has provided over a million peoplewith access to clean water since 2003© CARE INTERNATIONALHand-operated well pumps providea reliable water supply to millionsof Sudanese people• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •127

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTSanitation issues are most apparent in displacedpersons settlements that have not been reachedby international aid efforts. Such settlements aretypically found on the outskirts of towns, and aregenerally very crowded and unsanitary. Largescaleaid-organized camps are usually in bettercondition but often face major challenges due tocrowding and poor location.The majority of the urban population of Sudanrelies on basic latrines or septic tanks thatare emptied by truck. In this case, the load istransferred to the Khartoum sewage worksSanitation and sewageProblems with sanitation are evident throughoutSudan, and inadequate facilities are the normrather than the exception outside metropolitanKhartoum. Village fringes, disused lots andseasonal watercourses are commonly used as opentoilets, with predictable health consequences.Sewage systems have been installed in Khartoum,but these facilities, which cover only a quarterof the population [6.5], are now massivelyoverstretched and not functioning properly. Asa result, a large amount of untreated sewage ispumped back into the Nile, with obvious healthimplications for downstream communities. Mostother cities have some form of sewage drainagesystem but no treatment, so that effluent isdischarged directly into the nearest watercourse.In the very dry areas and in towns without a sewagenetwork, the standard solution for the moreaffluent communities (including the internationalaid community) is to use a septic tank. Whentanks are full, they are emptied by a suctiontanker and the contents are dumped, usually inthe dry bed of a local seasonal watercourse. Thisprocess is particularly inequitable as it essentiallytransfers the waterborne disease risk from theaffluent to the poor, who take their water fromsuch watercourses.Table 10.Overview of sanitation andsewage statistics in Sudan[6.10, 6.11, 6.12, 6.13]IndicatorNorthern and national figuresUrban population using improvedsanitation facilitiesRural population using improvedsanitation facilitiesPrimary schools with improvedsanitation facilitiesPercentage of Khartoum connectedto sewage systemDarfurPopulation using improved sanitationfacilitiesSouthern SudanPopulation using improved sanitationfacilitiesStatistic80 %46 %50 %28 %< 20 %< 30 %In towns without sewage plants, septic wastetankers empty their loads on the city outskirts, inthis case into the main wadi supplying drinkingwater to Port Sudan128 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

6 URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTHRaw sewage flowing to the White Nile. Though there is a sewage network in Khartoum, it does not coverthe entire city and no longer works properly, as it is stretched well beyond capacityWaterborne diseasesThe shortcomings in water quality and sanitationin Sudan are directly reflected in the incidence ofwaterborne diseases, which make up 80 percentof reported diseases in the country. The incidenceof disease is highly seasonal: the greatest problemsusually occur at the start of the wet season as the rainsand run-off mobilize the faecal matter and pollutionthat have accumulated during the dry season.Waterborne diseases are a particularly severeproblem in towns in Southern Sudan, due to thelack of water supply and sewage infrastructure incrowded informal housing areas like here in JubaThe very limited water monitoring that hasbeen carried out has confirmed bacteriologicalcontamination of the Nile in Khartoum stateand elsewhere in northern Sudan [6.12]. Limitedgroundwater monitoring in metropolitan Khartoumalso confirmed bacteriological contamination [6.5].There is practically no data for Southern Sudan.Apart from the routine waterborne illnesses such ascholera, dysentery, hepatitis A and a range of parasitic• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •129

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTinfections like schistosomiasis, a number of tropicaldiseases including malaria, sleeping sickness, riverblindness, guinea worm and visceral leishmaniasisare still prevalent. Southern Sudan is particularlyafflicted, with an estimated 70 percent of the world’scases of guinea worm occuring there [6.13].In 2005 and 2006, Southern Sudan experienced amajor cholera outbreak in several cities includingYei, Juba, Bor and Malakal. The total number ofvictims recorded by WHO was over 16,000, withover 470 deaths [6.14]. Cholera is a waterbornedisease linked to faecal pollution of drinkingwater. A UNEP team visited one of the epicentresof an outbreak in Juba in February 2006 (see CaseStudy 6.3) and found that water and sanitationproblems were so severe and endemic that itwould have been very difficult to pinpoint a singlesource, though according to WHO, untreatedwater from the White Nile and shallow open wellswere the most likely suspects [6.15].6.6 Solid waste management:consistent problems on anational scaleSolid waste management practices throughoutSudan are uniformly poor. Management is limitedto organized collection from the more affluenturban areas and dumping in open landfills oropen ground. In the majority of cases, garbage ofall types accumulates close to its point of originand is periodically burnt.Carefully designed water points, such as this onethat is connected to a deep well in Western Darfur,can help control the spread of waterborne diseasesLitter – plastic bags in particular – is a pervasiveproblem across the country, with Khartoum statebeing worst affected due to its population densityand relative wealth.UNEP field teams visited a number of municipaldumpsites in Port Sudan, Khartoum, El Obeid,El Geneina, Wau, Juba, Malakal and Bor, as wellas in smaller towns and villages. Of all of the sitesvisited, only Khartoum and Juba were found tohave organized systems of dumping waste into predefinedmoderately suitable locations. In all othercases, dumping took place on the outskirts of urbancentres (see Case Study 6.4). Moreover, there wasno waste separation at source, and slaughterhouseoffal, medical wastes, sewage and chemicals wereseen within the normal waste stream. Waste wasalso commonly dumped directly into seasonalwatercourses or rivers, thereby contributing towater pollution and waterborne diseases.Open air burning is the most common method ofwaste disposal in IDP settlements such as thisone on the southern fringe of KhartoumWind-blown litter is an endemic problem in thecountryside around major towns in northern andcentral Sudan130 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

6 URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTHOffal and effluent from the slaughter yard flowpast the well towards the White NileUNEP found that this hand-pump suppliedboth the slaughter yard and the nearby localsettlement. Waterborne diseases such ascholera occurred in this area in 2006CS6.3 Juba slaughter yard and community wellThe slaughter yard on the eastern edge of Juba is the largest of several relatively small and primitive facilities used forslaughtering cattle, sheep and goats in the town. The site is surrounded by IDP settlements, and is approximately 200 mfrom the Nile and 400 m upstream of the town’s municipal water extraction point.The facility consists of an open concrete yard with a number of drains and open washbasins. On the day of UNEP’s inspection,the facility was covered in blood and offal. Most of the non-commercial offal was washed into an open drain leading towardsthe river. The edges of the facility were used for dumping non-usable solid animal waste, and as an open latrine.A community water point in constant use was located on the premises, within five metres of the offal drain and communallatrine. The surface of the water point was surrounded by stagnant noxious water and waste. The depth of the water tablewas estimated by the team to be in the order of two to three metres. Interviews of water point users revealed that manypeople in IDP settlements nearby had been struck with cholera.This particular case of apparent contamination of community water supplies illustrates the problem of locating shallow groundwaterwells in an urban setting in the absence of any real form of water and sanitation infrastructure or protection measures.Since UNEP’s visit, however, it has fortunately been reported that the replacement of the slaughter yard is being carriedout as part of current infrastructure works in Juba. A new abattoir with modern facilities will be constructed on a new siteto the north of the city.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •131

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTA waste picker burns tires inorder to retrieve wire to sellas scrap metal (left)Abattoir waste was left inthe open air for scavengingdogs and birds (top right)Medical waste was foundacross the site and alongthe main road (bottom right)CS6.4 The Port Sudan landfillThe case of Port Sudan (population approximately 500,000) illustrates the solid waste management problems that existthroughout Sudan. The city has several uncontrolled waste disposal sites on its fringes. The largest by far is located alongthe banks of a broad wadi, approximately six kilometres from the city centre.The boundaries of the site are difficult to determine, as open dumping takes place along the access routes and in vacantor common land throughout the district. In total, it is estimated that no less than 5 km² are covered with a layer of mixedwaste ranging from 0.1 to 1 m in thickness.The site is virtually uncontrolled and presents obvious health and environmental hazards. Waste is burned and recycledby a resident group of waste pickers who live in terrible conditions on site. Animals observed feeding on the waste includedogs, goats, cattle and camels, as well as crows, kites and vultures.The types of waste dumped on site include clinical wastes (syringes, catheters, blood packs, drugs and bandages),plastics and paper, drums and other metal scraps, small-scale chemical wastes, abattoir and food wastes, and septictank solids and liquids.The root cause of problems such as those seen at Port Sudan is inadequate investment in public services, including in allaspects of sanitation and waste management.132 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

6 URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH6.7 Air pollution and urbantransport: a completedata vacuumUNEP found no evidence of systematic airquality monitoring in Sudan. UNEP itself didnot conduct any quantitative analysis, and thuscannot present any solid findings on the topic.With respect to health, the most significant airpollutant in most of Sudan is dust generated bywind moving over dry and exposed soil. Indeed,large parts of northern Sudan are routinelyenveloped in sand and dust storms, with highlevels of atmospheric dust persisting for daysat a time. This extent of exposure undoubtedlytakes a toll on the population’s respiratory health,although UNEP was not able to find solidstatistics on this issue.According to local authorities, the last significantair pollution and associated environmental healthsurvey was conducted in Khartoum in 1990. Thisstudy reportedly focused on health impacts totraffic police, but the results were not available forinterpretation. In 1979 and 1981, limited studiesinvestigated particulate (dust) and sulphur dioxide(SO2) levels in Khartoum; again, the results werenot available.On an anecdotal basis, industrial- and vehiclebasedair pollution do not appear to be regionalscaleproblems in Sudan, though localized issueswith factory and traffic emissions are evident incentral Khartoum.The current Environmental Framework Act of2000 does include some general prohibitions onair pollution, but no numerical quality standards.As a result, there are no criteria against whichthe performance of individual facilities can bejudged. There is also no measurement capacitywithin the regulatory authorities. Nonetheless, atleast one state government has taken action on airpollution issues, forcing a cement factory to treatits emissions (see Case Study 7.3).These and other positive steps at the local levelshould be supported via technical and legaldevelopment work, including data collectionand the establishment of air quality and plantperformance standards.6.8 Urban energy: a decliningdependence on woodSudanese cities are unusual even in the developingworld in that the level of electrification is overallextremely low, and that the majority of the urbanpopulation still relies on wood for energy: a1998 survey reported that 90 percent of urbanhouseholds still depended on charcoal and woodfor fuel. It is the energy needs of these ten millionurban dwellers of northern and central Sudanthat drive the large-scale and very unsustainablecommercial charcoal industry (see Chapter 9).Carting firewood back to Juba: towns in SouthernSudan rely on a combination of firewoodand charcoal for most energy needsThere is some cause for optimism, however. Liquefiedpetroleum gas (LPG) is being introduced into northernSudan – and Khartoum in particular (see Chapter 7).In addition, the electricity supplied by the Merowedam project is expected to double the national electricaloutput in 2007-2008, ushering in a major switchto electricity (see Chapter 10). This move from oneenergy source to others with different environmentalimpacts is a typical example of the environmentaltrade-offs that occur with development.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •133

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT6.9 Sustainable constructionopportunities: alternativesneeded to reducedeforestation ratesSudan is currently experiencing a constructionboom, which is greatly increasing the demandfor construction materials, and particularly forbricks. All bricks in Sudan are baked using a lowefficiency kiln system fuelled by firewood. Thedemand for wood has intensified the pressure onforests in most parts of the country, and especiallyin central Sudan and Darfur.The cost of ‘modern’ construction remainsextremely high, especially in Southern Sudan andDarfur, where transportation costs can be punitive.For example, the cement used for UN compoundsbuilt in 2006 in remote parts of Southern Sudanwas generally airlifted – an extremely expensiveapproach for bulk commodity transport.This building boom represents an opportunityto introduce sustainable and cost-effectiveconstruction techniques into the country.Techniques such as stabilized earth technology arealready used on a small scale in Sudan and simplyneed promotion. Other practices, such as solaraidedhot water systems, have been introducedbut have yet to be widely adopted.6.10 Urban and health sectorenvironmental governance:local management andfunding issuesUnder the terms of the 2005 Interim Constitution,practical management of the urban and healthsectors in Sudan is largely the responsibility of stategovernments, which in turn delegate down to countyand city governments. Cross-cutting this structureare federal ministries for physical development,health, water and irrigation, and transport.Traditional buildings such as this barn under construction near Mabior in Jonglei state requirea large number of young trees134 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

6 URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTHStabilized earth bricks are obtained byplacing a mixture of clay, silt, sand and astabilizing agent into a mechanical or handpoweredpress, which crushes the mix into ahard, dense block that is then dried naturallyStabilized earth construction techniquescombine the advantages of traditional earthand modern brick construction. Compressedearth blocks have been used in theconstruction of several buildings in KhartoumCS 6.5Sustainable construction using stabilized earth blocks: an opportunityfor the UN and others to do less harm to the environmentTraditional soil construction techniques are used in 80 percent of buildings in Sudan, and this figure rises to over 90percent in rural areas (2000 data). The advantages of soil are its very low cost, its local availability and the simplicity ofconstruction. Its disadvantages are its low strength and durability, particularly in high rainfall areas. The more affluentSudanese therefore rely on brick construction instead, and the demand for fuel to fire bricks is one of the causes of thedeforestation occurring in Sudan.Compressed and stabilized earth construction techniques combine the advantages of both traditional earth and modernbrick construction. The method can be summarized as follows: suitable moist soil consisting of a mixture of clay, silt andsometimes sand, is blended for uniformity before a stabilizing agent such as cement, lime, gypsum or bitumen is added.The material is then placed in a mechanical or hand-powered press, which crushes the soil-stabilizer mix into a hard,dense brick that is dried naturally, gaining strength in the process. The bricks obtained can be used just like fired clay orconcrete bricks.Modern compressed earth technology has proven effective in many parts of the world, and several buildings, such as the Haj Yousifexperimental school in Khartoum North, have already been constructed in Sudan as demonstration projects [6.18, 6.19].The environmental savings are significant, as studies have shown that compressed earth construction uses approximatelyonly one to two percent of the energy for material development per cubic metre that cement and fired bricks use [6.18].For Sudan, this translates into potentially major savings in fuelwood.The economics of compressed earth indicate that – if introduced correctly – the technology can be commercially selfsustaining,as it can compete with brick and cement on cost grounds. The main obstacle to market entry is its noveltyand a lack of local knowledge.UN agencies in Sudan and elsewhere in developing countries use considerable amounts of fired bricks to build theiroffices and residential compounds. In fact, the MOSS (Minimum Operating Security Standard) requirement for a two-metrehigh solid wall surrounding compounds is the direct cause of the felling of thousands of trees in Sudan and elsewhere.Compressed earth technology offers the opportunity for the UN and other international aid organizations to reduce thenegative impact of their presence and extend the ‘do no harm’ principle to include the environment.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •135

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTThe main issue for state governments in Sudan(outside of Khartoum) in areas such as urbanplanning and environmental health is insufficientfunding: local officials are generally quite awareof the problems but cannot act in the absence offunds.The second major obstacle to tackling urban andenvironmental health issues is the pace of urbangrowth and slum development: it is difficultto enforce basic planning and environmentalhealth standards when uncontrolled settlementsare set up on land that is either unsuitable forinhabitation or needed for the provision ofadequate infrastructure. A particular problemarises where illegal settlements are establishedin flood plains and partly block existingdrainage basins and corridors, resulting inincreased flooding and the spread of waterbornediseases.6.11 Conclusions andrecommendationsConclusionWhile urban environment and environmentalhealth issues are clearly apparent to all living inSudan, attempts to change this situation have metwith little success to date. The main obstacle forimprovement in these areas is a lack of investment,but other problems, such as the widespread lackof adequate urban planning, also play a role.Background to therecommendationsWater and environmental sanitation are majorareas for international humanitarian funding; inthe UN, work in these sectors is led by UNICEF.Solid waste management and urban planning aretraditionally not well supported, though this isnow changing.It is extremely clear that neither humanitariannor development aid efforts in these sectors willbe fully successful or sustainable without greatergovernment support, principally increasedgovernment funding. Issues such as land tenure,unauthorized settlements and chronic solid wastemanagement problems can also only be resolvedby national and local authorities.On this basis, UNEP’s recommendations arefocused on increasing government capacity andsupport for these sectors rather than implementingsite-specific projects. The exceptions are theneed for practical solid waste management andsustainable construction projects in one or morelocations to demonstrate the way ahead. It shouldbe noted that a substantial humanitarian waterand sanitation programme is separately promotedand managed by UNICEF and others on anannual basis, and is hence not repeated here.Recommendations for theGovernment of National UnityR6.1 Invest in urban planning capacitybuildingfor all northern and central states, andfor Darfur. This will entail a process of importingexpertise and ‘learning by doing’ through improvedmaster planning for each state capital. Particularattention should be given to Darfur state capitals,where the need is greatest due to the influx ofpeople displaced by the conflict. To improvepolitical support, assistance should be channeledin part by the Governor’s office in each state.CA: CB; PB: GONU state governments; UNP:UN Habitat; CE: 2M; DU: 3 yearsR6.2 Increase investment in environmentalhealth-related infrastructure and services inall northern and central states, and in Darfur.There is no substitute for significant investmentin solving issues such as sanitation and solid wastemanagement. Any major investment programmeshould proceed in stages, attempt to introduceself-sustaining financing and involve the privatesector. A proportion of the total cost shouldbe directed toward human resource capacitybuildingand awareness-raising. Note that thisrecommendation is not costed, but that theinvestment required to attain even a basic levelof service is anticipated to be in excess of USD 1billion over a period of more than a decade.CA: GI; PB: GONU state governments; UNP:UN Habitat; CE: NC; DU: 10 yrs+R6.3 Promote the growth of the LPG marketin major urban centres. This measure willdirectly reduce the pressure on remaining forestsin dryland Sudan by substituting for charcoal136 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

6 URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTHas an urban fuel source. Promotion may entailsome form of initial subsidization of the LPGcylinders. Fuel should not be subsidized, as thiswould create a distorted market in the long term.Costs and duration of the programme are flexibleand scalable.CA: GI; PB: Public via MoF; UNP: UNEP; CE:1M; DU: 2 yearsR6.4 Complete a stabilized earth technologydemonstration project for Khartoum andthree other states including Northern Darfur.This should entail the construction of a UNand government-used building in a prominentposition to maximize exposure, and shouldinclude extensive capacity-building components.The technology and capacity already exist withinthe Ministry of Environment and PhysicalDevelopment.CA: CB; PB: MEPD; UNP: UNOPS; CE: 1M;DU: 2 yearsR6.5 Complete a stabilized earth technologydemonstration project for Juba and three otherstates. The technology and capacity already existwithin the GONU Ministry of Environment andPhysical Development, and GONU assistance toGOSS on this topic would be a positive exampleof north-south cooperation.CA: CB; PB: MEPD; UNP: UNOPS; CE: 1M;DU: 2 yearsRecommendations for theGovernment of Southern SudanR6.6 Invest in urban planning capacitybuildingfor all southern states. This will entaila process of importing expertise and ‘learning bydoing’ through improved master planning foreach state capital. To improve political support,assistance should be channeled in part by theGovernor’s office in each state.CA:CB; PB: GOSS state governments; UNP: UNHabitat; CE: 2M; DU: 3 yearsR6.7 Increase investment in environmentalhealth-related infrastructure and services in allsouthern states. This recommendation matches R6.2above with similar anticipated costs and time scales.CA: GI; PB: GOSS state governments; UNP: UNHabitat; CE: NC; DU: 10 yrs+Recommendations for theUnited Nations in SudanR6.8 Construct a MOSS-compliantcompound perimeter for at least one basein Southern Sudan using stabilized earthtechnology. Such a demonstration projectpotentially has very high added value if explicitlyendorsed by the UN.CA: PA; PB: GONU MEPD; UNP: UNMIS andUNOPS; CE: 1M; DU: 2 years• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •137

Industry and theEnvironmentAn oil well being drilled atHeglig field, Southern Kordofan. Therapid growth of the oil industry isset to change Sudan’s economy,society, and environment.

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTIndustry and theenvironment7.1 Introduction andassessment activitiesIntroductionSudan’s industrial sector is currently undergoingrapid change and expansion. Historically limitedto utilities and small-scale food processing, thesector is now booming thanks to oil production,which began in 1999.Environmental governance of industry wasvirtually non-existent until 2000, and the effectsof this are clearly visible today. While the situationhas improved significantly over the last few years,major challenges remain in the areas of projectdevelopment and impact assessment, improvingthe operation of older and government-managedfacilities, and most importantly changing attitudesat the higher levels of government.Industries covered in this chapter include oilproduction, power generation, food-processing,transportation, chemicals and construction.Assessment activitiesUNEP teams visited a range of industrial facilitiesacross the country. In some cases, a full tour ofthe facility was possible; in others only briefinspections were carried out due to limited timeor access. The sites visited include:Port Sudan region, Red Sea state:• harbour operations and warehousing(site meetings and full tour);• several very light industry sites(site inspections);• saltworks (full site tour);• desalination plant (full site tour);• power station (external viewing only); and• refinery (site meeting only).Khartoum state:• Comfort soap and toothpaste factory(brief site visit); and• GIAD car assembling complex(brief site visit).Gezira state:• Baggier industrial complex (brief site visit);• Aqsa cooking oil factory (brief site visit); and• Hibatan tannery and leather factory (closed).Chlorine storage cylinders outside a chemical plant in Barri, Metropolitan Khartoum. UNEP’s assessment ofthe industrial sector included visits to many factories. Access was normally granted without restriction140 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

7 INDUSTRY AND THE ENVIRONMENTA small sesame seed oil pressing plant in Port Sudan. Food processing represents a significant partof the light industry sector in SudanSennar state:• Kenana sugar factory (full site tour); and• Asalaya sugar factory (full site tour).Southern Kordofan:• Heglig crude oil production complex (sitemeetings and full tour).Jonglei state:• oil exploration seismic survey base and linesites (site meeting and tour).Northern state:• Merowe dam site (Khartoum meetings, noaccess to the site, visited the downstreamregion, see Chapter 10 for details); and• Atbara cement factory (brief site visit).The number of sites visited was considered sufficientto evaluate the environmental governance ofindustry in Sudan; the assessment was supportedby an analysis of both general and site-specificlegislation and enforcement practices.Oil-related sites were visited, but not in sufficientdepth and number to gain a comprehensivepicture of the industry. The implications of thisdata gap are addressed further in this chapter.7.2 Overview of the industrialsector in SudanGeneral industrial structureSudan is experiencing rapid industrialization dueto the growth of the oil industry and associatedservice industries and imports. For the purposes ofthis environmental assessment, industry is dividedinto five sectors, as follows:1. the upstream oil industry;2. the downstream oil products industry;3. utilities (power generation and water supply);4. food processing (sugar, sesame oil, cereals); and5. miscellaneous (including mining, textilemanufacturers, tanneries and workshops).Oil, utilities and food processing dominate theindustrial sector. Until recently, virtually all of themajor industries in Sudan were state-owned orcontrolled. This has now changed, as many of themain manufacturers have been privatized. Apartfrom the newer oil facilities, the industrial sectorhas suffered from a lack of investment which isreflected in the condition of the plants and theirenvironmental performance.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •141

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTOil industry structureThe oil industry is conventionally divided intothree sectors:• The upstream sector, which covers explorationfor crude oil and gas, extraction, and transportvia pipelines and tankers to markets;• The downstream oil products sector, inwhich the supplied oil and gas are refined andconverted into usable products (petrol, diesel,lubricants) and sold to customers; and• The petrochemicals sector, in which oil andgas are converted into chemicals and materialssuch as solvents and plastics.Sudan’s upstream oil industry is set to dominateindustrial activity in the country for the nextgeneration. UNEP interviews indicated anationwide concern about the environmentalimpacts of exploration and extraction of oil,and this topic is addressed in some detail below.In contrast, the downstream sector in Sudan isrelatively small and set for moderate growth only.There is no petrochemical industry in Sudan yet.Oil industry exploration andproduction historyOil exploration in Sudan started in 1959, but thefirst major find was only made in 1980 by theUS company Chevron (now Chevron-Texaco),north of Bentiu in Western Upper Nile state(now renamed and boundaries changed to Unitystate). Further finds were made in 1982, 70 kmnorth of Bentiu in the Heglig district, in SouthernKordofan [7.1, 7.2].Oil production in Heglig and Bentiu was delayeduntil 1996 by the north-south civil war, whichwas itself partly caused and sustained by thecompetition for control of the oilfields. Theconflict and political changes during this periodwere accompanied by a shift in international oildevelopment partners. Most western companiesgradually withdrew, due in part to pressure in theirhome countries. They were replaced by Chinese,Malaysian and Indian national oil companies,which now manage the oilfields in Sudan togetherwith representatives from the Government ofNational Unity.Well casings lined up beneath the Heglig drilling rig. Oil production is rapidly increasing in Sudan, as newfields are developed and transport infrastructure such as trunk pipelines and marine terminals is constructed142 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

7 INDUSTRY AND THE ENVIRONMENTA crowned crane on ‘toic’ grassland near Padak. Much of the planned oil exploration is setto take place in the Nile flood plain, an environmentally very sensitive areaCurrent oil industry activitiesSudan started exporting oil in 1999. Accordingto official figures, oil production in Sudan wasapproximately 400,000 barrels per day as of mid-2006, and was expected to rise to 500,000 barrelsper day within a short period of time [7.3, 7.4].Based on an oil price of USD 67 per barrel [7.5],the latter production level equates to a theoreticalrevenue stream of USD 33.5 million per day orUSD 12.2 billion per year, which represents 14percent of the 2005 estimated gross domesticproduct for Sudan (USD 85.5 billion) [7.6].Sudan also has significant gas reserves (some 3trillion standard cubic feet) [7.7, 7.8] and currentlyproduces gas as a by-product of oil productionin central Sudan. Unfortunately, no large markethas yet been developed for this gas in Sudan. As aresult, most of it is burned off by flaring. Efforts areongoing to tap this supply by increasing the existingliquefied petroleum gas (LPG) market.As of mid-2006, the principal oil and gasproduction facilities in Sudan are:• production wells and initial treatmentcomplexes in the fields of Heglig (SouthernKordofan), Bentiu (Unity state), Thar Jath,Muglad and Adar (Upper Nile state); someof these facilities are still under developmentbut expected to start or increase productionwithin the next two years;• four crude oil export pipelines connecting thefields to Port Sudan, with a combined lengthof 3,900 km; and• a marine oil export terminal at Port Sudan.Oil exploration and production plansSudan’s commercially recoverable oil reserves arecurrently in the approximate range of 500 to 800million barrels, and total oil reserves are estimated• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •143

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTto be up to eight billion barrels [7.8, 7.9, 7.10].At present and projected extraction rates, thesereserves will last for approximately a decade,though it is expected that further reserves will bediscovered and exploited over time. Current plansare to expand production to 1.5 million barrelsper day by 2008 [7.3, 7.11].Only a small portion of central Sudan hasbeen explored thoroughly, and only a fractionof that small area is in production. Before theComprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) wassigned in 2005, exploration was limited tomilitary-controlled areas in the north-southborder regions. The establishment of peace andsecurity is now allowing exploration to expandinto the rest of Southern Sudan, as well asSouthern Darfur.There are nine exploration concessions in Sudan(see Figure 7.1), totalling approximately 250,000km 2 or ten percent of the country’s land area. Mostof the important unexplored areas are in SouthernSudan. Accordingly, large-scale oil explorationand perhaps development are expected to cometo Southern Sudan within the next ten years.Some activity has already started: the White NilePetroleum Company has been conducting seismicsurveys in Padak County, Jonglei state since 2006(see Case Study 7.2) and plans to commencedrilling in the second quarter of 2007.7.4 General industry-relatedenvironmental issuesAn absence of environmental considerationsin the development of newprojectsEnvironmental issues have rarely been consideredin the development of major industrial projects inSudan over the last forty years. This has been thecase throughout Sudan for all aspects of projectimplementation: design, feasibility, site selection,and facility construction and operation.As a result, a number of large projects havehad very negative impacts on the environment.Unfortunately, new projects are still beingimplemented without environmental considerationtoday (see Chapter 10 for section ondams). What’s more, development in Sudan hashistorically been driven by a series of nationallevelplans and mega-projects, such as the Geziraagricultural scheme and the Jonglei canal.These schemes tend to have high-level politicalbacking and progress rapidly from conception toconstruction, without opportunity for assessmentor public consultation.7.3 Overview of industry-relatedenvironmental issuesIndustry-related environmental issues can bedivided into those applicable to all industries andthose applicable to the upstream oil industry only.General issues are:• absence of environmental considerations inthe development of new projects; and• poor environmental performance at operatingsites.Upstream oil industry issues are:• isolation from governance and scrutiny;• existing impacts and future risks of oil exploration;• produced water;• produced gas flaring and utilization; and• oil spill risks from sea transportation.The construction of this major new harbour facilityin Port Sudan proceeded without an environmentalimpact assessment or mitigation of its impacts144 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

7 INDUSTRY AND THE ENVIRONMENTFigure 7.1 Sudan oil industryL I B Y AE G Y P TR EDN ORTHE R N14N ILER E D SEAPort Sudan13(FREE)S E15A20 o Sources:15 o10 o5 oC H A DWESTERNDARFURC E N T R A LA F R I C A NR E P U B L I CN O R T H E R N12(FREE)D ARF U RS O U T H E R NDAR F URW E S T E R NB A H RC6Heglig and TomaToma South and El NarKaikangNORTHERNBAHREL GHAZALE LN O R T H EK ORD O FG H A Z A LW E S T E R ND E M OCR A T I C R E PO F T H E C O N25 oSUS O UK O R4 21WA R R A BEl Toor5AR NA N11(FREE)THE R ND O F A NUmm SaguraandMungaUnityandTalih5BL A K E SE Q U AT O R I AUNI TU B L I CGOYKhartoumEl ObeidThar JathEL JABALAl-JayliW H I T EBE7LN I L EAgar Yale93G E8J O N G L E IBLUE NILEBAHR EQUATORIAThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.DANKHARZESTUPPER NILEO UI R ANMNU G A N D AAEASTERNK A S S A L A10(FREE)G E D A R E F30 o 35 oRE R I TRE AETHIO P I AK E N Y A3Oil refineryOilfieldOil pipelineConcession block and idUNEP/DEWA/GRID~Europe 2006Kilometres0 100 200 300 400 500Lambert Azimuthal Equal-Area ProjectionECOS; SIM (Sudan Interagency Mapping); USGS; vmaplv0, NIMA;various reports, maps and atlases; UN Cartographic Section.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •145

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTStand of mangroves located some 500 mfrom the power stationThe waste oil that is regularly dumped outsidethis Port Sudan power station migratestowards a lagoon and mangrove forest on theoutskirts of the cityCS 7.1Port Sudan power station waste oil dumpingThe lack of environmental governance in the industrial sector is readily apparent throughout Sudan. In Port Sudan, forexample, electricity is supplied by several government-operated oil-fired power generation stations. Power Station C islocated 5 km south of the city on the Port Sudan-Suakin road. It is built on what were previously salt marshes and locatedapproximately 200 m from a shallow lagoon, 500 m from one of the only remaining mangrove forests and at an equaldistance from the principal coastal recreation site outside the city.The diesel generators require regular oil changes, generating large quantities of waste oil. The UNEP inspection teamwitnessed this oil being simply poured onto the ground in vacant land next to the station, whence it gradually flowed intothe lagoon; open channels had been cut in the sediment to aid its flow.Poor environmental performanceat operating sitesUNEP site inspections revealed chronic seriousenvironmental problems at the majority ofindustrial facilities visited. The issues notedranged from air emissions and water pollutionto hazardous and solid waste disposal. There wasno correlation with scale: large facilities had thesame performance as smaller ones, if not worse.Air and liquid discharges were found to bemostly uncontrolled, and untreated effluent wasseen to be discharged directly into watercoursesat several sites.Used asphalt drums dumped on the outskirtsof Port Sudan146 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

7 INDUSTRY AND THE ENVIRONMENTThe environmental performance of the twoutilities visited by UNEP in Port Sudan – thewater desalination plant and Power StationC – was very poor (see Case Study 7.1). Utilitiesare still generally owned by the stateand suffer from a lack of investment. They arealso effectively immune from legal sanctionsbecause they provide vital services that cannotbe interrupted.Fuel oil spillage at the Rabak cement factory,in White Nile stateAt the country’s five main sugar estates, the keyproblem was the release of effluent. All sugarfactories were found to be releasing factorywastewater directly into the Blue and White Nilewithout pre-treatment. This wastewater containsan elevated biological oxygen demand (BOD),which can reach 800-3,000 ppm. The resultingpollution of river water is suspected to be theleading cause of frequent fish kills, particularlyin the Blue Nile. It should be noted that theKenana factory is in the process of constructinga wastewater treatment plant to address thisproblem. Others have yet to follow suit.Waste oil discharged onto the ground froma lubricant factory in Khartoum stateUntreated effluent flows directly from theAssalaya sugar factory to the Blue Nile• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •147

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT7.5 Environmental issues specificto the upstream oil industryGeneric issuesThe generic environmental impacts and risksassociated with the oil industry are well knownand include:• oil spills during any part of the process witha particular risk related to sea transport;• very large-scale intrusion into previouslyundeveloped or inaccessible areas via access roadsfor exploration, production plants and pipelines;• generation of water pollutants (produced waterfrom well fields is a particular problem);• generation of general and chemical solid wastes;• air emissions, particularly from gas flaring; and• secondary development impacts as theoil facilities attract populations seekingemployment and other benefits.The significance of these impacts can varydramatically from one oilfield or plant toanother, depending on the scale of the facility,the sensitivity of the location and the standardsof operation.As noted in the introduction, UNEP’s assessmentdid not cover the full extent of the industry.Detailed comments are hence restricted to whatwas physically viewed and verified by the UNEPteam, and to what was reported by oil industrypersonnel. Unverified statements with significantimplications are recorded as such.UNEP also received numerous and generallyextremely negative anecdotal reports from southernSudanese, which focused on the following:• discharge of untreated produced water;• damage to pastoral land and dwellings fromroad building; and• oilfield chemical dumping.Figure 7.2Um Sagura seismic survey gridBurnt areasSeismic lines400 m grid spacingProduction wellsKilometresWetlands0 1 2 3 4 5The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.The seismic lines and access roads in the Abyei region were cleared by bulldozer. They are visible as a grid at leastten years after completion of the survey, indicating significant damage to the vegetation and drainage patterns148 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

7 INDUSTRY AND THE ENVIRONMENTAirboats used for seismic surveying access inthe swamps and floodplains of Jonglei state,reducing the need for access roads in the firststages of oil explorationA UNEP inspection of a portion of the seismicline through wooded savannah in Padakcounty revealed minimal long-term impactdue to the limited clearance methods usedCS 7.2Seismic surveys for oil explorationThe first stage of oil exploration that has any significant impact in the field is the construction of access roads and seismicsurveying. Seismic surveys entail the capture of subsurface data in a grid pattern over thousands of square kilometres withline spacing of anywhere between 500 m and 5 km. Each line requires access by truck, and it is common practice to usea bulldozer to cut a track of four to twelve metres in width. This process can be very destructive in wooded regions and inwetlands, though the extent of the damage depends on the habitat, survey method and behaviour of the clearance teams.Seismic lines in the Bentiu and Abyei districts, which were placed in the 1990s on behalf of the Greater Nile PetroleumCompany, cross relatively open terrain and soft ground. These lines are still clearly visible in 2003 satellite images, indicatinga deep cut method of clearance with significant impact on the vegetation and drainage patterns (see Figure 7.2).In contrast, UNEP inspected a one month-old seismic line placed by Terra Seis on behalf of White Nile Petroleum in sparselywooded and settled terrain in the Padak region. The method of clearance used was scrub clearance, avoiding trees anddwellings by offsetting the line by a few metres. The UNEP team walked one line for two kilometres and found negligibleimpact, apart from the stated scrub clearance.These two examples indicate that while oil exploration will inevitably impact the environment of Southern Sudan, the impactcan be greatly reduced with appropriate controls.Additional accounts of environmental problemshave been documented in some detail by a numberof NGOs and international observers over the lastten years [7.12, 7.13, 7.14, 7.15]. These accountsare not reproduced here due to lack of verificationby UNEP on these critical and sensitive issues.Upstream oil industry isolation fromgovernance and scrutinyThe upstream oil industry in Sudan is essentiallyself-regulated and has never been subject toindependent technical scrutiny. Due to thelimited scope of the assessment, UNEP cannotcomment in detail on the actual performance ofthe upstream oil industry in Sudan. Elsewhere inthe world however, the general experience is thatthe industry’s level of environmental performanceis closely linked to the level of external scrutiny– secrecy is bad for performance.Existing impacts and future risksof oil explorationIf it is not well managed, the exploration processcan have the greatest impact on the environmentof all the phases of oil production, due to thelarge areas affected and the temporary natureof the work. Exploration is unsuccessful inover 90 percent of cases, and when the resultsare negative, oil companies abandon theareas surveyed. Unless it is remediated, theenvironmental legacy of exploration can last forgenerations.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •149

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTThe most significant of these impacts areaccess roads for very heavy equipment, seismicsurvey lines and drilling sites. The damage ismainly physical, comprising deforestation anddevegetation, erosion and watercourse siltation,and disrupted drainage patterns. Extensivedamage of this type was observed by the UNEPteam north of the Heglig facility in SouthernKordofan. Inspections of seismic lines in Jongleistate, however, revealed a much lower level ofimpact (see Case Study 7.2).The areas targeted for oil exploration in SouthernSudan are particularly vulnerable to explorationrelateddamage, as they do not have manyexisting roads, are relatively well forested, havevery soft soils, and flood for several months ayear. Control of such impacts should therefore bea top priority for the industry. While appropriatecontrol measures would increase the cost ofexploration, exploration itself would not beundermined, as it would be prohibited only inthe most sensitive areas, and then only at certaintimes of the year.Produced waterThe single most significant environmental issuefor crude oil production facilities in Sudan is thedisposal of produced water. Produced water isthe water extracted from the reservoir along withcrude oil, and separated from it before the oil istransported via pipeline. The volume of watercan be very large, particularly in the later years ofproduction, when the wells tend to produce morewater and less oil as reservoirs become depleted.The Heglig facility alone currently generatesover ten million cubic metres of produced waterannually. Full production of the central Sudanfields in ten years time may yield five to twentytimes that amount.Appropriate treatment and disposal options existfor produced water, but they can be costly. In theabsence of regulations, it is unfortunately commonpractice around the world to simply discharge it tothe nearest watercourse. Legislation and investmentin treatment facilities are required to protect theenvironment from this type of pollution.UNEP’s inspection of the Heglig facility inMarch 2006 noted an operational produced watertreatment facility based on reed bed technology.However, the GONU State Minister for Energyand Mining, as well as oil industry personnel,reported to UNEP in November 2006 thatproduced water was now being dischargeduntreated from the complex; volumes werenot specified. The reasons given for the lackof treatment were a recent major increase inproduced water flow rates and under-sizing ofthe treatment plant.Produced water flowing into a holding pond at Heglig. Produced water can be difficult and expensiveto treat, but has serious impacts on the environment if released untreated150 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

7 INDUSTRY AND THE ENVIRONMENTcities in the northern states – was 102,000 tonnes,but the potential domestic demand for LPG hasbeen estimated by government sources at 554,000tonnes per year. Sudan also exports LPG through aterminal at Port Sudan, and this market could beexpanded as well.The development of the domestic LPG marketand other uses for co-produced gas, such aselectricity generation, would reduce the demandfor fuelwood dramatically. In the long term, thiscould be the single most important factor inreversing the deforestation observed in the centraland northern states.Sea transport oil spill risksExperimental reed bed for the treatment ofproduced water at Heglig. Like all treatmentfacilities, it needs to be properly designed,sized and maintained to be efficientProduced gas flaring and utilizationThe gas produced as a by-product of crude oil inSudan is presently not all used. Some of it is flared(burned off) at the production site. Precise figuresfor gas flaring were not available to UNEP at thetime of the assessment, but irrespective of scale,this practice has three negative impacts:• needless emission of large volumes of greenhousegases;• waste of an energy resource that could feasiblyreplace much of the charcoal that is the cause forextensive deforestation in central Sudan; and• local air quality issues (generally a minorproblem).The petroleum gas that is being flared couldpotentially be converted to bottled LPG. Thoughthere is still ample room for growth (present marketpenetration is approximately 18 percent [7.7]), themarket for LPG is currently developing in Sudan.In 2005, the domestic consumption – mainly inThere are two main sources of risk for oil spillsarising from export operations in the Red Sea. Thefirst is the process of loading the ships from theshore; the second is the navigation of the loadedtankers through the Red Sea.Spills associated with loading have occurred,but have apparently been very minor. One suchincident reported by the Government in 2004 wasa spill of approximately 10 m 3 at the loading pointof the marine oil terminal (details not verified).Given that the marine oil terminal facilities arevery modern, the risk of a major spill occurringduring the loading process is considered moderateto low, provided operations are well managed.Oil tanker transport presents a larger risk. The RedSea is a busy shipping corridor connecting Europeto the Arab Gulf states and Asia. The traffic at thePort Sudan oil terminal is a new and growing load,with over 200 tankers anticipated per year as theindustry develops.The Red Sea generally has relatively calm weatherbut it is littered with navigational hazards in theform of over 1,000 very small islands, sandbarsand shallow submerged coral reefs. Much of thecoastline is fringed by reefs and there are few safehavens able to take large vessels. In addition, thepresence of coral reefs and seagrass beds makes theRed Sea highly sensitive to pollution.Oil-spill response resources in Sudan andelsewhere are structured according to a recognizedinternational scale:• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •151

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTTier 1 Small spills that can be managed usingthe resources available to the facility (or to alocal government unit in the case of small shipor coastal spills);Tier 2 Small- to intermediate-scale spills thatrequire a coordinated response using local andnational resources; andTier 3 Large spills requiring both national-levelmobilization and the importation of internationalspecialized spill response resources. There aremany centres worldwide capable of providingsuch equipment, but only three major centres(Southampton, Singapore and Dubai) aredesigned for rapid and large-scale internationalresponses.The marine oil terminal and Port Sudan bothhave Tier 1 facilities (not verified). The oilterminal management has conducted severaltraining exercises to build capacity, including spillcontainment boom deployment. However, thereis reportedly no oil dispersant (surfactant) capacityin country, and UNEP interviews indicated thatTier 2 planning was not well advanced due todifficulties in communication between differentministries and government bodies. The Ministryof Energy and Mining reported that the marineoil terminal had a Tier 3 agreement with OilSpill Response Limited in Southampton (notverified).Interviews also revealed that small oil slicks (1-10 m 3 ) caused by passing ships clearing bilges ininternational shipping lanes were very commonin Sudanese territorial waters. This is an endemicinternational problem, and is not linked toSudan’s oil industry.To summarize, while it is impossible to eliminatethe threat of a major oil spill, the risks observedand the safeguards reported to be in place forSudan’s oil export industry appear to be generallyin line or only slightly below those for oilexport facilities worldwide. The most importantareas for improvement would be the ability tomobilize surfactant-based responses, and bettercoordination at the Tier 2 level. Notwithstandingthe response capacity, the risk of an oil tankerincident is still considered relatively high due tothe abundance of navigational hazards.Waves breaking on a coral reef just off the marine terminal in Port Sudan152 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

7 INDUSTRY AND THE ENVIRONMENTIndustrial waste burning on vacant land in Khartoum state. Waste management and water pollutionare two areas in need of improved governance7.6 Industrial sectorenvironmental governanceGeneral industrial facilitiesIndustry is subject to national- and state-levelenvironmental legislation, but the enforcementof existing laws is limited and difficult.At the national level, Sudanese industry isgoverned by the Environmental Framework Actof 2001. In some cases, it is also regulated bythe need to obtain and renew operating licencesissued by state governments. While there is nospecific national-level statute addressing theenvironmental impacts of industry, individualoperating permits may have provisions regardingair emissions or effluents.The most direct form of environmental governanceobserved by UNEP during the assessment was at thestate level, where local complaints of large-scale airand water pollution had led to action by the StateGovernor and a form of state-level environmentalcouncil. In two cases reviewed (a cement factory anda tannery), the action was successful: the cementfactory was upgraded and the tannery was shutdown (see Case Study 7.3). In one other case, thefacility (a lubricant plant) was resisting control.Settlement pond under construction at theKenana Sugar Company, located near Kosti,which has recently invested heavily in theconstruction of water treatment facilities• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •153

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTThe Atbara cement factory is nowprivately ownedThe newly installed bag house filter treatsemissions from the main furnaceCS 7.3Upgrade of the Atbara cement factoryThe Atbara cement factory in Northern state is a positive example of the potential benefits of local governance and foreigninvestment in improving environmental performance.The factory is one of only two major cement production facilities in Sudan. It was established in 1947 as a private sectorshareholder company and began production in 1949, with second-hand equipment. It was nationalized in 1970, before beingprivatized and purchased by a foreign company in 1994. One of the conditions for privatization was that the existing plantemissions be significantly reduced. An eighteen-month window was given for the installation of the necessary equipment.When this had not occurred by the deadline, the Governor of Nile state closed the plant by decree. Within three months,the company had completed installation of a filtration system and the plant was permitted to re-open. Emissions are nowreported to be significantly lower and the plant is undergoing a number of other improvements.Oil industryThe oil industry in Sudan is managed by theMinistry of Energy and Mining, and governedby directives from the highest levels of theGovernment of National Unity (GONU). Oilindustry staff report that, in terms of environmentalperformance, companies are regulated by clausesof the 1998 Petroleum Wealth Act.The White Nile Petroleum Company is anexception, as it is not controlled by GONU.Rather, the Government of Southern Sudan(GOSS) is a minor shareholder in the venture,and the company’s government counterpart is theGOSS Ministry of Industry and Mining. However,UNEP’s assessment of the company’s operationsand the Ministry’s capacity has made clear thatthe company is effectively self-regulated.In theory, the Environmental Framework Act of2001 applies to the oil industry, but discussionswith the GONU Ministry of Environment andPhysical Development revealed that MEPDpersonnel could generally not gain access to oilindustry sites and had never applied any form ofsanction for violation of any legislation.In addition, UNEP enquiries did not uncover anyform of publicly available environmental or social154 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

7 INDUSTRY AND THE ENVIRONMENTimpact assessment for the oil industry, althoughinterviews with industry personnel indicatedthat some environment-related studies had beenconducted. One management document, the(now obsolete) Marine Oil Spill Response Plan,was publicly available [7.16].Project development andenvironmental impact assessmentsAs detailed above, environmental impactassessment (EIA) processes exist on paper inSudan but are not followed in practice. TheEnvironmental Framework Act of 2001 includesa basic EIA and approval process, which is notapplied effectively to the majority of projects, andnot applied at all to upstream oil projects.7.7 Conclusions andrecommendationsConclusionEnvironmental governance in the industrial sectorof Sudan is problematic and in need of majorimprovement and reform. Due to the relativelylimited level of industrial development to date,environmental damage has so far been moderate, butthe situation is expected to worsen rapidly as Sudanembarks on an oil-financed development boom.The main problems include:• absence of sector-specific legislation andstatutory guidance;Oil well drilling pits such as these at Heglig are normally remediated after use. At present, however, thereis no oversight of the oil industry’s performance or detailed environmental standards for such work• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •155

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT• lack of performance standards and enforcementcapacity; and• immunity of the oil industry, state-owned firmsand major new projects to public scrutiny.The upstream oil industry and water pollutionfrom industrial sites are sources of particularconcern. There are, however, some positiveexamples of governance at the state level forindividual facilities.Background to the recommendationsTwo key issues strongly influence the recommendationsfor Sudan’s industrial sector. First,unlike many other sectors of the economy, industrygenerally has the capacity to invest its own fundsin improving environmental performance, andsite-specific solutions are usually straightforward.If required, capacity-building can also be purchasedin the commercial market. For GONU and GOSS,industrial environmental performance is consideredfirst and foremost to be a governance issue.Second, the environmental impact of the oilindustry in central and Southern Sudan clearlyhas the potential to catalyse conflict betweenthe industry and local interests. Accordingly,resolving this issue is considered to be of thehighest priority.Recommendations for the Governmentof National UnityR7.1 UNEP or another fully independent bodyshould undertake an environmental assessmentof the upstream oil industry. The scope of thisassessment should encompass the impacts of pastexploration, current operational practices andproposed exploration. The agreed final resultsshould be made public, so as to eliminate theatmosphere of suspicion caused by the currentinformation vacuum.CA: AS; PB: MOEM; UNP: UNEP; CE: 0.4M;DU: 6 monthsR7.2 Develop a national oil industry environmentact with accompanying statutory guidelines andstandards. This would be a major venture requiringa cooperative approach with the oil industry andGOSS. Due to the complexity, and political andfinancial implications of this recommendation,the highest levels of political will and cooperationas well as international assistance are required. Thecost estimate is for legislation development. Thecost of legislation implementation is expected to betens of millions of US dollars over five years to beadopted by industry into existing projects and thenimplemented as standard.CA: GROL; PB: MOEM; UNP: UNEP; CE:0.5M; DU: 2 yearsR7.3 Develop a national-level, independentenvironmental enforcement unit for theindustrial sector, including the oil industry. Thiswould entail greatly strengthening the capacityof the Ministry of Environment and PhysicalDevelopment (or a similar body) to enable itto review EIAs, issue environmental permits,conduct inspections, support prosecutions andcarry out similar governance tasks.CA: GROL; PB: MEPD; UNP: UNEP; CE: 2M;DU: per annumRecommendations for the Governmentof Southern SudanR7.4 Establish an interim environmentalscreening and industrial permitting process forall new projects on GOSS territory. This wouldbe designed to cover the urgent requirements forproject assessment before adequate longer-termcontrols can be established. A multi-ministrycommittee could be appointed to review allsignificant project proposals and issue constructionand interim operating permits (up to five years).CA: GROL; PB: MEWCT; UNP: UNEP; CE:0.3M; DU: 2 yearsR7.5 Monitor GONU progress on R7.2 andR7.3; if not implemented within one year,commence a regional governance programmesimilar to that described above. Development ofthe oil and general industry sector will go aheadin Southern Sudan, and governance is definitelyand urgently needed. A uniform approach atthe national level is the preferred approach, andGOSS should lobby for this.CA: GROL; PB: MIM; UNP: UNEP; CE: 0.7M;DU: 2 years156 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

7 INDUSTRY AND THE ENVIRONMENTIt is completely feasible to reduce the environmental impact of oil exploration and production toacceptable levels in all but the most ecologically sensitive areas. That, however, requires bothcommitment and substantial investment• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •157

Agriculture and theEnvironmentIn this view of the Jebel Berkel archeologicalsite in Northern state, a thin irrigated strip ofdate palms bordering the Nile is visible in thebackground. The Nile has supported agriculturein the Sahara desert for over 5,000years, but upstream dam construction isthreatening the existence of this ancient andpreviously sustainable form of cultivation.

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAgriculture and theenvironment8.1 Introduction andassessment activitiesIntroductionAgriculture, which is the largest economic sectorin Sudan, is at the heart of some of the country’smost serious environmental problems: landdegradation in its various forms, riverbank erosion,invasive species, pesticide mismanagement, waterpollution, and canal sedimentation.The significance of land degradation in Sudancannot be underestimated: not only are 15 percentof the population partly or wholly dependent onimported food aid, but the population is growingby more than 2.6 percent per annum and perhectare crop yields are declining. In addition,conflict linked to competition over scarceagricultural resources continues in Darfur.Without major action to stop the wave of degradationand restore land productivity, the naturalresource base will simply continue to shrink, even asdemand grows. Resolving this issue is thus centralto achieving lasting peace and food security.Assessment activitiesUNEP first conducted a thorough desk study basedon a large body of national and local knowledgeon the subject of agriculture in Sudan. In thefield assessment phase, UNEP teams were able tocover all principle farming systems and regionsin the country. Agricultural sites were visitedin twenty-one states (excluding Unity, Warrab,Eastern Equatoria and Upper Nile) and particularattention was paid to thirteen of these: Blue Nile,Gedaref, El Gezira, Jonglei, Kassala, Khartoum,Northern Kordofan, Nile, Northern, Red Sea,Sennar, Southern Kordofan, and White Nile.Early morning at a Dinka cattle camp, Jonglei state160 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

8 AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENTThe FAO country report for 2004 indicatesthat the agricultural sector is the main source ofsustained growth and the backbone of Sudan’seconomy in terms of contribution to the grossdomestic product (GDP). Although the sector’seconomic stake is declining with the emergenceof the oil industry, Sudan continues to dependheavily on agriculture, whose share currentlyfluctuates around 40 percent of the GDP [8.1].The value of the crop and livestock sub-sectors,which together contribute 80 to 90 percent ofnon-oil export earnings, is almost equal at 47 and46 percent respectively [8.4].Five main types of farming are practised in Sudan, andeach has a specific set of environmental impacts:Large areas of woodland are being cleared forcrop-planting by the returning populationin Southern KordofanIn addition to these core team efforts, UNEP– in cooperation with the Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations (FAO)– commissioned the World Agroforestry Institute(ICRAF) to lead a consortium of local NGOsand institutes in a detailed study of ruralland use changes and degradation in fourteenlocations across Sudan. The ICRAF team firstperformed remote sensing analyses – each coveringapproximately 2,500 km 2 – of the fourteen targetareas. Field teams then visited nine of these sitesto conduct ground truthing.8.2 Overview of agriculturein SudanThe largest economic sector in SudanEstimates of Sudan’s cultivable area range from84 to 105 million hectares, or 34 to 42 percentof the country. Of this cultivable area, between12.6 and 16.65 million hectares or 15-16 percent(1980-2002 data) are actually farmed in a givenyear, depending largely on rainfall levels [8.1,8.2, 8.3]. Hence the frequent claim that Sudanis the potential ‘breadbasket’ of Africa and theMiddle East.• mechanized rain-fed agricultural schemes;• traditional rain-fed agriculture;• mechanized irrigation schemes;• traditional irrigation; and• livestock husbandry/pastoralism.Fifty-eight percent of the active workforce isemployed in agriculture, while 83 percent of thepopulation depends on farming for its livelihood:70 percent depends on traditional rain-fedfarming, 12 percent on irrigated agricultureand only 0.7 percent on mechanized agriculture[8.4]. Sorghum, millet and maize are the mainfood crops. Other important produce for thedomestic market includes sugarcane, dates, wheat,sunflower, pulses and forage. The principle exportcrops are cotton, gum arabic, sesame, groundnuts,fruits and vegetables.Commercial agricultural activities are mostlyconcentrated in a belt at the centre of the country,which extends approximately 1,100 km fromeast to west between latitudes 10 o and 14 o north,in the semi-arid dry savannah zone. Small-scalesubsistence agriculture is found throughoutSudan, and is dominant in Southern Sudan andDarfur. On average, traditional and mechanizedagriculture account for 55 and 45 percentrespectively of the rain-fed cultivated area [8.3,8.4]. Due to the vagaries of rainfall, however, andto the fact that significant swathes of mechanizedagriculture have been abandoned because of landdegradation, economic collapse and conflict, theseestimates are only indicative.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •161

AtbaraSUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFigure 8.1 Major agricultural schemesNileNORTHERNMerowe Dam(under construction)NILEEd DamerRED SEA6Rabak SingaThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Kassala15o 17NORTHERN37KORDOFAN9 58SennarDam 61123954RoseiresDam181011 RoseiresReservoirKadugliSOUTHERNBLUE NILEKORDOFAN UPPER30 o NILE35 o100El ObeidJebel El-Aulia DamK H A R T O U MW H I T EMechanized Agricultural Schemes(planned and unplanned)1. Habila2. El-Dali3. El-Mazmum4. El-Raheed5. El-Sharkia6. DinderN I L EIrrigated Agricultural Schemes1. Gezira and Managil 870’750 ha2. New Halfa3. Rahad152’280 ha121’500 ha4. Gash Delta101’250 ha5. Suki35’235 ha6. Tokar Delta30’780 haWhite NileNileKhartoumE LG E ZI R AWad MedaniS E N N A REd Damazin7. Guneid Sugar8. Assalaya Sugar9. Sennar Sugar10. Khashm El-Girba11. Kenana Sugar7. Gedaref8. Southern Kordofan9. White Nile10. Upper Nile11. Blue NileG E D A R E FBlueNileRahadDinder15’795 ha14’175 ha12’960 ha18’225 ha45’000 haK A S S A L A2Gedaref4Khashm El-GirbaDamERITREAETHIOPIAKilometres0 50 150 200 250Lambert Azimuthal Equal-Area ProjectionSources:SIM (Sudan Interagency Mapping); FAO; vmaplv0, gns, NIMA;The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth, NASA;various reports, maps and atlases; UN Cartographic Section.Agricultural schemes boundaries are approximate. UNEP/DEWA/GRID~Europe 200610162 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

8 AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENTThe largest irrigated area insub-Saharan AfricaSudan boasts the largest irrigated area in sub-SaharanAfrica and ranks second only to Egypt on thecontinent. Given that only two-thirds of the estimatedpotentially irrigable area of 2.8 million hectares areutilized and that this figure does not include SouthernSudan’s virtually unused vast potential, there issignificant opportunity for further expansion.Irrigated agriculture in Sudan falls into two broadcategories: traditional irrigation and modern schemes.Approximately 90 percent of the irrigated area ismanaged under the latter [8.1, 8.2]. Sorghum is themain cultivated crop, followed by cotton, fodder,wheat, vegetables, groundnuts and sugarcane.The importance of the irrigated sub-sector is reflectedin the fact that while it makes up only 7 percent of thecultivated area, it accounts for more than half of thecrop yields. Although large-scale irrigation schemeshave been Sudan’s leading economic investmentin the past century, various studies indicate thattheir performance has been considerably belowpotential. Of the 1.9 million hectares prepared forirrigation, only half was actually cultivated in 2005,owing largely to dilapidated irrigation and drainageinfrastructure [8.1]. Environmental factors such ascanal sedimentation have also contributed to lowirrigation returns.Alivestock herd of over 130 millionEstimates of grazing land vary between 97 and 117million hectares, or 39 and 47 percent of the country.Rangeland is found in almost all of Sudan’s ecologicalzones, with the exception of montane and real desertareas. As is the case with arable land, however, anoverwhelming proportion (80 percent) is foundin semi-desert and low rainfall savannah zonescharacterized by unpredictable rainfall and frequentdroughts [8.1, 8.5]. The rangeland’s vulnerabilityto overgrazing is thus high, and its overlap withcultivation is a major source of potential conflict.The livestock population consists mainly of camels,sheep and goats in the desert and semi-desert areas,and of cattle in the low to high rainfall savannahand Upper Nile floodplains. The estimated 134million livestock in Sudan are almost entirely rearedunder nomadic and semi-pastoral systems [8.5].8.3 Cross-cutting environmentalissues and impactsA broad array of issues and impacts were observedin the course of the assessment. The majority relatedto one or two of the agricultural sub-sectors only,but four cross-cutting issues were noted:• population pressure, conflict and displacementlinkages;• climate and climate change;• desertification and land degradation; and• invasive species, namely the mesquite tree innorthern and eastern Sudan.Population pressure, conflict anddisplacement linkagesAs discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, the issues of conflictand displacement, environmental degradationand Sudan’s rising population are considered tobe intrinsically linked. The situation in many ofthe drier parts of rural Sudan today can only bedescribed as an intense and unremitting competitionamongst an impoverished population for scarce anddiminishing natural resources. Episodic events suchas droughts, conflicts and waves of displacement areimportant, but considered to be part of a larger trendof rural landscapes stretched beyond their limit anddeclining in long-term capacity as a result.Climate and climate changeThis issue is addressed in detail in Chapter 3. Insum, the agricultural sector in Sudan is highlyvulnerable to shortages in rainfall. There has beena substantial decline in precipitation in the drylandparts of the country, and global warming modelspredict that this trend will continue.Desertification and other formsof land degradationLand degradation is a critical issue throughout thecountry, including in areas with the highest rainfall.Its various forms are deforestation, devegetationand species changes, loss of soil fertility and seedbank, and the physical loss of soil through erosion.In the drier regions, degradation is usually referredto as desertification. In Sudan, its principal causesare crop cultivation, overgrazing, cutting trees forfirewood and charcoal, and climate change.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •163

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTInvasive species: the mesquite treein northern and eastern SudanThe invasive tree species known as mesquite(Prosopis juliflora) has taken over large areas of landin both pastoral regions and irrigation schemes.While it is a particular problem for spate irrigationschemes, it has proven highly useful for dunestabilization in other areas (see Case Study 8.1).Because of its negative impacts, the governmentof Sudan passed a law in 1995 to eradicate thetree. This has proven very difficult, however, as thespecies has very deep-seated root systems and canregenerate even if cut down below ground level.Mesquite is currently still spreading, and completeeradication of the tree in Sudan is considered byUNEP and others in the forestry and environmentalmanagement field to be physically impossible,economically unviable and more importantly, notwarranted. The recommended alternative is control,with elimination in high-value irrigated land only.Because mesquite seed pods are distributed inthe droppings of animals, any control measurewill need to address the issue of the uncontrolledcommunal grazing of existing tree stands.At the same time, efforts need to be made tomaximize the benefits of mesquite. If managedfrom seedlings, mesquite can grow in a manner thatallows it to be used for shade, fruit, fuelwood andconstruction timber. Given the dire deforestationsituation in northern and central Sudan, theopportunity of this renewable resource should notbe underestimated.Though there are potentially viable nativealternatives to mesquite, their use in new dunestabilization projects has been limited to date. Itis therefore recommended that greater investmentbe made in researching the potential of nativeplants and trees, and capitalizing on indigenousknowledge in environmental rehabilitation anddesertification control. Some of the promisingnative plant species include Tamarix aphylla (Tarfa),Leptadenia pyrotechnica (Markh), Salvadora persica(Arak), Imperata cylindrica (Halfa) and Capparisdecidua (Tundub).Figure 8.2The spread of mesquite in the Tokar deltaMesquiteLimits of Tokar deltaKilometres0 5 10 15 20 25The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.164 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

8 AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENTClearing mesquite in the Tokar delta, Red Sea stateA mesquite thicket in Red Sea stateCS 8.1Positive and negative aspects of mesquiteThe mesquite tree (Prosopis juliflora) is the most important invasive species in Sudan. It is a fast growing and highlydrought-resistant small tree that is spread by the distribution of its seed pods in the droppings of grazing animals. The treeis characterized by a high density of long, sharp and hard thorns, and very tangled dense growth. Mesquite out-competesa range of native species in arid areas. Where conditions are most suitable, it can become the dominant form of vegetation,forming monoculture thickets and forests.Mesquite was reportedly first brought to Sudan from Egypt and South Africa in 1917 by a British government botanist. Itwas then deliberately introduced on a large scale into northern and eastern parts of Sudan in the 1970s and 1980s, forthe purposes of dune stabilization. It has since spread in an uncontrolled manner.The species has proven to be well suited for dune stabilization, but overall problematic for Sudan. For pastoralist societies,its principle disadvantage is that its foliage is essentially inedible by all herd animals, so that it provides negligible foddercompared to the native species it replaces. For farmers, mesquite is a major menace in the wetter wadi regions mostprized for crop-raising, where it crowds out native and edible plants, blocks drains and irrigation canals and formsdense impenetrable thickets. These same features, however, make mesquite trees ideal for use as dune stabilizers andwindbreakers. Besides, the plant also yields fruit, timber for construction, and fuelwood.The contrasting views on mesquite are best illustrated in two case study locations: the Tokar delta and the Gandatoirrigation scheme. The Tokar delta in Red Sea state is a water-rich and fertile oasis in an otherwise very arid and barrencoastal desert environment. Water and sediment from the neighbouring mountains converge onto the delta and replenishit on an annual basis, providing perfect conditions for high-yield agriculture without irrigation. The area was used for cerealproduction for centuries, before being developed as a major cotton production centre during the 20th century.In 1993, the border conflict between Sudan and Eritrea engulfed the delta region, forcing the local population off the land,which then lay effectively untouched until early 2005. Within this twelve-year period, the approximately 50,000 hectareswere completely covered by a dense thicket of mesquite. Early efforts at hand clearance proved ineffective, but a majormechanical clearance project (funded by the European Commission) commenced in 2004. By February 2006, approximately3,000 hectares had been cleared and converted back to agriculture. While this type of mechanical clearance may beeconomically viable for recovering high-value agricultural land, it is unlikely to be viable for low-value pastoral land, whereother solutions such as land abandonment or reduction in grazing intensity may be required.In the Gandato irrigation scheme, in White Nile state, traditional farmers have used mesquite to stabilize dunes whichwould otherwise overrun prime farming land. Thanks to its bushy habitus with branches down to the ground, Prosopisis one of the best tree species to use in shelterbelts against sand and wind encroachment. Shelterbelts or buffer zonesof mesquite trees can reduce the speed of wind to half of what it is in bare landscapes, and trap the sand carried by thewind so that villages and cultivated fields inside the shelterbelt are almost entirely protected. Physical protection againstsand invasion is a highly important positive environmental service provided by Prosopis.Given the impossibility of eradication and the continuing need for dune stabilization, the recommended strategy for mesquiteis a combination of control and better utilization in areas where it is already established, and replacement by native speciesas a preferred option for new stabilization projects.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •165

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT8.4 Mechanized rain-fedagriculture sectorimpacts and issuesAhistory of rapid and uncontrolleddevelopmentGenerally speaking, the development of mechanizedagriculture in Sudan has been accompanied bylarge-scale destruction of the environment. Notonly does the sector have major environmentalproblems of its own, but its uncontrolled expansionand replacement of other forms of agriculture havetriggered a wide range of negative impacts in othersectors as well.The core of the issues related to mechanizedagriculture can be found in the lack of controland planning that accompanied the rapiddevelopment of the sector during the last half ofthe 20 th century. The mechanization of rain-fedagriculture was initiated by the British in Gedarefin 1944 to meet the food needs of their army inEast Africa. Following independence in 1956,the government adopted a policy to expandmechanized farming and encouraged the privatesector to invest in new schemes [8.2].Today, mechanized agriculture occupies a swatheof the clay plains in the high rainfall savannah beltestimated to be 6.5 million hectares, extendingfrom the Butana plains in the east to SouthernKordofan in central Sudan. This area covers partsof the states of Gedaref, Kassala, Blue Nile, Sennar,White Nile, Upper Nile and Southern Kordofan.The principle crops cultivated are sorghum,sesame, groundnuts and, to a lesser extent, cottonand sunflower. UNEP visited three mechanizedfarming areas: Habila in Southern Kordofan; Dali-Mazmum in Sennar state; and the region borderingDinder National Park in Gedaref.Original plans called for the government to setaside large blocks of land (up to several hundredthousand hectares) and divide them into plots of420 or 630 hectares. Half of the parcels were to beleased to private tenants, while the other half wasleft as grass fallow. After four years, farmers wereto exchange the formerly leased land with adjacentfallow plots to allow the soil to recover [8.2].A typical mechanized agriculture landscape in Dali, Sennar state, with Mount Moya providing somerelief to an otherwise flat topography166 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

8 AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENTexhaustion. The resultant suite of environmental,social and economic consequences, which hasbeen highly damaging, includes the destructionof forests and pre-existing agricultural and socialsystems, soil erosion and increased flash floods,soil depletion and a collapse in yields.Although authorities require that at least tenpercent of all new mechanized agriculturalschemes be protected by shelter belts,implementation is irregular and problematicThis model, however, has almost never beenfollowed in practice. As demand outstripped thecapacity of government to demarcate land, not onlywere fallow periods increasingly not observed, butprivate farmers illegally seized large areas outsidethe designated blocks. In Gedaref, for example,almost 66 percent of the 2.6 million hectares undermechanized agriculture in 1997 were unauthorizedholdings, referred to as non-planned schemes[8.6]. In the Habila region, some 45 percent ofmechanized farms in 1985 were unsanctioned [8.7].In Sennar state, officials from the State Ministry ofAgriculture confirmed that mechanized schemeswere introduced in the 1950s with virtually noplanning, and that pastoral routes were adverselyaffected as a result. The Ministry’s reports reveal that60 percent of Sennar’s two million hectares underrain-fed agriculture are occupied by non-authorizedmechanized schemes, while 30 percent are underplanned mechanization and 10 percent undertraditional agriculture. These changes in land usecontinue to lead to violent clashes between farmersand nomads, as in Dali and Mazmum.Mechanized farming in Sudan has in effectdegenerated into a crude form of extensive shiftingcultivation with a tractor, exploiting land toTo counter this accelerating environmentaldegradation, the federal Ministry of Agricultureand Forestry has required of new leases since themid-1990s that 10 percent of the proposed schemearea be allocated to shelterbelts. UNEP observed,however, that this requirement was by and largeignored; a fact that was also widely corroboratedin discussions with the responsible authorities.Reasons for this failure include limited outreachto farmers and lack of incentive, as shelterbelts arethe property of the forest authorities. Moreover,farmers’ interest in planting A. senegal shelterbeltsfluctuate with gum market prices.Even if it were implemented, the 10 percent quotawould be insufficient. In addition to shelterbelts,which should be implemented at more frequentintervals (i.e. every 250 m rather than the current500 m), forest reserves equivalent to no less than25 percent of the farmed area should be createdwithin and around the overall scheme. Thiswould contribute to enhancing soil fertility andmitigating the impacts of flash floods.These problems have been well documentedby national and international researchers, butno significant or proactive corrective measureshave been introduced to date. In contrast, theGONU Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s2006 plans (the 2006 ‘Green Programme’) call forfurther investment in the large-scale expansion ofmechanized agriculture.Destruction of forests and pre-existingagricultural and social systemsLand taken by mechanized schemes wasgenerally not vacant. Instead it supportedeither pastoralism, traditional shifting rainfedagriculture or wild habitats, principallyopen woodlands and treed plains. This was allappropriated without compensation and is nowpermanently lost. Important wildlife habitatsand sources of wood products have vanished, andmechanized farming is now even encroaching• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •167

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTon legally protected areas like Dinder NationalPark. The clearing has been so disorderly thatforest authorities believe that in some casesthe real intent was charcoal and firewood productionrather than agriculture. Forest officialsin Southern Kordofan reported that they hadat times been obliged to issue permits for forestclearance even where trees covered more than 50percent of the land.Soil depletion, yield collapse,desertification and abandonmentMechanized agriculture schemes have traditionallyused neither fertilizers, nor organized croprotation or fallow systems. The inevitable andwell documented result has been a collapse inper hectare yields. In Gedaref state, for example,sorghum and sesame yields in 2002 had reportedlydropped by about 70 and 64 percent respectivelyfrom 1980 levels in established areas [8.8].Given the region’s wide climatic variations andpatchy agricultural data, more detailed analysisis required, but a general trend of diminishingharvests is evident. As a direct result of this decline,sponsors of mechanized schemes have been forcedto expand the total area under cultivation just tomaintain output.The final stage of mechanized agriculture as it ispractised in Sudan is the abandonment of landdue to yields dropping below economic limits.The total area abandoned to date is unknown,but estimated by GONU Ministry of Agricultureand Forestry officials to be in the order of millionsof hectares. Abandoned land is generally foundin the northern part of the mechanized schemebelt. Desertification is clearly apparent in suchregions, particularly in Khartoum state, Kassalaand Northern Kordofan. In a country withmassive food insecurity and ongoing conflicts overland, such waste of natural resources is tragic andraises the spectre of the intensification of existingproblems.A new and serious development with bothenvironmental and conflict-related implicationsis that there is now little available land left forexpansion of the schemes in northern and centralstates. Major new schemes can only be developedin two areas, with serious environmental, socialand political consequences in either case:The tractor has enabled a massive expansionof mechanized agriculture, fundamentallyaltering the landscape of central Sudan,as here in Gedaref state• Southern Darfur and southern parts ofNorthern Darfur, on the sandy goz soils,which are well recognized as very fragile,thin and prone to wind and water erosion;and• territory within the Three Areas and tenstates of Southern Sudan, which may be moresuitable for agriculture but are currentlyoccupied (mainly by pastoralists) andextremely sensitive politically and socially.The introduction of such schemes intoSouthern Kordofan and Blue Nile state wasa catalyst for conflict in the past and wouldin all likelihood be in this case as well.Given this track record of problems and theongoing loss of fertile land, GONU plans forfurther expansion of the sector are a source ofdeep concern.168 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

8 AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENT8.5 Traditional rain-fedagriculture sectorimpacts and issuesPopulation pressure and lackof developmentThe principle problem facing the traditionalrain-fed sector is population pressure drivingunsustainable rates of exploitation. This is also amain cause of deforestation in Sudan (see Chapter9). This issue is actually a missed opportunity aswell as a symptom of under-development: in thebid for immediate food security, traditional farmersare burning and clearing forests that would have amuch higher return as agroforestry plantations thanas short-term crops. In Southern Sudan, high-valuetimber trees are being burnt simply to clear land fora few years of low-intensity maize production.The core of food security for SudanA majority of Sudanese farmers (70 percent) relyon rain-fed farming for their sustenance. This isgenerally a low input/low yield production systemcharacterized by small farms ranging from twoto thirty hectares in size and relying on labourintensivecultivation with hand tools. Availableestimates (virtually all from northern and centralSudan) show that the traditional rain-fed sectorcontributes the entire production of millet, 11percent of sorghum, 48 percent of groundnuts and28 percent of sesame in the country [8.1]. Despiteits importance, this sub-sector has suffered fromlow social and economic investment, resultingin negligible technical development. Given theheavy dependence on food crops produced bytraditional rain-fed agriculture, however, itscritical role in upholding food security cannot beoveremphasized.Unsustainable land clearing andcrop-raising observed in all areasAcross Sudan, UNEP noted a general trend ofintensification of traditional rain-fed agricultureand associated land degradation. In the drier areas,repeated monoculture without crop rotation andadequate fallow periods has led to a decline in soilfertility. This has, in turn, increased run-off andtopsoil erosion, further degrading the soil andinhibiting re-establishment of non-pioneer vegetationand potential restoration of wildlife habitats.In the very dry regions of Northern Kordofanand Darfur, farmers have long relied on arelatively sophisticated system of rotation andinter-cropping, producing both cereal crops andgum arabic from Acacia senegal trees. This systemis now breaking down due to pressures fromdrought, desertification, population increase andmechanized agriculture (see Case Study 8.2).Farmers outside of Mornei, Western Darfur. Traditional rain-fed agriculture is very labour-intensive• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •169

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTA gum arabic farmer from theJawama’a tribe in El Darotain the heartland of NorthernKordofan’s gum beltThis badly degraded land near ElAzaza maya, now dominated byCalotropis procera, used to bevegetated by Acacia senegalA freshly exuded ‘gum tear’.Sudan is the world’s largestexporter of gum arabic, thoughits stake is reportedly decliningCS 8.2Gum arabic production: an age-old system under extreme pressureAcacia senegal (hashab) – the tree that produces gum arabic – grows naturally in the low rainfall savannah zone, an areaextending from eastern Darfur to the Blue Nile and covering one fifth of the country. A 1989 survey estimated the numberof mature A. senegal trees to be 400 million, approximately one tenth of which was found in gum gardens [8.9].A. senegal has effectively been ‘domesticated’ through the development of an indigenous bush-fallow system, wherebyagricultural cropping and forest regeneration are practiced in sequence. With the completion of the forest rotation (thebush period), the land is cleared for crop farming. At the same time, important trees such as Balanites aegyptiaca (heglig)are left intact. Fertilized by the nitrogen-fixing acacia, yields are typically high and cultivation can continue for five to sevenyears before the land is forsaken for another bush rotation.Traditionally, farmers would organize their land into five blocks under a system managed on a twenty-five year rotation. Thiswas successful as long as the farm functioned as a single unit. With the growing population and fragmentation of holdings,however, farmers can no longer afford the space to pursue twenty-five year gum garden rotations. In many cases, rotationshave been shortened to only ten or twelve years, which is far too short to restore soil fertility [8.6]. Moreover, the goz sands(arenosols) on which A. senegal flourishes are highly susceptible to wind and water erosion. As a result, extensive landdegradation, particularly along the belt’s upper extent, has ensued.In the sandy plains of Bara province, the removal of acacia trees has led to dune mobilization and sand encroachment onagricultural lands. The situation has been further exacerbated by recurrent droughts. The 1989 drought alone is reportedto have killed up to half the gum trees – an event from which the gum belt has not yet fully recovered.The general trend is of a southward decline of the gum belt: the Gum Arabic Research Station in El Obeid has reportedthat A. senegal is no longer found north of 13 o 45’ and that it is sparse north of 13 o . This represents a contraction of 28to 110 km compared to the Harrison and Jackson baseline of 1958. This decline also correlates with a southward shift ofisohyets. These changes, however, are not fully substantiated and more detailed scientific evidence is needed to documentfluxes in the gum belt. Similar problems have beset other traditional bush-fallow systems reliant on indigenous tree species,such as Acacia seyal, from which gum is also extracted.Population increases and displacement are also forcing the size of individual plots down, with the average size falling toaround four hectares in some northern states. This is too small a land base to practice bush-fallow shifting cultivation. Asfarmers become locked into shorter rotations, the pressure on the land increases, inhibiting the restoration of soil fertility.Gum farmers are trying to cope with these pressures by switching from sequential rotation to simultaneous inter-croppingof A. senegal with food crops such as millet, sorghum, faba beans, sesame and groundnuts. The Gum Arabic ResearchStation is also promoting the adoption of such agroforestry practices, but limited resources to conduct research and apoor agricultural extension service are curtailing its efforts. In addition, the profitability of gum cultivation has been affectedby changes in real producer prices, making it less attractive to farmers.170 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

8 AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENTIn the wetter regions of Sudan, the stress on the landis evidenced by the gradual replacement of harig(slash-and-burn) patterns of vegetation with largeareas that remain permanently cleared of forest. TheUNEP-ICRAF analysis and fieldwork indicated asimilar pattern of deforestation and growth in rainfedagriculture in Yambio, Yei, Wau, Aweil and Bor.In certain areas of Southern Sudan such as Yei andYambio counties, population pressure has reducedthe fallow period from an estimated average oftwenty years to five years or less. Such short turnoverperiods are insufficient for forest regeneration orrestoration of soil fertility (see Figure 8.3).The Nuba mountains are in a comparable but moresevere situation. During the conflict, Nuba people lostaccess to some of their best land and were constrainedto continuously farm the same holdings, causingserious soil impoverishment. Peace has unfortunatelynot significantly improved the situation, as much ofthe land remains unavailable, having been taken overby mechanized agricultural schemes [8.10, 8.11].Difficult choices facing the sectorTraditional rain-fed agriculture has been practisedin Sudan for millennia and has proven to be stableand self-sustaining when population density is low.Demographic, political, and technical challengesare now upsetting this balance, and Sudan isexperiencing a breakdown in long-held patternsand an unsustainable intensification of farming.There are only two viable options available toreverse this trend and both are difficult. Firstly,the introduction of modern hybrid methods ofsustenance agriculture, such as agroforestry, willbenefit areas where it is not already practised (gumgardens are an example of agroforestry that existedwell before the term was developed). Secondly,large-scale out-migration from rural areas could actto ease the pressure before major and permanentdamage is done. Without these measures, largescaleout-migration will occur regardless, as a resultof food insecurity.Figure 8.3Expansion of slash-and-burn agriculture in Yambio19/01/1973 07/01/2001MangondiLi-ranguLi ranguBazinguaBazinguaMangondiLi-ranguLi ranguRimenzeRimenzeNzaraNgindaNzaraNgindaMbarizangaLimbiaMbarizangaLimbiaNgereYambioJamesNgereYambioJamesTimbiroTimbiroGanguraGanguraSakureRiver musanganiSakureRiver musanganiLand typesClosed forestPlanted forestBushland, shrubland, grassland and wooded grasslandBuilt-up areasBurnt areasRain-fed agricultureRiverine vegetationRiverRoadKilometres0 5 10 15 20 25This map shows land use changes that have occurred duringthe last 30 years in the main land use classes.It is the result of a satellite image classification process combinedwith ground truth data collected during several field missions in2006.Classification was performed by ICRAF.The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Datum: WGS 84.Projection: UTM Zone 35N.Land class analysis of satellite images from Yambio district in Western Equatoria, Southern Sudan, illustratesthe pace and scale of the expansion of slash-and-burn agriculture in the region. Between 1973 and 2006,cleared agricultural land increased from 6.8 percent of the study area to 27.7 percent, mainly at the expenseof closed forest and wooded grasslands• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •171

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT8.6 Mechanized irrigationsector environmentalimpacts and issuesThe mechanized irrigation sector is associatedwith a range of environmental issues, including:• ongoing use of pesticides and a legacy ofobsolete pesticide stocks;• water pollution from sugar factories;• potentially unsustainable expansion plans intodesert regions; and• canal siltation, soil salinization and yieldreduction.These issues are considered to be significant, butpotentially more manageable than those relatedto mechanized rain-fed schemes.The major irrigation schemesThe Gezira irrigation scheme (including itsManagil extension) between the Blue and WhiteNile covers nearly half of Sudan’s total irrigatedarea and is reportedly the largest contiguousirrigation scheme under single administrationin the world. Alone, it consumes 35 percent ofSudan’s share of Nile waters [8.12]. The other twomajor schemes are the Rahad on the bank oppositeGezira, and the New Halfa on the Atbara river.The latter was until very recently severely affectedby an infestation of mesquite, but the schemeadministration reported that 60-70 percent hadbeen cleared as of mid-2006.In addition, there are five major sugar schemesof which four are government-run. The fifthand largest sugar plantation is the Kenana SugarCompany, which is an international publicprivatejoint venture.The few irrigation schemes in Southern Sudan(the Aweil rice scheme, and Mongalla and Melutsugar companies) ceased operations during theconflict, but there are plans to revive them as wellas initiate new projects.Ongoing pesticide managementproblemsThe use, storage and disposal of pesticides aresome of the most serious environmental issuesrelated to the agricultural sector, which is byfar the leading user of chemicals in Sudan. Theapplication of pesticides in large-scale irrigationschemes and the treatment of obsolete pesticidesare particular causes for concern.The Gezira scheme main canal and the Managil extension are used by farmers for drinking water and fishing172 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

8 AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENTIn addition to the lack of protective gear, derelict and leaky equipment exposes workers of the CropProtection Department in El Kajara, Gedaref, to serious occupational health hazardsThe bulk of pesticide application in irrigatedschemes is carried out by aerial spraying under thecommand of the respective scheme administrations.The Gezira Board has reported that an estimated125,000 to 205,000 hectares of cotton and 62,000hectares of wheat fields are sprayed annually.Past studies have revealed widespread pollutionof surface waters and irrigation canals due toextensive aerial spraying, and it is likely that thisremains a problem today [8.13, 8.14].Aerial spraying of pesticides is a particular issue inthe Managil extension, where the irrigation supplycanal is also the main source of drinking water.There is no pesticide monitoring programme orany regular surveillance system to analyse theenvironmental fate of pesticides in water, soil orfood. Most studies date back to the early 1980sand there is a major information gap regardingthe current situation. Previous analysis has shownthat DDT and its derivatives were the mostwidespread contaminants. Moreover, residuetesting on food products, such as goat milk in theOver 250,000 ha of cultivated land are sprayedannually in the Gezira scheme• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •173

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTThe head of the Technical Centre for Pesticide Spraying at the Kenana Sugar Company explains the useof modern application techniques and selective pesticidesGezira region, has indicated that organochlorinepesticide levels including the POPs heptachlor,aldrin and dieldrin, as well as endosulfan andHCH significantly exceeded standards set by theFAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius [8.1, 8.13].Most workers queried had not received trainingin pesticide handling and application, and lackedprotective equipment or refused to use it dueto its unsuitability in a tropical climate. Surveysconducted in 1989 showed that pesticide applicatorswere largely ignorant of the hazardous nature ofthe chemicals handled and did not observe safetymeasures [8.13]. The same was evident duringUNEP visits. Moreover, protective gear examinedwas often of sub-standard quality, and replacementswere reportedly not provided if damaged. Mixingand spraying equipment was derelict, corroded andoften leaking. As a result, the risk of occupationalexposure and soil and water contamination fromspills was considered to be very high.In Gezira, there has been a positive policy shiftto reduce pesticide application by discontinuingroutine calendar spraying and linking applicationto field checks of pest infestation levels. This hasreportedly resulted in a reduction of pesticidespraying on cotton from a previous average of nineto eleven times a year to an average of two to threetimes a year. Other positive measures include theapplication of selective rather than broad-spectrumpesticides that can harm beneficial insects andlead to pest resistance. To reduce contaminationfrom spillage, greater use is intended of closedmixing/loading systems, as well as GPS technologyto limit the risk of aerial spray drift into sensitiveareas such as irrigation canals. Use of this advancedequipment, however, remains the exception andnot the norm. The adoption of integrated pestmanagement practices is reportedly intended, buthas not been implemented in a systematic mannerdue to lack of resources.Pesticide management appears to be considerablybetter in the sugar companies, particularly inKenana, where there are well-defined proceduresfor the use of chemicals. The company’s recentadoption of a corporate environmental strategy– one of the few of its kind in Sudan – should helpreinforce responsible pesticide stewardship [8.15].This could provide a model for other agriculturalcorporations.174 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

8 AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENTObsolete pesticide stockpiles:amajor hazardSudan has very large stockpiles of obsolete pesticidesthat are stored in very hazardous conditions acrossthe country.A preliminary inventory by the Plant ProtectionDirectorate (PPD) in the early 1990s estimatedthe expired stock at 760 tonnes and 548 m 3 ofcontaminated soil [8.16]. A survey completed in2006 under a GEF-POPs project found this stockto have increased to 1,200 tonnes of obsoletepesticides and 16,000 m 3 of contaminated soil[8.17]. These figures do not include several hundredtonnes of expired dressed seeds and containers.Moreover, the survey only covered some of theprovincial capitals in Darfur and Southern Sudanand is therefore incomplete for those regions.UNEP visited four stores where large stocks ofexpired chemicals were kept, including Hasahesaand Barakat (Gezira scheme), El Fao (Rahadscheme) and the Gedaref PPD store. In addition,a visit to the Port Sudan commercial harbourrevealed a large stock of expired pesticides andother chemicals. While storage conditions wereoverall very poor, three sites in close proximityto inhabitations (Hasahesa, El Fao and Gedaref)were considered dangerous toxic ‘hotspots’ (seeCase Study 8.3).Obsolete pesticides constitute a severe environmentaland public health threat and mustbe treated as hazardous waste. Now that aninventory of the stockpile has been completed(except for Southern Sudan and Darfur), the firststep should be to collect all the materials – with aspecial emphasis on persistent organic pollutants(POPs) and contaminated soil – for storage inone central location.Elsewhere in the world, safe disposal or destructionby incineration of unwanted organic pesticidesand highly contaminated soil costs in the orderof USD 500 to 2,000 per tonne (not includingany international transportation costs). UNEPestimates that the total cost of safely resolving thepesticide legacy problem in Sudan would exceedUSD 50 million. Given this amount, a permanentsolution is expected to take some time and interimmeasures to reduce the risks are clearly needed.Corroding drums of obsolete pesticides are stored in unsuitable conditions at Port Sudan, 30 m from the water• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •175

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTThis cement-lined pit in Hasahesa – where anobsolete pesticide stockpile has been buried –has cracked, releasing a strong stenchand exposing groundwater to a high risk ofcontamination. Highly hazardous and persistentheptachlor was buried in Hasahesa (inset)An estimated 110,000 litres of veryhazardous endosulfan have leaked into theground at the main Rahad Irrigation Schemewarehouse in El FaoCS 8.3Obsolete pesticide storage: three extremely hazardous sitesUNEP visited three expired pesticide storage sites in central Sudan that were considered to represent a significant risk tohuman health and the environment.In Hasahesa – a controversial site commonly known as the ‘pesticide graveyard’ – a misguided decision was made in themid-1990s to bury a large stockpile of pesticides in a cement-sealed pit in the ground. UNEP observed that the cementcasing had cracked, releasing a strong stench and exposing the groundwater to a high risk of contamination. The site wasunguarded and people and livestock were seen to be trespassing. Moreover, the powder contents of torn bags, cardboardboxes and empty drums littered the site, which was adjacent to a residential community.In El Fao, obsolete pesticides were kept in an open shed with a dirt floor. The shed was clearly not designed for longtermstorage. The drums were all damaged and had leaked an estimated 110,000 litres of liquid endosulfan (a persistentorganochlorine) into the soil. The gravity of the situation was amplified by the fact that an irrigation canal was locatedsome 12 m behind the shed. Although at the time of its construction in 1977, the Fao facility was situated far from anyinhabitation, migrant labourers soon settled around it. By 1993, it was decided to transform the informal settlement intoa planned residential area, event though the pesticide warehouse was in its midst. The airstrip used by the pesticidespraying aircraft was also divided into residential plots within this housing scheme, clearly reflecting a poor level of landuse planning [8.18].At the Gedaref PPD store, pesticide containers were scattered haphazardly all over the site and large piles of exposedtreated seed were decaying. None of the site guards had protective or first-aid equipment, or basic services such aswater and electricity.In the three aforementioned sites, complaints of ailments and allergies by neighbouring inhabitants were attributed to thenoxious smell and polluted run-off, particularly during the rainy season.176 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

8 AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENTPotentially unsustainable expansionplans into desert regionsMajor plans for irrigation schemes downstream ofKhartoum in Nile and Northern states are likelyto give rise to significant environmental concernsin the next fifteen to twenty years. In Northernstate, for instance, ambitious estimates by officialplanning place the potentially irrigable area at800,000 to 2 million hectares. This represents atwo and a half to sixfold increase of the presentlycultivated area. The planned expansion is almostentirely in the upper terraces of the Nile, and asubstantial proportion (around 300,000 hectares)is to be irrigated by the Merowe dam reservoironce it is completed [8.12, 8.19, 8.20]. The longtermsustainability of these reclamation projects isquestionable, and they should proceed with carebased on prior environmental impact assessmentstudies.Water pollution from sugar factoriesThe main environmental problem associated withthe country’s five major sugar estates is the releaseof effluent from the sugar factories. Industrialwater pollution issues are discussed in Chapters7 and 10.Canal siltation, soil salinizationand yield reductionMost of the major schemes have been seriouslyaffected by heavy siltation in canals, a process thatis accentuated by upstream watershed degradation.For example, the average sediment load entering themain canal in Gezira increased more than fivefoldbetween 1933 and 1989, from 700 ppm to 3,800ppm. It is estimated that 15 percent of the Gezirascheme is now out of production due to siltation[8.17]. Sedimentation of canals also leads to waterstagnation and the emergence of weeds that providean ideal habitat for the proliferation of water- andvector-borne diseases, in particular schistosomiasisand malaria. Chronic incidence of these diseases hasbeen exceptionally high in the irrigation schemes.Due to the nature of the heavy clay cracking soils,the two major problems of soil salinization and waterlogging typically associated with irrigated agricultureare not prevalent in Sudan’s schemes. Nevertheless,there is reportedly significant salinization at local levelsin the drier north-western reaches of the Gezira nearKhartoum, as well as in the Guneid sugar scheme.Monoculture farming and poor implementationof crop rotation has also led to deterioration in soilfertility and a significant decline in yields.Sugarcane is one of the major crops of the mechanized irrigated agriculture sector• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •177

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT8.7 Traditional irrigation sectorimpacts and issues: ahighlyproductive system underthreatTraditional irrigation is concentrated on thefloodplains of the main Nile downstream ofKhartoum, but is also practised over substantialareas along the White and Blue Nile and theAtbara river, as well as on the Gash and Tokardeltas. Crops are irrigated in three ways. Themethod most widely used is based on cultivationof quick maturing crops on the highly fertile lands(gerf) that are exposed following the withdrawalof annual floods. This technique capitalizes onthe residual moisture in the soil profile that isavailable when the floodwaters recede. The secondtype of traditional irrigation, which is based onthe shaduf (hand-operated water lever) and theanimal-driven water-wheel (saqia), has beenalmost entirely replaced by small-scale irrigationpumps. The third type, known as spate irrigation,relies on the capture and redirection of seasonalrun-off to flood wide areas of arable land.Traditional irrigation is not considered to havesignificant environmental impacts: in contrast, it isa relatively sustainable sector that is actually underthreat from external factors including environmentalproblems. UNEP identified three such environmentalCultivation of the highly fertile ‘gerf’ landsin Khartoum statethreats, which in combination are anticipated tosignificantly reduce this sector’s output:• sand dune encroachment (see Chapter 3);• riverbank erosion, including downstream erosionfrom the new Merowe dam (see Chapters 3 and10); and• mesquite invasion.All of these factors lead to the loss of arable land,which in turn increases poverty levels and threatensthe food security of local communities. Riverbankerosion and sand dune encroachment have bothhad major socio-economic consequences resultingin the abandonment of entire villages.Encroaching sand dunes, seen here in Arji in Northern state, threaten to smother the narrow stripof arable land along the Nile’s floodplain, which sustains thousands of communities178 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

8 AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENTEncroaching sands have displaced entire communities, such as the people of the village of Jadallahin Nile state8.8 Livestock husbandryimpacts and issuesRangeland degradation and shrinkageRangeland degradation due to the overuseof shrinking resources is the most prominentenvironmental problem associated with livestockhusbandry in Sudan. Although there is nosystematic and quantitative inventory of rangelandconditions or rangeland carrying capacity on anational scale, discussions with national experts andvarious studies point to three negative trends:• explosive growth in livestock numbers,particularly in central Sudan;• major reduction in the total area of availablerangelands; and• widespread deterioration of the remainingrangelands, caused largely by drought, climatechange and overstocking.Extensive annual rangeland burning in south andcentral Sudan is another important environmentalissue, as this practice degrades and alters the naturalenvironment in low rainfall savannah regions.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •179

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTThe evidence for rangelanddegradationThough the degradation of rangelands hasnot been quantified, it has been extensivelydocumented and was again confirmed by UNEPand ICRAF fieldwork and satellite image analysisin 2006 (see Case Study 8.4).At the ground level, the most visible indicator ofovergrazing is simply less forage and more exposedearth, though it is difficult to quantify the rateof degradation using such anecdotal indicatorswithout a baseline. The UNEP-ICRAF satelliteimage analysis found that it was also extremelydifficult to distinguish between bare earth causedby overgrazing and bare earth associated with tilledand empty fields for crops. Only in one image – ofRenk district in Upper Nile state – was it possibleto confidently quantify land degradation withinareas that had remained rangelands (see Figure8.4). In this case, the proportion of degraded landas marked by bare earth increased from 0.8 percentof the total area in 1973 to 15.4 percent in 2006.The second indicator of overgrazing is the markedreplacement of palatable perennial grasses byannuals of low environmental and nutritionalvalue. This has been confirmed by technical studiesin at least six states (Northern, Gedaref, Kassala,Northern Kordofan and Northern Darfur). InGedaref, the Range and Pasture Administrationestimates that 50 percent of the state’s rangelandsare in a degraded state, with a severe incidenceof invasive species. There are reports of valuablerange species vanishing, including Blepharisedulis in Butana, Andropogon gayanus in westernKordofan, Blepharis lenarrifolia in NorthernKordofan and Aritida paposa in Northern Darfur[8.5, 8.21].Figure 8.4Land degradation in Renk district17/01/1973 Landsat MSS 02/03/2005 AsterShaqq dhogeriHilta aliShaqq umarWad balilaAl alimShaqq dhogeriHilta aliShaqq umarWad balilaAl alimUm irshreinUm irshreinSalah ad DinShaqq al BashSalahadDinShaqq al BashFagargFutahaShaqq Isa asFagargFutahaShaqq Isa asWad hassibHabibAbu gheidWad hassibHabibAbu gheidNaierNaierTaalbaTaalbaJad elseedJad elseedShuaybatShaqq al BuraShuaybatShaqq al BuraAhmad abd alWaid jodaAhmad abd alWaid jodaShaqq hamadAs saqrAl mazroubZaid daashShaqq hamadAs saqrAl mazroubZaid daashLand typesIrrigated agricultureRain-fed agricultureBushland/shrubland; wooded grasslandRiverine vegetationBurnt areasFlooded/wetlandDegraded land; wastelandRiverKilometres0 5 10 15 20 25This map shows land use changes that have occurred duringthe last 30 years in the main land use classes.It is the result of a satellite image classification process combinedwith ground truth data collected during several field missions in2006.RiverRoadThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Classification was performed by ICRAF. Datum: WGS 84.Projection: UTM Zone 35N.Land degradation in Renk district, Upper Nile state. In this 2,500 km² area, the rangeland is a mix of opengrassland and bushland. In 1973, open rangeland made up 6.9 percent of the total land area, but had fallento 2.8 percent by 2006, when fragmentation was very apparent. Bare and degraded land increased from 0.8percent of the total area in 1973 to 15.4 percent in 2006. Some of the abandoned cultivated land has revertedto bushland and could potentially be used for grazing but it has major access constraints180 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

8 AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENTHerders set fire to the Um Hureiza forest reserve in Sennar state before the onset of the rainsSome heavily grazed areas have undergone anotable shift from grassland to woody thickets.The encroachment of mesquite in rangelands inKassala, Red Sea state and Gedaref, for instance,is linked to overgrazing not only because its seedis carried in droppings, but also because degradedlandscapes favour the spread of such competitivepioneer species.Bare earth in non-desert areas is an indicationof both overgrazing and livestock tramplingdamage. Excessive trampling in dry conditionscan lead to the break-up of soil, which accelerateswind erosion, and to compacting, which reduceswater infiltration capacity. This is particularlynoticeable around boreholes and rainwater storingdugouts known as hafirs, as well as along livestockmigration routes throughout Sudan.Agricultural encroachment onto pastoralmigration routes, as evidenced here by theuprooted path markers in the region of Wad elKabo in Gedaref state, is a major cause of conflictA host of factors have enabled uncontrolledovergrazing to develop, but there are two criticalforces driving this process:• explosive growth in livestock numbers overthe last fifty years, resulting directly inoverstocking and overgrazing; and• a reduction in available grazing land due todesertification and unfavourable land usechanges.When pasture is limited, pastoralists oftenresort to slashing trees trunks and branches toenable their livestock to feed on the otherwiseunreachable parts of the tree, as seen here in theAl Ruwashida forest reserve in Gedaref state• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •181

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTA Mundari tribe cattle camp by the White Nile in Central Equatoria at the start of the wet season 2006CS 8.4Land degradation due to cattle-rearing in Southern SudanPastoralist societies in Southern Sudan have developed a lifestyle closely tuned to the challenges presented by the climateand geography of the region. Each area has its own nuances, but the general pattern is of a semi-nomadic (transhumant)lifestyle dominated by cattle-rearing, with agriculture practised in the wet season only.The possibilities for cattle-rearing in the great plains of Southern Sudan are largely constrained by the availability of waterand by disease. Though the wet season generates extensive floodplains, the hot climate results in rapid evaporation andlimited water supplies in the dry season.In the wet season, the problems of mud and insect-borne diseases in the flooded areas drive pastoralists to drier ground,generally found to the north or further from the Nile tributaries. In the dry season, however, cattle camps concentrate alongthe fringes of swamps and watercourses.In the far south-eastern corner of Sudan, near the Kenyan and Ethiopian borders, the climate is much drier but the soil ispoorer, resulting in a lower yield of fodder and a different annual migration pattern.UNEP has carried out a qualitative assessment of land degradation in Southern Sudan and the Three Areas using acombination of remote sensing and ground reconnaissance. Results indicate that the land is in overall moderate condition,with some clear negative trends and problem areas.Within the southern clay plains, land degradation is generally limited to strips alongside watercourses, though topsoillosses can be critical at the local level. In the drier south-east however, land degradation is severe. Regional problems arealso evident on the boundary between the large-scale agriculture schemes in the north and the southern pastures, and aband of degradation surrounds some of the larger towns.The Imatong region south-east of Kapoeta in Eastern Equatoria consists of a number of mountain ranges separated bygently sloping valleys. The region is climatically linked to the drylands of the Kenyan Lake Turkana district, and the lowvalleys receive 25 to 50 percent less rainfall than the plains to the north. Nomadic pastoralism is the main rural livelihoodin these dry valleys. Figure 8.6 clearly shows the soil erosion that is occurring: bare subsoil exposure is visible as ochre incontrast to the more vegetated uplands and riverine strips (in green). The primary cause of this degradation is overgrazingof pastures that are naturally vulnerable to erosion due to poor soil quality and low rainfall.The Government of Southern Sudan hopes to develop the rural sector and improve cattle production through waterprojects and the provision of veterinary assistance. The warning signs of land degradation indicate that any increasein cattle numbers would constitute a risk of significant damage to pastures which are already worked close to or overtheir sustainable yield. Any such rural development project should accordingly include land condition and sustainabilitycomponents to avoid creating new problems. In degraded regions, development projects should avoid increasing stocklevels and look instead for options for rehabilitation and resource recovery.182 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

8 AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENTFigure 8.5Grazing impact in Bor county, Jonglei stateBorAnyidiWetlandsDry and seasonallyflooded plainsOvergrazedriverine stripKilometres0 5 10 15 20 25The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Figure 8.6Grazing impact in Kapoeta county, Eastern EquatoriaOvergrazedlowlandsRiverine forestMontane forestKilometres0 3 6 9 12 15The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •183

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTThe primary cause of overgrazing:overstockingWith the second largest herd on the continent(after Ethiopia), livestock is a central componentof Sudan’s agricultural sector. Livestock-rearingis typically categorized into three types: (i) purenomadism, based largely on the herding of camels,sheep and goats by the Abbala in the semi-arid andarid north; (ii) semi-nomadic agropastoralism,combining the herding of cattle and some sheepwith a form of cultivation by the Baggara andDinka/Nuer in central and south Sudan as wellas in the seasonal wadis of the north; and (iii) asedentary system, where cattle and small livestockare reared in close proximity to villages, mainlyin the central belt from Gedaref to Kordofan/Darfur [8.22].Livestock husbandry in its various forms is practisedby an estimated 40 percent of the population. Thisfigure is even higher in Southern Sudan, whereover 60 percent of the population depend onlivestock [8.23]. Geographically, livestock-keepingis found virtually throughout the country, with theexception of the extreme arid north and the tsetsefly-infested areas in the far south.The livestock population (cattle, sheep, goatsand camels) is impressive, with a head count ofapproximately 135 million in 2004. Its rate ofgrowth has been equally remarkable: the stockingrate has increased sixfold in less than fifty years,from a population size of 22 million in 1959. Nolivestock census has been carried out recently inSouthern Sudan, where estimates of the populationrange from 12 to 22 million [8.5, 8.22].Table 11.Livestocktype1961(million)Growth of the livestock sectorPercentageof population1973(million)Percentageof population1986(million)Percentageof population2004(million)Percentageof populationCattle 10.4 36 14.1 35 19.7 36 39.8 30 3.8Sheep 8.7 30 13.4 33 18.8 34 48.9 36 5.6Goats 7.2 25 10.5 26 13.9 25 42.2 31 5.9Camels 2.3 8 2.7 7 2.7 5 3.7 3 1.6Total 28.6 100 40.7 100 55.1 100 134.6 100 4.7Timespopulationhas increasedCattle herders in Kosti, White Nile state. Livestock populations in central Sudan have increasedsixfold in the last forty years184 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

8 AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENTThe second cause of overgrazing:amajor reduction in rangelands incentral and northern SudanConcurrent with the increase in livestock, asubstantial reduction in rangeland areas hasoccurred over the past several decades due tothree factors:• uncontrolled expansion of mechanized andtraditional rain-fed agriculture;• desertification; and• expansion of irrigation schemes (a lesser issue).Rangeland reduction is most prevalent in northernand central Sudan. The UNEP-ICRAF rural land usestudy provides an indication of the overall trend.Table 12. Changes in rangeland cover at UNEP-ICRAF study sites across SudanStudy area and stateOriginal and current Annual linear Commentspasture land(% of total area)rate+ (period loss)North, east and central SudanEd Damazin, Blue NileEl Obeid, Northern KordofanGedaref and Kassala statesKassala BSunjukaya, Southern KordofanTokar delta, Red Sea state18.5 to 0.6 from1972 to 199950.4 to 33.5 from1973 to 199913.0 to 8.2 from1972 to 199936.1 to 26.4 from1972 to 200039.2 to 13.7 from1972 to 200210.0 to 11.7 from1972 to 2001- (96.7 %) Loss due to the expansion of mechanizedagriculture and increase in bush and shrubland- (33.5 %) Loss due to the expansion of mechanizedagriculture, increase in closed forests- (37 %) Decrease due to expansion of rain-fed agricultureand increase in closed forests- (2.6 %) Increase in wetland, loss of soil fertility due to winderosion resulting in loss of pasture lands- (34 %) Loss due to the expansion of mechanizedagriculture, increase in bush and shrubland, riverinevegetation and wooded grassland+ (1.7 %) Increase in wooded grassland, and decrease inbush and shrubland, flooded/wetland and riverinevegetationNorth-east and central Sudan - (50 %) Highly variable but a major loss of rangelandoverall due to agricultural expansionDarfurJebel Marra, Western DarfurTimbisquo, Southern DarfurUm Chelluta, Southern Darfur5.9 to 23.0 from1973 to 200165.4 to 59.3 from1973 to 200042.4 to 32.7 from1973 to 2000+ (289 %) Increase in open forest land, decrease in closedforest and bush and shrubland- (9.3 %) Loss due to the expansion of mechanizedagriculture, bush and shrubland, and flood andwetland- (65 %) Loss due to the expansion of mechanizedagriculture, increase in degraded areas andflooded land, and decrease in grassland areaDarfur NA No simple trend: Jebel Marra anomalous,Southern Darfur similar to Southern Sudanwith agricultural expansionSouthern SudanAweil, Northern Bahr el GhazalWau, Western Bahr el GhazalRenk, Upper NileYambio, Western EquatoriaYei, Central Equatoria78.4 to 63.9 from1972 to 200139.2 to 47.1 from1973 to 20056.9 to 2.8 from1973 to 200626.0 to 27.7 from1973 to 200630.9 to 17.5 from1973 to 2006- (18 %) Increase in rain-fed agriculture and riverinevegetation+ (20.1 %) Decrease in closed forest, degraded land andriverine vegetation, and increase in burnt areas dueto slash-and-burn agriculture- (59.4 %) Pastureland lost due to increased landdegradation and bush and shrubland+ (6.5 %) Increase due to decrease in closed forests- (42.7 %) Loss due to increase in bush and shrubland, anddecrease in wooded grasslandSouthern Sudan - (18.5 %) Highly variable but loss of rangeland overalldue to agricultural and pastoral expansion• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •185

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFigure 8.7Loss of rangeland in El Obeid districtSaataAzhaf01/01/1973 Esh shana27/11/1999JunaynahMusaSaataEsh shanaMusaAzhafJunaynahAzazaIdd an nuzayhahFarogaEl harazUmm harazatUmm gawawaBuhayrUmm sawtEl udAzazaIddannuzayhahFarogaEl harazUmm harazatUmm gawawaBuhayrUmm sawtEl udUmm sheriaShuweihatDankojGhabushUmm sheriaShuweihatDankojGhabushUmm hajlijUmm dukaykahoUmm dikeikaEl humrFaragullahUmm gameinaUmm hajlijUmm dukaykahoUmm dikeikaEl humrFaragullahUmm gameinaEl gurabaAgeigEl beniyaWarriSharafahOreilMalakiyaEl gurabaAgeigEl beniyaSharafahOreilMalakiyaLand typesNatural closed forestPlanted forestBushland and shrublandRain-fed agricultureWetlandsBuilt-up areasOther land typesRiverRoad0 5 10 15 20 25This map shows land use changes that have occurred duringthe last 30 years in the main land use classes.It is the result of a satellite image classification process combinedwith ground truth data collected during several field missions in2006.Classification was performed by ICRAF.The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Datum: WGS 84.Projection: UTM Zone 35N.This time lapse satellite image of El Obeid shows a 57.6 percent increase in cultivated land over the period1973 to 1999. This increase is achieved at the expense of pastoralism, as indicated by the 33.5 percentreduction in rangeland over the same period. In one generation, a third of the pastoralists’ territory hasbeen lost or converted to cultivation. Given that this region is considered to be extremely vulnerable todesertification, the sustainability of the intense land use noted here is highly questionableKilometresIn summary, the last generation of pastoralists hasseen rangelands shrink by approximately 20 to50 percent on a national scale, with total losses insome areas. It should be noted, however, that theUNEP-ICRAF study focused on the semi-desert andwetter regions. It did not include the losses due todesertification in historically important regions thatare now desert or badly degraded semi-desert.In addition to direct land loss, the reduction inrangelands has caused problems for the pastoralists’mobility. Pastoralists in Sudan have historicallybeen very mobile, but have kept their annualherd migrations to relatively well-defined routes.Their general pattern is to move north and southto optimize grazing conditions and minimize pestproblems. In the dry season, the movement issouthwards towards the better pastures and laterrainfall; in the wet season, it is generally northwards tofollow new growth and avoid the flooding, mud, andinsect-borne diseases prevalent in the more humidregions. A similar pattern of migration, though overshorter distances, occurs in the hilly regions, wherevalleys are grazed mainly in the dry season and highrangeland mainly in the wet season.In order to reach new pastures, pastoralists passthrough agricultural regions. In a land without fenceswhere agricultural and grazing zones are not clearlydelimitated, competition for land is at the heart ofmany local conflicts. Indicative pastoral routes forSudan and Darfur are shown in Figures 8.8 and 8.9,respectively. The indicated routes are general andinclude only the largest scale movements. Numerousand often contrasting smaller scale movements occuron a local and seasonal level.This major reduction in the amount, quality andaccessibility of grazing land is considered to bea root cause of conflict between pastoralist andagriculturalist societies throughout the drier partsof Sudan, as discussed in Chapter 4.186 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

8 AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENTFigure 8.8L IBY AAnnual pastoral migration routes in SudanE G Y P TR EDS E20 o Wet monsoonDongolaPort SudanAC H A D15 o10 oEl GeneinaWESTERNDARFURNyalaC E N TRA LA F RICANR E P UBL I CNOR T H E R ND A RFU RWadi HowarEl FasherSOU T HER NS UD A RFU RBarW E S T E R Nel’ArabB A H RE LAweilWauG H A Z A LN O R T H E R NWarrabEl ObeidSOU T HER NKadugliK O RDO F ANBentiuRumbekNileK O RDO F A ND A NU NI T YKhartoumW H I T ERabakBorN I L EEd DamerNileWhit eNileUPPERNILEMalakalJ O N G L E IWad MedaniSingaBlueGedarefNileKassalaEd DamazinE R I T R E AE T H I OPI A5 oYambioJubaToritD E M O C R A T I C R ENomadic PastoralismCattle, sheep and goatsCamels and sheepNorthward movements (nishua)in the rainy season andsouthward movements (dammar)in the dry season.O F T H E C O N25 oClimatic ZonesDesertSemi-desertAridSemi-aridDry monsoonHighlandPUGOB L ICAlbertNileU G A N D A30 o 35 oK E N Y AThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Kilometres0 100 200 300 400 500Lambert Azimuthal Equal-Area ProjectionSources:SIM (Sudan Interagency Mapping);vmaplv0, NIMA; various reports, maps and atlases;UN Cartographic Section.UNEP/DEWA/GRID~Europe 2006• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •187

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFigure 8.9Annual pastoral migration routes in DarfurChadEl GeneinaNorthernDarfurKafodEl FasherBurushNorthernKordofanWesternDarfurWadaahDarfur livestock migration route1. Livestock migration from northtosouthisinFebruary/MarchandsouthtonorthinMay.Rama-kaiaGegarNyalaAbou Adid2. The routes described on this map aremajor historical routes that have some degreeof official and local recognition. Note howeverthat routes can change over time and that thelegitimacy and impacts of many routes are asource of local and regional tension.3. Since the beginning of the conflict,all livestock migration routes havebeen disrupted.Central AfricanRepublicAm DafokSouthernDarfurKilometresSource: Admin layers (Vmap0, HIC).Livestock migration route: HIC Sudan.0 100 200 300 400Projection: Lambert Azimutal Equal-Area ProjectionThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.NyimeriTulusEl FerdousPastoral migration routes in Darfur. The very mapping or classification of pastoral routes in Darfur is acontentious issue, particularly as many routes have been blocked or changed by the recent conflict. Theseroutes as indicated from government sources show the scale of seasonal migration and the multiplicity ofpotential routes but the actual lines of travel and the associated rights are not always confirmed or agreed,either in a legal sense or in the sense of having community-level acceptanceBuramHigiligUnityRangeland burning in south andcentral SudanThe dry season in Sudan is also the burningseason. Grassfires are visible in pastoralist regionsthroughout the country, while slash-and-burnclearance can be observed in the southern half.The great majority of pasture burning is deliberate.Herders set fire to the dry grass to remove oldunpalatable growth, fertilize the soil with ash andpromote new shoots that are more suitable as fodder.The scale of the pastoralist burning can be gauged bysatellite and by aircraft (see Figure 8.10). The open clayplains of Jonglei and Upper Nile states, for example, areheavily burnt, and UNEP estimates that virtually theentire region is burnt on a two- to four-year cycle.There is no doubt that annual burning succeeds inits purpose of short-term pasture regeneration, butit also has a number of negative impacts even whentimed and executed with care. When done poorlyor with hostile intent, it is highly destructive forthe environment, the rural economy and society.Regular burning destroys young trees and shrubs,thus maintaining much of central and southSudan as open plain, when its undisturbed naturalstate is open woodland savannah. The great plainsof Southern Sudan may appear to be ‘wild’ but arein fact highly modified environments.One of the long-term negative effects of very regularburning is the loss of nutrients and soil organicmatter, which are lost to combustion, and water andwind erosion. For sloping terrain regions such as theNuba mountains, such losses are clearly important.Pasture burning can also cause problems betweendifferent communities with intermingled land uses.In the extreme case of Darfur, pasture burning is usedas a weapon to destroy competing livelihoods.188 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

8 AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENT8.9 Agricultural sectorenvironmental governanceSector governance structureand issuesGovernance of the agricultural sector is relativelystraightforward and well structured: both GONU andGOSS have ministries of agriculture and ministries ofanimal resources. These ministries, however, are understrong pressure to provide policies and projects that willrapidly increase food security. This in turn results in atendency to promote major agricultural developmentprojects that are often environmentally unsustainable.Insufficient technical capacity and under-funding alsoconstrain the ministries. Furthermore, the linkagesbetween the agricultural and livestock ministries andthe environment ministries are weak in both GONUand GOSS.The most environmentally damaging aspect ofgovernment policy has been the promotion of rainfedmechanized agriculture and the subsequentfailure to address its negative consequences whenthese first became clearly apparent. Likewise,the lack of governance in the area of pesticidesmanagement has left Sudan with a difficult andexpensive environmental legacy. Land tenure, asdetailed below, is another important failure.Land tenureThe land tenure situation in Sudan constitutes a majorobstacle to sustainable land use. Prior to the 1970s,communal title to shared rural land was generallyacknowledged at the local level but undocumented.The traditional community-based land managementsystems that were in place were reportedly reasonablyeffective. This situation was radically changed in the1970s by a number of ill-planned initiatives, theconsequences of which are still felt today.The imposition of the 1971 Unregistered Lands Acteffectively sequestered most of the untitled land (themajority of rural Sudan) as government property.In the same year, the People’s Local GovernmentAct took the authority away from the pre-existingtraditional land management systems, which haduntil then provided vital checks and balances in theabsence of a modern land tenure system [8.19].Figure 8.10Rangeland burning in Jonglei stateRecent burn scars(at the time of satellite image acquisition)Jonglei canalVegetation regrowthActive fire during satelliteimage acquisitionKilometres0 5 10 15 20 25The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •189

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAs a result of this legislation and subsequent relatedacts, the majority of Sudanese now farm and rearlivestock on government land, without any realsupervision or form of title. As the pre-existingcontrol measures are either weakened or completelydestroyed, there is an effective governance vacuumon rural land use in much of the country.This deficiency in rural land tenure is one of theroot causes of many agricultural, environmentaland social problems in Sudan. Without ownership,people have little incentive for investment in andprotection of natural resources. Land owners, andsmallholders in particular, are also vulnerable tomore economically powerful or better armedgroups, who may wish to dispossess them in orderto use the land for their own purposes.The Comprehensive Peace Agreement envisagedthe immediate establishment of a new body, theLand Commission, to analyse land tenure issuesand propose a way forward. As of end 2006, it hasyet to be formed.8.10 Conclusions andrecommendationsConclusionSudan’s major investment in agricultural developmentover the past century has proceeded with littleconsideration of environmental sustainability.The resulting environmental issues are uniformlyworsening and now represent a major threat toSudan’s food security. In the absence of significantaction on these problems, large-scale ecological andsocial breakdown in the dryland regions of Sudanare considered to be a real risk in the medium tolong term. It could be argued that this has alreadyoccurred to some extent in Darfur.Agricultural authorities in the north and in Darfurface the most severe challenges, with an array ofenvironmental problems closely tied to the social,political and economic issues affecting the region.The ongoing destruction resulting from the currentsystem of rain-fed mechanized agriculture schemesin northern and central Sudan needs to be haltedif food insecurity and conflicts are to be avoided inthe future. This does not call for a reversion frommechanization back to traditional methods, but fora revision of current practices in order to combine thebest of both approaches in a sustainable manner.At present, Southern Sudan only faces severeagriculture-related environmental issues alongits northern boundaries, but there are numerouswarning signs that action is needed to forestalldamaging overtaxing of the environment in themore populated regions in the far south. It istherefore extremely important that lessons fromother regions be learnt, and that agriculturaldevelopment in the south proceed with extremecare to ensure its environmental sustainability.Background to the recommendationsGONU government reform and capacity-building inland use planning and environmental sustainabilityare the central themes of the recommendations forthis sector. Specific environmental rehabilitationprogrammes are definitely needed, but in theabsence of major reform in the approach toagricultural development in northern and centralSudan, further ad hoc investment in environmentalinitiatives is considered to be highly risky.In Southern Sudan, the rapidly developingagricultural policies as seen by UNEP in late 2006appear to be generally sound, with one major gap.A high priority should be given to conversion oftraditional agricultural systems to more modernhybrid systems such as agroforestry, which preservestree cover and boosts per hectare productivity whileimproving environmental sustainability.Recommendations for theGovernment of National UnityR8.1 Establish the proposed Land Commission.The proposed commission is a key part of the CPAand a good initiative that warrants support. Theinternational community already has funds setaside for this initiative.CA:GROL; PB: MAF; UNP: FAO; CE: nil; DU:3 yearsR8.2 Impose a moratorium on new mechanizedrain-fed agriculture schemes and conduct amajor review and study on the way forward.The objective is to understand the real impacts andcontrol the unplanned expansion of mechanizedagriculture, and improve sustainability. Prioritystates are Southern Kordofan, Blue Nile, Gedaref,White Nile and Sennar.CA: GROL/AS; PB: MAF; UNP: FAO; CE:0.2M; DU: 2 years+190 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

8 AGRICULTURE AND THE ENVIRONMENTR8.3 Invest in technical assistance, capacitybuildingand research in seven environmentagriculturesubject areas. The overall objectiveis to embed the culture and capacity for thesustainable development of agriculture into theMinistry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Ministryof Animal Resources and a number of linkedinstitutes. The investments need to be spreadbetween the federal and state levels and variousministries. The target subjects are:• meteorology services;• sustainable rural land use planning;• rangeland conservation;• agroforestry;• Water Use Associations (WUA) in irrigationschemes;• integrated pest management and pesticidemanagement; and• rehabilitation of desert regions using nativespecies.CA: TA; PB: MAF; UNP: FAO; CE: 8M; DU:3 yearsR8.4 Develop policies and guidelines to preventfuture accumulation of pesticide stockpiles.Policy development should be based on multistakeholderconsultations involving relevantgovernment authorities, industry, aid agenciesand development banks, and farmers.CA: GROL; PB: MAF; UNP: FAO; CE: 0.1M;DU: 1 yearR8.5 Collect all obsolete pesticide stocks forsafer long-term storage, treatment and disposal,and conduct a feasibility assessment for safefinal disposal. Prior to final disposal, the stocksdisseminated across the country will need to beassessed, categorized, and made safe for transportand interim storage. A single well-sited, welldesignedand maintained interim storage placewould be a major improvement on the currentsituation. Any major investment in final disposalwill require a cost and feasibility study to selectthe best option and assist financing.CA:PA; PB: MAF; UNP: UNEP; CE: 3M; DU:2 yearsR8.6 Assess the full extent of riverbank erosionand invest in practical impact managementplan based on Integrated Water ResourceManagement (IWRM). This should be consideredan investment in the preservation of high-valueagricultural land.CA:PA; PB: MAF; UNP: FAO; CE: 3M; DU:2 yearsR8.7 Develop a national strategy and priorityaction plan for mesquite control in theagricultural sector. The Presidential Decreeshould be amended at the same time as the planis developed to avoid a legislation-policy clash.CA:GROL; PB: MAF; UNP: FAO; CE: 0.3M;DU: 1 yearRecommendations for theGovernment of Southern SudanR8.8 Impose a moratorium on new mechanizedagriculture schemes in southern states, and amajor review and study on the way forward.The objective is to understand the real impacts andcontrol the unplanned expansion of mechanizedagriculture, and improve sustainability. ForGOSS, applicable to Upper Nile state.CA: GROL/AS; PB: MAF; UNP: FAO; CE:0.2M; DU: 1 yearR8.9 Invest in technical assistance, capacitybuildingand research in a range of environmentagriculturesubject areas. The overall objective is toembed the culture and capacity for the sustainabledevelopment of agriculture into the Ministry ofAgriculture and Forestry, Ministry of AnimalResources and a number of linked institutes. Theinvestments need to be spread between the federaland state levels and various ministries.CA: TA/CB; PB: MAF; UNP: FAO; CE: 4M;DU: 3 yearsR8.10 Design and implement agroforestrydemonstration projects in each of the tensouthern states. The objective is to demonstratethe benefits of switching from shifting agricultureto more sustainable land use models.CA: PA; PB: MAF; UNP: ICRAF; CE: 5M; DU:5 years• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •191

Forest ResourcesPlantations such as this teak stand inKagelu, Central Equatoria, are a valuableasset and potential source of hard currencyfor Southern Sudan. Commercial exploitationof the forest resources of Southern Sudanis expected to expand with peace androad network improvements. The challengewill be to develop the industry in anenvironmentallysustainable manner.

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTForest resources9.1 Introduction andassessment activitiesIntroductionThe rural population of Sudan, as well as much ofits urban population, depends on forests. Trees arethe main source of energy and provide timber forroofing and building. In rural Sudan, the extensivebenefits derived from forests include grazing,hunting, shade, forest foods in the form of treeleaves, wild fruits, nuts, tubers and herbs, tree barkfor medicinal purposes, and non-wood productssuch as honey and gum arabic. In addition, thecommercial lumber industry is a small but growingsource of employment. According to FAO, theforestry sector contributes as much as 13 percentto the gross domestic product of Sudan [9.1].This valuable resource is threatened, however,by deforestation driven principally by energyneeds and agricultural clearance. Moreover, theunbalanced distribution of forests in Sudan – mostof the remaining forests are found in the south,while the demand for forest products is highest inthe north – presents a potential threat for northsouthpeace, but also a significant opportunity forsustainable north-south trade development.Assessment activitiesForestry was a priority topic for the UNEPassessment, and was also included in the scopeof the ICRAF study on rural land use changescommissioned by UNEP in cooperation withFAO. In addition, the forestry sector assessmentwas marked by strong and welcome supportfrom the Forests National Corporation (FNC)in northern and central Sudan.UNEP teams visited forests in over twenty states.Particular attention was paid to deforestation pressuresin different regions. Satellite imagery analysis offourteen sites included a quantitative assessmentof deforestation, and satellite reconnaissance waswidely used to search for deforestation ‘hotspots’.In Southern Sudan, the Kagelu Forestry TrainingCentre worked with ICRAF to provide UNEPwith detailed information on the Equatorian statestimber reserves. However, security constraintsprevented access to important forests in Darfur;the Jebel Marra plateau, for instance, was almostcompletely inaccessible at the time of the survey.A commercial mahogany stand in the Nuba mountains, Southern Kordofan. Northern Sudan’s majortimber deficit is currently being met principally through unsustainable logging in central Sudan. Viableand sustainable alternatives include increased use of plantations194 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

9 FOREST RESOURCESFigure 9.1Sudan forest coverJanuary - First decadeLibyaEgyptApril - First decadeLibyaEgyptChadKhartoumEritreaChadKhartoumEritreaEthiopiaEthiopiaCentral African RepublicCentral African RepublicDemocratic Republicof CongoUgandaKenyaDemocratic Republicof CongoUgandaKenyaJuly - First decadeEgyptOctober - First decadeEgyptLibyaLibyaChadKhartoumEritreaChadKhartoumEritreaEthiopiaEthiopiaCentral African RepublicCentral African RepublicLegendWaterBare soilSparse vegetationGrowing vegetationGreen vegetationDense green vegetationForestsCloudsDemocratic Republicof CongoKenyaUgandaSource: Admin layers (Vmap0, GRID).NDVI:Normalized Difference Vegetation Index,extracted from Famine Early WarningSystems Network (FEWS NET).The value represented is the long-termannual mean.Democratic Republicof CongoUgandaKilometresKenya0 200 400 600 800 1,000Projection: Lambert Azimutal Equal-Area ProjectionThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •195

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTWith the exception of central Darfur, UNEP’sforestry-related activities were considered comprehensiveenough to develop an accurate pictureof the status of Sudan’s forests and prevailingtrends across the country.9.2 Overview of forestresourcesA wide range of forests and related vegetationtypes is found in Sudan due to regional variationsin soil and rainfall. The most important types arelisted below, in rough order of distribution fromthe arid north to the tropical south:• desert and semi-desert trees and shrubs;• riverine forests;• low rainfall woodland savannah;• high rainfall woodland savannah;• montane and gallery forests;• tropical forests; and• plantations.Most trees in Sudan grow in open to semi-closedwoodlands with numerous under-storeys ofgrasses and shrubs. Fully closed forests are onlyfound in a few of the most humid areas in thesouth. This complicates attempts to quantify theextent of forests and deforestation in the drierregions, as there is rarely a clear deforestation orecosystem boundary, but rather a gradual thinningout of trees over a large area.The long-term Normalized Difference VegetativeIndex (NDVI) is a measurement of the overallvegetation density, including trees, shrubs andgrasses over different seasons. The images in Figure9.1 (see previous page) clearly show the dominantimpact of the Sahara desert and low rainfall zoneson vegetation cover and the associated northsouthdifference in tree cover.Desert and semi-desert trees andshrubsDesert vegetation in the northern states (Northern,Northern Darfur, Northern Kordofan, Kassalaand Red Sea) is limited to xerophytic (droughtresistant)shrubs, such as Acacia ehrenbergiana,Capparis decidua, Fagonia cretica and Leptodemiapirotechnica. Scrub formations occur in the semidesertzone (the northern half of Kordofan andBlue Nile states, all of Khartoum state, most ofRed Sea state, and some parts of Darfur), wherethe vegetation is a varying mixture of grasses andherbs with widely scattered shrubs.Forest resources in the desert and semi-desert northern states are extremely limited and in continual decline196 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

9 FOREST RESOURCESAcacia nilotica in Sennar state. The density and variety of tree cover increases further south,following rainfall patternsRiverine forestsRiverine forests are a critical resource for thenorthern states. They occupy the lands that areflooded when rivers rise in the latter part of thewet season. Acacia nilotica – the dominant species– is found as pure dense stands over large areasfrom the Egyptian border in the north to as farsouth as Jebelein on the White Nile, and Roseireson the Blue Nile. The species also occurs alongthe Dinder and Rahad rivers. In less frequentlyflooded basins along the Atbara river and insome inland sites, Acacia nilotica is replaced byHyphaene thebaica (Dom palm) forests.Low rainfall (< 900 - 1,000 mm)woodland savannahThe low rainfall woodland savannah region lies in thecentre and south of the country, with the exclusionof the flood region. Rainfall is confined to a fewmonths of the year (March or April to July), and isfollowed by a long hot dry season. The vegetationis composed of mixed grass types with bushes andtrees, but species distribution within the low rainfallsavannah zone varies with rainfall and soil type.Sandy soils dominate in the west and central regions,and clay soils are prevalent in the east and south. Inthe drier parts, trees are nearly all thorny and low instature, with a predominance of species of acacia.Broadleaved deciduous trees become prevalent inthe wetter parts, but there is not as great a variety ofspecies as in the high rainfall woodland savannah,and thorn trees are usually present. The gum arabicbelt lies within this zone. The belt occupies an areaof 520,000 km² between the latitudes of 10° and14° N, accounting for one-fifth of the total area ofthe country. Its importance is reflected in the factthat it accommodates approximately one-fifth of thepopulation of Sudan and two-thirds of its livestock,and that it acts as a natural barrier to protect morethan 40 percent of the total area of Sudan fromdesert encroachment [9.2].• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •197

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTHigh rainfall (> 900 – 1,000 mm)woodland savannahThe high rainfall woodland savannah extends intomost parts of Bahr el Ghazal and Equatoria states inthe south. Trees in this region are generally tall andbroadleaved. Coarse tall tussocks of perennial grassespredominate and fires are hence usually fiercer thanin the low rainfall woodland savannah. The mostimportant tree species are Khaya senegalensis andIsoberlina doka. Other species are Parkia oliveri,Daniella oliveri, Afzelia africana, Terminalia mollis,Burkea africana and Vitellaria paradoxa.Tropical forestsSudan’s tropical forests are confined to a few smalland scattered localities: the Talanga, Lotti andLaboni forests at the base of the Imatong mountainsand the Azza forest in Maridi in Western Equatoria,and other small areas on the Aloma plateau andnear Yambio. Species occurring in these tropicalforests are similar to those found in the drier partsof the forests of West Africa. The most commonare Chrysophyllum albidum and Celtis zenkeri, withHoloptelea grandis in the Azza forest. A numberof valuable timber trees are also found, includingKhaya grandifolia (mahagony), Chlorophora excelsa,and Entrandrophragma angolense.afforded by the steeply sloping banks. Importantspecies are Cola cordifolia, Syzygium guineense andMitragyna stipulosa in swampy places.PlantationsPlantations were first established in Sudan by theAnglo-Egyptian administration. The most significantof these were the teak (Tectona grandis) plantationsof Southern Sudan, many of which are still standing(see Case Study 9.1). This process was continuedby the government forestry administration, and bythe mid-1970s, plantations totaled some 16,000additional hectares of hardwoods and 500 to 600hectares of softwoods [9.3].Today, most of the remaining plantations arefound in Central and Eastern Equatoria states,in Southern Sudan. They include stands of teakin the far southern regions and pine in the higherelevations of the Imatong mountains. Elsewherein Sudan, plantations are comprised of riverineAcacia nilotica forests, Acacia senegal plantationsin abandoned mechanized farms, inside forestreserves, in private gum orchards, and in isolatedshelter belts planted in Northern Kordofan andother central states, pine and eucalyptus plantationsin the Jebel Marra region in Darfur, and eucalyptusin the irrigated agricultural areas.Montane and gallery forestsMountains in Sudan are characterized by higherrainfall, resulting in different and more robustwoodlands than in the surrounding areas. The JebelMarra plateau in Darfur is the most importantecosystem of this type in the drier parts of Sudan.Coniferous forests occur in the montane vegetationof the Imatong and Dongotona ranges in EasternEquatoria state, as well as in the Red Sea hills in thenorth-east. Important species include Podocarpusmilanjianus, Juniperus procera and Pinus radiata.Planted exotics include Eucalyptus microtheca andCupressus spp. In the more humid areas of theImatong and Dongotona ranges, the vegetation issimilar to that of low rainfall woodland savannah.Gallery forests occur on the banks of streams. Theyare generally found in relatively deep U-shapedvalleys, and benefit from both the extra water supplyfrom the streams and the protection against firesSouthern Sudan still retains the majority of itsforest cover, but deforestation is occurring ata steady rate198 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

9 FOREST RESOURCESThese teak trees have not been tended for 20 years, so the productivity of the plantationis well below potential. The plantations, however, are a valuable assetCS 9.1Yei county teak plantations: a valuable colonial legacyTeak (Tectona grandis) plantations are spread all over Yei county. Prior to the conflict, the largest and best managedplantations were located in Kagelu, 8 km south-west of the town of Yei, between 04°03’34’’ N and 30°36’56’’ E.The community living around the plantation, the Kakwa ethnic group, mainly practises subsistence agriculture, though somemembers also plant their own woodlots for cash income and construction materials. Before the war, the community benefited fromthe infrastructure provided by the government forest plantation project in terms of employment, education, health services andimproved road access. Other benefits included extension services, fuelwood and other forest products from the reserve.Between independence and the second civil war, the teak plantations in Yei county were managed by the Sudan GermanForestry Team, funded by GTZ (German Technical Aid), but the project was shut down in 1987 due to the intensification of theconflict. During the war, all of the teak plantations were subject to uncontrolled felling and export to Uganda. The entire processwas managed on the black market by foreign-owned logging companies, and royalties from the timber went to the SPLA.With the end of the conflict and the establishment of the GOSS Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, H.E. Martin Elia Lomoroordered a review and evaluation of commercial logging activities. The committee that conducted the review found thatall of the contracts that were issued were illegal and that they did not conform to best forestry practices. This promptedthe Minister to issue a decree annulling all the contracts and banning logging in both the teak plantations and naturalforests. This ban, while admirable, is not expected to hold much beyond 2006 due to the need for foreign currency andconstruction timber in Southern Sudan.There is accordingly an urgent need for the GOSS to develop an appropriate governance regime, including a transparentlicensing process, strict quotas and reforestation obligations.Table 13. Teak plantations in Yei county [9.8]Name of forest reserveSize in hectaresLoka 918Kagelu 1,045Kajiko North 750Kajiko South 90Korobe 50Mumory 30Yei Council 2Total 2,985• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •199

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT9.3 Forest utilizationA range of ecosystem servicesThe forests of Sudan have economical, ecological,and recreational values, known collectively asecosystem services.Wood products from the forestry sector includefuelwood, sawn timber and round poles. TheForest Product Consumption Survey conductedby the FNC in Northern Sudan in 1995 foundthat the total annual consumption of wood was15.77 million m³. FAO calculated that in 1987,Sudan produced 41,000 m³ of sawn timber, 1.9million m³ of other industrial round wood, andmore than 18 million m³ of firewood. Each ofthese categories showed a substantial increase fromproduction levels in the 1970s [9.4].The ecological benefits of forests include sand dunestabilization in fragile semi-desert environments,amelioration of soil through nitrogen fixation, andthe provision of natural ecosystems for wildlifeand the conservation of biodiversity.Fuelwood and charcoal productionThe felling of trees for fuelwood and charcoalproduction occurs throughout Sudan, but thepressure is generally greater on the more limitedresources of the north and the areas surroundingthe country’s urban centres. An additionalgrowing use for fuelwood in all parts of Sudan isfor brick-making. In Darfur, for instance, brickmakingprovides a livelihood for many IDP campresidents, but also contributes to severe localizeddeforestation (see Case Study 5.2).Fuelwood market in Nyala, Southern Darfur200 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

9 FOREST RESOURCESBrick kilns on the banks of the Blue Nile, in El Gezira state. The brick-making industry is a major market for fuelwoodAs is the case for many natural resource managementissues in Sudan, the data on wood consumption isincomplete and often obsolete. What is available,however, provides a picture of substantial andincreasing demand. The 1995 FNC survey indicatedthat fuelwood contributed 78 percent of the energybalance of Sudan, the rest being provided by oil(8 percent), generated electricity (8 percent) andagricultural residues (6 percent). With a per capitaannual consumption of approximately 0.68 m 3 , thetotal fuelwood requirement for 1995 was estimatedat 22 million m 3 [9.4, 9.9]. These figures wereextrapolated by UNEP to estimate the fuelwoodrequirement for 2006 at 27-30 million m 3 .In theory, forest authorities in northern andcentral Sudan direct the commercial loggingof Acacia nilotica and Acacia seyal for supplyof firewood and charcoal to the cities. Wood ismeant to be extracted mostly from the thinningof branches of Acacia nilotica in reserved riverineforests, and the clearing of Acacia seyal and otherspecies from areas allocated for agriculture.In practice, however, the process is much lesscontrolled and the felling less selective.Rural inhabitants use most of the tree species in thelow rainfall savannah for fuelwood. The removalof dead trees and branches is permitted for peopleliving around forests in all parts of Sudan.A charcoal market in Khartoum• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •201

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTSawn timberIn the northern and central states, logging for theproduction of industrial timber is carried out bycontractors under the supervision of sawmill andindustry managers who are directly responsibleto the State Director of Forests within theirrespective states. In the southern states, the industryis currently stagnant, but was managed by themilitary forces on both sides during the conflict.The sawn timber in the north is mainly from Acacianilotica; in the south, it is extracted from a range ofhigh rainfall savannah woodland species includingIsoberlinia doka, Khaya grandifolia, Milicia excelsa,Khaya senegalensis, Olea hochstetteri, Afzeliaafricana, Daniellia oliveri, Sclerocarya birrea, andPodocarpus milanjianus.Traditional constructionThere is no detailed data available on woodproduct usage in traditional construction. Onefigure much quoted to UNEP, from unknownsources, is that it takes approximately ten youngtrees to build one tukul (traditional rounddwelling). With a rural population of over thirtymillion, the total demand is therefore significant,but anticipated to be much below the fuelwooddemand from the same population.Dried wild fruit for sale in the Tokar region, Red Seastate. Non-wood forest products such as fruit, nuts,and medicinal herbs are important but often undervaluedcomponents of the overall value of forestsSawn teak in Wau, Western Bahr el GhazalNon-wood forest productsGum arabic is Sudan’s most important non-woodforest product, with an annual exported crop ofapproximately 45,000 tonnes. The grey-barkedAcacia senegal produces hashab gum, while theusually red-barked Acacia seyal gives talh gum.The latter is inferior in quality. The dom nut,a vegetable ivory, is obtained from Hyphaenethebaica. Dom nuts are sliced and used as buttonblanks; an average of 1,500 tonnes is exportedannually. Minor products include bee honey andbees wax, the latter being exported at a rate of 80tonnes per year, palm oil (Elaeis guineensis), garadtanning pods obtained from Acacia nilotica, lulu(shea oil and butter) from Vitellaria paradoxa andthe fruits of the shrub species Capsicum frutescens.Other vegetal non-wood forest products are fodder(e.g. Ziziphus spp., Acacia spp.), edible oils (e.g.Balanites aegyptiaca), medicines (e.g. Tamarindusindica), dyes (e.g. henna from Lawsonia inermis,Prosopis africana), fibres (e.g. Borassus aethiopum)and latex (e.g. Landolfia ovariensis).202 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

9 FOREST RESOURCES9.4 Forestry sector environmentalimpacts and issuesThere are three key environmental issues for theforestry sector in Sudan:1. deforestation;2. the charcoal industry, which constitutes apotential north-south conflict ‘flashpoint’; and3. the southern timber industry developmentopportunity.Deforestation – an overall and effectivelypermanent reduction in the extent of tree cover– is the dominant environmental, social andeconomic issue affecting the forestry sectorin Sudan. The removal of trees has a range ofvery negative impacts, including increased landand water resource degradation, and the loss oflivelihoods from forest ecosystem services.The second important issue is the risk of renewedconflict over the exploitation of timber resourcesfor charcoal in the north-south border regions.Directly linked to this is the economic opportunityafforded by the forests of Southern Sudan and thechallenge of developing a significant new industrywhile at the same time avoiding deforestation.A further issue for the forestry sector is the managementof invasive species, and specifically of mesquite(Prosopis juliflora), which was discussed in theprevious chapter. It should be noted that the solutionsto this problem are linked to improved managementof this resource rather than its elimination.9.5 Deforestation ratesand causesMeasuring the rate of deforestationat the national scaleIn the late 1970s, FAO estimated that the country’sforests and woodlands totaled approximately915,000 km², or 38.5 percent of the land area.This figure was based on a broad definition offorests and woodlands as ‘any area of vegetationdominated by trees of any size’. It also includedan unknown amount of cleared land that wasexpected to have forest cover again ‘in theforeseeable future’ [9.5].An estimate by the forestry administration in themid-1970s, however, established the total forestcover at some 584,360 km², or 24.6 percent ofthe country’s land area. More than 129,000 km²(about one quarter) of this amount was locatedin the dry and semi-arid regions of northernSudan [9.9].Given this nearly 50 percent difference in baselinedepending on definition, it is difficult to makea comprehensive quantitative comparison ofdeforestation on the national scale since the1970s, and UNEP has not attempted to do sofor this assessment. More exhaustive and rigorousinformation is available from 1990, when FAOForest Resources Assessments (FRAs) started tocover Sudan in more detail. The latest assessmentwork, which was released in 2005, is set out inTables 14 to 16.Table 14. Extent of forest and other wooded land in Sudan [9.6]Extent of forest and other wooded landFRA 2005 categoriesArea (1,000 hectares)1990 2000 2005Forest 76,381 70,491 67,546Other wooded land – 54,153 –Forest and other wooded land 76,381 124,644 67,546Other land 161,219 112,956 170,054...of which with tree cover – – –Total land area 237,600 237,600 237,600Inland water bodies 12,981 12,981 12,981Total area of country 250,581 250,581 250,581• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •203

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTTable 15. Characteristics of forests and other wooded land in Sudan [9.6]Characteristics of forest and other wooded landArea (1,000 hectares)FRA 2005 categoriesForestOther wooded land1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005Primary 15,276 14,098 13,509 – – –Modified natural 53,467 49,344 47,282 – 54,153 –Semi-natural 1,528 1,410 1,351 – – –Productive plantation 5,347 4,934 4,728 – – –Protective plantation 764 705 675 – – –Total 76,381 70,491 67,546 – 54,153 –Table 16. Growing stock in forests and other wooded land in Sudan [9.6]Growing stock in forests and other wooded landVolume (million m³ over bark)FRA 2005 categoriesForestsOther wooded land1990 2000 2005 1990 2000 2005Growing stock in forests andother wooded land1,062 980 939 – – –Commercial growing stock – – – – – –It should be noted that the above table is theresult of various inventories and assessmentsover time, and that the calculation of thechange rate is based on World Bank 1985(reference year 1976) and Africover data(reference year 2000). Due to differentclassification systems, the change rate wascalculated on the combined area of forestand other wooded land and allocatedproportionally to the two classes accordingto the latest estimate (Africover 2000).Though some agricultural land thatwas abandoned due to the conflict hasregenerated naturally, the clear trend overallhas been for significant and consistentdeforestation across the country: accordingto FAO, Sudan lost an average of 589,000hectares (5,890 km²) of forest per yearbetween 1990 and 2000. This amountsto an average annual deforestation rate of0.77 percent. Between 2000 and 2005,the rate of deforestation increased by 8.4percent to 0.84 percent per annum. Intotal, between 1990 and 2005, Sudan lost11.6 percent of its forest cover, or around8,835,000 hectares.Balanites trees provide vital shade for livestockin 40 o C heat204 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

9 FOREST RESOURCESMeasuring the rate of deforestationat the district scaleThe ICRAF study included detailed remotesensing analysis of fourteen regions over timeperiods of up to thirty-three years. Each studysite covered an area of 2,500 km² and includeda number of different land uses. The rate ofdeforestation was estimated for each site, and isset out in the table below. Note that ‘deforestation’here refers to calculated changes in percentageof land use from forested land forms to others,including from closed forests to more openwooded grasslands.Table 17. Summary of deforestation rates in Sudan from 1973 to 2006Study area and stateOriginal andfinal forest andwoodland coverAnnual lineardeforestation rate+ (period loss)CommentsNorth, east and central SudanEd Damazin, Blue NileEl Obeid, Northern Kordofan7.5 to 0.1 from1972 to 199912.0 to 8.7 from1973 to 19993.6 %(98.6 %)1.05 %(27.5 %)Wooded grassland replaced by rain-fedagriculture. Some regrowth of closed forest(verification required).Wooded grassland replaced by rain-fedagriculture. Shelter belts remain.Shuwak, Kassala – – Non-measurable arid zone, now with bothirrigation and mesquite invasion.New Halfa, Kassala – – Non-measurable arid zone, now with bothirrigation and mesquite invasion.Sunjukaya, Southern KordofanTokar delta, Red Sea stateNorth, east and central Sudancase study averagesDarfurJebel Marra, Western DarfurTimbisquo, Southern DarfurUm Chelluta, Southern Darfur29.2 to 8.4 from1972 to 200215.8 to 26.8 from1972 to 20012.37 %(71.2 %)Mesquite + 2.4 %(+ 170 %)Natural forest only 2.37 %(65.7 %)Including invasivespecies50.7 to 35.8 from1973 to 200172.0 to 51.0 from1973 to 200523.8 to 16.1 from1973 to 20001.15 %(31.8 %)1.04 %(29.4 %)1.33 %(29.1 %)1.20 %(32.4 %)Darfur case study averages 1.19 %(30.3 %)Southern SudanAweil, Northern Bahr el GhazalWau, Western Bahr el Ghazal11.9 to 7.2 from1972 to 200176.5 to 51.8 from1973 to 2005Renk, Upper Nile 6.5 to 01973 to 2006Yambio, Western Equatoria 80.2 to 51.5 from1973 to 2006Yei, Central Equatoria29.8 to 19.3 from1973 to 20061.38 %(39.4 %)1.00 %(32.3 %)> 5 %(100 %)1.12 %(35.8 %)1.53 %(35.2 %)Southern Sudan case study averages > 2 %(40 %)National average based onFAO studyNational average basedon UNEP case studies30.4 to 26.9 from1990 to 2005Natural forest only > 1.87 %(48.2 %)Wooded grassland replaced by traditional rain-fedagriculture. Some regrowth as scrubland.Reforestation. Non-precise arid zone withmesquite invasion replacing agriculture.Complete deforestation is two-thirds completeby 2001. Predicted to be over 70 % by 2006.Extrapolated near total loss within 30 years.Reforestation by invasive species is compensatingin total cover by 50 % but still a major net loss.Closed forest changing to open forest land andburnt areas.Closed forest and wooded grassland replaced byburnt areas and rain-fed agriculture.Closed forest replaced by burnt areas, pastureand rain-fed agriculture.Rapid and consistent deforestationapproximately one-third complete by 2006.Closed forest changing to wooded grassland andpasture.Closed and riverine forest and wooded grasslandreplaced by traditional rain-fed agriculture.Wooded grassland and riverine forest replaced bydegraded land.Closed forest and wooded grassland replaced bytraditional rain-fed agriculture.Closed forest and wooded grassland replaced byopen forest and traditional rain-fed agriculture.Rapid and consistent deforestationapproximately 40 % complete by 2006.Extrapolated near total loss within 50 years.0.76 % (11.5 %) Remote sensing work only.Rapid deforestation has resulted in the loss ofthe majority of forests in the north and the samepattern is visible elsewhere in Sudan.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •205

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFigure 9.2Jebel Marra deforestation06/01/1973Arga KungarNyamaUmmariDuguDugoDigiruFergulliMusiKalokittingBensiNabgayDamiMoraFiroBurusini Kaang kulliHashaba07/04/2006Arga KungarNyamaUmmariDuguDugoDigiruFergulliMusiKalokittingBensiNabgayDamiMoraFiroBurusini Kaang kulliHashabaDimlalaliDiyeir Jimeza KTaringaDimlalaliDiyeir Jimeza KTaringaYaraDerlewaTergung DeleibiyaTabofutoLimoYaraDerlewaTergung DeleibiyaTabofutoLimoFarraHarazaSeegaySulliDibisErliDungyoura Kidada MelibedaBoriBoroboroMergumKeiogirraAmar gedidKassJurokania KomdaKaluKolu koluMilaNyerleiNillakoliKalmo Um hajaraZaledaTertaAbdabhya mangaKunyumadilFarraHarazaSeegaySulliDibisErliDungyoura Kidada MelibedaBoriBoroboroMergumKeiogirraAmar gedidKassJurokania KomdaKaluKolu koluMilaNyerleiNillakoliKalmo Um hajaraZaledaTertaAbdabhya mangaKunyumadilGaroula BorongaOdaMorotogaSarambangaDauraMangoyaGaroula BorongaOdaMorotogaSarambangaDauraMangoyaLand typesClosed forestDeforested areasBurnt areaBushland/shrubland; wooded grasslandRiverine vegetationBuilt-up areasWastelandRiverKilometres0 5 10 15 20 25This map shows land use changes that have occurred duringthe last 30 years in the main land use classes.It is the result of a satellite image classification process combinedwith ground truth data collected during several field missions in2006.RoadRiverClassification was performed by ICRAF.The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Datum: WGS 84.Projection: UTM Zone 35N.This time lapse satellite image of Jebel Marra shows a very destructive pattern of land use change. The closedforest has been extensively degraded to burnt areas and open woodland, with a deforestation rate of 1.04 percentper annum. This clearing has not been matched by an increase in agricultural areas. The only gain has been amarginal increase in grazing land on the steep slopesThe summary in Table 17 is a gross simplification of thecomplex land use patterns and changes occurring at eachof the fourteen sites, but the overall trends are clear:1. Northern, eastern and central Sudan havealready lost the great majority of their forestcover. The removal of remaining forestsis ongoing but has slowed, except in thesouthern border regions, where removal of thelast of the major forests is progressing rapidly.Reforestation of northern and eastern statesby invasive species is locally significant.2. Darfur has lost more that 30 percent of itsforests since Sudan’s independence and rapiddeforestation is ongoing.3. Southern Sudan has lost some of its forestssince Sudan’s independence and deforestationis ongoing due to the total dependence onfuelwood and charcoal as the main sources ofenergy. Deforestation is worst around majortowns such as Malakal, Wau and Juba. Thestudy did not include areas distant from majortowns, where it is expected that the extent ofdeforestation could be less severe.The substantial difference between UNEP andFAO work is considered to reflect the difficulty inquantifying a system with extreme seasonal andannual variations, as well as classification problemsdue to blurred boundaries between land classes.Based on its fieldwork, UNEP considers its figuresto be the best currently available, though they areprobably an under-estimation given that mostof the quantitative work is based on images oneto seven years old, and that all factors point to agradual increase in deforestation rates over time.In Figures 9.3a and 9.3b, time lapse satellite imagesof two sites in Southern Darfur show a similardeforestation trend: the forest is being fragmentedand removed in large areas, and replaced largelyby traditional slash-and-burn agriculture, whichhas also taken over rangelands. The annualdeforestation rates are calculated at 1.33 percent forTimbisquo and 1.20 percent for Um Chelluta.206 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

9 FOREST RESOURCESFigure 9.3a Southern Darfur deforestation – TimbisquoDanduraDandoraDumba dumbaGemmeizaDanduraDandoraDumba dumbaGemmeiza11/05/1973MerrihNari23/11/2005MerrihNariTumkoTumkoUm hemedaUm laota GozaBulbul dala angraUm hemedaUm laota GozaBulbul dala angraHereza Erenda Am kuruHerezaSakaliAm kuruGandiGandiSakaliTalilaTalila village1DagraseTonoKalkafTalilaTalila village1DagraseTonoKalkafMileibadahShuwayyMuhajryiaMileibadahShuwayyMuhajryiaBulbul timbisgoBulbul timbisgoKeikeiKeikeiMurrKafanduMurrKafanduUm ganahTarturaUm ganahTarturaLand typesRain-fed agricultureClosed forestPlanted forestFlood plain/wetlandKilometres0 5 10 15 20 25This map shows land use changes that have occurred duringthe last 30 years in the main land use classes.Riverine vegetationBushland/shrubland; grassland; wooded grasslandBurnt areaWaterRiverRoadIt is the result of a satellite image classification process combinedwith ground truth data collected during several field missions in2006.Classification was performed by ICRAF.The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Datum: WGS 84.Projection: UTM Zone 35N.Figure 9.3bSouthern Darfur deforestation – Um Chelluta11/05/1973Aradeiba AnjaKileitita SharteinHashabaKum kalakGharraQusa ingammatIdeiraTiwalAbu umm bilalZawwamBarbariGaneima24/01/2000Aradeiba AnjaKileitita SharteinHashabaKum kalakGharraQusa ingammatIdeiraTiwalAbu umm bilalZawwamBarbariGaneimaAnadaLubanaGurun arusTimsahAradeibaUm sigumUm cheluttaTulusMeshaggaDibbubUm zueifaAnadaLubanaGurun arusTimsahAradeibaUm sigumUm cheluttaTulusMeshaggaDibbubUm zueifaDikerbisBuramTobreikKarkang At tabahUm sakeikiniUm dugulgulaiDikerbisBuramTobreikKarkang At tabahUm sakeikiniUm dugulgulaiUmm DangaUmm DangaUm dulUm dulKhayr WajihKhayr WajihTurmanaTurmanaLand typesClosed forestBushland/shrubland; grasslandFlood plain/wetlandRain-fed agricultureBuilt-up areasDegraded areasRiverRoadKilometres0 5 10 15 20 25This map shows land use changes that have occurred duringthe last 30 years in the main land use classes.It is the result of a satellite image classification process combinedwith ground truth data collected during several field missions in2006.Classification was performed by ICRAF.The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Datum: WGS 84.Projection: UTM Zone 35N.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •207

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTCauses of deforestationThere are several underlying causes of deforestation;these are cumulative in nature and vary considerablyfrom region to region:• fuelwood and charcoal extraction;• mechanized agriculture;• traditional rain-fed and shifting agriculture;• drought and climate change;• overbrowsing and fires;• direct conflict impacts;• commercial lumber and export industry (nota major factor); and• traditional construction (not a major factorand not discussed).Unsustainable rates of fuelwoodextractionAs noted in previous chapters, the unsustainableextraction of fuelwood is a major problem innorthern and central Sudan, as well as in refugeeand displaced persons camps all over the countryand particularly in Northern Darfur. The acaciagroves of the Sahel have been extensively harvestedfor fuelwood, with a resulting rapid advance ofdeforestation.The supply of charcoal to northern cities is a majorbusiness that is currently depleting the forests ofcentral, southern and western Sudan, particularlySouthern Kordofan, the northern part of UpperNile state and eastern parts of Darfur.According to the FNC, the charcoal and mechanizedagriculture interests work closely together, withFigure 9.4Wau deforestation12/01/1973AtidoChief majok mKwotWaderilWar rieiWar-rietNyin akokAcumcumBaremaditLojoKornukAinyar19/02/2005AtidoChief majok mKwotWaderilWar rieiWar-rietNyin akokAcumcumBaremaditLojoKornukAinyarYingaWitiaFaraj allahAbu shakkaAbu-shakkaMisriMangaOgaliUkuAkejBakhitAbungoAteimMulukiyahBaratongAlelychokGorintiKwitMissiaWauGannaAbangBusseraWad ali kwolBallaNgurOleinDudOshallaBolAl aliOshangKwolKuchuk aliNibongLual anjokNiloaMurjan aliMoweinAshorChol konSheikh aliuYingaWitiaFaraj allahAbu shakkaAbu-shakkaMisriMangaOgaliUkuAkejBakhitWauAbungoAteimUkuMulukiyahBaratongAlelychokGorintiKwitMissiaWauGannaAbangBusseraWad ali kwolBallaNgurOleinDudOshallaBolAl aliOshangKwolKuchuk aliNibongLual anjokNiloaMurjan aliMoweinAshorChol konSheikh aliuLand typesClosed forestFlood plain/wetlandGrassland; wooded grasslandRiverine vegetationKilometres0 5 10 15 20 25This map shows land use changes that have occurred duringthe last 30 years in the main land use classes.Rain-fed agricultureBurnt areasBuilt-up areasDegraded areas; no dataRiverRoadIt is the result of a satellite image classification process combinedwith ground truth data collected during several field missions in2006.Classification was performed by ICRAF.The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Datum: WGS 84.Projection: UTM Zone 35N.These time lapse satellite images of Wau district in Western Bahr el Ghazal show a complex pattern ofintensifying land use leading to deforestation at a rate of one percent per annum and extensive forestfragmentation. Forests are replaced largely by expanding traditional slash-and-burn agriculture and newrangelands. Bare degraded land has appeared in previously forested areas, indicating either overgrazingor exhaustion from traditional cultivation208 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

9 FOREST RESOURCESA brick kiln near Kadugli, Southern Kordofan. The remaining forests of Southern Kordofanare being consumed by the fuelwood and charcoal industriessome cases of unsuitable land being ‘cleared’ foragriculture in order to collect fuelwood. Together,these two industries are considered to be theprimary cause of deforestation in central Sudan.Expansion of mechanized agricultureThe expansion of mechanized agriculture in centralSudan (see Chapter 8) has occurred at the directexpense of forests. Large amounts of woodland havebeen cleared in the development of mechanizedrain-fed farming in the eastern and central states,as well as smaller amounts in Upper Nile andSouthern Kordofan states. Legal requirements toavoid the development of agricultural schemesin forest areas and to retain ten percent of forestas shelter belts have been systematically ignored.These forests were valuable chiefly as protectionagainst desertification, but also as a source of fuelfor pastoral people in those regions.Intensification of traditionalrain-fed and shifting agricultureWhen practised sustainably, traditional shiftingagriculture does not result in a net loss of forestcover. However, the current unsustainable practicesinduced by population growth are resulting inmajor loss and fragmentation of forests. TheICRAF study shows that this is the main cause ofdeforestation in Southern Sudan and Darfur.Before it was cleared for mechanized agriculture,this land in Blue Nile state consisted of lowrainfall savannah and rangelandWau district, Western Bahr el Ghazal. Whenshifting agriculture becomes unsustainable,forest cover disappears permanently• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •209

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTDrought, climate changeand desertificationThe repeated droughts of the 1970s and 1980skilled a large number of trees in the Sahel belt.Many of these areas have not been recolonized bytrees since, as drier conditions and increased landuse pressure have reduced the potential for seeddistribution, germination and new growth. Inregions such as Northern Darfur, the longer-termdrop in precipitation has shifted the northern limitfor several tree species a significant distance (50 to200 km) to the south.It is generally accepted that deforestation canpromote desertification due to soil depletion,erosion and sand encroachment. At the sametime, the development of hostile conditionscauses gradual deforestation as trees die and areincreasingly not replaced.Pastoralist impacts: wildfiresand tree browsingThe annual burning practised by pastoralist societiesto renew grass and suppress shrubs and tree seedlingshas a major impact on tree cover. Another issueis the use of foliage for camel fodder, which is aparticular problem in areas like Southern Kordofanand Northern Darfur, where camel herders havemigrated into land occupied by cattle herdersand farmers. Some slow-growing species suchas mangrove forests in Red Sea state have beendevastated by camel browsing.Direct conflict impactsThe scorched earth tactics used by militias in Darfurhave resulted directly in localized deforestation. Atpresent, UNEP does not have any detail on the scale ofthis phenomenon, and can only note its existence.A settlement in the semi-desert north of El Fasher, Northern Darfur. The combination of drought,desertification, over-population and over-exploitation has drastically reduced forest cover in Northern Darfur210 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

9 FOREST RESOURCESWildfire in Blue Nile state. Fires lit by pastoralists to promote grass growth destroy existing trees andsuppress sapling regrowthCommercial lumber and exportindustryIn contrast to the situation in many countries, thecommercial finished timber industry has not beena major factor in deforestation to date. Despitethe existence of large forest resources in the south,Sudan actually imports finished timber, as poortransportation links and a lack of infrastructurehave so far made commercial timber extractiondifficult.During the north-south conflict, both sides wereinvolved in the illicit extraction of hardwoods,but the scale of extraction was limited by security,access and transportation constraints. In SouthernSudan, the main areas partially deforested due to thiscommercial activity are in the vicinity of Wau, Yei,Nimule and south of Torit. This trade has effectivelystalled since the signing of the peace agreement.This open woodland adjacent to a burnt villagenear El Geneina, Western Darfur, has beendeliberately destroyed• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •211

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTThe challenges of tacklingdeforestation in SudanAt the national level, current observed rates ofdeforestation will reduce forest cover by over tenpercent per decade. In some areas under extremepressure, total loss has already taken place or isexpected within the next ten years. There is clearlymajor cause for concern and an urgent need forcorrective action.Inspection of a two-year old plantation in Um Haraza,Sennar state. Reforestation has been successful incentral Sudan when the FNC and state officials havebeen given adequate resources and mandatesThe wide range of causative factors for deforestationin Sudan and the extent of regional variationindicate that solutions will have to be area-specificeven while addressing national-scale demands.UNEP considers that the task of turning backdeforestation in Sudan is unfortunately too largeand too difficult to have a realistic chance ofsuccess in all regions.Given the finite resources available to bothGONU and GOSS, the first priorities in tacklingdeforestation should not be to launch large-scaleinvestments in tree-planting or similar ventures.Despite obvious good intentions, there aremany examples of destroyed communal forestsand shelter belts in the northern states, wheredeforestation rates have only increased over time.Tree-planting on anything but a gigantic andeconomically non-feasible scale is unlikely toreverse this trend.The recommended alternative approach is toanalyse the situation in each region, start to resolvethe underlying political, social, legal and economicissues, and only then prioritize areas and issueswhere some degree of success is most likely.Many areas on the northern edge of the Sahel belt in Sudan are too degraded and too dry for large-scalereforestation to be feasible. Natural regeneration over time may be the only option212 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

9 FOREST RESOURCESThis timber bound for sale in Khartoum comes from 500 km south, near Renk in Upper Nile state9.6 Potential conflict ‘flashpoint’over the charcoal industry inSouthern SudanThe unmanaged mining of forest resources by thecharcoal industry in the north-south boundaryzone is one of several issues that could – in aworst-case but realistic scenario – constitute apotential trigger for renewed conflict at the locallevel (see Chapter 4).At present, the charcoal industry in northernSudan obtains its wood mainly from SouthernKordofan and riverine forests in Blue Nile andUpper Nile states. Current extraction ratesare completely unsustainable, and as a result,the industry moves its operations graduallysouthwards each year.UNEP predicts that within five to ten years,the northern states of Sudan will only be ableto obtain sufficient supplies of charcoal fromSouthern Sudan and Darfur, as all other majorreserves will have been exhausted. The extractionof charcoal from Southern Sudan is currentlyoccurring outside any legal framework onresource- and benefit-sharing, and often withoutlocal agreement.In essence, the benefits of the commercially-drivendeforestation of the southern state of Upper Nileare flowing north, while the negative impacts arefelt in Upper Nile state. This situation providesanother catalyst for local conflict in the sensitiveborder zone.9.7 Development opportunitiesfor the timber industry inSouthern SudanSouthern Sudan’s considerable forest reserves arecommercially valuable and could – if managedwell – support a significant wealth-creating exportindustry on a sustainable basis. Existing teakplantations alone could potentially generate upto USD 50 million per year in export revenue.Mahogany reserves could be the source of substantialhard currency as well. The sale of charcoal to thenorth is also a likely high-growth market.Yet these resources are currently being wasted andthe opportunity lost. Reserves are shrinking dueto a combination of slash-and-burn clearance foragriculture, poor harvesting techniques and illegallogging. Meanwhile, a lack of governance discourageslegitimate investors. The commercial timber industryneeds to be radically reformed, as the trade is widely• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •213

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTThe opportunity exists for Southern Sudan to extract much better value from each felled tree than is obtained atpresent. Teak plantations alone could potentially generate up to USD 50 million per year in export revenue, butthe commercial timber industry is in need of reform to ensure that its practices are environmentally sustainableperceived as badly managed in many parts of thecountry. Official Southern Sudan AgriculturalRevitalization Programme (SSARP) statistics showthat some 8,000 m³ have been exported since 2000,whereas other sources suggest that the figure is morelikely to be around 90,000 m³ [9.7].The new GOSS Ministry of Agriculture andForestry declared a temporary ban on timberharvesting in January 2006 and intends tointroduce revised timber sales procedures toreduce corruption and illegal logging, and enablethe potential of Southern Sudan’s forest reserves tobe realized. The current harvesting ban is unlikelyto remain in place for long, however, as timberis needed for the expanding local constructionindustries. Foreign logging concessionaires thatexported teak in the past are also interested inacquiring new concessions.Economic drivers will ensure that an exporttimber industry of some sort will evolve rapidlyin Southern Sudan. What is at stake is theenvironmental sustainability of this industry,and how much benefit flows through to localpopulations. Political will and rapid action fromGOSS, as well as support from the internationalcommunity, are urgently needed. USAID, theEuropean Commission and others have alreadystarted to fund small-scale capacity-buildingprogrammes, but more investment is required.9.8 Forestry sector governanceRobust legislation in the northLegislation on the use of forests was firstdeveloped in the colonial period, with the Woodsand Forests Ordinance of 1901, the ForestsOrdinance of 1908, and the Forest ConservationRules of 1917, which designated most forests asgovernment property and established extensiveforest reserves.After independence, the authority of state andlocal administrations to manage forests wasconfirmed, and the comprehensive Forest Actof 1989 laid out a range of ownership categoriesand control measures. Controls over tree-cuttingoutside reserves were tightened by the requirementof permits. In addition, investors in agriculturalschemes were obliged to conserve no less than tenpercent of the total area of rain-fed projects and noless than five percent of the total area of irrigatedprojects to serve as shelter belts and windbreaks.Investors were also obliged to convert cleared trees214 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

9 FOREST RESOURCESinto forest products. To manage forestry resourcesaccording to the Forest Act of 1989, the ForestsNational Corporation (FNC) was established as asemi-autonomous self-financing body in the sameyear. Forestry legislation was again strengthenedand significantly modernized by the Forests andRenewable Resources Act of 2002.Following the signing of the CPA and theadoption of the Interim Constitution in 2005,the responsibility for the management of forestryresources in the south was explicitly assigned tothe new Government of Southern Sudan.Northern and central Sudanenforcement issuesNorthern governance issues relating to forests aresimple at core: the legislation and structures areappropriate but enforcement and governmentinvestment is generally weak.Throughout its time working with FNC officialsin northern and central Sudan, the UNEPteam witnessed extensive good work by theorganization, but also a complete inability toenforce forestry laws due to a lack of resourcesand judicial support at the local level. Wellconnectedelements of the charcoal industry andthe mechanized agriculture schemes appeared tobe able to bypass the FNC and evade sanctionsfor obvious major violations. Minor violations areendemic and almost impossible to police.In consultations, the FNC leadership stated thatpolitical support at the federal level was good, butcalled explicitly for the enforcement of existinglegislation and for sound management practices tobe translated to the state level. This gap betweentop level support and conditions on the groundindicates that the challenge will be to transformpolitical will into practical action.The FNC is in many respects a model organizationfor natural resource management in Sudan asit is self-managed, technically very competentand has a strong field presence. Its effectiveness,however, is crippled by a lack of support at theground level. UNEP therefore considers thatresolving the forestry governance issues for most ofnorthern Sudan will be relatively straightforward,as only political will (at all levels) and appropriateinvestments are required. Other success factors arealready largely in place.Illegal charcoal production is a major cause of deforestation in Southern Kordofan• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •215

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTDarfur governance vacuumThough the FNC is present and GONU legislationremains valid, the current situation in Darfur hasled to an effective governance vacuum, with all ofthe associated negative implications.Southern Sudan’s current vulnerabilityThe situation in Southern Sudan is completelydifferent from the rest of the country. Since 2005,the management of forests in the south falls tothe GOSS Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.The Ministry is very new and weak, and there arevirtually no laws, detailed policies, or operationalplans governing the forest resources of SouthernSudan.No management activities are currently beingconducted due to a lack of qualified forestmanagers. The Department of Forestry, incollaboration with the Kagelu Forestry TrainingCentre, is attempting to bridge this gap byoffering refresher courses to forestry staff inthe fields of silviculture, inventory and forestmanagement, but it is expected that it will besome time before best forest practices are appliedin the south. The forestry resources of SouthernSudan are thus presently extremely vulnerable toillicit exploitation.9.9 Conclusions andrecommendationsConclusionSudan is in the midst of a genuine deforestationcrisis. Most of the resources in northern, easternand central Sudan have already been lost and theremainder is being depleted at a rapid pace. Thelarge-scale timber resources of Southern Sudan arealso disappearing quickly, and are generally beingwasted as trees are burnt to clear land for cropplantingand to promote the growth of grass.The sustainable use of the remaining timberresources in Southern Sudan represents a majordevelopment opportunity for the region, andrequires both encouragement and the urgentdevelopment of governance to avoid potentialover-exploitation.Background to the recommendationsIn simple terms, the solution to the deforestationof Sudan is to slow deforestation rates andincrease replacement. In practice, however, thisis anticipated to be very difficult to achieve,particularly in regions that are still in conflictor under extreme stress due to water shortages.As stated earlier, the recommended approach isto analyse the situation in each region, start toresolve the underlying political, social, legal andeconomic issues, and prioritize areas and issueswhere some degree of success is possible.In Southern Sudan, it is likely that the timberindustry will become a self-sustaining major taxand foreign exchange earner for GOSS. Industryand governance development work shouldtherefore be regarded as an investment to jumpstartan important industry. The focus shouldbe on infrastructure, environmental and socialsustainability, and governance.Recommendations for theGovernment of National UnityR9.1 Undertake an awareness-raising programmeat the political level. The delivery ofthe latest facts and consequences of deforestationin Sudan to its leadership is a high priority. Thiswill entail some further technical work to coverother parts of the north.CA: AR; PB: MAF; UNP: UNEP and FAO; CE:0.2M; DU: 1 yearR9.2 Invest in and politically support the ForestsNational Corporation. At present, this otherwisevery capable institution cannot fulfill its mandate dueto a lack of political support and funding.CA: GI; PB: MAF; UNP: FAO; CE: 5M; DU:3 yearsR9.3 Introduce the concept and practice ofmodern dryland agroforestry techniques. Thiswould entail a combination of awareness-raising,technical assistance and capacity-building, andpractical action through demonstration projectsin several states.CA: TA; PB: MAF; UNP: FAO; CE: 2M; DU5 years216 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

9 FOREST RESOURCESR9.4 Develop a new national managementplan and guidelines for mesquite and updatethe Presidential Decree to fit. This wouldentail a range of activities including assessment,cost-benefit analysis, governance and capacitybuilding.CA: GROL; PB: MAF; UNP: FAO; CE: 0.4M;DU: 1 yearR9.5 Develop and implement a plan to resolvethe Darfur camp fuelwood energy crisis.There are numerous options available and manypiecemeal studies have been conducted, so anymajor programme should be preceded by a rapidoptions analysis and feasibility assessment. Majorinvestment is needed to address this large-scaleproblem.CA: PA; PB: UNHCR; UNP: UNEP; CE: 3M;DU: 3 yearsRecommendations for theGovernment of Southern SudanR9.6 Undertake an awareness-raising programmeat the political level. The delivery ofthe latest facts and consequences of deforestationin Southern Sudan to its leadership is a highpriority.CA: AR; PB: MAF; UNP: UNEP and FAO; CE:0.1M; DU: 1 yearR9.7 Undertake capacity-building forthe forestry sector. A large-scale multi-yearprogramme is required.CA: CB; PB: MAF; UNP: FAO; CE: 4M; DU:3 yearsR9.8 Develop legislation for the forestry sector.This work needs to progress from first principles,as soon as possible.CA: GROL; PB: MAF; UNP: FAO; CE: 0.5M;DU: 2 yearsR9.9 Complete a forestry inventory for the tensouthern states and set up systems to monitordeforestation rates. This work could be combinedwith capacity-building.CA: AS; PB: MAF; UNP: FAO; CE: 0.5M; DU:1 yearR9.10 Regularize, reform and control thecharcoal trade in Southern Sudan, with afocus on Upper Nile and Central Equatoriastates. The multiple objectives include conflictrisk reduction, resource management, controlof corruption and the generation of tax revenue.CA: GROL; PB: MAF; UNP: FAO; CE: 0.4M;DU: 2 yearsR9.11 Introduce the concept and practice ofmodern agroforestry techniques. This wouldentail a combination of awareness-raising,technical assistance, capacity-building andpractical action through demonstration projectsin several states.CA: TA; PB: MAF; UNP: FAO; CE: 2M; DU:5 yearsR9.12 Introduce the concept of forest productcertification for timber export from SouthernSudan. This would entail a sustained developmentprocess to set up and embed the system intoGOSS.CA: GROL; PB: MAF; UNP: FAO; CE: 0.3M;DU: 2 yearsRecommendations for theinternational communityR9.13 Introduce the concept and practical aspectsof carbon sequestration to Sudan and attemptto integrate this into the forestry sector in thenorth and south. First and foremost, this wouldentail research to attempt to match commercialopportunities with potential carbon sinks. Suitableopportunities would then require development,support and oversight for a number of years beforebecoming commercially self-sustaining.CA: GROL; PB: GONU and GOSS MAF; UNP:UNEP; CE: 0.3M; DU: 2 years• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •217

FreshwaterResourcesWith almost two-thirds of the Nile basinfound within its borders, Sudan enjoysa substantial freshwater resource base.At the same time, 80 percent of thecountry’s total annual water resources areprovided by rivers with catchments in othercountries. This leaves Sudan vulnerable toexternally induced changes in water flows.

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFreshwater resources10.1 Introduction andassessment activitiesIntroductionIn a country that is half desert or semi-desert,the issue of freshwater availability is critical. Atpresent, much of Sudan’s population suffers froma shortage of both clean water for drinking, andreliable water for agriculture. These shortagesare a result of natural conditions as well asunderdevelopment. Development in this sectoris surging ahead, however, and there is nowan urgent need to ensure that this growth isenvironmentally sustainable.Sudan has a substantial freshwater resourcebase (from now on referred to simply as waterresources). Indeed, almost two-thirds of theNile basin is found within its borders and itsgroundwater reserves are considerable. Yet there isa very broad disparity in water availability at theregional level, as well as wide fluctuations betweenand within years. These imbalances are a source ofhardship in the drier regions, as well as a drivingforce for resource-based conflict in the country.The unfinished Jonglei canal project in SouthernSudan played an important role in triggeringthe resumption of the north-south civil war.More recently, large-scale projects such as theMerowe dam have been strongly contested bylocal communities, and in the arid regions ofDarfur, the current conflict also stems partlyfrom issues of access to and use of water. Theequitable use of water resources and the sharingof benefits are therefore considered key for thedevelopment of the country and the avoidanceof further conflict.In addition, there are several long-standing aswell as emerging issues facing Sudan’s watersector, including the challenges of providingpotable water and sanitation services to a growingpopulation, waterborne diseases, water pollution,aquatic weed infestations, the degradation ofwatersheds and freshwater ecosystems, and theconstruction of dams, which is expected to be thedominant factor that will fundamentally alter theenvironmental integrity of the country’s rivers andwetlands over the next twenty-five years.Wetlands throughout Sudan face a wide range of threats, including dam construction, upstreamcatchment degradation and oil exploration220 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

10 FRESHWATER RESOURCESAssessment activitiesThe study of freshwater resource issues in Sudan wasan integral part of the general assessment, as wateris a cross-cutting subject for virtually all sectors.UNEP teams visited dams, rivers, khors (seasonalwatercourses), canals, hafirs (traditional small waterreservoirs), wells and irrigation schemes in twentytwostates. Important sites visited include:• the main Nile north of Khartoum through toDongola;• the White Nile from Juba to Bor and atMalakal, Kosti and Khartoum;• the Blue Nile throughout Gezira, Sennar andKhartoum states;• the Gash river at Kassala;• the Atbara river at Atbara;• the unfinished Jonglei canal in Jonglei state;• major dams in central Sudan: Jebel Aulia onthe White Nile, the Sennar and Roseires damson the Blue Nile, and the Khashm el Girbaon the Atbara; and• hafirs in Darfur, Khartoum state, NorthernKordofan and Kassala state.UNEP was not granted access to the Merowe dam butwas able to assess the area downstream of the site.10.2 Overview of the freshwaterresources of SudanA large but highly variable resourceSudan’s total natural renewable water resources areestimated to be 149 km 3 /year, of which 80 percentflows over the borders from upstream countries,and only 20 percent is produced internallyfrom rainfall [10.1]. This reliance on externallygenerated surface waters is a key feature of Sudan’swater resources and is of critical importance fordevelopment projects and ecosystems alike, asflows are both highly variable on an annual basisand subject to long-term regional trends due toenvironmental and climate change.As detailed in Chapter 3, the share of watergenerated from rainfall is erratic and proneto drought spells. In dry years, internal waterresources fall dramatically, in severe cases downto 15 percent of the annual average.The main basinsAt the watershed level (the basic unit for integratedwater resources management), Sudan comprisesseven main basins:• the Nile basin (1,926,280 km 2 or 77 percentof the country’s surface area);• the Northern Interior basins, in north-westSudan (352,597 km 2 or 14.1 percent);• Lake Chad basin, in western Sudan(90,109 km 2 or 3.6 percent);• the Northeast Coast basins, along the Red Seacoast (83,840 km 2 or 3.3 percent);• Lake Turkana basin, in south-eastern Sudan(14,955 km 2 or 0.6 percent);• the Baraka basin, in north-eastern Sudan(24,141 km 2 or 1 percent); and• the Gash basin, a closed basin in north-easternSudan (8,825 km 2 or 0.4 percent).Table 18. Summary data for Sudanwater balance [10.1]Statistic and measurement Data /estimateperiod or report dateWater balance (1977 - 2001)Internal sources – rain and 30 km³ per yeargroundwater rechargeRiver inflows from other 119 km³ per yearcountriesTotal149 km³ per yearWater currently availablefor sustainable use (1999)Sudan share of Nile water 20.5 km³ per yearunder 1959 Sudan-Egypt treatyNon-Nile streams5.5 km³ per yearRenewable groundwater 4 km³ per yearTotal30 km³ per yearNile treaty targets forswamp reclamation (1959)Proposed total additional from 18 km³ per yearswamp reclamation projectsSudan share from proposed 9 km³ per yearprojects• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •221

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFigure 10.1L IBY ASudan hydrological basinsE G Y P TLakeNubaHALAIBTRIANGLER EDR E D SEAS E20 o Northern Interior BasinNOR T H E R NANileN ILE15 o10 o5 oC HADWESTERNDARFURC E N TRA LA F RICANR E P UBL I CNOR T H E R ND A RFU RS O U T HER ND ARF U RBarW E S T E R Nel’ArabB A H RNORTHERNBAHREL GHAZALE LD E M O C R A T I C R ENile BasinLake Chad BasinO F T H E C O N25 oNortheast Coast BasinsBaraka BasinGash BasinLake Turkana BasinSLolG H A Z A LW E S T E R NPUGON O RTH E RNK O RDO F A NS OUT HER NK O R D O F A NU NWARRABL A K E SE Q U AT O R I AB L II T YCEL JABALAlbertNileW H I T ENileWhit eSobatJ O N G L EINileKHARTOUMN I L EE LU P P E RPiborG E ZU D A NI R ABlueAtbaraNileRoseiresReservoirBLUE NILEN I L EEASTERNBAHR EQUATORIAU G A N DAK A SSA LAG E DAR E FS E N N A RILEMITRIANGLE30 o 35 oGashE RIT R EABarakaE T H I OPI AK E N Y AThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Kilometres0 100 200 300 400 500Lambert Azimuthal Equal-Area ProjectionSources:SIM (Sudan Interagency Mapping); FAO; vmaplv0, NIMA;hydro1k, USGS; UN Cartographic Section; various mapsand atlases.UNEP/DEWA/GRID~Europe 2006222 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

10 FRESHWATER RESOURCESThe dominance of the Nile basin is evident in thefact that nearly 80 percent of Sudan lies within it,and that conversely, 64 percent of the Nile basinlies within Sudan. With the exception of the Bahrel Ghazal sub-basin, all of Sudan’s drainage basins– including the main Nile sub-basins – are sharedwith neighbouring countries. Nile waters, as wellas those of the seasonal Gash and Baraka rivers,mainly originate in the Ethiopian highlands andthe Great Equatorial Lakes plateau [10.1].The Lake Chad and Bahr el Ghazal basins are the onlyones to receive important contributions from rainfallinside Sudan. These hydrological characteristicsunderline the importance of international cooperationfor the development and sustainable management ofSudan’s water resources.Wetlands, fisheries and groundwaterSudan boasts a significant number of diverseand relatively pristine wetlands that support awide range of plants and animals and provideextensive ecosystem services to local populations.The principle wetlands are the Sudd – which is asource of livelihood for hundreds of thousands ofpastoralists and fishermen – Bahr el Ghazal, Dinderand other Blue Nile mayas, the Machar marshes,Lake Abiad and the coastal mangroves. In addition,there are a large number of smaller and seasonalwetlands that host livestock in the dry season andare important for migrating birds.The rivers and wetlands of Sudan supportsignificant inland fisheries, which are exploitedfor sustenance as well as on a commercial basis.Fisheries development is generally limited and isunbalanced, as most of the resources are in thewetlands of Southern Sudan, while most of thefishing is practised in the more limited waters ofcentral and northern Sudan.Sudan also possesses significant groundwaterresources. Indeed, one of the world’s largestaquifers – the deep Nubian Sandstone AquiferSystem – underlies the north-western part of thecountry, while the Umm Rawaba system extendsover large areas of central and south Sudan,and has a moderate to high recharge potential.In Western Darfur and south-western Sudan,groundwater resources are generally limited butlocally significant, due to the basement complexgeology. In the coastal zone, finally, the limitedgroundwater is brackish to saline.Sudan’s wetlands support fisheries, which in turn support communities. Fish caught from a seasonallake by the While Nile dries on the roof prior to being packed for local markets• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •223

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTPapyrus mat weaving is one of the main sources of livelihood for displaced persons andimpoverished communities along the banks of the White NileWater consumptionSudan consumes an estimated 37 km 3 of waterper year, of which 96.7 percent are used by theagricultural sector. Withdrawals by the domesticand industrial sectors amount to 2.6 and 0.7 percentrespectively [10.1]. Water consumption is mainlyreliant on surface waters, but groundwater extractionis rapidly growing. At present, groundwater is chieflyused for domestic purposes and small-scale irrigationin the Nile flood plain and its upper terraces, as wellas in the wadis.10.3 Environmental impacts andissues of the water sectorThe single most critical issue related to waterresources in Sudan today is the new and plannedlarge dams and related development schemes. Anumber of other issues were also noted in thecourse of the assessment.Large dams and water managementschemes:• impacts and issues of existing large dams;• the Merowe dam;• the Jonglei canal; and• planned large dams and schemes.Other issues:• traditional dams;• wetland conservation;• invasive plant species;• water pollution;• groundwater exploitation;• transboundary issues and regional issues; and• freshwater fisheries.10.4 Large dams and watermanagement schemesExisting large dams: performanceproblems and major downstreamimpactsThe situation with existing dams in Sudan can be usedas a benchmark to help evaluate the balance of benefitsand disadvantages of the country’s proposed futuredams (next section). UNEP visited all of Sudan’sexisting large dams: Jebel Aulia on the White Nile,the Sennar and Roseires dams on the Blue Nile, andthe Khashm el Girba dam on the Atbara river.For Sudan, the development benefits of large damsare very clear: they provide the majority of theelectricity in the country and support large-scale224 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

10 FRESHWATER RESOURCESirrigation projects. As such, they can be considereda cornerstone of development for the country.However, like most major water and infrastructureprojects, large dams also have a range of negativeeffects, including environmental impacts. All ofthe dams visited by UNEP were found to haveboth performance problems and visible, thoughvariable, negative impacts on the environment.Much of the issues noted are irreversible and possiblyunavoidable. Nonetheless, they provide importantlessons that can help minimize impacts of future damprojects through improved design and planning.UNEP’s inspection of existing dams highlightedtwo principal environmental issues:• performance problems caused in part byupstream land degradation; andIslands and seasonal grasses are visible in theSennar dam reservoir, which is now 60 percentfull of sediment• downstream impacts due to water diversionand changes in flow regime.Loss of active dam storageby sediment depositionUNEP considers the performance problems ofexisting large dams to be cases of environmentimpacting infrastructure, rather than the reverse.With the exception of the Jebel Aulia dam, all ofthe reservoirs of Sudan’s existing dams are severelyaffected by sediment deposition. It is estimatedthat 60 percent of Roseires’s storage capacity, 54percent of Khashm el Girba’s, and 34 percentof Sennar’s have been lost to siltation [10.3].The construction of the Roseires dam upstreamof Sennar in 1966 significantly decreased thesedimentation problem in the latter.At the Roseires dam reservoir, a dredger is continuouslyused to remove sediment from the electricturbine water inlets. Soil washed from the Ethiopianhighlands is the main source of the sedimentTable 19. Existing large dams in Sudan [10.2, 10.3]Name Location Year of Purpose Capacity (10 9 m 3 ) CapacitycommissioningDesign Present lossSennar Blue Nile 1925 Irrigation, flood 0.93 0.37 60 %controlJebel Aulia White Nile 1937 Hydropower 3.00 3.00 0Khashm el Atbara river 1964 Irrigation,1.30 0.60 54 %Girbaflood controlRoseires Blue Nile 1966 Flood control, 3.35 2.20 34 %hydropowerTotal Sudan storage capacity 8.58 6.17 28 %Percentage of Sudan’s storage capacity of its share 46 % 33 % 13 %• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •225

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAt Roseires, which currently accounts for 75percent of Sudan’s electricity production, sedimentshave reached the power intakes, affecting turbineoperation and undermining electricity production.Though a proposal exists to raise reservoir storagecapacity by increasing dam walls by ten metres,it is unlikely to be a sustainable solution in thelong term.Sediment accumulation is even more severe in theKhashm el Girba reservoir. Flushing is carried outduring the flood peak, but this leads to massive fishkills downstream and the reservoir lake is virtuallyfishless as a result. Reservoirs in seasonal wadisare similarly affected: a significant portion of theEl Rahad reservoir capacity in khor Abu Habil inNorthern Kordofan, for instance, has been lost dueto high sediment loads. The same is true for themany small check-dams in the Nuba mountains.The root cause of the dams’ performance problemsis linked to upstream land degradation. The highrate of sedimentation in the Blue Nile and Atbararivers is partly natural, and partly the end result ofland degradation and soil erosion in the drainagebasins of both Sudan and Ethiopia. Addressingthe cause of the sedimentation would thereforerequire a regional-level undertaking involvingsubstantial revegetation of the watershed andother major works. At present, dam operators areforced to attempt to address only the symptomsof this problem.Degradation of downstreamecosystemsSudan’s existing large dams have resulted in amajor degradation of downstream habitats. Thethree impacts of most concern are reduced annualflow, removal of annual flood peaks and increasedriverbank erosion. These impacts are associatedwith major dam projects worldwide and are notunique to Sudan.In simplistic terms, the removal of water andsediment (which silts up the dam reservoirsinstead) has resulted in the partial destructionof downstream ecosystems. Both maya wetlands(swamps dominated by Acacia nilotica) on theBlue Nile, and Dom palm (Hyphaene thebaica,an endangered species in Sudan) forests along theAtbara river, have been adversely impacted by theconstruction of dams, which suppress the floodpulses that nourish these economically valuableecosystems. The large-scale disappearance ofthe Dom palm forests in the lower Atbara is atPrior to the construction of the Khashm el Girba dam, riparian communities relied on water poolsof the Atbara river during the dry season. Annual flushing of the dam has sealed many of theseponds with sediment, leaving communities and livestock thirsty226 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

10 FRESHWATER RESOURCESneed to limit ongoing impacts to downstreamecosystems and communities.There is no doubt that the dams have had amajor positive impact on the development of thecountry and that significant benefits have flowedto the recipients of the diverted waters (the largeirrigation schemes). What is unclear is the overallenvironmental and economic balance of suchprojects, as the losses to downstream communitiesand ecosystems have not been fully accounted for.Given the cost of the dams and the observed rate ofsedimentation, the economics of future dam projectsin this region should be carefully examined.The Merowe damOld plans to construct a dam at the Nile’s ThirdCataract, near Kerma, have recently been resuscitatedas part of Sudan’s major dam developmentprogramme. Environmental impact assessmentsand public participation need to be strengthened toensure that environmental sustainability and socialequity are fully integrated into dam buildingleast partly attributable to the construction ofthe Khashm el Girba dam. On the Blue Nile,infrequent flooding of the maya systems has ledto a change in species composition; in some casestheir survival has been threatened by hydrologicdisconnectivity from the main river [10.4, 10.5].Downstream of its juncture with the Blue Nileand the Atbara river, the main Nile is threatenedby serious riverbank erosion, a phenomenonknown locally as haddam. Dams on the BlueNile and Atbara rivers have significantly altereddaily and seasonal flows, both in terms of waterand sediment flows and in terms of velocity andcurrent direction. Riverbank erosion is discussedin more detail in Chapter 3.A lack of environmental impactassessment and mitigationNo environmental impact assessments were carriedout for the existing large dams in Sudan and theircurrent operation is clearly not influenced by theThe Merowe dam – which is currently the largestnew dam project in Africa – was in the late stagesof construction at the time of the UNEP survey.Environmental impacts (outside of construction)had therefore yet to occur, but there was noopportunity to further influence the design, forenvironmental or other reasons.The Merowe dam project followed the samepattern as older dams in Sudan. The dam is setto bring massive benefits to the country throughelectricity generation, but the displacement ofupstream communities in the dam reservoir zonehas led to unrest and local conflict. What has notoccurred is a full and transparent environmental,economic and social impact assessment, to weighthe positive and negative features of the project,and attempt to maximize the positives whilemitigating the negatives.UNEP has completed a very preliminary appraisalof the potential environmental impact of the dam,using the limited documentation available, fieldvisits to the areas downstream of the dam, andthe background information provided by visitsto existing large dams, agricultural schemes anddesert regions in Sudan in 2006 [10.6, 10.7,10.8, 10.9] (see Case Study 10.1). This analysisshows that the impacts on the downstreamcommunities and ecosystems may be severe andthat further assessment is needed as the first steptowards mitigating these impacts. Secondly, theenvisioned plans for the new irrigation schemesshould be reviewed based on the experiences ofexisting dams and schemes in Sudan.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •227

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTCS 10.1UNEP appraisal of the environmental impact of the Merowe damThe Merowe dam, which is set to double the electricity production of Sudan [10.6], will undoubtedly contribute massively tothe development of the country and provide a host of benefits. It is the first large dam project in the country to include anyform of environmental impact assessment (EIA). It also features an organized resettlement plan for affected downstreampopulations.However, like all new large dams worldwide, the Merowe project is surrounded by controversy related to its projected andactual social, environmental and economic impacts. UNEP, focusing on the environmental aspects only, has conducted anappraisal of the Merowe EIA process, associated documents and the actual environmental issues. The findings indicateseveral areas of concern.The Merowe dam is the most upstream major development on the main Nile and is currently the largest dam developmentin Africa after the Aswan dam in Egypt. Reservoir impoundment will lead to the loss of 200 km of riverine farmland andhabitat [10.7], permanently and radically changing the downstream ecosystem of a region that supports hundreds ofthousands of people. A major new irrigation scheme is also planned.The Merowe dam EIA license was only issued in 2005, over two years after work on the project physically started in early2003. The EIA document was developed by a foreign consultancy working primarily on the dam design process, and hadlittle connection to the potentially impacted communities. The report is apparently now publicly available from the Ministrybut has not been disseminated, and no public hearings have been held concerning its findings.Properly undertaken, an EIA process can provide a credible framework for the affected people to communicate theirconcerns and gain the trust of the project’s proponents. In this case, however, the delays and closed approach underminedthe entire process in terms of impact analysis and mitigation, and public buy-in.UNEP’s technical analysis and reconnaissance fieldwork downstream of the dam site indicated several significant impactsthat were not addressed in the EIA:• Silt loss for flood recession agriculture and dam sedimentation: The dam will collect the fertile silt that keptthe downstream riverine agricultural systems (gerf land) viable. This issue alone places the downstream communitiesat major risk. As other existing large dams, the Merowe dam is likely to be affected by high rates of sedimentation.During consultation, Ministry officials indicated that a sediment flushing routine is planned during operations, but thedetails and impacts of this are unclear.• Riverbank erosion: The dam’s power plant is scheduled to operate at full capacity during four hours per day releasing3,000 m 3 /s; during the remaining time, only two of the ten turbines will run, generating 600 m 3 /s [10.6]. The concentrationof discharge over a short time period and the resulting strong four to five metre daily fluctuations in water levels willalmost inevitably have major detrimental effects on the riverbanks and adjacent agricultural schemes.• Reduced river valley groundwater recharge: The Nile is typically full for five to six months of the year, but thedam’s construction will lower the base flow considerably, which is likely to disrupt groundwater refilling over a greatdistance downstream of the dam. This could have significant consequences for the expanding cultivation of the upperterraces, which relies increasingly on small tube wells (mataras) for year-round irrigation.• Questionable net gain on food production: In combination, the above effects may seal the fate of much of thedownstream farmland. While the dam project does include a planned new irrigation scheme, assessments of existingschemes in Sudan indicate that they commonly perform well below design expectations (see Chapter 8). In the case ofMerowe, the proposed new irrigation areas are low fertility desert soils in a hyper arid and extremely hot environment.The overall net gain in terms of food production should be re-examined closely based on prior dam performance andprojected downstream economic losses.• Blocking of fish migrations and the impact on locally endangered species like the Nile crocodile. These issueswere not addressed in the EIA.None of the downstream scheme managers and farmers interviewed by UNEP had been presented with the findings ofthe dam’s EIA report. Neither were they aware of any studies to assess the dam’s impact on bank erosion, or consultedabout its potential implications, despite the fact that they reportedly made repeated requests to the dam authoritiesfor clarification on this issue. Ministry officials have indicated that a consultation process for downstream communitiesis planned.The dam is now built and filling up. It is therefore too late to make any changes to its core design. What is possible andindeed needed, however, is an urgent follow-up impact analysis aimed at assessing what can be done to minimize thenegatives and accentuate the positive impacts of this mega-project. Key areas to address include the planned flow regimeand the irrigation scheme plans.228 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

10 FRESHWATER RESOURCESFigure 10.2Merowe damDam wall construction observed with QuickBird satellitein March 2006Dominant windsKilometres0 1 2 3 4Nile Third CataractDesertNile Fourth CataractBayuda Volcanic FieldUnesco WorldHeritage Site ofGebel BarkalEl Multagaresettlement areaLegendProjected reservoir extentSmall villagesSource:Settlements: NIMA GNS.Reservoir: Lahmeyer International.Low Resolution Image: Modis 2001.High Resolution Image: Google Earth.Kilometres0 20 40 60 80 100The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •229

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTThe main channel excavator is composed of several self-propelled sections. Once the largestof its type in the world, it now lies in a derelict state in the canal bedCS 10.2The Jonglei canalLaunched in 1980, the construction of the Jonglei canal was interrupted by the outbreak of conflict in Southern Sudanin 1983. Though the economic motivations for the project still exist for some parties, a combination of political issues,economics and environmental concerns make the resumption of construction unlikely.The idea of using a canal to bypass the Sudd wetlands was first conceived in the early 1900s by Egyptian and Britishauthorities. The White Nile loses up to 50 percent of its annual flow through evaporation and evapotranspiration as itwinds through the Sudd. A canal could potentially capture this water for downstream users, as well as partially drain thewetlands for agriculture [10.10, 10.11].The project in its modern form was developed during the 1970s. The project team included multinational contractors andfinanciers, and had the strong support of the Khartoum government, as well as of Egypt and France. In contrast, therewas little knowledge and even less acceptance of the project by local stakeholders, who were principally transhumantpastoralists and a minority population of subsistence farmers and fishermen. It is likely that the project would have resultedin a net negative impact for local communities, due to the loss of toic grazing land and fishing sites.Of the canal’s planned 360 km, approximately 260 km were excavated before southern Sudanese rebel military forcessabotaged the main excavator in 1983, rendering the construction too dangerous to continue. The canal excavator nowlies in a derelict and corroded condition, and is probably irreparable. The canal itself does not connect to any major waterbodies or watercourses, and acts only as a giant ditch and embankment superimposed on a very flat seasonally floodedplain. It is approximately eighty metres across and up to eight metres deep, including a four-metre embankment.The canal channel has gradually filled due to erosion and lack of maintenance, reducing the angle of its slopes to a maximumof 35 degrees. It has been extensively reclaimed by vegetation, with sparse to dense woodland and scrub found alongboth sides. In addition, the central channel is seasonally flooded to a depth of one to two metres and supports a significantfish population and an evolving ecosystem.The canal bank is now being used as the route for the new Juba-Malakal road, which is expected to have significant directand indirect impacts on the environment of the canal.The canal course cuts across the migration pathways of the white-eared kob (Kobus kob leucotis) and the tiang (Damaliscuslunatus tiang) [10.12, 10.13], and was noted to be a partial barrier to migration in the 1980s, causing concentration atpreferred crossing points and increasing losses due to falls, predators, poaching and drowning. In its current condition,however, the canal is not considered to represent a significant physical barrier to larger wildlife, except in the wet seasonwhen swimming is required to cross some sections. In order to fully remove the migration barrier and avoid any inadvertenthydraulic connection to the Nile, the canal would need to be partially filled in to form land bridges at a number of points.In its original design, the canal project would have had major negative environmental impacts on the Sudd wetlands [10.14]. Theviability of the project is questionable on these grounds alone, irrespective of the numerous social, political and economic issuesattached to any potential resumption of the construction. However, the principal lesson learnt from the Jonglei canal is that majorventures lacking local support are at risk, and that achieving such support requires both broad consultation and benefit-sharing.230 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

10 FRESHWATER RESOURCESThe Jonglei canalThe Jonglei canal project – an unfinished project tobuild a canal to bypass the Sudd wetlands and capturethe water for downstream users – was closely linkedto the resumption of north-south conflict in 1983and had strong international ties. As it was nevercompleted, its anticipated major environmentalimpacts never came to pass. However, lessons learntfrom this project (see Case Study 10.2) should beapplied to both existing efforts in peacebuildingbetween north and south, and to future developmentplans for the Nile, as promoted by a range of local,regional and international interests.Massive dam development in theplanning stagesAs of late 2006, the Government of National Unityis on the verge of launching a new and ambitiousdams building programme (in addition to theMerowe dam). The importance conferred on damsis reflected in the September 2005 decision byPresidential Decree No. 217 to place the DamsImplementation Unit (formerly known as theMerowe Dam Project Implementation Unit) underthe President’s Office. More than two dozen damfeasibility studies are planned or currently underway.In Southern Sudan, an important hydropowerprogramme is envisioned on the White Nile.As the unfinished Jonglei canal is not connectedto any major watercourse or water body, it iscurrently a 260 km-long ditch. The channel hasbeen eroded and revegetated, and is seasonallyflooded, supporting a new ecosystemThe unfinished Juba-Malakal trunk road project includes a 250 km stretch to be built on the west bank of theJonglei canal. Approximately 100 km had been built by mid-2006, opening this remote area up for development• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •231

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFigure 10.3L I B Y ANile sub-basins, dams and hydroelectric schemesE G Y P TDalLakeNubaKajbar Dam(planned)R EDS E20 o 1Merowe Dam(under construction)DagashANileMogratShereikC H A DS U DA NNile3SabalokaAtbaraBaraka15 oJebel El-Aulia DamSennar Dam2RumelaGashE R I T R EAKhashm El-GirbaDam10 oBarel’Arab875NileWhit eBlueNileRoseires DamRoseires4ReservoirE T H I O P I ALolSobatC E N T R A LA F R I C A NR E P U B L I CSueYeiPibor65 oD E M O C R A T I C R E PO F T H E C O N25 oSobatWhite NileBar el GhazalUpper White NileU B L I CGO9BeddenKaiaLakkiFula Shukoli30 o 35 oAlbertNileJubaKinyeti1to4UGANDAThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Nile Sub-Basins1 Lower Nile2 Atbara3 Nile4 Blue Nile5 Lower White Nile6789Potential Hydroelectric SitesMajor hydroelectric siteMinor hydroelectric siteK E N Y AKilometres0 100 200 300 400 500Lambert Azimuthal Equal-Area ProjectionSources:SIM (Sudan Interagency Mapping); FAO; vmaplv0, NIMA; hydro1k, USGS;GONU Ministry of Water Resources; UN Cartographic Section; various maps and atlases.UNEP/DEWA/GRID~Europe 2006232 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

10 FRESHWATER RESOURCESThe history of major water scheme development inSudan is mixed. This is partly linked to the method ofproject development: dams and water schemes havehistorically been promoted by decree at the federallevel, with limited or no local consultation, and noenvironmental impact assessments. This approachfailed for the Jonglei canal in 1983 and has elicitedproblems for the Merowe dam project as well.Controversy generated by major water schemesis certainly not unique to Sudan. Dams haveand continue to be strongly contested in manycountries. In recent years, they have been thesubject of an intensive debate at the internationallevel, most notably by the World Commission onDams [10.15].remote areas vulnerable to erratic rainfall variations.However, increasing siltation from topsoil erosionand drifting sands as well as poor maintenance haveled either to a serious decline in the water storagecapacity or to the outright loss of many hafirs.Due to increasing competition over limited watersupplies, many hafirs have become ‘flashpoints’between pastoralists and farmers. The situationhas been compounded by the development ofhorticultural schemes around hafirs, as witnessedin Southern Kordofan [10.16].However, as Sudan surges ahead with its constructionplans, it is in an advantageous position to reexamineits own national experience, as well asdraw on the knowledge base and latest lessonslearned from regional and global dam reviews, soas to avoid repeating past mistakes.Two of the underlying strategic tenets recommendedby the World Commission on Dams are ‘gainingpublic acceptance’ and ‘recognizing entitlementsand sharing benefits’ [10.15]. For Sudan, this wouldrequire the revision of top-down approaches by whichthe decision to construct a dam is made by decree.Information-sharing and an open and transparentpublic and multi-stakeholder consultation processneed to be institutionalized in Sudan’s dam sector.This also implies that dams should not be regardedas an end in their own right, but rather be evaluatedand discussed within the context of defined waterand energy needs and the full range of availableoptions to meet those demands.Lack of investment and maintenance during theconflict years led to complete or partial loss ofmany hafirs, such as this one at El Tooj, nearTalodi in Southern Kordofan. Constructed in 1972as part of a national campaign to eradicate thirst,the water treatment facility was targeted duringthe conflict and local communities have beendrinking untreated water ever sinceSedimentation of traditional smalldams and water-harvesting structuresThe small traditional dams inspected by UNEPdid not have any of the environmental impactsof larger dams, but did have a number ofperformance problems. In addition, they providedclear examples of how local conflict over scarcenatural resources can arise.Traditional dugouts fed by rainwater and run-off(called hafirs) have played a critical role for centuries– in Darfur and Kordofan in particular – in supplyingwater for domestic use in villages and to pastoralists inA small dam complex in Darfur, with a bankedcatchment area, storage dams and associatedsmall-scale irrigated agriculture• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •233

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT10.5 Sustainable use andconservation of wetlandsAn important national resource underpressureUNEP has found that most of Sudan’s majorwetlands are currently facing significantconservation threats.During the long north-south conflict, wetlands inthe south were adversely affected by uncontrolledhunting and poaching. With peace, the country’swetlands in all areas are under mountingpressure from development plans. The mostsignificant issues are major infrastructure projectssuch as oilfields, dams and water engineeringprojects, roads, housing schemes, conversion foragriculture and settlement, as well as resourceover-exploitation by a growing population. Otheremerging threats include invasive alien species,namely water hyacinth and mesquite. This allpoints to the necessity of developing strategicaction plans and building national capacity aimedat the wise use of wetlands.Issues related to the Sudd are covered in Case Study10.3, while the remaining mangrove wetlands– which are in steep decline and in urgent needof protection – are discussed in Chapter 12. TheMachar marshes are very remote and were notvisited by UNEP, but the Governor of UpperNile state reported that the construction of roadsfor oil exploration constituted a major risk forthe marshes. As for the Bahr el Arab wetlands,the principle threat is considered to be habitatdegradation by land clearance for agriculture,overgrazing and fires.Degradation of the Blue Nile wetlandsThe maya ecosystems of the Blue Nile are badlydegraded and in continuing decline. UNEPvisited seven mayas (swamps dominated by Acacianilotica) along the Blue Nile and found them all tobe degraded by accelerated siltation. Several, suchas Um Sunut and Kab in Gezira state and El Azazain Sennar state, were effectively disconnected fromthe main river. The main causes of this declineare upstream dam construction and catchmentchanges. Other issues include extensive fellingof riverine forests, damage from overgrazing andwildlife poaching.Mayas like this one in Dinder National Parkplay a critical role in supporting wildlifepopulations during the dry seasonTable 20. Status of the six most significant wetlands in Sudan [10.2, 10.17, 10.18, 10.19. 10.20]Wetland State(s) Approximate size Ecosystem integritySudd Jonglei, Unity, Upper Nile 57,000 km 2 Generally in very goodconditionMachar marshes Upper Nile 6,500 km² Status unknownBlue Nile mayas,including DinderBlue Nile, Sennar Discontinuous(< 1,000 km²)Moderately to heavilydegradedBahr el ArabNorthern Bahr el Ghazal, DiscontinuousStatus unknownWarrab, UnityLake Abiad Southern Kordofan 5,000 km 2 Moderately degradedRed Sea mangroves Red Sea state Linear and discontinuous(< 100 km 2 )Badly degradedand shrinking234 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

10 FRESHWATER RESOURCESThe plant biota of the Sudd range from submerged and floating vegetation in the open water toswamps dominated by papyrus. Over 350 plant species have been identified in the wetlandCS 10.3The Sudd wetlandsSudan has some of the most extensive wetlands in all of Africa and until recently, only a small percentage of this important habitathad any legal protection. In June 2006, however, the Sudd wetlands were listed as a site under the Ramsar Convention.The Sudd is the second largest wetland in Africa, and the ecosystem services it provides are of immense economic andbiological importance for the entire region. In the rainy season, the White Nile and its tributaries overflow to swell the Suddswamps situated between the towns of Bor in the south and Malakal in the north. The swamp habitats themselves covermore than 30,000 km 2 , while peripheral ecosystems such as seasonally inundated woodlands and grasslands cover atotal area some 600 km long and a similar distance wide. The flooded area varies seasonally and from year to year, dueto variations in rainfall and river flows. Its greatest extent is usually in September, shrinking in the dry season.The plant biota of the Sudd range from submerged and floating vegetation in the open waters to swamps dominated byCyperus papyrus. In addition, there are extensive phragmites and typha swamps behind the papyrus stands. Seasonalfloodplain grasslands up to 25 km wide are dominated by wild rice Oryza longistaminata and Echinochloa pyramidalis.Over 350 plant species have been identified, including the endemic Suddia sagitifolia, a swamp grass [10.17].The swamps, floodplains and rain-fed grasslands of the Sudd also support a rich animal diversity, counting over 100 speciesof fish, a wide range of amphibians and reptiles (including a large crocodile population) and 470 bird species [10.17]. Theswamps host the largest population of shoebill (Balaeniceps rex) in the world: aerial surveys in 1979-1982 counted amaximum of 6,407 individuals. Hundreds of thousands of birds also use the Sudd as a stopover during migration; migratoryspecies include the black-crowned crane (Balearica pavonina), the endangered white pelican (Pelecanus onocrotalus) andthe white stork (Ciconia ciconia).In addition, more than 100 mammal species have been recorded. Large mammals have always been hunted by localcommunities as an important food source. Given the present widespread availability of modern weaponry, however, thecurrent status of large mammals, including elephants, needs to be reassessed urgently. Historically, the most abundantlarge mammals have been the white-eared kob (Kobus kob leucotis), the tiang (Damaliscus lunatus tiang) and the Mongallagazelle (Gazella rufifrons albonotata), which use the floodplain grasslands in the dry season [10.21]. The endemic Nilelechwe (Kobus megaceros) and the sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekii) are resident, and it is anticipated that there are stillsignificant populations of hippopotami (Hippopotamus amphibius).The ecosystem services performed by this immense wetland, which extend far downstream, include flood and water qualitycontrol. Other services within the ecosystem itself are year-round grazing for livestock and wildlife, fisheries, and the provisionof building materials, among many others. The Sudd is inhabited principally by Nuer, Dinka and Shilluk peoples, who ultimatelydepend on these ecosystem services for their survival. The central and southern parts of the Sudd have small widely scatteredfishing communities. Up to a million livestock (cattle, sheep and goats) are kept in the area, herded by the pastoralists to theirpermanent settlements in the highlands at the beginning of the rains in May-June and down to intermediate elevations duringthe dry season. Crops include sorghum, maize, cowpeas, groundnuts, sesame, pumpkins, okra and tobacco.There are three protected areas in the Sudd: Shambe National Park, and the Fanyikang and Zeraf game reserves. In June2006, an area totaling 57,000 km 2 was declared Africa’s second largest Ramsar site [10.17].The Sudd and its wildlife are currently at risk from multiple threats, including oil exploration and extraction, wildlife poaching,pastoralist-induced burning and overgrazing, and clearance for crops. The resumption of the Jonglei canal project would alsoput the wetland at significant risk. Listing the Sudd as a protected site under the Ramsar Convention is an important but mainlysymbolic initiative that now needs to be consolidated with practical measures to help conserve this critical natural asset.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •235

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT10.6 Invasive plant speciesInfestations on land and waterThe watercourses of Sudan are afflicted with twoinvasive species: water hyacinth, which threatensthe Nile basin watercourses, and mesquite, whichhas infested many of the seasonal khors and canalsof northern Sudan. Mesquite is covered in detailin Chapter 8.Water hyacinthThe most problematic aquatic weed in Sudan iswater hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes), a native plant ofSouth America that was officially declared an invasivepest in 1958 [10.22]. Water hyacinth forms denseplant mats which degrade water quality by loweringlight penetration and dissolved oxygen levels, withdirect consequences for primary aquatic life. Theweed also leads to increased water loss throughevapotranspiration, interferes with navigation andfishing activities, and provides a breeding ground fordisease vectors such as mosquitoes and the vectorsnails of schistosomiasis.Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) growsrapidly; until recently, it had invaded the entirestretch of the White Nile from Juba to Jebel AuliaWorkshops of the Ministry of Agriculture’s Water Hyacinth Control Division at Jebel Aulia lie idle asfunding from donor agencies has dried up. The northern limit of hyacinth infestation is now reportedlybetween Kosti and Duweim, although its presence was cited in the Jebel Aulia dam reservoir in June2006, for the first time in seven years236 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

10 FRESHWATER RESOURCESThe Jebel Aulia dam has served as a barrier to the spread of the invasive water hyacinthA 1,750 km stretch of the White Nile, from itsupper reaches near Juba to Duweim (some 70 kmsouth of Khartoum), is infested. The hyacinthspread used to extend to the Jebel Aulia dam, buta causeway at Duweim is apparently acting as aprecarious barrier to downstream propagation. InSudan, control measures initially relied on largescaleapplications of chemicals. An estimated 500tonnes of the herbicide 2, 4-D were applied to theWhite Nile annually [10.22]. This practice hasnow ceased, but it may have had significant longtermimpacts on aquatic life and human health;these have not yet been assessed. Mechanical andbiological control methods have also been usedin Sudan, though a comprehensive evaluation ofthe success of these efforts has not been carriedout to date.Hyacinth control measures were hampered duringthe conflict years; as a result, efforts focused onsensitive locations such as near the Jebel Auliadam. Today, there are no control operationsunderway at all. The role of the Plant ProtectionDepartment of the Ministry of Agriculture, whichis responsible for hyacinth control, is currentlylimited to monitoring infestations, and it has nocapacity to respond to the spread.In the south, the impact of water hyacinth onthe Sudd is completely unknown, although it isanticipated to be considerable, given that thesewetlands comprise a large number of oxbowlakes and slow-moving channels which areideal conditions for weed growth. The scale ofinfestation can be gauged every wet season, whenup to 100 metre-long rafts of detached weed floatdown the White Nile downstream of the Sudd.10.7 Water pollutionAmajor but largely unquantified issueWhile water pollution is clearly a significant issuein Sudan, it has not been adequately quantified.Indeed, the sector is characterized by a lack ofhistorical data and investment. Systematic surfacewater quality monitoring programmes in Sudan arelimited to three sites: the main Nile at Dongola, theBlue Nile at Soba (near Khartoum), and the WhiteNile at Malakal. Other sites and groundwaterare tested on an ad hoc basis. Monitoring data ispublicly available but limited in scope.This lack of information makes it difficult toadequately assess water quality and the likelychanges that may take place in the future. Withthis in mind, UNEP noted three principal waterquality issues:• diffuse pollution from agrochemicals and sewage;• point source industrial pollution; and• high levels of suspended sediments.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •237

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTBiological water pollutionBiological water pollution from sewage andwaterborne infectious agents is the most seriousthreat to human health in Sudan. The limitedmonitoring that has occurred so far has confirmedbacteriological contamination of the Nile andshallow groundwater aquifers in Khartoum stateand elsewhere in northern Sudan. There is verylimited laboratory data for Southern Sudan butthe waterborne disease statistics clearly show thatit is a major problem. This is discussed in moredetail in Chapter 6.Given that fertilizer usage in Sudan is minimal byworld standards, laboratory analysis of Nile watersonly detected very low levels of nitrates. However,high nitrate levels were recorded at individualwells near concentrations of livestock [10.2].Pesticide pollutionNon-point source pollution is a cause forserious concern in the major irrigated schemes,particularly in Gezira and its Managil extension,Rahad and the country’s five major sugar estates,where large-scale agrochemical applicationscontinue despite overall declining usage trends.Various studies (mainly university graduate theses)have found serious pesticide contaminationThe lack of a storm water drainage system inKhartoum causes major flooding, as observedhere in August 2006. As the flood waters recede,pools of stagnant water increase the risk ofspreading waterborne diseases, particularly incrowded areas like IDP campsA local resident collects drinking water from the Nile. Biological water pollution from sewage andwaterborne infectious agents is the most serious threat to human health in Sudan238 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

10 FRESHWATER RESOURCESThe fast-growing cities of Southern Sudan are in desperate need of sewage systemsin the Gezira canals, as well as in boreholes inthe Qurashi (Hasahesa) area and the Kassalahorticulture zone. Accidental aerial spraying andpesticide drift reportedly lead to frequent fishkills in irrigation canals; these fish are sometimescollected for consumption [10.2].Derelict and inadequate pesticide storage facilitiesand disposal measures, as observed in warehouseschemes at Hasahesa, Barakat and El Fao, aswell as in stores of the Plant Protection officesin Gedaref, also pose a serious water pollutionhazard. Complaints about the strong smell andcontaminated spill during the rainy season havebeen received from Gedaref University, locateddownstream of the pesticide warehouse.Pumping stations supply drinking waterfrom irrigation canals that are susceptible tocontamination from aerial pesticide application,such as this one in Deim el Masheihk on theManagil extension of the Gezira schemeThere is also a growing trend to apply pesticidesin rain-fed mechanized agriculture schemes,which may lead to widespread contaminationof both surface and groundwater, includingthe water points used by nomads. For example,herbicide application (mainly the persistentorganochlorine 2, 4-D) in mechanized schemesis standard practice in Gedaref state [10.23] andis expanding in Dali and Mazmum in Sennarstate, as well as in Habila in Southern Kordofan.Given the persistent nature of many pesticides andtheir biological magnification in the food-chain,long-term monitoring of surface and groundwatershould be implemented, particularly in the statesof Gezira, Sennar, White Nile and Gedaref, whichhost the main irrigated schemes.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •239

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTIndustrial effluentWater pollution from industry is mostly limited tospecific ‘hot spots’ such as North Khartoum, PortSudan and Wad Medani. Given the current boomin industrial investment, however, it is an issueof growing concern. The majority of industrialfacilities do not have dedicated water treatmentfacilities. Effluent is typically released either intothe domestic sewage system (where one exists), ordirectly into watercourses or onto land.For example, wastewater from the industrial area ofNorth Khartoum (Bahri) flows untreated into thesewage treatment plant of Haj Yousif. Release ofuntreated industrial wastewater into watercoursesor onto land is common practice, as was observedby the UNEP team in the Bagair industrial area,and at Assalaya and Sennar sugar factories, whichdispose of their wastewater directly into the Whiteand Blue Nile respectively. A major fish kill wasreported in the Blue Nile in March 2006, followingan accidental spill of molasses from the north-westSennar sugar factory [10.2].There are some positive developments, however, asa few large enterprises, such as the Kenana SugarCompany and some oil companies, have installed orare in the process of installing wastewater treatmentplants [10.24]. This is a particularly critical issuefor the oil industry, which is expected to generatelarge and increasing amounts of wastewater as theoilfields mature.Suspended solids from erodedcatchmentsThe heaviest water pollution load in Sudanis probably caused by suspended sediment.Recorded levels of suspended solids in rivers andreservoirs in the wet season range from 3,000ppm to over 6,000 ppm, which corresponds tohighly turbid/muddy conditions. While many ofSudan’s rivers and streams are naturally turbid, theproblem has been amplified by the high rates ofsoil erosion due to deforestation and vegetationclearance, overgrazing, dams, haphazard disposalof construction materials, and mining.High levels of suspended sediment have adverseimpacts on drinking water quality as well as onaquatic life, and in Sudan, have led to considerableeconomic losses due to the siltation of dams andirrigation canals. The impact is particularly visible inthe Atbara river and the Blue Nile, whose catchmentsare seriously degraded by poor land managementpractices. In 2000, government sources estimatedthe total sediment load of the Blue Nile to be 140million tonnes per annum [10.2].Locals collect polluted effluent from the north-west Sennar sugar factory, for use in brick-making. Theuntreated effluent flows directly into the Blue Nile. This led to significant fish kills in the summer of 2006240 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

10 FRESHWATER RESOURCESPoor management of an experimental well drawing on fossil water from the NSAS has ledto the creation of a wetland in the desert10.8 Groundwater exploitationA largely untapped but alsounmanaged resourceOn a national scale, Sudan makes limited useof its groundwater, but it is a critical resource atthe local level, particularly in the northern andcentral regions, and in Darfur. Data on the useand quality of groundwater, however, is rarelycollected and extraction is generally completelyunmanaged. There is anecdotal evidence ofunsustainable extraction rates, but in the absenceof monitoring data, the situation only becomesapparent when the wells run dry.UNEP has focused on three examples of thisgeneral problem:• the exploitation of the Nubian aquifer(discussed in the following section ontransboundary issues);• the use of upper terrace and other shallowaquifer systems; and• the use of groundwater in the humanitarianaid community in Darfur.The richness of groundwater resources in Sudanwas recently evidenced in a piezometric survey atGaab el Sawani, which showed the static waterlevel to range from 1 to 6 m above ground level• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •241

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFigure 10.4Groundwater resources of SudanThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.242 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

10 FRESHWATER RESOURCESUse of upper terrace and othershallow aquifer systemsThere is little published data available on Sudan’sshallow groundwater resources such as theUmm Rawaba formation, which is reportedlyan excellent source of near-surface groundwater.Overall, however, there is growing investmentand reliance on groundwater resources in Sudan,particularly on the use of mataras (irrigationwells) in the Nile floodplain and adjoiningupper terraces, as well as in the wadis. There arereports of falling aquifer levels in Wadi Nyala andKassala, and of seawater incursion in the shallowgroundwater of the Red Sea coastal zone [10.2].The sustainability of mataras in the upper terracesand wadis is questionable, and there are manyanecdotal reports of declining groundwater levelsthat require scientific verification [10.2, 10.25].For example, in Lewere in the Nuba mountains,groundwater levels have allegedly dropped from3 to 70 metres, while in Atmoor, levels were saidto have fallen by up to 10 metres.Groundwater use in the humanitarianrelief effort in DarfurThe humanitarian aid effort in Darfur has led tothe drilling and establishment of hundreds of wellsand water points since 2003. Many of these deepboreholes are located in or near displaced personscamps, and have high flow pumps installed to servicepopulations of several thousand. These camps arecommonly established in arid regions wheregroundwater is the only reliable source of water forup to ten months of the year. Given that the campsmay stay in place for many more years, there is aclear need to ensure that groundwater extractionrates are sustainable. As of mid-2006, however, noorganized groundwater level monitoring was takingplace in camps in Darfur (see Chapter 5).A recent groundwater vulnerability study offour large camps in Darfur indicated that campwells extracting water solely from the basementcomplex aquifer were probably unsustainable inthe medium term (two years) and that alternativeswere needed [10.26].The rapid expansion of shallow irrigation wells,locally known as mataras, in the Nile upperterraces needs to be sustainably managed toavert aquifer depletionIt is critically important that the water supply wellsdrilled in IDP and refugee camps do not run dry.Groundwater level monitoring should commenceto allow the calculation of sustainable yields• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •243

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT10.9 Transboundary and regionalissuesA need for cooperation over sharedresourcesCareful management and a high level of awarenessare required for a number of transboundary andregional issues in the water sector in Sudan toavoid project failure or worse, catalysing regionaldisputes or even conflict.Water projects and the CPAIn the Comprehensive Peace Agreement andsubsequent Interim Constitution, the federalgovernment (Government of National Unity) wasgranted specific sole authority over the managementof Nile waters and Nile basin water resources.The Government of Southern Sudan and stategovernments were given separate powers related towater supply projects. GONU thus clearly has themandate for any new major water project.Given that the White Nile borders or flows throughfive of the ten states of Southern Sudan, northernstate water projects may affect the southern statesand vice versa. Therefore, it is considered criticalthat the GONU and GOSS conduct open andregular dialogue on Nile waters and developmentissues in order to not undermine the CPA. Asof mid-2006, this was reported to be occurring,though not on a formal or regular basis.Upstream watershed conditions, climatechange and future projects in SudanThe quantity, timing and quality of most ofthe Nile, Gash and Atbara river waters flowingthrough Sudan depend not on Sudan but onupstream countries, principally Ethiopia (BlueNile, Atbara, Gash), Uganda (White Nile), andTanzania and Kenya which border Lake Victoria(White Nile). These four countries all face a rangeof environmental problems including large-scaledeforestation and land degradation. In addition,Uganda has recently increased water extractionfrom Lake Victoria for hydroelectric power,contributing to a significant drop in the lake’slevel. As a result, the currently observed changesin Nile flow rates (levels appear to be decliningoverall but variability is increasing) and turbidityare expected to increase over time.Climate change will also affect the performanceof the existing and planned major water resourcemanagement projects in Sudan. Both rainfall andriver flows are expected to be affected within thenext thirty years, and some impacts may alreadybe occurring (see Chapter 3).Large-scale water development demands a high levelof flow predictability to ensure confidence for thelarge capital investment required. Accordingly, Sudanneeds to better understand upstream catchmentenvironmental issues and the likely impacts ofclimate change, and adjust its plans to suit.Management of the shared NubianSandstone Aquifer SystemThe vast Nubian Sandstone Aquifer System (NSAS)represents the largest volume of freshwater in theworld. It is estimated at 150,000 km 3 or nearly200 years of average Nile flow. This deep artesianaquifer underlies approximately 376,000 km 2 ofnorth-west Sudan (17 percent of the NSAS totalarea of 2.2 million km 2 ). It is shared with Chad,Egypt and Libya, and is primarily comprised ofnon-renewable or ‘fossil’ water some 20,000 yearsold [10.27]. A smaller basin of the NSAS, which isknown as the Nubian Nile aquifer, receives rechargefrom the Nile river. The direction of groundwaterflow in the NSAS is generally from south-eastto north-east. Hence, Sudan and Chad are in anupstream position providing minor recharge toEgypt and Libya downstream.The aquifer remains largely untapped in both Sudanand Chad. In contrast Libya and Egypt, throughthe Great Man-Made River and the South ValleyDevelopment projects respectively, are now activelypumping water for ambitious agricultural schemes[10.27, 10.28]. Large-scale irrigated agriculturewith fossil water in a hyper-arid environment isa controversial issue due not only to potentialwastefulness but also to the risk of soil salinization.Despite increasing pressure to mine the NSAS tomeet the demands of a growing population, theneed for wise and sustainable use of this preciousresource, based on sound scientific knowledge anda regionally agreed strategy, cannot be overstated.244 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

10 FRESHWATER RESOURCESA catch from the White Nile. At present, the freshwater fisheries of Southern Sudan are only lightly exploitedTo this end, a GEF project involving the fourbasin countries was launched in 2005. Itsprimary objective is to develop an NSAS waterresource database and to promote technicalexchange of information and expertise, as wellas provide capacity-building for local staff. Theproject also aims to create a framework for alegal convention and institutional mechanismfor shared management of the Nubian AquiferSystem [10.29].10.10 Freshwater fisheries: anunbalanced but promisingresourceThe freshwater fisheries of Sudan are an importantsource of sustenance for millions of riverine dwellers,and support a small informal commercial sector.In the northern states near the major cities,resources are reportedly fished to saturation,with stable or dropping catches [10.20]. In theabsence of hard water quality monitoring data,the reason for such catch reductions cannot beaccurately determined, but localized overfishingand sedimentation are likely causes.While there is no catch data for the freshwaterfisheries of Southern Sudan, field observationsand discussions with fisheries experts workingon the White Nile indicated that the resource isclearly under-exploited, principally due to a lackof capacity in the local fishing sector.As with any natural resource extraction, thesustainability of fisheries will only be achieved throughgood management, starting with data collection toassess the scale and health of the resource.10.11 Water sector environmentalgovernanceThe ministerial-level structure for water governanceis straightforward, as both the Government ofNational Unity and the Government of SouthernSudan have ministries for water resourcesmanagement. In practice, however, governance ismore complex, as water is a cross-cutting sectorwith other major ministries.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •245

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTLaying nets in the White Nile at Bor, Jonglei state. The challenge for fishermen in this region isnot catching enough fish, but preserving the catch so that it can be transported and soldoutside of the areaCS 10.4Development of fisheries in Southern SudanThe Muntai Fisheries Training Centre based in Padak in Jonglei state is a positive example of sustainable developmenttied to better use of natural resources. The centre, which focuses on the transfer of skills to local artisanal fisherman, ispart of an agricultural development project funded by USAID. A particular focus is placed on obtaining better value for fishcatches and reducing wastage through the use of preservation techniques such as smoking and drying.The wide variety of species and the large size of many fish indicate that the fishery potential of the White Nile is probablyunderexploited. The centre proposes to conduct catch surveys and commence development of fishery policies andby-laws in parallel with the capacity-building process.Officials reported that the fishing community was actually only a small percentage of the local Dinka community, but thatthis minority was in some respects significantly better off than the majority of pastoralists, as they had both food securityand a reliable source of income. The Dinka people are still food aid recipients, depend heavily on cattle-rearing and areexpecting an influx of returnees to significantly increase local population density. In this context, sustainable initiatives tobroaden the food base and promote rural business are most welcome.246 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

10 FRESHWATER RESOURCESThis is particularly the case for major GONUprojects such as the Merowe dam, for which aspecial dams unit was developed that overlaysthe responsibilities of the ministries for waterresources, agriculture, energy, industry andenvironment. In Southern Sudan, the GOSSministry is currently in the institution-buildingphase, and issues such as inter-ministerialmandates on cross-cutting issues have yet to befully addressed.The most significant governance issue for thewater sector is considered to be its culture ofdevelopment through mega-projects ratherthan sustainable development principles. At theworking level, the water sector suffers from a lackof enforceable working regulations, standards orenforcement capacity, with particular gaps notedfor water pollution and groundwater.An irrigation canal headman. Pilot projects toestablish water user associations in the Gezirascheme have shown reduced operational costsand more efficient on-farm water managementThe introduction of improved smoking methods has raised the income of fishermen in the Bor regionby expanding the market and increasing the price of fish• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •247

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT10.12 Conclusions andrecommendationsConclusionAt present, the national approach to water resourcesmanagement in Sudan is based largely on resourceexploitation and biased towards mega-projects. Thewater resources sector currently also faces a rangeof serious environmental challenges, which willrequire innovative management approaches as wellas significant investments to rehabilitate degradedsystems and strengthen technical capacity. In lightof Sudan’s ambitious dam-building programme,perhaps the most challenging task will be to developa new decision-making framework for waterprojects that is based on equity, public participationand accountability.Background to the recommendationsSubstantial development of the water resourcesof Sudan is anticipated in the next decade. Suchdevelopment should not be discouraged, butshould be designed, constructed and operated ina more sustainable manner.The two key themes of the recommendations areto strengthen national capacity for water resourcesmanagement, and to introduce the philosophyand practical aspects of Integrated Water ResourceManagement (IWRM) to Sudan.As the investment for most new and major waterschemes will come from or be controlled by theGovernment of National Unity, the GONU Ministryof Irrigation and Water Resources is considered theappropriate counterpart for most of the capacitybuildingand advocacy proposed here, though someeffort should be placed with equivalents in theGovernment of Southern Sudan and at the statelevel. Assistance to the Darfur states is a particularpriority as substantial investments in this sector areanticipated as soon as the security situation allows.Recommendations for theGovernment of National UnityR10.1 Strengthen technical capacity insustainable water resource management. Thiswill entail significant investment in trainingand equipment for data collection, analysis andcorrective action planning. All existing damoperations would be covered, as well as projectplanning for dams, groundwater and irrigationschemes. Priority targets for assistance would bethe Dams Implementation Unit and the Ministryof Irrigation and Water Resources.CA: CB; PB: MIWR and DIU; UNP: UNEP;CE: 2M; DU: 2 yearsR10.2 Develop integrated water resourcesmanagement (IWRM) plans for degradedbasins. Priority should be given to the Blue Nileand Atbara river basins, Darfur, Khor Abu Habilin Northern Kordofan, and the Nuba mountainsin Southern Kordofan. One of the key targetsof these plans should be to propose integratedmeasures aimed at reducing river siltation levelsand downstream riverbank erosion.CA: GROL; PB: MIWR and DIU; UNP: UNEP;CE: 1M; DU: 2 yearsR10.3 Develop and embed guidelines on dams inenvironmental law. The guidelines should includepublic consultations, and options and ecosystemintegrity assessments. A legislative mandateprohibiting the initiation of any dam constructionactivities prior to the issuance of an EIA permit,and stipulating public participation throughout thedam project cycle as well as disclosure and timelydistribution of all environmental informationabout the dam should be developed.CA: GROL; PB: MIWR and DIU; UNP: UNEP;CE: 0.1M; DU: 2 yearsR10.4 Conduct an additional environmentalassessment of the Merowe dam project anddevelop specific mitigation measures for theoperation of the facility. Key issues include theanalysis and mitigation of downstream impactsand absorbing environmental lessons learnt fromexisting dams and irrigation schemes.CA: AS: PB: MIWR and DIU; UNP: UNEP;CE: 0.5M; DU: 2 yearsR10.5 Establish a national water qualitymonitoring programme for both surface andgroundwater to include key physical, chemicaland biological parameters. Include a tailor-madewater quality monitoring programme for pesticide248 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

10 FRESHWATER RESOURCESresidues in the large-scale irrigation schemes.Inventory and assess water pollution ‘hot spots’.CA: AS; PB: MIWR and DIU; UNP: UNEP;CE: 5M; DU: 2 yearsR10.6 Develop a capacity-building programmeand implement pilot projects on waterconservation and management aimed at local usergroups including water use associations. Priorityshould be given to the main irrigation schemes.CA: CB; PB: MIWR and DIU; UNP: UNEP;CE: 2M; DU: 2 yearsR10.7 Strengthen the capacity of regulatoryauthorities in groundwater data collection andmanagement. This entails the development of arobust licensing system.CA: CB; PB: MIWR and DIU; IP: UNEP; CE:1M; DU: 2 yearsRecommendations for the Governmentof Southern SudanR10.8 Build capacity for sustainable waterresource management, using IWRM as afounding philosophy. Capacity-building shouldinclude groundwork to assist the establishment ofthe ministry itself, and should initially focus onimpact assessment and mitigation for plannedwater supply and power generation projects inthe ten southern states.CA: CB; PB: MWRI; UNP: UNEP; CE: 1M;DU: 2 yearsR10.9 Develop and implement an integratedmanagement plan for the Sudd wetlands. Thecost estimate covers plan development and thefirst two years of implementation.CA: GROL; PB: MWRI; UNP: UNEP/RamsarConvention; CE: 1M; DU: 2 yearsThe Assistant Director of the Roseires dam explains the challenges of operating a facilitythat is of national significance for both power generation and irrigation• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •249

Wildlife andProtected AreaManagementBirds of prey settle for the night on theflood plains of the White Nile in Jongleistate. While the past few decades havewitnessed a major decline in wildlife inSudan, remaining populations can stillbe considered internationally significant.© Nick Wise

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTWildlife and protectedarea management11.1 Introduction andassessment activitiesIntroductionAs late as 1970, Sudan boasted some of the mostunspoilt and isolated wilderness in east Africa,and its wildlife populations were world-renowned.While the past few decades have witnessed a majorassault on both wildlife and their habitats, whatremains is both internationally significant and animportant resource opportunity for Sudan.Ecosystems, issues, and the institutional structuresto manage wildlife and protected areas differmarkedly between north and south in Sudan. Inthe north, the greatest damage has been inflictedby habitat degradation, while in the south, it isuncontrolled hunting that has decimated wildlifepopulations. Many of the issues in the followingsections are hence addressed separately for thetwo areas of the country. It should be notedthat the most important remaining wildlife andprotected areas in northern Sudan are on thecoastline or in the Red Sea; these are covered inChapter 12.This chapter focuses on wildlife and protectedareas as a specific sector. It is acknowledged thatthe larger topic of biodiversity has not beenadequately addressed in this assessment. Whilethe importance of conserving biodiversity isunquestionable, a significant difficulty for actionon this front – in Sudan as elsewhere – is the lackof government ownership: no single ministry isresponsible for this topic. As a result, the observedimplementation of recommendations under thelabel of biodiversity is poor.Although it has not been included as a specific sectorin this assessment, the biodiversity of Sudan wasstudied and reported on in 2003 by a programmefunded by the Global Environment Facility (GEF)under the auspices of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD) [11.1].White-eared kob and zebra migrating through Boma National Park in 1983© PHIL SNYDER252 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

11 WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENTLion tracks in Padak county, Jonglei state. In the absence of formal survey data for much of thecountry, the evidence for wildlife populations is often anecdotal and qualitativeAssessment activitiesThe investigation of issues related to wildlife andprotected areas in Sudan was conducted as partof the overall assessment. Two commissioneddesk studies – one by the Boma Wildlife TrainingCentre, the other by the Sudanese EnvironmentConservation Society (SECS) – summarizedthe extent of existing knowledge for the southand north respectively [11.2, 11.3]. UNEP wasable to visit one major site in the north (DinderNational Park), as well as a number of smallerreserves. The protected areas of Southern Sudanand Darfur were inaccessible due to security andlogistical constraints. However, informationwas obtained from interviews and other sourcesin the course of general fieldwork in SouthernSudan.Due to historical and ongoing conflicts, theavailable data on wildlife is highly skewed, withmost recent information limited to northern andcentral states. This lack of up to date field data is acore problem for Southern Sudan’s protected areas,but major studies by the Wildlife ConservationSociety are underway in 2007 to correct this.11.2 Overview of the wildlife andhabitats of SudanThe arid and semi-arid habitats of northern Sudanhave always had limited wildlife populations. Inthe north, protected areas are mainly linked to theNile and its tributaries, and to the Red Sea coast,where there are larger concentrations of wildlife.In contrast, the savannah woodlands and floodedgrasslands of Southern Sudan have historically beenhome to vast populations of mammals and birds,especially migratory waterfowl. This abundanceof wildlife has led to the creation of numerousnational parks and game reserves by both Britishcolonial and independent Sudanese authorities.There is a large volume of literature on the wildlife ofSudan as recorded by casual observers who travelledthrough or lived in Sudan during the 19 th and firsthalf of the 20 th centuries. A 1940s account, forinstance, describes large populations of elephant,giraffe, giant eland, and both white and black rhinoacross a wide belt of Southern Sudan. Because of thecivil war, however, few scientific studies of Sudan’swildlife have been conducted, and coverage of thesouth has always been very limited.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •253

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT© PHIL SNYDERThe migration of white-eared kob across the flood plains of Southern Sudan is one of the leastknown but most spectacular wildlife wonders of the world. Hundreds of thousands of animals movein a seasonal search for dry ground, new pasture and water (inset). Kob are perfectly adapted to thefloodplain environment of Southern Sudan and have been hunted by local people for centuriesCS 11.1The management of migratory wildlife outside of protected areas:the white-eared kobOne of the distinctive features of the wildlife population of Southern Sudan is that much of it is found outside of protected areas. Thispresents a range of challenges for conservation and management, as illustrated by the case of the white-eared kob antelope.White-eared kob (Kobus kob leucotis) are largely restricted to Southern Sudan, east of the Nile, and to south-west Ethiopia[11.19, 11.20]. These antelope are dependent on a plentiful supply of lush vegetation and their splayed hooves enablethem to utilize seasonally inundated grasslands. The spectacular migration of immense herds of white-eared kob in searchof grazing and water has been compared to that of the ungulates in the Serengeti.Substantial populations of white-eared kob occur in Boma National Park, the Jonglei area and in Badingilo National Park[11.20]. The paths of their migration vary from year to year, depending on distribution of rainfall and floods (see Figure11.1). A survey and documentary film made in the early 1980s followed the herds of the Boma ecosystem as they movedbetween their dry and wet season strongholds that year, and found that the herds moved up to 1,600 km per year, facinga range of threats as they migrated through the different seasons, ecosystems and tribal regions [11.5].The principle threats to the kob are seasonal drought, excessive hunting pressure and now the development of a new aidfundedrural road network cutting across their migration routes. The sustainable solution to excessive hunting is consideredto be its containment and formalization rather than its outright prohibition, a measure which is both unachievable andunenforceable. White-eared kob represent an ideal opportunity for sustainable harvesting: they have a vast habitat, are fastbreeders and are far better adapted to the harsh environment of the clay plains and wetlands than cattle. The spectacularnature of the kob migration may support some wildlife tourism in future but it is unrealistic to expect tourism revenue toprovide an acceptable substitute for all of the livelihoods currently supported by hunting.Minimizing the impact of the new road network will require some innovative thinking to integrate animal behaviourconsiderations into road design and development controls. Dedicated wildlife-crossing corridors, culverting and underpassesare all options that could reduce road accident-related animal deaths, while banning hunting within set distances of thenew roads may help to control vehicle-assisted poaching.254 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

©Andrew Morton11 WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENTFigure 11.1 Kob migrationUpper NileUNEP sightings - May 2006NasserUpper NileAyodWaatAkoboUnityJongleiPochallaETHIOPIAPiborYirolLakesLegendKob migrationRiversInternational borderBorState border Bahr El JabalSources:TerakekaWestern EquatoriaApproximate movements of Bomapopulation of white-eared kob in theearly 1980s.Adapted from Survival Anglia 1984.Eastern EquatoriaKilometresLafon 0 40 80 120 160 200The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.BomaAs a result of this lack of technical fieldwork,virtually all up to date evidence of wildlifedistribution in Southern Sudan outside of afew protected areas is anecdotal and cannot beeasily substantiated. Nonetheless, this type ofinformation is considered to warrant reportingin order to assess priorities for more substantiveassessments. Key information from 2005 and 2006includes the sightings of elephants in the northernpart of the Sudd wetlands, and the sighting of verylarge herds of tiang and white-eared kob in Jongleistate. It is of note that both of these sightings tookplace outside of legally protected areas (see CaseStudy 11.1).The only other recent data available on SouthernSudan is from ground surveys of Nimule, Bomaand Southern National Park, carried out by theNew Sudan Wildlife Conservation Organization(NSWCO) in 2001. The results of these surveysand other information provided to UNEP bythe Boma Wildlife Training Centre indicate thatmany protected areas, in Southern Sudan at least,have remnant populations of most species.Tiang, Bokor reedbuck and white-eared kob nearthe main road in Mabior, Jonglei state. Wildlife inSouthern Sudan are found as much outside asinside protected areas• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •255

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTWildlife habitats and occurrenceby regionThe regional environments of Sudan defined inChapter 2 can be used as a basis for the descriptionof current wildlife habitats and populations:• arid regions (coastal and arid region mountainranges, coastal plain, stony plains and dune fields);• the Nile riverine strip;• the Sahel belt, including the central drylandagricultural belt;• the Marra plateau;• the Nuba mountains;• savannah;• wetlands and floodplains;• subtropical lowlands;• the Imatong and Jebel Gumbiri mountainranges; and• subtidal coastline and islands – covered inChapter 12.The delimitations of the various areas in whichwildlife are present are derived from a combinationof ecological, socio-economic, historical andpolitical factors. It should be noted, however,that the boundaries between certain regions areill-defined, and that many animals migrate freelyacross them.Arid regions. The mountains bordering the RedSea, as well as those on the Ethiopian borderand in Northern Darfur, are host to isolatedlow density populations of Nubian ibex, wildsheep and several species of gazelle [11.3]. Largerpredators are limited to jackal and leopard. Dueto the lack of water, wildlife in the desert plainsare extremely limited, consisting principally ofDorcas gazelle and smaller animals. Life centres onwadis and oases, which are commonly occupiedby nomadic pastoralists and their livestock.The Nile riverine strip. The Nile riverine stripis heavily populated and as such only supportsbirdlife and smaller animals (including bats).The Sahel belt, including the central drylandagricultural belt. In the Sahel belt, thecombination of agricultural development androving pastoralists effectively excludes largeEmpty landscapes: the UNEP team travelledthrough the Nuba mountains without seeing orhearing any reports of remaining wildlifewildlife, although the region does host migratorybirds, particularly in the seasonal wetlands andirrigated areas. With the important exceptionof Dinder National Park, the expansion ofmechanized agriculture has eliminated much ofthe wild habitat in the Sahel belt.The Marra plateau. The forests of Jebel Marrahistorically hosted significant populations ofwildlife, including lion and greater kudu [11.3].Limited surveys in 1998 (the latest available)reported high levels of poaching at that time. Dueto the conflict in Darfur, there is only negligibleinformation on the current status of wildlife inthis region.The Nuba mountains. The wooded highlandsof the Nuba mountains historically held largepopulations of wildlife, but all recent reportsindicate that the civil war led to a massive declinein numbers and diversity, even though forest coveris still substantial. The UNEP team travelledextensively through the Nuba mountains withoutany sightings or reports of wildlife.256 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

11 WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENTSavannah. The bulk of the remaining wildlife ofSudan is found in the savannah of central andsouth Sudan, though the data on wildlife densityin these regions is negligible.Historical reports include large-scale populations ofwhite and black rhino, zebra, numerous antelopespecies, lion, and leopard. In addition, aerial surveyscarried out in the woodland savannah of SouthernNational Park in November 1980 revealed sizeablepopulation estimates of elephant (15,404), buffalo(75,826), hartebeest (14,906) and giraffe (2,097)[11.4]. The number of white rhino in SouthernNational Park was estimated to be 168, whichthen represented a small but significant remnantpopulation of an extremely endangered subspeciesof rhino. In 1980, aerial surveys carried out in Boma(mixed savannah and floodplain habitats) indicatedthat the park was used by large populations of awide variety of species as a dry season refuge, withthe exception of the tiang, whose numbers increasedconsiderably during the wet season [11.5].Wetlands and floodplains. The vast wetlandsand floodplains of south Sudan, which includethe Sudd and the Machar marshes, are aninternationally significant wildlife haven, particularlyfor migratory waterfowl. These uniquehabitats also support many species not seen orfound in large numbers outside of Sudan, such asthe Nile lechwe antelope, the shoebill stork andthe white-eared kob.Subtropical lowlands. The subtropical lowlandsform the northern and western limits of thecentral African rainforest belt and thus hostmany subtropical closed forest species, such asthe chimpanzee.The Imatong and Jebel Gumbiri mountainranges. The wetter microclimates of theseisolated mountains in the far south of SouthernSudan support thick montane forest. There isonly negligible information available on wildlifeoccurrences in these important ecosystems.The flooded grasslands of Southern Sudan support very large bird populations, including black-crownedcranes (Balearica pavonina) (top left), pink-backed pelicans (Pelecanus rufescens) (top right), cattle egrets(Bubulcus ibis) (bottom left), and saddle-billed storks (Ephippiorhynchus senegalensis) (bottom right), seennear Padak in Jonglei state• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •257

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTGlobally important andendangered species in SudanSudan harbours a number of globally importantand endangered species of mammals, birds,reptiles and plants, as well as endemic species.In addition, there are a number of species listedas vulnerable by IUCN, including sixteen speciesof mammals, birds and reptiles: hippopotamus(Hippopotamus amphibius); cheetah (Acinonyxjubatus); African lion (Panthera leo); Barbarysheep (Ammotragus lervia); Dorcas gazelle (Gazelladorcas); red-fronted gazelle (Gazella rufifrons);Soemmerring’s gazelle (Gazella soemmerringei);African elephant (Loxodonta africana); Trevor’sfree-tailed bat (Mops trevori); horn-skinnedbat (Eptesicus floweri); greater spotted eagle(Aquila clanga); imperial eagle (Aquila heliaca);houbara bustard (Chlamydotis undulata); lesserkestrel (Falco naumanni); lappet-faced vulture(Torgos tracheliotos); and African spurred tortoise(Geochelone sulcata) [11.12 ].The Mongalla gazelle is not endangered but hasa relatively small habitat. Rangeland burning suchas has recently occurred here is favourable to thisspecies, as it thrives on short new grassTable 21.Globally endangered Species occurring in Sudan[11.6, 11.7, 11.8, 11.9, 11.10, 11.11, 11.12]Common name Scientific name Red List categoryMammalsAddax* Addax maculatus CR A2cdAfrican ass Equus africanus CR A1bDama gazelle Gazella dama CR A2cdNubian ibex Capra nubiana EN C2aGrevy’s zebra* Equus grevyi EN A1a+2cRhim gazelle Gazella leptoceros EN C1+2aAfrican wild dog Lycaon pictus EN C2a(i)Chimpanzee Pan troglodytes EN A3cdBirdsNorthern bald ibis Geronticus eremita CR C2a(ii)Sociable lapwing Vanellus gregarius CR A3bcBasra reed warbler Acrocephalus griseldis EN A2bc+3bcSaker falcon Falco cherrug EN A2bcd+3bSpotted ground-thrush Zoothera guttata EN C2a(i)ReptilesHawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata CR A1bdGreen turtle Chelonia mydas EN A2bdPlantsMedemia argun Medemia argun CR B1+2cNubian dragon tree Dracaena ombet EN A1cdCR = critically endangered; EN = endangered; * questionable occurrence in Sudan258 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

11 WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT11.3 Overview of protected areasVariable protectionA significant number of areas throughout Sudanhave been gazetted or listed as having some formof legal protection by the British colonial or theindependent Sudanese authorities. In practice,however, the level of protection afforded to theseareas has ranged from slight to negligible, and manyexist only on paper today. Moreover, many of thepreviously protected or important areas are located inregions affected by conflict and have hence sufferedfrom a long-term absence of the rule of law.Protected areas of northern SudanAccording to the information available to UNEP,northern Sudan has six actual or proposed marineprotected sites [11.13], with a total area ofapproximately 1,900 km², and twenty-six actual orproposed terrestrial and freshwater protected sites,with a total area of approximately 157,000 km²[11.1, 11.2, 11.14, 11.15, 11.16, 11.17].Table 22. Protected areas of northern Sudan (including marine areas)Map Protected area TypeKm² Habitat(s) Key speciesreference (* proposed) (* proposed)Marine protected areas3053Dongonab Bay National park/Ramsar site*/3,000 Marine/tidal Dugong, marineturtles, white-eyed gullImportant bird area32 Sanganeb National park/ 260 Marine Coral, marine fishRamsar site*42 Suakin Archipelago* National park/Important bird area/1,500 Marine Marine turtles, crestedternRamsar site*Khor Kilab National park* 2 Marine CoralAbu Hashish National park* 2 Marine CoralShuab Rumi National park* 4 Marine CoralTerrestrial protected areas39 Radom59355258DinderNational park/MAB reserve/Important bird areaNational park/MAB reserve/Ramsar site/Important bird area12,500 Savannah woodland Buffalo, giant eland,leopard, hartebeest10,000 Savannah woodlandsand floodedgrasslands (mayas)36 Jebel Hassania* National park 10,000 Semi-desertReedbuck, oribi,buffalo, roan antelope,red-fronted gazelle43 Wadi Howar* National park 100,000 Desert19 Jebel Gurgei Massif* Game reserve 100Rahad* Game reserve 3,50026 Red Sea Hills* Game reserve 15027 Sabaloka Game reserve 1,160 Semi-desert28 Tokor Game reserve 6,300 Semi-desert49 Erkawit Sinkat Wildlife sanctuary 120 Semi-desert50 Erkawit Wildlife sanctuary 820 Semi-desert3 Jebel Bawzer (Sunut) Bird sanctuary/ 13 Semi-desertForestRamsar site*8 Lake Nubia Bird sanctuary 100 Freshwater lake Pharaoh eagle owl,crowned sandgrouse2 Jebel Aulia Dam* Bird sanctuary 1,000 Freshwater lake7 Lake Kundi* Bird sanctuary 20 Freshwater lake6 Lake Keilak* Bird sanctuary 30 Freshwater lake1 El Roseires Dam* Bird sanctuary 700 Freshwater lake4 Khashm el Girba Bird sanctuary 100 Freshwater lakeDam*9 Sennar Dam* Bird sanctuary 80 Freshwater lake45 Jebel Elba* Nature conservation 4,800area46 Jebel Marra Massif* Nature conservationarea/Important bird area1,500 Savannah grasslandand woodlandGreater kudu, redfrontedgazelle5 Lake Abiad Bird sanctuary 5,000 Freshwater lake Ruff, black-crownedcrane• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •259

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFigure 11.2L I B Y AProtected areas of SudanEGY P T45R ED83053S E20 o 39 59C H A D4329NileDongola572736NileEd Damer3 54AtbaraPort Sudan49 50263231A425515 o10 o5 oEl Geneina4619C E N T R A LA F R I C A NR E P U B L I CNyala715El FasherBarSel’ArabAweilWauD E M O C R A T I C R E PO F T H E C O N25 o16111325U D A N23Lol14KadugliBentiu47WarrabYambio6 541 40U B L I CGO56El ObeidRumbek3748Khartoum2817Canal20Jonglei24AlbertNile182RabakBorJubaNileWhit eMalakalSobat3851PiborToritBlueEd Damazin33224434U G A N D AWad MedaniSingaNile1RoseiresReservoir2130 o 35 o9Kassala4Gedaref35 52 58E R ITR E AE T H I O P I AK E N Y AThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Protected AreasBird sanctuary (proposed)KilometresGame reserve (designated, proposed)Marine national park (designated, proposed)0 100 200 300 400 500National park (designated, proposed)Lambert Azimuthal Equal-Area ProjectionNature conservation area (proposed)Wildlife sanctuarySources:Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar) (designated, proposed)World database on protected areas (WDPA), UNEP-WCMC;SIM (Sudan Interagency Mapping); vmaplv0, NIMA;World Heritage ConventionUN Cartographic Section; various other sources.UNESCO-MAB Biosphere ReserveSquare areas are drawn to scale.UNEP/DEWA/GRID~Europe 2006260 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

11 WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENTIndex to Protected Areas mapNational designationsSite number, Site name ( p Proposed, u Unknown location), Area (ha)Bird sanctuary:1. El Roseireis Dam p 70’0002. Jebel Aulia Dam p 100’0003. Jebel Bawzer Forest(Sunut Forest) p 1’2344. Khashm El-Girba Dam p 10’000Game reserve:10. Abroch p u 150’00011. Ashana 90’00012. Barizunga p u 200’00013. Bengangai 17’00014. Bire Kpatuos 500’00015. Boro p 150’00016. Chelkou 550’000Marine national park:30. Dongonab Bay 300’00031. Port Sudan p 100’00032. Sanganeb 26’000National park:33. Badinglo 1’650’00034. Boma 2’280’00035. Dinder 1’000’00036. Jebel Hassania p 1’000’000Nature conservation area:44. Imatong Mountains p 100’00045. Jebel Elba p 480’000Wildlife sanctuary:49. Erkawit Sinkat 12’00050. Erkawit 82’00051. Khartoum 1’5005. Lake Abiad p 500’0006. Lake Keilak p 3’0007. Lake Kundi p 2’00017. Ez Zeraf 970’00018. Fanikang 48’00019. Jebel Gurgei Massif 10’00020. Juba 20’00021. Kidepo 120’00022. Mashra p 450’00023. Mbarizunga 1’00037. Lantoto p 76’00038. Nimule 41’00039. Radom 1’250’00040. Shambe 62’00046. Jebel Marra massif p 150’00047. Lake Ambadi p 150’0008. Lake Nubia p 10’0009. Sennar Dam p 8’00024. Mongalla 7’50025. Numatina 210’00026. Red Sea Hills 15’00027. Sabaloka 116’00028. Tokor 630’00029. Wadi Howar p 400’00041. Southern 2’300’00042. Suakin Archipelago p 150’00043. Wadi Howar p 10’000’00048. Lake No p 100’000International conventions and programmesSite number, Site name, Area (ha)Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar):52. Dinder National Park 1’000’00053. Dongonab Bay-Marsa Waiai p 280’00054. Jebel Bawzer Forest(Sunut Forest) p 1’23455. Suakin-Gulf of Agig p 1’125’00056. Sudd 5’700’000World Heritage Convention:57. Gebel Barkal andthe Sites of theNapatan RegionUNESCO-MAB Biosphere Reserve:58. Dinder National Park 1’000’00059. Radom National Park 1’250’000• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •261

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTA baboon in Dinder National Park, Sennar state. The level of actual protection is highly variablebut generally weak throughout Sudan. Poaching is a problem in all major parksNominally protected areas thus cover approximatelyten percent of northern Sudan, with three sites– Wadi Howar, Dinder and Radon – accountingfor a large portion of this figure. While this issignificant and worthy of support, the actual levelof protection provided and ecosystem integrity aremore important than sheer size.Wildlife authorities interviewed by UNEP innorthern Sudan reported consistent problemswith protected area management, rangingfrom poaching to livestock encroachment andland degradation. Many sites were so degradedfrom their original condition as to potentiallywarrant de-listing. The UNEP investigation ofDinder National Park, for example, found thatthis major site was not only badly damaged andunder severe stress, but was also being starved ofthe requisite funds for proper management (seeCase Study 11.2).Overall, terrestrial and freshwater sites innorthern Sudan were found to be very degradedand on a continuing decline. Marine protectedareas were generally in better condition due toa low level of development pressure.262 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

11 WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENTProtected areas of Southern SudanGiven that the legally protected areas of SouthernSudan were in a conflict zone for over two decades,they have not been managed or effectively protected.During the war, the presence of the military gave someareas under SPLA control a measure of protection,but these were also used to supply bushmeat.With the recent addition of the Sudd wetlands– which were listed as a site under the RamsarConvention in 2006 – Southern Sudan comprisestwenty-three sites, for a total area of 143,000km² or approximately 15 percent of the territory.Again, this large figure is positive, but thecondition of these areas and the level of actualprotection are of more import.The level of actual protection provided to thesetwenty-three sites is considered by UNEP to benegligible but rising as the GOSS wildlife forcesstart to build capacity and mobilize. The conditionof the areas is more difficult to gauge, but allavailable evidence points to a massive drop in thenumbers of large wildlife due to poaching.The most reliable evidence comes from BomaNational Park, which was surveyed three times,Table 23. Protected areas of Southern SudanMap Protected area TypeKm² Habitat(s) Key speciesreference (* proposed) (* proposed)33 Badingilo (incl. Mongallagame reserve)*National park/Important bird area8,400 Flooded grasslandsand woodlandsElephant, buffalo,giraffe34 Boma National park/Important bird area22,800 Savannah woodlands,grasslands, swampsWhite-eared kob,tiang, reedbuck37 Lantoto* National park 760 Tropical forest Chimpanzee, elephant38 Nimule National park/ 410 Savannah and riverine Elephant, cheetahImportant bird areawoodlands40 Shambe National park 620 Flooded savannah Nile lechwe, buffalo(within Ramsar site)and riverine forest41 Southern National park/Important bird area23,000 Savannah woodland Giant eland, elephant,rhino11 Ashana Game reserve/ 900 Savannah woodland Elephant, giant elandImportant bird area13 Bengangai Game reserve/Important bird area170 Tropical forest Elephant, bongo,buffalo14 Bire Kpatuos Game reserve 5,000 Tropical forest Bongo, yellow-backedduiker15 Boro* Game reserve 1,500 Savannah woodland Elephant16 Chelkou Game Reserve 5,500 Savannah woodland Elephant, giant eland,buffalo17 Ez Zeraf Game reserve(within Ramsar site)9,700 Flooded grasslandand woodlandNile lechwe, sitatunga,hippo18 Fanikang Game reserve 480 Flooded grassland Nile lechwe(within Ramsar site)and woodland20 Juba Game reserve/Important bird area200 Savannah grasslandand woodlandHeuglin’s francolin,Arabian bustard21 Kidepo Game reserve/Important bird area1,200 Savannah grasslandand woodlandElephant, heuglin’sfrancolin22 Mashra* Game reserve 4,500 Flooded grassland Elephant23 Mbarizunga Game reserve 10 Tropical forest Bongo, bushbuck,yellow-backed duiker25 Numatina Game reserve 2,100 Savannah woodland Elephant, giant eland,roan antelope7 Lake Kundi Bird sanctuary 20 Freshwater lake Yellow-billed stork,black-crowned crane44 Imatong mountains Important bird area/Nature conservation1,000 Montane forest andwoodlandBlue duiker,bushbuckarea47 Lake Ambadi Nature conservation 1,500 Freshwater lakearea48 Lake No Nature conservation 1,000 Freshwater lakearea56 Sudd Ramsar site/Important bird area57,000 Rivers, lakes, floodedgrasslands andsavannah470 bird species, 100mammal species and100 fish species• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •263

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTTable 24. Comparison of population estimates of larger ungulates in the years 1980 and 2001in Boma National Park [11.2]Species 2001 Count (wet season) 1980 Count (wet season) 1980 Count (dry season)White-eared kob 176,120 680,716 849,365Lesser eland 21,000 2,612 7,839Roan antelope 1,960 2,059 3,085Mongalla gazelle 280 5,933 2,167Tiang Not seen 116,373 25,442Lelwel hartebeeste 5,600 8,556 47,148Zebra Not seen 24,078 29,460Buffalo Not seen 2,965 11,179Giraffe Not seen 4,605 9,028Waterbuck Not seen 620 2,462Grant’s gazelle Not seen 1,222 1,811Elephant Not seen 1,763 2,179Lesser kudu Not seen 654 170Oryx Not seen 1,534 396Cattle 7,980 7,056 93,815twice in 1980 (in the dry and wet seasons) andonce in 2001 [11.2]. As shown in Table 24, thewildlife populations recorded in 2001 had droppeddramatically, but there were still significant numbersof most species, with the exception of elephant,giraffe, zebra and buffalo. In scientific terms, the twosurveys are not directly comparable. Nonetheless,the fact that viable populations of several species ofwildlife still existed in Boma in 2001 is important forthe future of wildlife and protected areas in Sudan.A key figure to note is the cattle count, whichdocuments the extent of encroachment into thepark by pastoralists.11.4 Wildlife and protected areamanagement issuesThere are four issues facing the wildlife andprotected area management sector, which arecumulative in effect:• habitat destruction and fragmentation;• park encroachment and degradation;• commercial poaching and bushmeat; and• wildlife tourism (or lack thereof).Habitat destruction and fragmentationHabitat destruction and fragmentation fromfarming and deforestation is the root cause of mostbiodiversity loss in northern and central Sudan.Vast areas of savannah and dryland pasture havebeen replaced with agricultural land, leaving onlylimited shelter belts or other forms of wildliferefuge. The intensity of mechanized agriculturaldevelopment has forced pastoralists to use smallergrazing areas and less suitable land, leading tothe degradation of the rangelands and increasedcompetition between livestock and wildlife.The net result is that larger wildlife have essentiallydisappeared from most of northern and centralSudan, and can only be found in the core of theprotected areas and in very low numbers in remotedesert regions.In Southern Sudan, the lack of development hasresulted in much less habitat destruction, but theintensification of shifting agriculture is causinglarge-scale land use changes across the region,particularly in the savannah. The floodplainsare less affected, but the continued burning willnegatively impact some species, while benefitingothers, such as the antelope.An additional important issue in Southern Sudan isthe impact of ongoing and planned development likethe creation or rehabilitation of rural trunk roads.This is a particular concern for Jonglei state, wherethe new road cuts directly across the migration routeof the white-eared kob (see Case Study 11.1).264 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

11 WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENTPark encroachment and degradationLivestock is present in most of the legally protectedterrestrial areas of Sudan, irrespective of their legalstatus. In some cases, pastoralists used the arealong before the legal status came into effect; inothers, the site has been invaded during the lastthirty years. Pastoralists and their herds are nowwell entrenched in many major parks, creatingcompetition for water and fodder, leading to landHabitat destruction and fragmentation is the rootcause of biodiversity loss in northern and centralSudan. The expansion of mechanized agriculturehas deforested large areas and removed theshelter belts that host wildlife populationsdegradation through burning and overgrazing, andfacilitating poaching. Encroachment has partlydestroyed the integrity of Dinder National Park[11.3], and now represents a major challenge forthe developing wildlife sector in Southern Sudan.A particular risk for Southern Sudan is armedconflict in the parks, as the wildlife forces (over7,300 men as of late 2006) mobilize and start toconfront pastoralists and poachers. Modern nonconfrontationalapproaches entailing communityengagement will be required if the wildlife sector inSouthern Sudan is to avoid damaging gun battlesbetween locals and rangers. The semi-residentpopulation of pastoralists and bushmeat huntersfrom the Murle tribe in Boma National Park – whohave become accustomed to living in the park andare heavily armed – illustrates this problem.Commercial poaching and bushmeatThe ready availability of firearms has been themost significant factor in the reduction of wildlifein Southern Sudan, and has also compounded theproblems of habitat destruction in northern andcentral Sudan. Uncontrolled and unsustainablelevels of hunting have devastated wildlifepopulations and caused the local eradication ofmany of the larger species including elephant,rhino, buffalo, giraffe, eland and zebra.Tiang are extensively hunted in the floodplains of Southern Sudan• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •265

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTThe infrastructure and staff capacityof Dinder National Park were greatlyimproved thanks to a grant from theGlobal Environment Facility, but sufficientand sustainable government funding isurgently needed now that GEF supporthas come to an end (left)The core of the parkis comprised ofwetlands that arecritically important asreliable sourcesof water in the dryseason (top right)Although many have beenpoached, the park stillsupports a significantpopulation of largermammals. Warthogs arevery common in the park’swetlands (bottom right)CS 11.2Dinder National Park: an ecosystem under siegeDinder National Park is the most important terrestrial protected area in the northern states of Sudan. Located on theEthiopian border, straddling Blue Nile and Kassala states, it is approximately 10,000 km² in size. The most importantfeatures of the park are a series of permanent and seasonal wetlands known locally as mayas, which are linked to streamsrunning off the Ethiopian highlands to the east.The habitat and wildlife of Dinder National Park can currently be described as badly degraded and under serious threatfrom a number of ongoing problems, including encroachment, habitat degradation and poaching.Until the 1960s, the area surrounding Dinder was relatively uninhabited. Since then, however, migration and land usechanges have resulted in development around the park, to the extent that some forty villages now exist along its borders.Large-scale mechanized agriculture to the north and west has not only pushed traditional agricultural communities to theedge of the park, but by taking over most of the land previously used for grazing, has also led pastoralists to invade thepark in large numbers. Livestock compete with wildlife for fodder and water, and transmit diseases such as rinderpestand anthrax, while burning degrades the grassed woodland habitat. Poaching is also a major problem, as is the felling oftrees for firewood by trespassers and fires set in the course of honey extraction.Between 2002 and 2006, the park benefited from a USD 750,000 Global Environment Facility (GEF) grant that resulted inincreased capacity for the wildlife force and a well thought out management plan with a strong emphasis on communityinvolvement in the conservation of the park. This funding ceased in early 2006 and the future preservation of the parkhangs in the balance. Without further injection of funding by the government or the international community, it is very likelythat the gains achieved by the GEF grant will be lost and that degradation will continue.266 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

11 WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENTFigure 11.3Dinder National ParkGedarefMechanized agricultureschemesOvergrazing and burninginside the parkSennarTraditional agricultureDinder ParkSingaKilometres0 1 2 3 4 5Kilometres0 2 4 6 8 10Very dry and devegetated MayaETHIOPIAEd DamazinSensitive wetlands withriverine forest (Mayas)Kilometres0 1 2 3 4 5Kilometres0 2 4 6 8 10LegendDinder National Park boundariesBuffer zoneCore zoneSource:Dinder Limits: DNPP (Dinder National Parkdevelopment Project).Images: Landsat acquired between1999 and 2001.Settlements: NGA.Kilometres0 20 40 60 80 100The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •267

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTThe harvesting of animals in Sudan takes twogeneral forms: commercial poaching for non-meatproducts, and the bushmeat culture and industry.The two forms are often combined, but each hasdifferent cultural, ecological and legal aspects andneeds to be tackled in a different manner.Commercially oriented poaching for non-meatproducts, such as ivory, skins and live animals forpets, was historically a major industry but is nowreduced due to a steep drop in the targeted wildlifepopulations. This form of harvesting is completelyillegal in Sudan, with the sole exception of thecontinued existence of a small-scale commercialtrophy hunting business in the Red Sea hills.Important poaching targets are now almostexclusively found in Southern Sudan and includeelephants, snakes, leopards, parrots, chimpanzeesand tortoise, with the live animal trade being mostimportant for the latter three species and classes.Ivory poaching was and still is a significant problemthat needs to be addressed as a matter of priorityin order to safeguard the remaining few elephantsin the country (see Case Study 11.3). Protectingthe limited number of chimpanzees still present isalso considered a vital task for the wildlife forces ofSouthern Sudan (see Case Study 11.4).Bushmeat (meat harvested by hunting wildanimals) has always been part of the SudaneseThe collection of baby animals to serve as pets is common in Southern Sudan. The long-term survivalrate of such individuals is very low. A Patas monkey in Jonglei state (top), a servile cat in Aweil, NorthernBahr el Ghazal (bottom left) and a hyena in Rumbek, Lakes state (bottom right268 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

11 WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENTIn Sudan, the demand for ivory comes principally from tourists and foreign workerswho are perhaps unaware of the global ban on ivory tradingCS 11.3The illegal ivory trade in Sudan and the regional extinctionof the African elephantSudan has been a centre for elephant hunting and ivory trade for centuries. Since 1990, however, it has been illegal underthe Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) to export ivory. Killing elephants or selling ivory fromanimals killed after 1990 is also illegal in Sudan. Given that most of the old (pre-1990) unmarked stock was in all likelihoodused up long ago, any current ivory trade is no doubt illegal.Nonetheless, the ivory trade and poaching of elephants in Sudan continue to this day, with export through illegal internationaltrade networks. The international NGO Care for the Wild conducted a detailed investigation of the issue in 2005, andfollow-up reconnaissance and interviews by UNEP in mid-2006 largely confirmed the findings.During the war years, the main agents of the ivory trade were the military forces of the north that benefited from theirunmonitored access to the south and the borders with the Central African Republic (CAR) and the Democratic Republicof Congo (DRC). The drastic reduction in elephant populations within Sudan and the gradual withdrawal of the northernforces from Southern Sudan have probably reduced direct military involvement, but private raiders remain in business.There have been consistent reports of heavily armed horsemen from Northern and Southern Kordofan, as well as SouthernDarfur, coming into Southern Sudan, CAR and DRC on ivory-poaching trips. The latest report was received by UNEP froma government official in Western Bahr el Ghazal in July 2006.The main centre of the ivory trade is Omdurman, a city across the river from Khartoum. The 2005 NGO report quotes50 souvenir shops, 150 craftsmen and up to 2,000 items in individual shops. The main customers were reported to beAsian expatriates. UNEP visits to shops in Omdurman in July 2006 also revealed substantial amounts of ivory on sale andconfirmed the presence of foreign ivory buyers.The illegal ivory trade is a critical force driving the regional extinction of the African elephant. In order for the elephant tohave a chance of survival in Sudan and elsewhere in central Africa, this trade needs to be shut down by tackling both thesupply and the demand. There is no doubt that this will be a very arduous task.Completely cutting off the supply through anti-poaching measures in the south will be extremely difficult due to the overalllack of governance in the region, the wide availability of firearms and the multiple national borders. At the same time,addressing the demand will be a particularly sensitive and politically challenging task. Possible but controversial measuresto stop the demand include shutting down the carving industry through national legislation, or exerting diplomatic pressureon Asian governments to enforce the CITES convention on their own citizens traveling to Sudan, through a combinationof persuasion and enforcement.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •269

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTdiet, with the exception perhaps of the mostancient agricultural societies based along the Nile.It partly sustained the SPLA during the conflictand was a critical fallback food source for millionsof Sudanese in times of crop and livestock failure.During periods of famine, southern Sudanesereported eating any and all types of wild fauna,from buffalo to field mice.The current issue with the bushmeat ‘industry’ isa combination of a lack of control and a lack ofdata. Indeed, there is very limited control on thecontinued harvesting of important food speciessuch as the white-eared kob, but there is also nodata available to assess whether current rates ofharvesting are sustainable.It is unrealistic to expect a blanket ban on bushmeatto be enforceable in Southern Sudan at this time.What is needed instead is the establishment of asystem and culture of sustainable harvesting, wherelocal hunters and communities take the bulk of theresponsibility for the care of such resources.Wildlife tourismThe main problem with wildlife tourism in Sudanis that it does not exist on a commercial scale.In 2005, the total number of foreign visitorsto Dinder National Park and the marine parkswas less than one thousand. Protected areas arehence not commercially self-sustaining and needconstant subsidization, creating an evident issueof prioritization for one of the world’s poorestcountries.There is currently no wildlife tourism industrywhatsoever in Southern Sudan either, and theprospects for rapid growth are slight due toinsecurity and a lack of infrastructure. Accordingly,the habitual issue of controlling the impacts oftourism does not yet apply to Sudan.Crocodile and python skin accessories are popular in markets in Khartoum, but there is no dataon the impact of this trade on reptile populations in Sudan270 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

11 WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENTThis young chimpanzee – named Thomas by wildlife rangers – was confiscated from a trader inYei, Central Equatoria, in April 2006. He is shown here with his current keeper, the Undersecretaryto the Government of Southern Sudan, Ministry of Environment, Wildlife Conservation andTourism. His fate is uncertain as chimpanzees are completely unsuitable as pets and there are norehabilitation or holding facilities in Sudan. The Ministry is searching for solutions, both for Thomasand for chimpanzee conservation in generalCS 11.4Chimpanzee hunting and live capture in Southern SudanThe chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) is found in relatively undisturbed tropical forest regions in central and western Africa;the forests of the far southern edge of Sudan represent the eastern limit of its habitat.Like all of the great apes, the chimpanzee is in danger of extinction. Throughout its range, the species is subject to a varietyof threats, including habitat loss and fragmentation, the bushmeat industry, and live capture. While all of these issues areimportant in Sudan, the predominant problem is the bushmeat trade and the resulting live capture of animals. Typically, amother and other family members are shot for meat, and the juveniles are captured alive for later sale as pets.Sudan has been invited to sign the Kinshasa Declaration supporting the Great Apes Survival Project (GRASP) but, as ofend 2006, has yet to do so.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •271

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT11.5 Wildlife and protected areasector governanceGovernance structureThe governance structure and legal situation ofthe wildlife and protected area management sectorare complex and partially dysfunctional. The2005 Interim National Constitution explicitlyplaces management of the wildlife of SouthernSudan under the authority of the GOSS. At thesame time, a number of international treatiessuch as the Convention on International Tradein Endangered Species (CITES) and the RamsarConvention are managed at the federal level. Thiscreates some confusion for the management ofsites and issues in Southern Sudan.Government of National UnityIn the Government of National Unity, wildlife andprotected area management are the responsibilityof the Ministry of Interior, as wildlife forcesare part of the country’s unified police forces.The controlling ordinance is the 1986 WildlifeConservation and National Parks Ordinance.While there are numerous deficiencies in thestructures and legislation which hamper practicalgovernance, a principal problem is underinvestmentin the forces, resulting in a very lowlevel of capacity in the field.Government of Southern SudanWildlife and protected area management inSouthern Sudan are the responsibility of theWildlife Conservation Directorate of the GOSSMinistry of Environment, Wildlife Conservationand Tourism. Like many of the new GOSSinstitutions, this structure is still extremely weakin capacity due to shortages in skilled manpower,equipment and accommodation. It does, however,have moderate amounts of funding and isreceiving limited capacity-building.While there is currently no GOSS legislation onwildlife and protected area management, the SPLMhad a working Commission on Wildlife, and issueda number of directives for areas under its control.A particular and unusual challenge for the newministry is the requirement from GOSS to absorblarge numbers of troops demobilized from theUnified Forces and directed to civilian sectorssuch as the police, wildlife forces, prisons andfire brigades. As of late 2006, the projected sizeof the wildlife force was over 7,300, which wouldprobably make it the world’s largest. If not wellmanaged, training, managing and financing sucha large force is expected to be major problem forthe ministry that could distort the operationsof the unit and distract it from its core role asthe focal point for environmental governance(including wildlife) in Southern Sudan.On a positive note, the Wildlife ConservationSociety, an international NGO, announced inNovember 2006 that it was forming a multi-yearpartnership with the GOSS to build capacityin the wildlife forces and progress sustainablemanagement of wildlife resources via a seriesof practical projects. One of the early activitiesplanned is a major aerial survey of the protectedareas to count wildlife populations and assesshabitat conditions. The first stage of the fieldworkwas completed in early 2007.Innovative and sustainable solutions are neededto stem the decline of wildlife of Southern Sudan.These juvenile ostriches taken from the wild aschicks and raised in an aid compound in Padakwill grow too big, powerful and dangerous tobe kept as pets. The long-term fate of theseparticular individuals is sealed, but the speciescan be preserved in the region272 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

11 WILDLIFE AND PROTECTED AREA MANAGEMENT11.6 Conclusions andrecommendationsConclusionThe issues relating to wildlife and protected areamanagement are notably different in the north andsouth of Sudan. Economic pressures underlie thedestruction of northern and central Sudan’s wildlife,as well as the degradation of its protected areas. In aperiod of conflict and extreme poverty, investmentin this sector was not a priority for the predecessorsof the Government of National Unity. However, thenew wealth provided by oil revenue will hopefullyallow a gradual turnaround of this situation.In Southern Sudan, the limited short- to mediumtermprospects for wildlife tourism imply the needfor alternative revenue streams to finance wildlifemanagement. Potential alternatives includesustainable game ranching and the formalizationof the bushmeat industry.With the exception of three park areas (Dinder,Sanganeb and Dongonab Bay), the data on thewildlife and protected areas of Sudan is insufficientto allow the development of management plans.Before detailed planning can take place, more indepthassessments will need to be carried out.Background to the recommendationsThe following recommendations are structured tofit the post-CPA institutional arrangements. Theyare aimed at pragmatic solutions for economicsustainability and prioritization of expenditure.For Southern Sudan, the need for comprehensivecapacity-building within the wildlife managementsector is clear. As of early 2007, GOSS is in receiptof assistance from both USAID and the WildlifeConservation Centre; moreover, it has capacity forself-improvement via the Boma Wildlife TrainingCentre. However, it should be noted that the wildlifesector is unique in that is has a high potential forattracting partnerships with international NGOsand thus has better funding prospects than manyother environmental sectors.Recommendations for theGovernment of National UnityR11.1 Reform and rationalize institutions,laws and regulations. The institutions, laws andregulations related to wildlife and protected areamanagement at all levels of government need to berationalized and improved. Due to the overlappingnature of many of the existing institutions, lawsand regulations, this would, in the first instance,need to be done as a joint exercise by GONU,GOSS and state governments.CA: GROL; PB: MI and MEPD; UNP: UNEPand INGOs; CE: 0.5M; DU: 3 yearsR11.2 Invest in the management of DinderNational Park. This would entail implementationof the current management plan, which is bothadequate and up to date.CA: GI; PB: MI and MEPD; UNP: UNEP andINGOs; CE: 3M; DU: 5 yearsR11.3 Shut down the illegal ivory carving andtrading industry. This is a clear governance issuewith north-south peace implications that can beaddressed without causing significant economichardship on the national scale.CA: GROL; PB: MI; UNP: UNEP and CITES;CE: nil; DU: 1 yearRecommendations for theGovernment of Southern SudanR11.4 Develop interim strategies and plans forthe management of protected areas and wildlifeincluding the surveying of all protected areas.Detailed long-term plans, policies and legislationcannot be rationally developed or implemented dueto the current lack of information and governancecapacity. Interim measures are needed.CA: PA; PB: MEWCT; UNP: UNEP andINGOs; CE: 4M; DU: 2 yearsR11.5 Develop focused plans for themanagement of Nimule National Park, the SuddRamsar site (including its elephant population)and the conservation of chimpanzees andmigratory antelopes including the whiteearedkob. These four items have commonfeatures (international support, practicality andconservation urgency) that make them targets forearly practical action.CA: GROL; PB: MEWCT; UNP: UNEP andINGOs; CE: 2M; DU: 2 years• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •273

MarineEnvironmentsand ResourcesPort Sudan, which hosts the largest seafreight terminal in the country, typifies thesituation for marine resources in Sudan:economic development is occurring at theexpense of the environment, and thesurrounding lagoons are suffering fromland-based pollution and modification due tothe indiscriminate building of infrastructure.

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTMarine environmentsand resources12.1 Introduction andassessment activitiesIntroductionThe coral reefs of the Sudanese territorial waters inthe Red Sea are the best preserved ecosystems in thecountry. To date, these precious assets have beenlargely protected by the lack of development, butthe economic and shipping boom focused on PortSudan and the oil export facilities is rapidly changingthe environmental situation for the worse.At present, the state of the coastal environment ismixed: while steady degradation is ongoing in thedeveloped strip from Port Sudan to Suakin, goodconditions prevail elsewhere along the coast. Onand above the tideline, the symptoms of overgrazingand land degradation are as omnipresent in RedSea state as elsewhere in dryland Sudan.The preservation and sustainable developmentof the marine resources of Sudan will require anintegrated approach. For this reason, all of theissues specifically related to marine and coastalenvironments are collated and discussed here,though several cut across sectors covered in otherchapters of this report.Assessment activitiesFor this assessment, UNEP drew upon asignificant available databank on the marineresources of Sudan [12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5].In addition, a UNEP field mission covered thecoastal strip from 100 km north of Port Sudan tothe Tokar delta. Fieldwork included an extensiveinvestigation of the Port Sudan area.UNEP has been involved in the assessment andmanagement of the natural resources of the RedSea since the 1980s in its role as a supporter andparticipant in the Regional Organization for theConservation of the Environment of the RedSea and the Gulf of Aden (PERSGA). PERSGAsponsoredprojects have included surveys of thecoral reefs and other important marine habitatsof Sudan.While it did not extend to the habitat’s condition,UNEP’s assessment of the marine environment ofSudan was considered adequate to cover and providean update on the main environmental issues.A typical shoreline north of Port Sudan, with sparse vegetation on a sandy-silty beach, a shelteredzone and the fringing reef (indicated by the breaking waves in the distance)276 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

12 MARINE ENVIRONMENTS AND RESOURCESFigure 12.1Sudan coastlineLake NubiaWadi HalfaJebel ElbaMukawwarLegendSettlementsExisting oil pipelinePrimary roadNatural areasManaged Nature ReserveKarimaMarine National ParkNational ParkNature Conservation AreaWildlife SanctuarySource: Administrative layers (Vmap0).Natural areas: World database on protectedareas (WDPA), UNEP WCMC.Pipeline (GIST).Abu HamadAtbaraBarbarEd DamerKilometresPort SudanErkawit Sinkat0 40 80 120 160 200The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.SuakinErkawitSanganeb AtollSuakin ArchipelagoTokar12.2 Overview of marine andcoastal environmentsand resourcesThe Red SeaThe Sudanese Red Sea is famous for its attractiveand mostly pristine habitats, particularly its coralreefs. Three distinct depth zones are recognized:shallow reef-studded shelves less than 50 m deep,deep shelves 500 to 1,000 m deep, and a centraltrench more than 1,000 m deep, reaching amaximum of 3,000 m off the city of Port Sudan.The Red Sea is home to a variety of pelagic fishincluding tuna, but the overall fish density isrelatively low due to limited nutrient input.The sea hosts important populations of seabirdsand turtles, as well as mammals such as dugong,dolphins and whales.Coastline and islandsThe coastline of Sudan on the Red Sea is some750 km long, not including all the embaymentsand inlets [12.2]. Numerous islands are scatteredalong the coast, the majority of which haveno water or vegetation. The dominant coastalforms are silty beaches, rocky headlands and saltmarshes, commonly bordered with mangroves.Fringing coral reefs are very common andwater clarity is generally high due to the lack ofsedimentation.Average precipitation in the coastal areas isextremely low, ranging from 36 mm per yearat Halaib to 164 mm per year at Suakin, sothat the desert extends right to the tide mark.The only exception is the Tokar delta, whichreceives substantial run-off from seasonal streamsoriginating in the Ethiopian and Eritreanhighlands.The islands and most of the coastline arerelatively undisturbed and host importantfeeding and nesting sites for a variety ofseabirds. The three most ecologically importanthabitats are coral reefs, mangroves and seagrassbeds.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •277

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTCoral reefsThree types of coral reefs are found in Sudanesewaters:• fringing reefs, which lie 1-3 km offshore;• patch reefs, which lie up to 15 km offshore,separated from the fringing reef by deep andwide channels; and• pillar reefs or atolls, found 20 km or moreoffshore, such as the Sanganeb atoll.The coral reefs of Sudan are considered to be inmoderate to good health, despite an extensivecover of algae over some fringing reefs. Some dieback/coralbleaching has occurred, particularly inthe upper ten metres [12.3, 12.7].MangrovesMangrove stands are a key coastal habitat, whichprovide forage, wood products and breedinggrounds for fish. Extensive stands were originallyfound in areas where the seasonal streams (khors)reach the coast, as these produce the brackish andsediment-rich conditions necessary for mangrovesto thrive. Mangroves stands are currently undersevere pressure along the entire coastline froma combination of overgrazing and over-cutting,and in some regions, wholesale destruction dueto coastal industrial development.Seagrass bedsSeagrass beds are found in shallow coastal waters,around mangroves and between the low tide lineand fringing reefs. They are highly productivehabitats that provide grazing for dugong, andsupport fish and trochus shellfish.12.3 Environmental impactsand issuesAhigh quality environmentunder pressureThe Sudanese marine and coastal environment is inrelatively good condition overall, with isolated badlydegraded areas. The region, however, is subject to amounting list of environmental impacts linked tourban and industrial development, and to overgrazing.The principal environmental issues are:• coastal habitat destruction by development;• oil industry spill risks;• passing ship pollution;• pollution from land-based sources;• risk of importing invasive species in ballastwater;• fisheries management;• mangrove cutting and overgrazing; and• marine protected areas and tourism.Soft coral at Sanganeb. The coral reefs of Sudan are in very good to moderate condition away from themajor urban areas. They are partly protected by their isolation and the lack of run-off from the desert© RED SEA ENTERPRISES278 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

12 MARINE ENVIRONMENTS AND RESOURCESA major extension to the Port Sudan harbour, known as the Green Port, is going ahead in anarea surrounded by seagrass beds and coral reefs. It is now necessary to focus on planningport operations to minimize ongoing impactsCoastal habitat destruction bydevelopmentDevelopment along the Red Sea coast is largelylimited to a 70 km strip extending from PortSudan to Suakin. This zone includes the twocities, the major ports, the oil terminals, saltworks,a shrimp farm and the new Red Sea EconomicFree Trade Zone.The damage to coastal habitats due to constructionwithin this strip is extensive and in some casesboth completely unnecessary and probablyuneconomic in the long term. In some areas suchas the main commercial port of Port Sudan, habitatdestruction is unavoidable: though regrettable,local environmental damage is outweighedby the scale of the economic benefit. In othercases, however, the benefits of development arequestionable.Twenty kilometres south of Port Sudan, productivemangroves have been destroyed by saltworksconstruction; saltwater access canals and bankshave cut through mangrove stands, disruptedgroundwater flows and sediment depositionpatterns. Approximately eight kilometres southof Port Sudan at Kilo Tammania, mangroves havebeen destroyed by the poor design of an outfallaccess road and recreation area [12.2].As discussed in Chapters 7 and 13, industrialdevelopment in Sudan occurs in the absence of aneffective environmental impact and managementculture. This is clearly apparent in the Port Sudanregion.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •279

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFigure 12.2Port Sudan and coral reefCoral reefCoral reef destroyedfor port developmentMetres0 200 400 600 800 1,000The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.Oil industry spill risksThe risk of oil spills from the relatively newBashir crude oil export terminal is discussed indetail in Chapter 7. The risks are considered tobe moderate and the reported response measuresclose to international standards. The new Alkheirpetroleum and gas export terminal is alsoconsidered to represent a moderate risk.However, the loaded crude oil and product tankertraffic leaving the two terminals and travelingeast to the Indian Ocean remains a considerablerisk, due to the navigational hazard presented bythe numerous fringing and patch reefs. In 2004,a freight vessel, the MV Irrens, grounded on thereef at the Wingate anchorage area some 10 kmeast of the Alkheir terminal [12.2].Passing and docked ship bilge waterand oil pollutionThe Red Sea is a major shipping transit route,connecting the Indian Ocean with the Suez Canal.The ports of Sudan host a range of vessels, fromShips passing and entering ports in Sudan currentlyhave no place to deposit oily waste, such as thatgenerated by clearing bilges and fuel tanks. In theabsence of facilities and controls, the risk is thatships jettison this oil at seasmall coastal tenders to bulk grain carriers. In theabsence of controls and facilities for receiving oilywaste from bilges, ships discharge this effluentinto the sea. This results in chronic oil pollutionaround the ports, but also along the coast, asdischarges from passing ships drift landwards.280 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

12 MARINE ENVIRONMENTS AND RESOURCESPollution from land-basedsourcesThe industrial facilities and utilities of Port Sudanare a major source of land-based pollution forthe Red Sea. They include two power stations, adesalination plant and the harbour dockyard. Otherfacilities in the area, such as a tire factory, a tannery,and an oil seed factory, are now closed down.The Port Sudan landfill is located at the head of aseasonal watercourse. Every wet season, the run-offdraws pollution from the site to the coastal lagoonsElectrical power stations A and C were found to bedumping substantial quantities of waste oil ontoopen ground in adjacent vacant land (station Cis described in more detail in Case Study 7.1). Inaddition, the desalination plant was found to be atthe origin of a significant pollution by hypersalineeffluent (see Case Study 12.1). The harbourdockyard, which has no oily water treatmentfacility, was another expected source of pollution,but was not inspected. Other parts of the harbour,including the main warehouse, were investigatedand found to be relatively clean, except for oneopen warehouse filled with unwanted pesticidesand other chemicals.Figure 12.3Port Sudan power station and salt flatsto Port Sudan centreRefineryFringing coral reefPower stationand waste oil(black stain from oil spill)RemnantmangrovesSalt pansOutfallMetresThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.0 200 400 600 800 1,000• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •281

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTUNEP also visited a small oil refinery located fivekilometres south of Port Sudan (see Figure 12.3).Site personnel reported that an oil-water separatorwas used for water treatment, and that the treatedeffluent and cooling water were discharged to sea,although this could not be verified by UNEPdue to access restrictions. The refinery groundsand surrounds were markedly cleaner than theadjacent electrical power station C.Additionally, the harbour lagoons are polluted bylitter, waste oil and sewage from wet season runofffrom the khor Kilab, which borders the oldindustrial area of Port Sudan. This area containsnumerous small factories and vehicle repairworkshops that dump used oil and other wasteinto the stream bed throughout the year.Finally, the main Port Sudan landfill, which islocated in the head of the khor, is a source ofsurface and groundwater contamination. Therun-off from the dump also eventually ends upin the harbour. The landfill is covered in detail inCase Study 6.4.Risk of importing invasive speciesin ballast waterNo port in Sudan has facilities for receiving ballastwater, which is instead discharged by the ships eitherin the harbour or in the approaches. This practicecarries the risk of importing invasive species (larvae,parasites and infectious agents) from where the shiplast docked and took in the ballast.Fisheries managementMarine fisheries and mariculture industries inSudan are currently underdeveloped. They arealso poorly controlled and subject to repeatedproposals for expansion from foreign investors.The artisanal fleet on Sudanese waters is comprisedexclusively of locally made wooden boats and smallfiberglass tenders. Fishing methods include handlines, and bottom set and pelagic gill nets, with80 percent of the catch coming from hand lines.Prior to 2005, an Egyptian shrimp trawling fleetoperated offshore of the Tokar delta, but it wasCargo ships carry seawater as ballast, which is drawn in or discharged when cargos are loadedand unloaded. When this occurs thousands of kilometres away from the intake point, there is arisk of introducing alien species into the local marine environment282 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

12 MARINE ENVIRONMENTS AND RESOURCESThis lagoon in the centre of the city of PortSudan is already burdened with urban pollutionand shoreline development. Unless a solutionfor the saline effluent is found, the lagoon isexpected to become a biologically dead zoneReverse osmosis units separate seawaterinto two streams: freshwater for consumptionand a high salinity effluent which needs tobe disposed of in an appropriate manner toavoid environmental damageCS 12.1 The impact of pollution from the Port Sudan desalination plantThis desalination-based freshwater production plant in Port Sudan provides an unfortunate case study in the importanceof locating industrial facilities correctly in order to optimize benefits to local citizens and minimize environmental impacts.The plant, which was built in 2004, plays a vital role in the provision of freshwater to the city. Based on a reverse osmosis processthat is powered by diesel, it has a combined freshwater output of 7,500 m³ per day and an effluent discharge of 2,500 m³.The facility is located on the shoreline of a shallow and moderately polluted saltwater lagoon that was an important ifdeclining fishing ground until 2004, but is now surrounded by urban development. The original plant design envisagedextracting water from the lagoon, but health concerns forced a late revision in the form of a 4 km pipeline to conveyseawater in from the coastline. The effluent from the plant, however, is currently discharged directly into the lagoon asper the original design.The salinity of the effluent is approximately four times that of seawater, and it contains traces of chlorine and anti-scalingagent. The local authority reported that a major fish kill occurred during plant commissioning and there are current complaintsfrom local residents regarding skin rashes, although the link between this public health problem and the increased salinityis unclear at this stage.What is clear is that the combination of a nearly closed system and ongoing saline inputs will in time result in a hypersalineand ecologically dead (and most probably anaerobic) lagoon in an urban area. While the local authorities were very muchaware of this problem at the time of UNEP’s visit, there was no agreement on the solution due to the high cost of alloptions proposed to date.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •283

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTbanned by the Red Sea State Governor during the2005-2006 season, apparently due to a licensingdispute. At present, no legal offshore fishing isconducted by foreign vessels, though the potentialfor illegal fishing is high as there is effectively nomonitoring.The fisheries industry is constrained by a lack ofinvestment in facilities to handle the catch, as wellas by a limited domestic market. The daily fishcatch is monitored by the local fisheries authorityand estimated to be approximately 1,100 tonnesper year [12.2, 12.8]. Most of the fish is consumedlocally. There is a small export market to SaudiArabia and Egypt for fresh coral fish and shark,and some 200 to 300 tonnes of trochus shellfishare exported – mainly to Europe – per year.Though historically significant, mariculture and thecollection of wild pearl oysters in the Red Sea regionended in the 1990s. It may or may not be revived.Shrimp farming has just commenced, with one farmlocated 35 km south of Port Sudan, but this ventureis struggling to establish local and export markets.The key environmental issue for the fisheriesand mariculture industries is the lack of effectivegovernance. This leaves the environment highlyvulnerable to overfishing and uncontrolled maricultureexpansion.At present, the domestic marine fisheries industryis very limited. Most of the catch is consumedlocally. A small volume of high-quality fish isexported to other Gulf countriesCamels grazing on mangroves 20 km south of Suakin. The impact of such grazing can be seen in theabsence of foliage below three metres. This stand also shows signs of extensive timber-cutting284 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

12 MARINE ENVIRONMENTS AND RESOURCESa shallow bay with a wide diversity of marinehabitats, including coral reefs and seagrass bedsthat support a large population of endangereddugong. The park also has a significant residenthuman population in a number of small fishingvillages, and hosts a salt plant.In addition, four high-value habitats have beenproposed as marine protected areas:• Suakin Archipelago, which comprises coralreefs surrounding a number of sandy islandsapproximately 20 km south-east of Suakin;these are important nesting sites for marineturtles and sea birds;Spinner dolphins offshore of Suakin. The marinetourism industry in Sudan still operates on asmall scale, catering mainly to scuba divers,but the quality and quantity of marine life holdspromise for the long-term growth of the industry.Protection and control measures need to beimproved to ensure that this growth occurswithout harm to the environment© RED SEA ENTERPRISES• Khor Kilab Bird Sanctuary, a 2 km² estuarinearea on the south side of Port Sudan harbour;• the Abu Hashish area, a 5 km² area on theeastern side of the new Green port, containingnumerous coral reefs; and• Shuab Rumi, a 4 km² area of coral reefs 50km north of Port Sudan.To this list, UNEP would add all of the remainingmangrove stands along the Sudanese Red Seacoastline, as this habitat is now under severepressure and disappearing rapidly in some areas.Mangrove cutting and overgrazingMangrove leaves are edible for camels and arethus vulnerable to grazing damage in periods ofscarcity. Most of the accessible mangrove standsvisited by UNEP had the characteristic clippedlook resulting from overgrazing. Mangroves canalso supply wood for fuel and construction, andunsustainable cutting has clearly been a problemin the accessible stands.Marine protected areas and tourismThere are two declared marine protected areasin Sudan: Sanganeb Marine National Park andDongonab Bay (with Mukawar Island). SanganebMarine National Park is described in detail inCase Study 12.2.Dongonab Bay National Park lies 125 km northof Port Sudan and covers 60 km of coastline andAt present, the marine tourism industry is centredmainly on Sanganeb and to a lesser extent onShuab Rumi. The Dongonab area is relativelyremote and rarely visited. For the most part,tourism consists of international diving holidays,with visitors flying to Port Sudan and residingon large hotel boats, which travel to anchor atthe various diving sites for a few days at a time.There is also some limited local recreation alongthe coastline.The major environmental issue related to marinetourism is the lack of handling facilities at thedive sites and ports. For example, dive boats areforced to anchor on the reefs, causing damage,because they do not have mooring buoys. Tourismoperators are highly aware of this problem, butdo not have the legal mandate to install thenecessary equipment, as that rests with the SeaPorts Corporation. An additional issue is thelimited capacity for governance of the parks andtourism in all places.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •285

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT© RED SEA ENTERPRISESCS 12.2Sanganeb National Park: a microcosm of high reef biodiversityThe Sudanese coast harbours the most diverse coral reefs in the Red Sea. The small Sanganeb Atoll, arguably the onlytrue atoll in the Red Sea, is situated approximately 30 km north-east of Port Sudan. It lies close to the centre of Red Seamarine biodiversity, where conditions are optimal for coral growth and reef development.Sanganeb’s physical features include an outer rim that encloses three central lagoons, areas of back reefs, and shallowwater reef flats dominated by massive colonies of porites, gonisatrea and montipora. Outside this outer rim, the reef dropsvertically, interrupted by terraces, to the seabed some 800 m below. The drop from the reef flats to the reef slopes hostsa spectacular diversity of coral and fish species.The coral fauna of the Sanganeb Atoll, which may well prove to be among the richest in the Red Sea, inhabits a numberof different bio-physiographic reef zones. To date, a total of 124 cnidarians have been recorded. The atoll also hostssignificant populations of Trochus dentatus (giant spider conch) and sea-cucumbers, which are commercially exploitedelsewhere in Sudan.Over 251 coral reef fish species have so far been recorded and this number may rise to more than 300. Populations oflarger species such as bumphead parrotfish (Bolbometopon muricatum), bumphead wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus), andgroupers, which are vulnerable to overfishing throughout their ranges, appear healthy in Sanganeb. The open watersaround the atoll include a large number of pelagic fish species such as tuna, barracuda, sailfish, manta rays and sharks.Sailfish are reported to spawn in the Sanganeb lagoon.The atoll was declared a National Park in 1993 and is currently one of two marine protected areas in Sudan (the other is theDongonab Bay and Mukawar Island National Park, gazetted in 2005). Management plans for both sites were developedby the Regional Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden (PERSGA) in2003. Sanganeb additionally lies within one of two proposed Ramsar sites along the Sudanese coast, and is on Sudan’stentative list for UNESCO World Heritage status. At present, the park covers an area of approximately 22 km 2 , but thereare proposals to create an additional buffer zone that would increase the area to approximately 260 km².Sudan’s Wildlife Conservation General Administration signed an agreement with the international NGO the African ParksFoundation to implement the existing management plans for both Sanganeb and Dongonab Bay National Parks [12.6]. InJune 2006, the Foundation and IUCN undertook a baseline biodiversity survey of both parks.The atoll has considerable potential as a major destination for diving tourism, but the infrastructure to support and manageincreased tourism has yet to be put in place.286 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

12 MARINE ENVIRONMENTS AND RESOURCES12.4 Marine and coastalenvironmental governanceGovernance structureThe governance structure for the SudaneseRed Sea coastline, territorial seas, islands andassociated marine protected areas is very complexand in consequence, fragmented.Sudanese ports are managed by the Sea PortsCorporation, which is part of the federal Ministryof Transport. The important exception is thearrangement at the Bashir Oil Terminal portfacilities, which also come under the managementof the Ministry of Energy and Mining. Marinefisheries are governed by the Marine FisheriesAdministration, which is part of the federalMinistry of Agriculture and Forestry. The marineprotected areas are under the responsibility ofthe Headquarter of Wildlife Conservation inthe federal Ministry of Interior, and wildlifeconservation services staff are actually managedby the Ministry of Interior, as they are part of thecountry’s united police force.At the state level, the governor and the localgovernment of ministers and advisors have significantand broad-reaching authority, which overlaps withthe federal mandate to a large extent.Red Sea state is unusual in that it has a working bodyspecifically for marine environment protection– the newly formed Marine EnvironmentalProtection Authority (MEPA). In addition, theState Council for Environment (SCE) providesan oversight and coordination role. Finally, theNGO sector is also active in Port Sudan.Legislation and coordinationAppropriate and up to date legislation and guidanceis lacking for the direction of the various authorities.Fisheries legislation, for example, is based largelyupon acts drafted by the British in the 1930s. Anumber of important legal documents have beendeveloped more recently, but have yet to be ratifiedor implemented by the federal authorities. Thenew state-sponsored SCE is anticipated to improvecoordination between the various actors, though itis constrained by legislation to be largely advisory.Figure 12.4Sanganeb National ParkPort SudanKilometres0 5 10 15 20 25The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •287

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTGovernance performanceWhile the Red Sea region has a number of interestedand responsible parties for environmentalprotection, the complex governance structure andensuing fragmentation of responsibility hamperpractical performance by the authorities.In addition, a severe lack of financial resourcesaffects all governance operations (except forthe Bashir Oil Terminal and the Sea PortsCorporation), and legislative deficiencies hinderboth the authorities and civil society. For instance,many of the major facilities are managed atthe federal level, which makes enforcement oflegislation at the state level problematic.12.5 Conclusions andrecommendationsConclusionCompared to many parts of Sudan, the coastaland marine environments are still in very goodcondition. The marine habitats have global as wellas national significance and are currently the mostimportant foreign tourist attractions in Sudan.The environmental issues faced by the region willrequire an integrated approach to have any chanceof successful resolution. The multiple competinguses and threats for shared resources such asshipping channels, estuaries, coral reefs and pelagicfisheries cannot be addressed in isolation.The general level of environmental awarenessand interest among Red Sea state stakeholdersis impressive and higher than that seen in manyother parts of Sudan. However, this interest needsto be converted into practical action, in the firstinstance by transferring more authority to thelocal level.Background to the recommendationsThe two key themes for the recommendations are:integration, based on the concept of IntegratedCoastal Zone Management (ICZM), anddevolution of responsibility to the Red Sea statelevel.Young men on duty on national service picking up litter from the tidal lagoons of Port Sudan. The levelof interest in the environment in Red Sea state is among the highest in all of Sudan288 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

12 MARINE ENVIRONMENTS AND RESOURCESThe objective of Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement (ICZM) is to establish sustainablelevels of economic and social activity in coastalareas while protecting the coastal environment.It brings all those involved in the development,management and use of the coast together in aframework that facilitates the integration of theirinterests and responsibilities.In support of the devolution of powers, the 2005Interim Constitution grants states the authority tomanage their natural resources. This general clauseneeds to be strengthened for the unique coastaland marine environment, with more detail onthe division of powers for a range of issues such asfisheries, coastal development, land-based marinepollution sources and tourism. This process wouldcorrect the current imbalance due to the fact thatmuch of the interest in environmental managementresides in Red Sea state while the mandate formanagement resides largely at the federal level.Recommendations for the Governmentof National UnityR12.1 Ratify and enforce existing preparedlegal instruments for the marine environment.Documents that are ready but not yet translated intolaw or firm standards include the Sudanese MaritimeLaw and the National Oil Spill Contingency Plan.CA: GROL; PB: GONU Assembly; UNP:UNEP; CE: 0.1M; DU: 2 yearsR12.2 Develop legislation and statutoryguidance covering offshore fisheries. Thisshould cover issues such as prohibited areas andthe granting of licenses to both domestic andinternational operators.CA: GROL; PB: MAF; UNP: FAO; CE: 0.3M;DU: 2 yearsR12.3 Adequately fund the marine fisheriesinspection and data collection services operating outof the Red Sea ports to enable monitoring of catchesand offshore fisheries including foreign vessels.CA: GI; PB: MAF; UNP: FAO; CE: 3M; DU:2 yearsR12.4 Adequately fund the two marineprotected areas of the Red Sea that have existingmanagement plans and follow through with thoseplans to develop self-sustaining revenue streamsfor those areas. Sanganeb Marine National Parkis the priority site.CA: GI; PB: MI, UNP: UNEP; CE: 5M; DU:5 yearsRecommendations for the Red SeaState GovernmentR12.5 Enforce existing EIA legislation onplanned developments on the coastline,including the Red Sea Free Trade Zone. Thiswill require more direct involvement of the RedSea State Government in support of the MarineEnvironment Protection Authority.CA: GROL; PB: RSS MEPA; UNP: UNEP; CE:0.1M; DU: 2 yearsR12.6 Enforce existing water pollutionlegislation on industrial and utilities plantdischarges into the Red Sea. This will requiremore direct involvement of the Red SeaState Government in support of the MarineEnvironment Protection Authority.CA: GROL; PB: RSS MEPA; UNP: UNEP; CE:0.1M; DU: 2 yearsR12.7 Advocate and progress federal/statepower-sharing on marine environmentalissues. Set out and restructure the power-sharingarrangements for coastal and marine naturalresources management to allow direct liaison andresolution at the state level.CA: GROL; PB: RSS MEPA; UNP: UNEP; CE:0.1M; DU: 3 yearsR12.8 Introduce the concept of IntegratedCoastal Zone Management through revisedmaster-planning for the whole coast with a focuson the areas of Port Sudan, Suakin and Tokar.CA: GROL; PB: RSS MEPA; UNP: UNEP; CE:0.4M; DU: 3 years• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •289

EnvironmentalGovernance andAwarenessUnder UNEP sponsorship, severalconsultation meetings were held betweenthe environment ministries of theGovernment of National Unity and theGovernment of Southern Sudanto discuss national action plans forenvironmental management.

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTEnvironmentalgovernance andawareness13.1 Introduction andassessment activitiesIntroductionEnvironmental governance and awareness are ata crossroads in Sudan. For several decades, thepriorities of a war economy and a range of escalatingenvironmental issues overran incremental progressin these areas. Now, two major events have radicallyreshaped the governance context and helped createthe conditions for positive change.First, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA)[13.1] and the Interim Constitution [13.2]have made much of the existing governancestructures and legislation obsolete, creatinga major opportunity for reform. Second, theinjection of oil revenue has greatly boosted thefinancial resources of both the Government ofNational Unity (GONU) and the Governmentof Southern Sudan (GOSS), enabling such reformto be translated into concrete action.This chapter provides an overview of the nationalstructures, legislation and culture related toenvironmental management and awareness,with a focus on how to integrate or ‘mainstream’environmental considerations into governmentand society in Sudan.Assessment activitiesNot only was the review of environmentalgovernance in Sudan an integral part of UNEP’swork in the country, but the assessment processitself was modelled to concurrently assist in thedevelopment of improved governance and ahigher level of environmental awareness.A detailed institutional assessment was conductedfor the GONU, GOSS and selected stategovernments, including Khartoum, Red Sea,Gezira, Sennar, White Nile and Bahr el Jabal(Central Equatoria) [13.4]. This entailed a legaland practical review of all current and relevanttreaties and legislation (including the CPA, theDPA, and the GONU and GOSS Constitutions)and follow-up interviews with governmentofficials in both executive bodies and in overtwenty ministries at the three working levels– national, regional and state.The role of civil society was also evaluated, throughextensive interaction with NGOs and the tertiaryeducation sector, as represented by the manyacademics involved in the assessment process.13.2 Overview of environmentalgovernance structuresA complex and evolvingnational contextThe main feature of environmental governancein Sudan is that it has not been able to keep pacewith the evolving national context, as driven bya series of major changes, such as the cessationof the north-south conflict, the associated peaceagreement and Interim Constitutions, thedevelopment of the oil industry, the escalation ofthe Darfur crisis and the partial resolution of theEastern Front conflict. Underlying these eventshave been the creeping processes of populationgrowth, climate change and land degradation.The net result today is a governance structure andculture that no longer fit the country’s currentcircumstances.Conflict and peace, the CPA andthe 2005 National and GOSS InterimConstitutionsThe cessation of hostilities between north andsouth opened up the country to the rule of civilianlaw and radically altered its political structure.The Interim Constitution of the Republic of Sudanadopted on 6 July 2005 reflects the ComprehensivePeace Agreement (CPA) of January 2005 anddefines a new set of rules for governance in general,and for environmental governance in particular.The two main elements of this new policy contextare a high level of decentralization of powers tothe states, and the creation of a Government ofSouthern Sudan (GOSS).292 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

13 ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND AWARENESSTable 25.Powers and responsibilities set out in the 2005 Interim National Constitutionrelating directly or indirectly to environmental governanceSchedule (A) National powersSection Title15 National lands and national natural resources19 Meteorology23 Intellectual property rights, including patents and copyright25 Signing of international treaties on behalf of the Republic of Sudan27 National census, national surveys and national statistics29 International and interstate transport, including roads, airports, waterways, harbours and railways30 National public utilities33 Nile Water Commission, the management of Nile waters, transboundary waters and disputes arising from themanagement of interstate waters between northern states and any dispute between northern and southern statesSchedule (B) Powers of the Government of Southern Sudan2 Police, prisons and wildlife services6 Planning for Southern Sudan government services including health, education, and welfare9 The coordination of Southern Sudan services or the establishment of minimum Southern Sudan standards or theestablishment of Southern Sudan uniform norms in respect of any matter or service referred to in Schedule C or ScheduleD, read together with Schedule E, with the exception of Item 1 of Schedule C, including but not limited to, education,health, welfare, police (without prejudice to the national standards and regulations), prisons, state public services, suchauthority over civil and criminal laws and judicial institutions, lands, reformatories, personal law, intra-state business,commerce and trade, tourism, environment, agriculture, disaster intervention, fire and medical emergency services,commercial regulation, provision of electricity, water and waste management services, local government, control of animaldiseases and veterinary services, consumer protection, and any other matters referred to in the above Schedules10 Any power that a state or the National Government requests it to exercise on its behalf, subject to the agreement of theGovernment of Southern Sudan or that for reasons of efficiency the Government of Southern Sudan itself requests toexercise in Southern Sudan and that other level agrees14 Public utilities of the Government of Southern Sudan19 Any matter relating to an item referred to in schedule D that cannot be dealt with effectively by a single state and requiresGovernment of Southern Sudan legislation or intervention including, but not limited to the following:(1) natural resources and forestry(2) town and rural planning(3) disputes arising from the management of interstate waters within Southern SudanSchedule (C) Powers of states: regarding environmental governance, most powers – executive and legislative – are at state level8 State land and state natural resources13 The management, lease and utilization of lands belonging to the state17 Local works and undertakings21 The development, conservation and management of state natural resources and state forestry resources23 Laws in relation to agriculture within the state27 Pollution control28 State statistics, and state surveys31 Quarrying regulations32 Town and rural planning36 State irrigation and embankments40 State public utilitiesSchedule (D) Concurrent powers: The National Government, the Government of Southern Sudan and state governments shallhave legislative and executive competencies on any of the matters listed below1 Economic and social development in Southern Sudan3 Tertiary education, education policy and scientific research4 Health policy5 Urban development, planning and housing6 Trade, commerce, industry and industrial development7 Delivery of public services12 River transport13 Disaster preparedness, management and relief, and epidemics control15 Electricity generation, and water and waste management17 Environmental management, conservation and protection19 Without prejudice to the national regulation, and in the case of southern states, the regulation of the Government of SouthernSudan, the initiation, negotiation and conclusion of international and regional agreements on culture, sports, trade, investment,credit, loans, grants and technical assistance with foreign governments and foreign non-governmental organizations23 Pastures, veterinary services, and animal and livestock disease control24 Consumer safety and protection25 Residual powers, subject to schedule E27 Water resources other than interstate waters31 Human and animal drug quality control32 Regulation of land tenure, usage and exercise of rights in land.Schedule (F) Resolution of conflicts in respect of concurrent powers: If there is a contradiction between the provisionsof Southern Sudan law and/or a state law and/or a national law, on the matters referred in Schedule D, the law of the level ofgovernment which shall prevail shall be that which most effectively deals with the subject matter of the law, having regard to:1 The need to recognize the sovereignty of the nation while accommodating the autonomy of Southern Sudan or of the states2 Whether there is a need for national or Southern Sudan norms and standards3 The principle of subsidiarity4 The need to promote the welfare of the people and to protect each person’s human rights and fundamental freedoms• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •293

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTThe Ministry of Environment and Physical Development, in KhartoumThe need to preserve a measure of equality betweenstates while awarding a high level of autonomy toSouthern Sudan was addressed by granting all statesa high level of autonomy, and creating a specificregional level of government – the GOSS – in thesouth. This model, characterized by a somewhatasymmetrical (between north and south) butoverall decentralized system of governance, wasadopted by the Interim Constitution.UNEP has analysed the impact and newlegal status quo of the 2005 Interim NationalConstitution; Table 25 on the previous page setsout its interpretation of national, regional, stateand concurrent powers related to environment.In terms of environmental governance, the impactof these changes is evident in the south, but notyet in the north and east.In December 2005, the GOSS adopted its ownregional Constitution, which echoes the key termsof the Interim National Constitution and addsdetail, including substantial text on natural resourcemanagement [13.3]. On the Eastern Front, the peaceprocess is still in its early stages, so the implicationsfor environment and natural resource managementare not clear at this stage. Finally, the Darfur PeaceAgreement (DPA) does not include significant detailon the environment and, as of June 2007, is notbeing implemented due to ongoing conflict.GONU federal structureThe structure of environmental governance inthe GONU is characterized by a multiplicityof small units linked to environment but notclosely linked to each other. The key units arethe Ministry of Environment and PhysicalDevelopment (MEPD), the Higher Council forEnvironment and Natural Resources (HCENR),a number of state-level councils and other bodies,and departments or units in line ministries suchas the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.The Ministry of Environment and PhysicalDevelopment was created in 2003. The MEPD’smandate, which covers surveying, construction,urban planning and now environment, is derivedfrom the Environmental Framework Act of 2001.However, no actual environmental mandatefor the MEPD is specified in the legislation, asthe legislation pre-dates the establishment of anenvironment portfolio within the ministry. TheMEPD’s Department of Environmental Affairs(DEA) only has approximately ten staff members.294 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

13 ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND AWARENESSThe Higher Council for Environment andNatural Resources was established by the 2001Environmental Framework Act. Its mandatefocuses on policy coordination for all sectors thathave a role in the protection of the environmentor use of natural resources, but no role inimplementation. It was conceived as a ministeriallevelforum supported by a secretariat. TheMinister of Environment serves as the chairmanof the HCENR. As of late 2006, however, theactual Higher Council has never been formallyconvened. All of its activities have been carriedout by the secretariat, managed by the Secretary-General.A key function of the HCENR to date hasbeen that of focal point for internationalliaison and agreements. So far, virtually all ofthe international conventions, multilateralenvironmental agreements (MEAs) and GlobalEnvironment Facility (GEF) projects have beenmanaged by this body. The HCENR employs 50to 60 staff, of which approximately 20 are careercivil servants. The rest are funded on short-termcontracts connected to MEA or GEF projects[13.4].Several other ministries have important environment-relatedportfolios. In some ministries,this translates into dedicated departments;in others, environmental issues are in theoryintegrated into normal business.The Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife (MTW)manages all wildlife issues in the northern andcentral states, and also plays an important role inthe management of marine protected areas. In theMinistry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), theForests National Corporation (FNC) comprises agreat deal of practical expertise in forest managementand conservation. The Ministry of Irrigation andWater Resources (MIWR) has a functioningenvironmental unit, though major realignment isnow underway following the attachment of theDams Implementation Unit to the President’s Office.Finally, a unit within the Ministry of Industry (MoI)undertakes and partly evaluates the environmentalimpact assessments provided by projects [13.4].The Ministry of Environment, Wildlife Conservation and Tourism, in Juba• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •295

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTGOSS regional structureThe design of the Government of SouthernSudan, which was created in the wake of theCPA, is nearly complete. Key posts have beenestablished and awarded, but the development ofthe civil service is still in the early stages.Within the GOSS ministerial structure,coordination and leadership on environment andwildlife issues are the mandate of the Ministry ofEnvironment, Wildlife Conservation and Tourism(MEWCT). The MEWCT has over 600 allocatedstaff positions at the regional and state level, andover 7,300 allocated positions for the wildlifeforces (see Chapter 11). The MEWCT had abudget of USD 4 million in 2006, excludingmost of the costs of the wildlife personnel. Almostall of the MEWCT staff is newly appointed andrelatively inexperienced in civil servant tasks. Theexception is the wildlife sector, where the GOSShas inherited some of the expertise developed bythe SPLM during the conflict period [13.10].As is the case for GONU, several other GOSS lineministries have environmental responsibilities,including the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry(MAF), the Ministry of Animal Resourcesand Fisheries (MARF), the Ministry of WaterResources and Irrigation (MWRI), and theMinistry of Industry and Mining (MIM).State government structuresWhile the Interim National Constitution allocatesfairly uniform responsibilities to all states, theenvironmental governance situation, in practice,varies greatly between the north, south and Darfur.The Environmental Framework Act providesa mandate for state-level environmental administrationand legislation, which was reinforcedby the Interim Constitution in 2005. Severalnorthern states (Red Sea, Gezira, Sennar,White Nile, Gedaref, Nile and Khartoum) haveestablished environmental administrations thatrange from individual part-time efforts to wellorganized councils on environment involvingseveral line ministries at the state level. Red Seastate is the most advanced in this respect, as it hasboth a coordinating council and a new MarineEnvironmental Protection Authority.Interviews with these state-level units revealedthat there was no universal model and that theirorigins were state-based, resulting from individualinitiatives, personal political support, or decrees fromgovernors or state ministerial decisions [13.4].In contrast, state governments in the south havevirtually no environmental administrations orcapacity whatsoever. Similar to the GOSS in general,southern state governments are currently stillgrowing. In principal, however, environmental issuesenjoy a high level of support from the interviewedgovernors.The three Darfur states are essentially in thesame position as the southern states in terms ofinstitutional capacity for environmental issues,but have even less capacity to act due to theconflict. The level of political support was notestablished in this assessment.13.3 Overview of environmentaland natural resourcelegislationEnvironmental aspects of the 2005Interim National ConstitutionAt the level of general principles, environmentalprotection is a national objective, which is not subjectto interpretation by other levels of government.In Chapter 2 of the Constitution, Article 11states that for the State of Sudan as a whole,the conservation of the environment, and ofbiodiversity in particular, should be pursued,and that the State should ensure a sustainableutilization of natural resources, including byprohibiting actions that would adversely affect theexistence of specific species. Article 17 reaffirmsthat it is the responsibility of Sudan as a wholeto fulfil its international obligations. Chapter 3adds that it is the duty of every Sudanese citizento preserve the natural environment [13.2].The Interim Constitution radically changesthe relative authority of the various actors andstakeholders in the field of environment bytransferring significant powers from the nationalto the state level and, in the case of GOSS, to theregional government.296 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

13 ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND AWARENESSThe Environmental Framework Actof 2001In 2001, the President of the Republic of Sudansigned an environmental framework law that isstill in force today [13.4]. The EnvironmentalFramework Act, referred to hereafter as the ‘Act’,has five chapters and twenty-nine articles:• Chapter 1: Preliminary regulations;• Chapter 2: the Higher Council for Environmentand Natural Resources;• Chapter 3: Policies and general trends for theprotection of the environment, evaluation andenvironmental follow-up;• Chapter 4: Violations, penalties andpunishments; and• Chapter 5: General rules, standards andmethods of combating pollution.Five general environmental objectives are statedin the Act, leaving it up to sector ministries toachieve these goals while performing their tasksor implementing their policies:• the protection of the environment and itsnatural balance, and the conservation of itscomponents and social and cultural elements,in order to achieve sustainable developmentfor future generations;• the sustainable use of resources;• the integration of the link between environmentand development;• the empowerment of the authorities responsiblefor the protection of the environment; and• the activation of the role of the concernedauthorities and prevention of relaxation ordisposal of duties.Generally speaking, the law is more detailedfor the protection of natural resources than forpollution control and regimes. According toArticle 18, environmental impact assessmentsare required for projects likely to have a negativeimpact on the environment.The MEPD has been asked to review and redraftthe 2001 Act and all legislation to reflect thenew legislative mandates of the MEPD and theHCENR under the 2005 Interim Constitution.This process will be far-reaching, not only becauseit will need to clarify the division of labour betweenMEPD and HCENR, but also because the InterimConstitution deeply affects the geographicaldivision of powers, as indicated above.GONU sector legislationThe GONU has a large body of sectoral legislationwith linkages to environmental governance,which virtually all predates the CPA and 2005National Constitution. Key acts and associatedline ministries include:• Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife: theWildlife Conservation and National ParksAct (1986);• Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry: theForests Act (1989);• Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry: thePesticides Act (1994);• Ministry of Animal Resources: the FreshwaterFisheries Act (1954) and the Marine FisheriesAct (1937);• Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resources:the Water Resources Act (1995);• Ministry of Health: the Environmental HealthAct (1975) (water and air pollution); and• Ministry of Industry: the Petroleum WealthAct (1998).Another area of governance with strong links toenvironmental governance is land tenure. Thistopic is not covered by any single line ministry, butimportant legislation includes the UnregisteredLands Act (1970) and the Civil Transactions Act(1984). The implications of deficiencies in landtenure are covered in Chapter 8.GOSS legislationAs of early 2007, the process of legislation developmentwithin GOSS is still in its early stages. The legal basisfor environmental governance is therefore effectivelyabsent in Southern Sudan at this time.In the interim period, the GOSS judiciary andministries have taken the approach of usingdirectives from the GOSS President, governors and• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •297

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTministers as temporary control measures. Thoughthere are numerous SPLM policy documents anddirectives from the time of the conflict, these arenot automatically translated into GOSS legislationand so are not legally valid.In theory, the potential exists for the GOSSto use GONU legislation – including theEnvironmental Framework Act – as interimmeasures for governance of issues within theGOSS mandate, but this may be difficult toimplement in practice.State legislationRed Sea state is the only state in Sudan to havedeveloped a state-level framework law, knownas the State Environmental Law of 2005. Othernorthern states have formalized their individualapproaches to environmental governancevia governor or state minister decrees anddirectives, and through reference to the GONUEnvironmental Framework Act of 2001.International agreementsSudan is a party to the following global and regionalmultilateral environmental agreements (MEAs):• the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD - 1992);• the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (2000);• the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement(AEWA - 1999);• the Convention on International Trade inEndangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(CITES - 1973);• the African Convention on the Conservationof Nature and Natural Resources (AfricaConvention - 2003);• the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands(1971);• the Convention Concerning the Protectionof the World Cultural and Natural Heritage(UNESCO WHC - 1972)• the United Nations Convention to CombatDesertification (UNCCD - 1994)• the United Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change (UNFCCC - 1994);• the Vienna Convention for the Protection ofthe Ozone Layer (1985) and the MontrealProtocol on Substances that Deplete theOzone Layer (1987);• the Basel Convention on the Control ofTransboundary Movements of HazardousWastes and their Disposal (1989);• the Bamako Convention on the Ban ofthe Import into Africa and the Control ofTransboundary Movement of HazardousWastes within Africa (1991);• the Stockholm Convention on PersistentOrganic Pollutants (POPs - 2001);• the Rotterdam Convention on the PriorInformed Consent (PIC) Procedure forCertain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticidesin International Trade (1998);• the United Nations Convention on the Lawof the Seas (1982) and the Convention on theInternational Maritime Organization (1958); and• the Regional Convention for the Conservationof the Environment of the Red Sea and theGulf of Aden (PERSGA - 1982).Funding supplied to Sudan in the period 2002 -2006 to support the implementation of MEAs wasapproximately USD 5 million in total (see Chapter14) [13.11, 13.12, 13.17, 13.18, 13.19, 13.20].The 2001 Environment Act gives the HCENRthe mandate to specify the channels assignedto implement the MEAs. In most cases, theHCENR has designated itself as the focal point.Many of the MEA support projects have a projectcoordinator hosted by the HCENR, and mostactivities are conducted at the federal level inKhartoum. Following the realignment of powersset out in the 2005 Interim Constitution, thenational implementation mechanisms requiredby most MEAs will now fall largely under theresponsibility of the states.Aside from progress reporting, compliance with theagreements is variable, but overall at a low level.298 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

13 ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND AWARENESS13.4 Environmental educationand civil societyEnvironmental educationand awarenessEnvironmental education and awareness in Sudanare relatively limited, but gradually increasing.Environmental science is a popular subject in thecountry’s universities, and environmental studiesprogrammes have multiplied over the years. Dueto a lack of funding and equipment, as well as to acertain extent the lack of a culture of experimentalscience, environmental science is taught almostpurely theoretically.Environmental education at the primary andsecondary school level is not institutionalized,but individual efforts at environmental curriculumdevelopment and outreach are takingplace under the management of national NGOs[13.4].National environmental NGOsBuilding on a tradition of environmental societiesdating back to the early 20 th century, Sudan hasseveral solid non-governmental organizations,within and outside Khartoum. Since the adoptionof the Environmental Framework Act in 2001,NGOs have become important stakeholders inenvironmental affairs.At present, the majority of NGO activities arefocused on the northern states and the Red Sea.Environmental NGOs are present in SouthernSudan and Darfur as well, but are either very newor constrained by ongoing conflict.Many of the activities funded by internationalpartners have been implemented through NGOssuch as the Sudanese Environment ConservationSociety (SECS). Environmental NGOs were part ofthe technical team for this assessment, and completeda range of desk studies and field missions. They alsoplayed an active role in the Khartoum and JubaNPEM workshops in 2006 (see Section 13.8).The South Sudan National Environment Association, which was founded in Boma in 2006,is the first national environmental NGO to be established in Southern Sudan© THOMAS CATTERSON – USAID STEP PROGRAM• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •299

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTSECS has established several community-managed forests to provide firewood to the communitiesand act as shelter belts around villages and buffer zones against desert encroachmentCS 13.1The Sudanese Environment Conservation SocietyThe Sudanese Environment Conservation Society (SECS) is a non-governmental and non-profit organization established in 1975with a mandate to raise environmental awareness among different communities and advocate on issues related to environment.It is open for membership to all Sudanese who can serve its mandate, and has more than 120 branches all over the country.The Society’s activities are organized under three main programmes: Institutional Development and Capacity-Building,Environmental Rehabilitation and Environmental Education. It has established several working groups and networksthroughout the country, including the Poverty Network, Desertification, Biodiversity, Environmental Law, Human Rights,Landmines, POPs, Climate Change, Women’s groups, and others. SECS also hosts other programmes funded by the NileBasin Initiative’s micro-grants component, Nile Basin Discourse and the Darfur Joint Assessment Mission. Finally, SECSis a focal point in Sudan for IUCN, Bird International, UNDP, FAO, UNEP, and UN HABITAT.At the grassroots level, SECS develops and implements practical and replicable environmental projects that contributeto the alleviation of poverty in rural and sub-urban areas. For example, the Society has established several communitymanagedforests, including a twenty-hectare forest in El Dein, Southern Darfur and a five-hectare forest in Sabnas, WhiteNile state. These community forests supply fuelwood, and can act as shelter belts around villages and buffer zones inareas afflicted by desert encroachment.SECS has also supplied thirty schools in Khartoum state with natural water coolers, prompting other organizations toadopt the technology and supply universities, colleges, and prisons with the same. Moreover, to reduce the dependenceon fuelwood and charcoal as the only source of energy for cooking, SECS has championed the introduction of Butanegas cookers and has distributed over 1,100 Butane gas cylinders in the villages of Gammoia (Khartoum state), Dinder(Blue Nile), El Rahad (Northern Kordofan), and Sabnas (White Nile) to date.Over the years, the Society’s activities have generated a vast amount of knowledge. Reports and other documents are availableat the SECS library, which is open to students and researchers. Several academic institutions have also been established toaddress environmental issues and train researchers, such as the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of Khartoum,the Faculty of Natural Resources at the University of Juba, and Environmental Studies at Ahliya University. SECS collaboratesclosely with these institutions by sharing information, as well as supporting and participating in their various activities.300 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

13 ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND AWARENESSEnvironmental data collection,management and disseminationAs highlighted throughout this report, not onlyis there relatively little solid environmental dataavailable on Sudan (at both the national andinternational levels), but much of the existingdata is obsolete.The UNEP assessment found no institutionalizedsystem of environmental data management ororganized process for the dissemination of data tothe public. Collection is limited to isolated workby individual ministries and academics. Most ofthe available data is linked to forestry, agricultureand health, and there is only limited informationon water resources, industry, wildlife, climate andenvironmental governance. What does exist isgenerally not easily accessible to the public dueto cost issues. Confidentiality constraints arenot considered to be a major concern, except forisolated controversial projects and areas.13.5 Overview of environmentalgovernance and awarenessissuesUNEP has compiled a comprehensive list of issuesaffecting environmental governance and awarenessin Sudan. The list below focuses on central issuesand opportunities only; sectoral issues are covered inChapters 6 to 12, and governance issues relating tointernational aid are discussed in Chapter 14. Note thatmany subjects are cross-cutting and overlapping:Social, development and investmentissues:• priorities in a post-conflict country;• large-scale development mindset;• lack of enforcement;• limited governance capacity; and• scarcity of environmental data.Structural and legislative deficiencies:• the CPA and Interim Constitution;• GONU structure including internationalagreements;• GONU legislation;• GOSS structure;• GOSS legislation;• GONU and GOSS line ministries; and• states.Environmental governance andpeacebuilding:• the need and topics for north-south dialogue; and• the NPEM process.13.6 Social, development andinvestment issuesPriorities in a post-conflict countryThe length and continuity of regional conflicts inSudan put the country on a war footing for almostfifty years, with obvious impacts on its economyand governance culture. The destabilizing effects ofconflict aside, Sudan remains a very poor countrywith an extremely limited tax base (though this isnow starting to change due to oil revenue).As a result of this uniquely unfortunate history,environmental conservation and sustainabledevelopment have not been financial or politicalpriorities for the Government of Sudan. This isreflected in the annual budgets for all areas ofenvironmental governance and natural resourcemanagement, which have never been adequatelyfunded.The promising exception to this situation is theallocation of USD 4 million by GOSS to theMinistry of Environment, Wildlife Conservationand Tourism in the 2006 budget. This scale offunding sets a very positive precedent, which mustbe encouraged.Large-scale development mindsetIn Sudan, the government has historically tendedto rely upon a limited number of very large-scaleinvestment projects or programmes to boostdevelopment. For some time, this tendency wasexacerbated by investment and aid policies fromthe international community, which favoured largescaleinfrastructure and agricultural development.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •301

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTUNEP teams covered many of these largedevelopment projects in the course of theirassessment, including large dams and theJonglei canal (see Chapter 10), oil production(see Chapter 7), and the Gezira and New Halfairrigation schemes, numerous sugar plantationsand major rain-fed agricultural schemes in centralSudan (see Chapter 8).These different programmes were found to havea number of negative features in common withrespect to the environment: they were all conceivedand supported at the highest political level; theyoften proceeded to the construction phaserelatively quickly and without comprehensiveanalysis of economic, social and environmentalsustainability; and they caused extensive andoften unexpected environmental damage. TheJonglei canal is the best known example of thehigh risks and costs of this type of approach forproject developers, local populations and theenvironment (see Case Study 10.2).While environmental impact assessment documentswere produced for the more recent projects, theywere never publicly released or integrated into theplanning and design process, and therefore had anegligible effect in terms of impact mitigation orcommunity acceptance.Significant improvements in environmentalgovernance and sustainable development will notbe possible without tackling the core issue of thiseffective immunity of major project developersfrom environmental considerations.A more appropriate model for environmentallysensitive projects can be drawn from bestinternational practice. Typically, the projectdevelopment process includes a paced sequenceof environmental, social and economic impactassessments and public consultations – beforethe project starts. This process can help bothcommunity acceptance and environmentalsustainability.A UNEP training course on environmental information management was held for Sudanese governmentand NGO staff in Nairobi in late 2006. A significant investment in data collection, management anddissemination should be an early part of any programme to improve environmental governancein the country302 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

13 ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND AWARENESSLimited governance capacityEnvironmental governance authorities in bothGONU and GOSS have insufficient capacityto adequately implement existing mandates.For GONU, this is principally due to underinvestmentin the sector, while GOSS is completelynew and therefore still weak.The UNEP assessment found the human resourcecapacity to be high in many instances, withexperienced and competent personnel throughoutgovernment ministries and the civil service. Justas importantly, the tertiary education systemproduces significant numbers of graduates inenvironmental subjects. The overriding constrainton the civil service’s capacity is insufficient funding,which translates into deficiencies in knowledge,staff numbers, equipment, accommodation andoperating expenses.UNEP considers that given sufficient time andfunding, building capacity in the Sudanese civil serviceto help achieve improved environmental governanceis entirely possible and relatively straightforward.For such work to be sustainable, however, it wouldneed to have significant counterpart funding fromthe GONU and GOSS, and avoid 100 percentinternational aid funding (see Chapter 14).Lack of enforcementExisting GONU laws have deficiencies (see nextsection), but are nonetheless perfectly usable fora wide range of applications, from EIA provisionsto wildlife poaching to pollution control.Unfortunately, enforcement of the existingenvironmental legislation is extremely limited atall levels. The development of capable institutions– even if backed by improved legislation – will notresult in any real improvement unless the cultureof non-enforcement is addressed concurrently,starting at the highest level.Scarcity of environmental dataThe pervasive scarcity of solid quantitative data onall aspects of the environment of Sudan constrainsrational planning for resource management andconservation. Besides, the absence of strong andcredible signals that real problems exist – whichcan only be provided by up to date data – makes itdifficult to even raise awareness at the governmentlevel. A significant investment in data collection,management and dissemination should thereforebe an early part of any programme to improveenvironmental governance in Sudan.13.7 Structure and legislativeissuesLegislative complexity and overlapThe Comprehensive Peace Agreement is a landmarkachievement that has brought peace to most ofSudan. The resulting governance situation, however,is highly complex. This is particularly apparent inthe environmental governance and natural resourcemanagement elements of the 2005 Interim NationalConstitution: as shown in Table 25, there is a greatdeal of overlap and potential for confusion. TheSchedule (F) Resolution of Conflicts in Respect ofConcurrent Powers appears sensible in principle,but is expected to be very slow and complicated inpractice in the event of a dispute.GONU core structure (includinginternational agreements)The current GONU structure for environmentalgovernance is problematic and considered to be amajor obstacle for reform, irrespective of potentialfunding and legislative improvements.At present, the various arms of government withan environmental mandate are poorly connected ornot connected at all, and have duplicate mandatesand insufficient resources, leading to unproductivecompetition and conflict. Given that the principalcoordinating body, the Higher Council forEnvironment and Natural Resources has neveractually met, high-level leadership is lacking.The international community’s environmentalsector has played a role in this situation, and mayhave inadvertently worsened it (see Chapter 14).Indeed, the MEA and GEF funding processeshave helped perpetuate an ad hoc fundraisingand externally driven project-based mindsetwithin GONU, which in turn has significantlyhindered the capacity-building and reform of theresponsible organizations, such as the Ministry ofEnvironment and Physical Development.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •303

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTUNEP considers substantive reform of theGONU environmental governance structure tobe a pre-requisite for lasting improvement in thissector. The scope of the reform should address thefollowing subject areas:• the structures and interfaces of the MEPD,the HCENR secretariat and the HCENR;• the development of coherent units withinMEPD to focus on a range of coordinationand policy topics including:– multilateral environmental agreements;– economic sector-specific environmentalgovernance (for the oil industry, for example);– outreach and assistance to the regional andstate levels; and• the development of an Environmental ProtectionAuthority or similar body to implement andenforce legislation.The international convention secretariats willalso need to cooperate in this process and ensurethat best use is made of available resources toimplement the conventions.GONU legislationGONU legislation in the field of environmentand natural resource management has manydeficiencies: it is obsolete, incomplete and unclearin parts, and as a result, difficult to enforce.GONU officials are already aware of the deficienciesin the existing legislation and are starting to workon a revision of the Environmental FrameworkAct of 2001. This work needs to be stronglysupported and followed through with a substantiveprogramme of legislative development that tacklesunderlying details, such as the provision ofstatutory guidance and integration into differenteconomic sectors, like industry and agriculture.GOSS core structureThe GOSS core structure for environmentalgovernance is considered to be appropriate andwell designed at the ministerial level. Three majorissues, however, need to be resolved in order toprogress further in organizational developmentand capacity-building:• organizing the large number of wildlife forces(7,300) and maintaining a balance in theministry between the three directorates ofenvironment, wildlife and tourism;• determining the role of the ministry inpractical issues such as the implementationof practical policies and the enforcement ofenvironmental legislation; if appropriate, asemi-autonomous Environmental ProtectionAuthority or similar unit may need to bedeveloped; and• determining the relationship between GOSSand southern states on environmentalgovernance, in order to progress associatedcapacity-building and legislative development.GOSS legislationGiven the GOSS’s complete lack of environmentallegislation, it is clear that a vast amount ofdevelopment work is required. The principle issueof concern is timing, as the experience of otherpost-conflict countries has shown that this processcan take several years to do well. Leaving SouthernSudan without any environmental controlsduring the post-conflict period is consideredto be an unacceptable risk for its environment.Accordingly, some interim measures and riskbasedprioritization are recommended:• Develop an interim set of working guidelineson priority topics and issue them as a directivefrom the Ministry;• Focus first on structuring framework legislation toallow work on underlying legislation to start; and• Work concurrently on finalizing the frameworklegislation and the priority sector legislation.The priority sectors are:• environmental impact assessment and projectdevelopment permitting;• urban planning and environmental health,including waste management; and• oil industry environmental legislation (incooperation with GONU).304 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

13 ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND AWARENESSGONU and GOSS line ministriesEnvironmental authorities in both GONU andGOSS face the challenge of mainstreamingenvironmental considerations into other lineministries. This will require focused programmesto increase inter-ministerial coordination, and thedevelopment of new (or improvement of existing)sector-specific environmental legislation. It shouldbe noted that some line ministries have strongunits and/or experienced personnel working onenvironmental issues, while others have neitherstaff nor resources. Solutions will therefore needto be tailored to each ministry.StatesAs a result of the 2005 Interim National andGOSS Constitutions, all of Sudan’s twenty-fivestates now have a legal mandate for naturalresource management that reaches well beyondtheir current capacity. They are in need of generalassistance, particularly in the areas of operatingexpenses, human resources capacity-building andthe development of state-level legislation.In order to avoid a high level of variation betweenstates and the unnecessary duplication of effort,GONU and GOSS federal-level bodies shouldprovide a coordinated programme of assistance,in the form of a development ‘package’ that couldbe rapidly rolled out to all states.13.8 Environmental governanceand peacebuildingThe NPEM processThe government-led process of developing aNational Plan for Environmental Management(NPEM) constitutes a good example of proactivework to improve environmental governanceand practical cooperation between north andsouth on substantive governance issues. Theprocess commenced in late 2005 and the firstworking draft was released in early 2007 [13.5].The underlying objective or final product of theNPEM is envisaged to be an environmental actionplan or series of plans that set out the priorities forSudan in terms of corrective action and targetedinvestment in environmental issues.Given that the NPEM objectives are close tothose of the UNEP assessment process, they haveeffectively been combined. One clear differencebetween the two processes, however, is the formand ownership of the final documentation:UNEP is responsible for this report, while thenational plans must by default be owned by thegovernment.If it is successfully concluded, the most likely finaldocumentation of the NPEM will be a nationallevelplan presented to the GONU parliamentin 2007 and a matching regional documentpresented to the GOSS parliament in 2007 or2008. It is anticipated that both this process andthe guidance included in the final documentswill significantly assist the development ofenvironmental governance in Sudan.The process has also provided a platform foropen and detailed dialogue between technicalprofessionals, civil servants and politicians fromnorthern and southern states. Two key events wereheld in July 2006 in Khartoum and November2006 in Juba, respectively. Over forty paperscovering environmental issues from all partsof the country were presented and discussed atthese workshops, which were attended by over300 people.The principal added value of the NPEM model isthat it is less formal and therefore less politicallycharged than the CPA-instigated commissions,but that it nonetheless provides an organizedforum for debate on sensitive topics with thesupport of neutral international parties, such asUNEP and the Nile Basin Initiative.Expanding the NPEM model to otherissues and regionsAs discussed in Chapter 4 and elsewhere in the report,several environmental issues represent potential‘flashpoints’ that could lead to renewed conflict:• the environmental impacts of the developmentof the oil industry (Chapter 7);• the southward migration of northernpastoralists due to land scarcity and degradation(Chapters 3 and 8);• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •305

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT• tree-felling for the charcoal industry in thenorth-south boundary zone (Chapter 9);• new and planned dams and major waterprojects, including any revival of the Jongleicanal project (Chapter 10);• ivory and bushmeat poaching (Chapter 11).The NPEM style of technical dialogue couldbe extended to these topics to further assist theprocess of peacebuilding in Sudan.13.9 Conclusions andrecommendationsConclusionThe CPA, the Interim National Constitutionand the Interim GOSS Constitution havesignificantly changed the framework forenvironmental governance in Sudan. Given thatthe GOSS and states now have extensive andexplicit autonomy in this area, environmentalgovernance has become more of a regionalissue. This is reflected in the findings andrecommendations.At the national level, Sudan faces many challengesto meet its international obligations, as set outin the treaties and conventions it has signed overthe last thirty years. An additional difficulty inthis area is incorporating GOSS-related issues.A range of reforms and significant investment areclearly needed.The overall technical skill and level of knowledgein the environmental sector are very high andsome practical legislation is already in place.However, the regulatory authorities also havecritical structural problems, and are underresourcedand ineffective. Further, enforcementis highly variable and there is a fundamentaldisconnect between the environmental sector, thehighest levels of government and the other sectorsand ministries responsible for the developmentof Sudan.In the conflict- and instability-wracked regions ofDarfur and the Three Areas, environmental governanceis essentially absent, even though environmental issuesare among the causes of the conflict.In Southern Sudan, finally, environmentalgovernance is in its infancy, but the early signs arepositive. High-level political and cross-sector supportis visible, and the new structures are considered tobe relatively suited to the task. The environmentministry and other authorities presently havenegligible capacity and hence require comprehensivecapacity-building. Environmental policies, plansand regulations for all sectors need to be developedfrom first principles. Due to the combination ofthe lack of environmental governance and the postconflictdevelopment boom, the environment ofSouthern Sudan is currently extremely vulnerable.Background to the recommendationsA key theme for the recommendations in thischapter is the need for local ownership andleadership on governance issues. Internationalassistance is needed but must play a supportingrole only, particularly with respect to funding.Accordingly, the central recommendation for bothGONU and GOSS environmental authorities,and especially for the former, is to work to achievesustained high-level and mainstreamed politicalsupport. This support should then be convertedinto adequate budgets, appropriate mandates,and assistance in the development, ratificationand enforcement of robust legislation.Recommendations for the Governmentof National UnityR13.1 The MEPD should undertake an environmentalawareness campaign targeted atGONU senior leadership, ministries and othercivil service bodies. This would entail use of materialsgenerated by the NPEM, UNEP and MEPD, anda sustained programme of communication viapresentations, bulletins and other tools.CA: GROL; PB: MEPD; UNP: UNEP andUNDP; CE: 0.2M; DU: 1 yearR13.2 The MEPD Minister should convene thefirst true HCENR meeting with minister-levelattendance. This would be an important andsymbolic step towards integrating environmentalissues into GONU and commencing the reformprocess.CA: GROL; PB: MEPD; UNP: UNEP; CE: nil;DU: 3 months306 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

13 ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE AND AWARENESSR13.3 Secure funding and mandates, andundertake a comprehensive reform of theGONU core environmental governancestructure. This will entail a wide range of activities,as set out in section 13.7, and could take up totwo years to complete. The cost estimate coversonly the reform process and not the subsequentoperational costs of the new structure.CA: GROL; PB: MEPD; UNP: UNEP andUNDP; CE: 1M; DU: 2 yearsR13.4 Undertake a comprehensive and stagedlegislation development programme. Thisshould start with a revision of the Framework Act,followed by the full suite of supporting statutoryguidance, sector and state legislation.CA: GROL; PB: MEPD; UNP: UNEP; CE:1.5M;DU: 4 yearsR13.5 Develop a dedicated environmental datamanagement centre. This centre should focus onthe collection, collation and public dissemination ofscientifically sound environmental data to supportall aspects of environmental governance.CA: TA; PB: MEPD; UNP: UNEP; CE:1M;DU: 2 yearsR13.6 Invest to sustain the operations of thereformed and upgraded environmental governancesector. There is no substitute for sufficient andsecured annual funding to allow the MEPD andother related bodies to fulfil their mandates.CA: GI; PB: MEPD; UNP: UNEP; CE: 5M;DU: per annum minimumRecommendations for the Governmentof Southern SudanR13.7 Develop interim strategies, plans anddirectives for environmental governance.Detailed long-term plans, policies and legislationcannot be rationally developed or implementeddue to the current lack of information andgovernance capacity. Interim measures are clearlyneeded.CA: GROL; PB: MEWCT; UNP: UNEP andUSAID; CE: 0.3M; DU: 6 monthsR13.8 Develop and implement a practicalaction plan for environmental management inJuba with a range of partners. Practical actionprogrammes are urgently needed in SouthernSudan to demonstrate progress and the benefitsof peace. Projects in Juba have added value overother Southern Sudanese cities, in that they arerelatively easier to manage, have high visibilityand can be used as part of the capacity-buildingprogramme.CA: PA; PB: MEWCT; UNP: UNEP and others;CE: 3M; DU: 3 yearsR13.9 Implement a comprehensive capacitybuildingprogramme for the MEWCT and otherGOSS ministries associated with environmentand natural resource management. Developmentof a skilled and well equipped workforce at theregional and state level is a major multi-yeartask.CA: CB; PB: GOSS; UNP: UNEP and USAID;CE: 5M; DU: 3 yearsR13.10 Develop the full package of environmentallegislation, regulations andimplementation plans. Once the basic capacityis in place, longer-term plans and solutions can bedeveloped. This needs to be a multi-sector effortto ensure buy-in and enforceability.CA: GROL; PB: GOSS; UNP: UNEP andUSAID; CE: 1M; DU: 3 years• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •307

International Aidand the EnvironmentFood distribution at a transitcamp for internally displacedpersons, in Southern Sudan.The humanitarian aidprogramme in the country is thelargest of its kind worldwide.

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTInternational aidand the environment14.1 Introduction andassessment activitiesIntroductionInternational aid represents approximately threepercent of Sudan’s economy, and the humanitarianaid programme in the country is the largest ofits kind worldwide. Some 15 percent of thepopulation are completely or largely dependenton international food aid for survival, and thenumber is rising due to the Darfur crisis.A core principle for the UN programme in Sudan andelsewhere is to ‘do no harm’ through the provisionof aid. This applies to the environment as well.Indeed, humanitarian, recovery and developmentaid programmes that inadvertently create orexacerbate local environmental problems may, inthe long run, do more harm than good to localcommunities aspiring to sustainable livelihoods.In this context, a review of the environmentalimpacts of the international aid programme inSudan was considered an appropriate componentof the UNEP post-conflict assessment.Furthermore Sudan, like many developing countries,receives international aid from a variety of sourcesfor a number of environmental issues as diverse asbiodiversity conservation, climate change adaptation,control of redundant pesticides and transboundarywater resources management. In view of UNEP’splanned follow-up capacity-building activitiesin Sudan, an evaluation of the impact of suchprogrammes was also deemed necessary.Assessment activitiesThe assessment of the impact of internationalaid was included in the overall scope of activitiescarried out by UNEP in Sudan. A significantamount of background information was availableon humanitarian, recovery, development, andenvironmental aid: the UN and Partners WorkPlan for 2006 [14.1] provided a detailed basisfor a desk-based analysis, and substantial projectdocumentation (including progress and closurereports) was available for virtually all of theenvironment-specific aid programmes identified,such as those funded by the Global EnvironmentFacility (GEF).UNEP assessment teams visited dozens of aidprojects as they travelled through Sudan, gaininga first-hand impression of impacts in the field. Theprojects and programmes viewed include:The influx of large numbers of displaced persons and the associated humanitarian aid has createda ‘relief economy’ in some Darfurian towns, which is in turn driving environmental degradation310 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

14 INTERNATIONAL AID AND THE ENVIRONMENT• food aid programmes managed by WFP,contractors and partners in several states;• UN agency and government-managedinternally displaced persons camps inDarfur;• the WFP-managed Southern Sudan roads andBor dyke projects;• FAO agricultural projects in SouthernKordofan;• UN and other agency compound- and facilitybuildingprogrammes in Southern Sudan;• return and support programmes managed byWFP, FAO, UNHCR and IOM in Jongleistate;• EC-sponsored Oxfam agricultural projects inthe Tokar delta, in Red Sea state;• the Dinder National Park GEF project;• the USAID STEP project training facilities inSouthern Sudan;• the Port Sudan GEF project for the MarineEnvironmental Protection Authority; and• the Nile Basin Initiative project offices and sites.UN Sudan environmental impactgrading and integration assessmentThe environmental impact of UN aid andpeacekeeping programmes is rarely studied,due to the understandable priority of providingurgently needed vital services and commoditiessuch as security, food, drinking water and shelter.In Sudan, however, the humanitarian programmehas now been managing a series of crises forover twenty years. The UN and partners spendover USD 2 billion per year in the country(including peacekeeping costs [14.2]) and workin a number of environmentally degraded regionslike Northern Darfur, Southern Kordofan andKassala. UNEP therefore considers that anassessment of the environmental impacts of theUN Sudan programme is warranted.The international aid community in Sudanoperates at least partly outside the nationalregulatory framework. For environmental issues,such as the potential impact of the programmesit manages, the aid community is effectivelyfully self-governed. There is no single mandatoryor even agreed environmental standard or codeof conduct guiding the UN agencies and theirpartners operating in Sudan and or other postconflictcountries.To date, the most relevant document is theSPHERE Project Humanitarian Charter andMinimum Standards in Disaster Response[14.3], which includes some guidance notesand limited standards on the environmentalimpact of specific activities. Several agenciesalso have internal guidelines, which are generallyvoluntary and applied at the discretion of theagency country director (or head of mission forpeacekeepers).In the absence of an agreed and appropriateexisting standard, UNEP adopted a three-partsystem for this assessment:1. Assessing the potential negative environmentalimpacts of projects using the establishedUNEP/World Bank ‘ABC’ project screeningsystem;2. Searching for evidence of integration ofenvironmental issues into project design andimplementation by qualitative review; and3. Searching for potential positive environmentalimpacts of projects by qualitative review.The UNEP/World Bank ‘ABC’ system forscreening the environmental impact of projectsis a qualitative process that gives a preliminaryrating to projects based on project size, type, andlocation [14.4]:• Category A: likely to have significant adverseenvironmental impacts (on a national scale);• Category B: likely to have adverseenvironmental impacts; and• Category C: likely to have negligible or noenvironmental impact.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •311

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTThe UN compound in Juba hosts a number of UN and other international agencies providinghumanitarian and development assistance in Southern Sudan14.2 Overview of internationalaid in SudanAmajor and long-standing aidprogrammeForeign aid – which has played a crucial role in thecountry’s development – has had a turbulent historyin Sudan, with changes in the political regimeand economic crises leading to correspondingmodifications in donor country programmes.Development aid commenced after independenceand continues to this day. Sudan first obtained publicsector loans for development from a wide variety ofinternational agencies and individual governments.Major lenders included the World Bank (boththe International Development Association andthe International Finance Corporation), as wellas the governments of the United States, China,the United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia. As Sudandefaulted on some of its debts in the late 1970s,however, many of these credit providers have nowceased development loans and provide direct grantsor other forms of assistance instead.Large-scale humanitarian aid, which now constitutesapproximately 80 percent of direct international aidto Sudan, started in the 1980s. Operation LifelineSudan (OLS) was established in April 1989 as aconsortium of two UN agencies, UNICEF andthe World Food Programme, as well as more than35 non-governmental organizations [14.5]. Itprovided humanitarian assistance to central andsouth Sudan without a major break for 17 years,and continues today, in modified form. Currentlarge-scale humanitarian assistance operations inDarfur began in 2003 and are ongoing, with over2,000,000 beneficiaries [14.1].The aid programme for 2006Total international aid to Sudan for 2006 was valuedat over USD 2 billion, making Sudan the largestrecipient of direct aid in Africa. ApproximatelyUSD 1.7 billion were received in the form ofgrants, commodities and services, and other directassistance monitored by the UN. Other sources ofaid, which are less easily quantifiable, included aidmanaged outside the UN system, aid from Arabstates and China, and development loans from arange of international partners.Given that Sudan’s estimated gross domesticproduct for 2005 was USD 85.5 billion [14.6],international aid in 2006 represented 2 to 4 percentof the economy (depending on the method ofmeasurement and multiplier effect). Table 26 showsthe total humanitarian aid requested in the UNWork Plan of January 2006, broken down intotwelve themes or sectors. Table 27 shows the sameexpenditure divided by state and region (with someprojects labelled as national in scope).312 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

14 INTERNATIONAL AID AND THE ENVIRONMENTTable 26.UN and Partners SudanWork Plan 2006Aid projections by sectorSector Value (USD) Number of projectsBasic infrastructureand settlementdevelopment118,138,319 16Cross-sector support 67,287,999 20for returnEducation and 198,331,275 50vocational trainingFood aid 603,762,013 44Food security and 117,598,136 69livelihood recoveryGovernance and 12,706,000 62rule of lawHealth 142,461,918 140Mine action 54,819,670 44NFIs, commonservices andcoordination157,257,653 28Nutrition 51,832,047 42Protection and 72,414,506 80human rightsWater and sanitation 134,954,916 66Grand total 1,731,564,452 661Table 27. UN and Partners SudanWork Plan 2006Aid projections by state and regionRegionValue (USD)National programmes 144,652,806Southern Sudan 650,859,700Darfur 650,422,397Abyei 23,433,461Blue Nile 41,122,373Southern Kordofan 90,017,289Eastern Sudan 70,042,272Khartoum and other northern states 61,014,154Grand total 1,731,564,452In practice, expenditure is further broken downinto two major categories: humanitarian (USD1.519 billion or 88 percent), and recovery anddevelopment (USD 211 million or 12 percent).The strong emphasis on humanitarian projectsshows that the majority of international aid toSudan is currently aimed at saving lives. In linewith humanitarian needs, most of the aid goesto Darfur and Southern Sudan. Recovery anddevelopment needs are secondary. Projects relatedto good governance – which is a core issue forenvironment – received USD 12 million or 0.7percent of the total amount of aid for 2006.14.3 Overview of environmentalaid programmes in SudanHistorical programmes related to theenvironmentInvestment in the environment in Sudan began inthe form of wildlife-related initiatives in the early20 th century. These were followed in the post-warperiod by a range of technical studies on soil, floraand fauna, some quite detailed in nature [14.7].After independence, investment in environmentallybeneficial projects continued but on an insignificantscale compared to the environmentally destructiveagricultural development projects initiated at thesame time. The most significant historical aid projectsare probably the forestry and shelter belt projectsimplemented and managed by FAO from the 1970sto the 1990s, evidence of which UNEP sighted inthe course of field reconnaissance in Khartoum state,White Nile state and Northern Kordofan.Current structureThe current arrangements for the delivery ofenvironmentally oriented aid programmes toSudan are not structured or formally connectedin any way, and are not comprehensively recordedin any management system. Based on theinformation available, UNEP has categorizedenvironment-related projects and expenditure for2006 in Table 28 on the following page.It should be noted that while projects related towater and sanitation do have environmental aspects,they were not categorized as ‘environmental projects’in this assessment. The criteria used by UNEP toidentify specific ‘environmental projects’ were thoseprovided by Part 1 of UN Millennium DevelopmentGoal no. 7: integrate the principles of sustainabledevelopment into country policies and programmesand reverse the loss of environmental resources. Onlyprojects whose objectives correspond to thosecriteria were considered as ‘targeted environmentalprojects’. Note that Water and Sanitation is an entiresector of the UN Sudan Work Plan.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •313

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTTable 28. Summary of environment-related aid activities in Sudan in 2006Type of programmeConventional aid programmesTotal of all UN country programmes – as recordedin the UN 2006 Work Plan (January 2006 version)Targeted environmental projects within conventionalhumanitarian programmesTargeted environmental projects within conventionalrecovery and development programmes(both inside and outside the Work Plan)Conventional humanitarian, recovery anddevelopment programmes that have mainstreamedor seriously attempted to mainstream environmentalissues into project design and implementationActive environmental aid programmes – usually multi-yearRegional programmes with a major environmentalcomponentAssistance programmes for implementation ofratified multilateral environmental agreements andconventions (active in 2006)Total 2006 active environment-related orintegrated projectsNumber ofprojects2006 Sudan project cost(USD)661 1,730 million3 Approx. 0.30 million2 Approx. 2.5 million3 Unknown7 Unknown –< 10 million3 Unknown –< 1 million18 UnknownTargeted environmental projectswithin humanitarian programmesUsing the aforementioned criteria, the assessmentidentified only three projects in the humanitarian fieldin 2006 that were specifically targeted at environmentalissues; UNEP is involved in two of these:• the Tearfund Darfur environment study,which began in the third quarter of 2006[14.8]; this assessment-based project is fundedto a total of USD 200,000 by UNICEF,DFID, and UNHCR – UNEP has providedtechnical assistance;• the International Red Cross flood preparednessand tree-planting project in IDP settlementsin Khartoum; UNEP is funding this projectfor USD 60,000; and• the forestation and provision of alternativeenergy resources (fuel-efficient stoves) project,funded to a total of USD 30,000 by theFondation Suisse de Déminage (FSD).Targeted environmental projects withinrecovery and development programmesThe UNEP assessment found only two projects inthe recovery and development field in 2006 thatwere specifically targeted at environmental issues:• the UNEP post-conflict environmental assessmentfor Sudan, funded by Sweden and theUnited Kingdom; and• the Sudan Transitional Environment Programme(STEP) funded by USAID for approximatelyUSD 6 million over a period of three years (seeCase Study 14.1) [14.9, 14.10].314 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

14 INTERNATIONAL AID AND THE ENVIRONMENTMainstreaming environmental issuesin conventional country programmesThere are no established criteria within the UN todetermine whether an aid project has truly integratedor mainstreamed environmental issues into its designand implementation, or made a serious attempt todo so. Accordingly, the UNEP assessment was basedon an ad hoc qualitative analysis using the followingchecklist of questions:1. Has any form of environmental impactassessment, even very basic, been carried out?2. Has the project design been altered significantlyon the basis of such an EIA?3. Have any proactive measures been taken tominimize environmental impacts?4. Have any opportunities for a positiveenvironmental impact been proactivelyincluded in the project?UNEP screened over 650 country projects forSudan in 2006 and found that only four couldbe considered by any reasonable measure to havetruly mainstreamed environmental issues or madea serious attempt to do so. None of these were inthe 2006 UN Work Plan:• the USAID-sponsored WFP and GTZmanagement of the construction-relatedimpacts of the Southern Sudan roadsprogramme [14.11] (see Case Study14.2);• the USAID-sponsored construction of the Bordyke [14.12];• a camp rehabilitation project managed byUNHCR and IUCN in Kassala state [14.13];and• a town planning project sponsored by USAIDin Southern Sudan [14.9].CS 14.1The USAID Sudan Transitional Environment Programme for Southern SudanThe USAID Sudan Transitional Environment Programme (STEP), which is focused on stability andthe prevention of conflict, was established in August 2005. It aims to address critical environmentalissues that constitute potential sources of conflict in Southern Sudan.The STEP team is currently working with the Directorate of Environmental Affairs in the GOSS Ministryof Environment, Wildlife Conservation and Tourism (MEWCT), to establish an inter-ministerial GOSSEnvironmental Consultative Group, whose mandate is to bring together representatives of key ministriesto discuss and sanction the establishment and implementation of government-wide environmentalpolicies, procedures and guidelines for impact monitoring in selected sectors (transportation androads, water and sanitation, oil exploration and production, education and health).To date, the STEP team has trained 120 GOSS officials in environmental impact assessment(EIA) procedures. These trained personnel are expected to conduct EIAs for all projects thatare considered to have serious environmental consequences. STEP has also facilitated theestablishment of the South Sudan National Environment Association (SSNEA), and contracted ashort-term organizational establishment consultant from among the members of the organizationto promote early activities within the membership.In addition, STEP has organized study tours to sub-Saharan African countries for GOSS officialsto be exposed to modern environmental and natural resources sustainable managementpractices.The Programme’s most significant undertaking, in collaboration with the World Food Programme andthe GOSS Ministry of Transport and Roads, has been the successful completion of environmentalimpact assessments for the WFP road project (see Case Study 14.2) and the Bor dyke.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •315

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTSince late 2003, some 1,400 km of road have been rebuilt under the WFP projectCS 14.2The Southern Sudan roads projectThe Southern Sudan roads project is an example of how the assessment and mitigation of environmental impacts can bebuilt into aid projects, as well as an illustration of how aid-funded development projects can have a significant negativeeffect on the environment.Two decades of civil war destroyed the region’s road network and most other infrastructure, leaving it isolated andeconomically crippled. With the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the return of peace, the need toconnect isolated and remote areas to major towns was deemed a high priority by the Government of Southern Sudan,the United Nations and USAID.To facilitate the return of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and the delivery of much-needed humanitarian aid to theremote regions of Southern Sudan, USAID contracted the World Food Programme (WFP) to rebuild and maintain theregion’s dilapidated road network.The WFP road project aims to rebuild more than 3,000 km of roads in the war-ravaged south, at a cost of USD 183 million.Pending sufficient funding, the entire region will eventually be opened up by improving road links between Kenya, Ugandaand Sudan (see Figure 14.1). It will also connect the Nile River to key feeder roads. Once complete, it will be possible, forthe first time in a generation, to travel by road from the southern borders of Sudan to Khartoum and onto Egypt. Since late2003, WFP has rebuilt some 1,400 km of roads, repaired bridges and culverts, and in the process removed and destroyedsome 200,000 pieces of unexploded ordnance in Southern Sudan. The project has linked major towns across the southand reopened trade routes with neighbouring countries.The social and economic benefits of the work completed to date are undeniable: according to a recent WFP survey, theroads built so far have halved travel time to markets, schools and health centres. Bus services now operate on all majorroutes and the cost of public transport has decreased by 50 to 60 percent. The price of commodities has also fallen.Besides, the roads project employs 1,650 Sudanese nationals, including 250 working in de-mining.The negative environmental impacts of the project, however, are also clear. According to the USAID-sponsored EIA, these includesoil erosion, impacts on local hydrology, negative aspects of abandoned borrow pits, construction camp impacts, road dust,and most importantly, the indirect but real impact of opening up large regions of tropical forest and several protected areas.UNEP can add one specific issue to this general list: the effect of traffic on wildlife, as seen on the Bor-Padak road in Jongleistate, which cuts directly across the annual migration route of several hundred thousand antelope (tiang and white-earedkob). The road is also likely to attract settlers and make large-scale hunting much easier. Appropriate mitigation measuresare needed as a matter of urgency if this road is not to become the root cause of a decline in these wildlife populations.316 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

14 INTERNATIONAL AID AND THE ENVIRONMENTFigure 14.1NyalaSouthern Sudan roads programmeAbou AdidNyimeri Tulus El FerdousBuramSouthern DarfurAm DafokSouthernKordofanKadugliAbu GebihaRenkEd DamazinKurmukRajaWar-awarMalualkonNorthern Bahr El GhazalAweilWauAbyeiGogrialWarrabWarrabHigiligMayomBentiuUnityLeerAdokFangakUpper NileOrinyKodokMalakalAyodWaatNasserAkoboETHIOPIALegendCENTRAL AFRICANREPUBLICCurrent and planned road developmentMain settlementsState boundarySource:Roads: World Food Programme (WFP).Image: Blue Marble.Western Bahr El GhazalTamburaWestern EquatoriaEzoIbbaYambioBahr El JabalJubaThe boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.TonjDEMOCRATIC REPUBLICOF CONGORumbekLakes YirolKilometresMundriYeiBorJongleiTerakekaKajo Keji0 100 200 300 400 500NimuleLafonToritPiborUGANDAEastern EquatoriaKapoetaChukudumPochallaBomaProposed and planned environmentalprogrammes for SudanA number of projects related to the environmentof Sudan have been proposed and are expected tostart in 2007, subject to funding and other issues.These include:• the Africa Parks Foundation-CousteauSociety project (Phase I) for protected areamanagement and integrated coastal zonemanagement (Red Sea state only);• the Wildlife Conservation Society programmefor Southern Sudan wildlife and protectedarea management;• the expanded USAID Sudan TransitionalEnvironment Programme (STEP) for SouthernSudan;• the UNEP-UNICEF Darfur integrated waterresource management project;• the UNEP-UNDP Darfur aid and environmentproject;• the UNEP-UNDP Darfur conflict andenvironment project; and• the UN Habitat Darfur ‘woodless construction’project.Regional environmental programmesAs set out in Table 29 on the following page, Sudanis a participant in numerous regional programmesthat include an element of aid provision onenvironmental topics, in addition to opportunitiesfor networking and cooperating with surroundingcountries. Each programme focuses on the issuesrelated to the management of a major shared naturalresource or a shared problem. Note that the totalvalue covers all countries involved in the programme(UNEP efforts to obtain clarity on Sudan’s sharewere unsuccessful due to time constraints).The majority of the funding for these programmescomes via the Global Environment Facility, andeach programme is managed entirely separately.Administration and funds are managed by UNDPKhartoum.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •317

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTThe international aid community in Sudan includes a wide range of actors, as illustrated by this waterpoint established by a partnership of UN and development cooperation agencies and international NGOs© CARE INTERNATIONALTable 29. Regional aid-based programmes related to the environment [14.14]Project titleThe Strategic Action Programme for the Red Sea and Gulfof Aden (PERSGA programme)The Nile Basin Initiative, the environmental component of which isthe Nile Transboundary Environmental Action ProjectFormulation of an action programme for the integrated managementof the shared Nubian aquiferDemonstration of sustainable alternatives to DDT and strengtheningof national vector control capabilities in the Middle East and NorthAfricaTotal value(million USD)19,3427,15Mainstreaming conservation of migratory soaring birds into key 10,24productive sectors along the Rift Valley/Red Sea flywayElimination of persistent organic pollutants and adoption of3,5integrated pest management for termitesRemoval of barriers to the introduction of cleaner artisanal gold 7,125mining and extraction technologiesTotal 76,8518,5318 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

14 INTERNATIONAL AID AND THE ENVIRONMENTTable 30. Global Environment Facility projects for Sudan [14.14]Programme name Convention Cost (million USD)National biodiversity strategies, action plan and Biodiversity 0.334the report to the CBDConservation and management of habitats andspecies, and sustainable communityuse of biodiversity in Dinder National ParkBiodiversity 0.75Clearing-house mechanism enabling activity Biodiversity 0.014Assessment of capacity-building needsand country-specific priorities in biodiversitymanagement and conservation in SudanBiodiversity 0.102Community-based rangeland rehabilitation for Climate change 1.5carbon sequestrationCapacity-building to enable Sudan’s response Climate change 0.29and communication to the UNFCCCBarrier removal to secure PV market penetration Climate change 0.75in semi-urban SudanExpedited financing of climate change enabling Climate change 0.1activities (Phase II)National Adaptation Programme of Action (NAPA) Climate change 0.2National Capacity Self-Assessment (NCSA) forGlobal Environmental ManagementMulti-focal areas 0.225Initial assistance to Sudan to meet its obligationsunder the Stockholm Convention on PersistentOrganic Pollutants (POPs)Persistent organicpollutants (POPs)Total 4.7650.5Global programmes promoting compliancewith international conventionsAs detailed in Chapter 13, Sudan is a signatoryto sixteen multilateral environmental agreements(MEAs). The majority of these MEAs provide aid todeveloping countries to assist them to work towardscompliance with the terms of the agreement. Thisaid focuses on the years immediately following thesigning, to support the signatories in understandingthe obligations, collecting data, and planning acountry-specific compliance programme. The bestfunded MEAs are the climate change (UNFCCC)and biodiversity (CBD) conventions, which arefunded through the Global Environment Facility.In the period 2002-2006, Sudan benefited fromeleven GEF-funded projects to a total of USD4.76 million, as detailed in Table 30 above.Each programme is/was managed entirely separately.Administration and funds are/were managed byUNDP Khartoum. As of end 2006, Sudan had not yetproposed any projects for GEF funding Tranche 4.14.4 Overview of impacts and issuesfor aid and the environmentUnintended impacts and coordinationissuesUNEP’s assessment revealed a wide range of issueslinked to unintended impacts of aid programmes,aid effectiveness and coordination. The key issueswere considered to be:• agricultural substitution by food aid;• environmental impacts of humanitarian, andrecovery and development country programmes;• lack of issue integration into UN countryprogrammes; and• environment sector management andeffectiveness.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •319

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTFood distribution in Um Shalaya IDP camp, Western Darfur. Over six million Sudanese depend on foodaid provided by the international communityAgricultural substitution by food aidThe dominant but unintended impact of aidon the environment in Sudan is linked tothe provision of food aid by the internationalcommunity to over 6,000,000 destitute people,or approximately 15 percent of the population.Food aid has been supplied to the Sudanese on alarge scale since 1989. Its provision has becomealmost institutionalized and routine, particularlyin Southern Sudan and increasingly in Darfur.Without international or national aid, and in theabsence of import purchasing power, this foodwould have to be produced in Sudan, placingan additional burden on the rural environment,particularly in the northern half of the Sahel. Inmany of the poorer and arid parts of Sudan suchas Northern Darfur, it is clear that this extra loadwould intensify the observed land degradation topotentially critical levels.This finding raises the important issue of how theinternational community proposes to eventuallycease large-scale provision of food aid to Sudan.Any exit strategy will need to consider the risk ofincreased land degradation in the most vulnerableareas, if only to reduce the likelihood of having toremobilize food aid to the same areas as a resultof famine arising from desertification.The option of shifting large return populationsto lesser stressed areas in order to reduce foodaid is also problematic in the long term, as theassessment has shown that no area in Sudan isimmune from the population-linked problemsof deforestation and land degradation. Movingpeople south to higher rainfall areas will not solvethe underlying problem.One potential approach would be to focus onassisting economic development in order to enablemore of the population to shift from subsistenceagriculture to alternative livelihoods, relying onhousehold purchasing power for food security.Food would be purchased from the domesticmarket, taking a share of what is currentlyexported. Such an approach would also have alinked environmental payback.Environmental impacts ofhumanitarian, and recovery anddevelopment country programmesOf the 661 projects screened, two projects wereclassified as Category A (likely to have significantadverse environmental impacts), one project asCategory B (likely to have adverse environmentalimpacts), and 658 projects as Category C(likely to have negligible or no environmentalimpact).320 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

14 INTERNATIONAL AID AND THE ENVIRONMENTThe two Category A projects are the SouthernSudan roads rehabilitation programme (see CaseStudy 14.2) and the Bor flood control dykeproject in Jonglei state by the Bor-Padak ruraltrunk road. Both of these major infrastructureinitiatives have followed a form of EIA process,and are in this respect considered positive examplesfor the UN. However – as indicated in the EIAstudies themselves [14.11, 14.12] – their negativeenvironmental impacts are likely to be significanton a local scale. The negative environmentalimpacts of the Bor dyke project, in particular, havea direct link to livelihoods and food security.While the proactive implementation of an EIAprocess by USAID is to be commended, the factthat this process was essentially self-managed byUSAID and its contractors highlights an evidentneed for environmental governance at the nationallevel and/or some form of environmental standardfor international aid projects of this nature. Atpresent, many bilateral agencies are more advancedthan the UN in this respect, as they already havesome form of environmental policy, standard andsafeguard system in place.The Category B project-related issue is linked to theoperation of health clinics in Southern Sudan. Thewaste management situation in Southern Sudanis generally problematic, and there are currentlyno clinical waste management facilities in theregion. Disposal options for clinical waste are thusfar from optimal, although investments in wastemanagement are underway as of early 2007.The great majority of projects rated as Category Care considered to have negligible environmentalimpacts on the national scale, but adverse effects areexpected at the local level for all projects, except forpurely human resource projects such as training.However, the cumulative impact of more than 650projects is expected to be very significant. In thiscontext, environmental best practice or proactivemitigation measures at the local level become moreimportant.Lack of issue integration into UNcountry programmesNot one of the 658 non-environmental projectslisted in the 2006 UN Work Plan were judged byUNEP to have fully integrated or ‘mainstreamed’environmental issues, though one project had madea serious attempt to do so (the WFP and GTZmanagement of the construction-related impactsof the Southern Sudan roads programme, see CaseStudy 14.2).This finding is surprising in its uniformity andindicates that the UN humanitarian, recoveryand development teams in Sudan are clearly nottaking environmental issues into account in projectplanning and implementation in the field, despitesome awareness of the importance of environmentalissues within the aid community.UNEP looked for best practice in environmentalmanagement in aid projects through a process ofproject field inspections and desk study reviews,and found that individual examples of goodpractice stood out against a background of generallyindifferent or poor environmental management.Waste management and use of constructionmaterials contributing to deforestation were twokey areas of concern.Environment sector aid managementand effectivenessA range of management issues significantly reducethe environmental aid sector’s effectiveness inSudan. The key problems are fragmentation, lackof coordination, limited prioritization and lack ofcounterpart funding. These issues are perhaps notunique to Sudan or to the environment sector, butnonetheless need to be addressed if future aid isto be used to the country’s best advantage.The total budget allocated to the environmentin Sudan by the international aid community isalmost impossible to evaluate accurately, as thesector is extremely fragmented. UNEP identifiedover twenty ongoing or proposed aid-fundedenvironmental activities for Sudan, through ayear-long process of enquiry and discovery; it islikely that a number of additional existing projectswere not found.Coordination is quite limited, and there is nocentral reporting system. Furthermore, there is noformal or regular forum in which the numerousactors in the environmental field can meet andexchange information – all such events to date• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •321

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENThave been ad hoc. The MEA and GEF globalstructure contributes to this confusion, as itresults in a number of separate teams and projectsrunning in parallel, with no permanent countrypresence and multiple reporting lines.In addition, there is no consistent country-drivenprioritization process. Generally speaking, regionalprogrammes appear to be reasonably well alignedwith country needs, as they have long consultationand development processes that allow for moremeaningful local input. In contrast, global MEAactivities in Sudan are presently managed in aformulaic manner, by which a series of standard stepsare taken in order to progress eligibility for subsequentfunding. This is not conducive to the alignment offuture projects with the priorities of the country.This overall negative review is somewhat offset by thequality of the individual projects. While the UNEPassessment did not extend to a project audit level,the reconnaissance work indicated that individualprojects were often very well designed and managed.Many projects had very accurately identified severalof the key issues and developed appropriate solutions.Two good examples of this were the programme forDinder National Park managed by UNDP andHCENR, and the rehabilitation of communityrangelands project managed by UNDP. Both havenow been completed.A further defining feature of the environmentalaid sector over the last decade has been thevery limited extent of government counterpartfunding. In many projects, the funding has been100 percent international, with no financialcontribution by the government. This has resultedin aid-generated structural problems and a lack ofgovernment ownership and continuity.The Khartoum-based secretariat of the GONUHigher Council for Environment and NaturalResources was originally conceived as a coordinatingbody. Now however, most of its funding andactivities are focused on the implementation ofMEA and GEF-funded projects. As such, it hasessentially become an organization sustainedby international aid in the form of a series ofoften unrelated convention projects. Most of theHCENR staff work on a contract basis, and returnto academia upon project completion. As a result,there has been negligible capacity-building in thecore civil service from these projects.The lack of government ownership in theenvironmental sector is also evident in the lackof counterpart funding. In many cases, projectshave been shut down when international aidhas ceased, and Sudan now has a series of needsassessments, capacity assessments, status reportsand management plans that have progressed tofinal document stage and no further.This lack of government counterpart funding forenvironmental issues was relatively understandablein the war economy that prevailed for over twodecades. Now however, Sudan should start tocontribute significantly to this sector.Analysis of the findingsIn the 2006 Work Plan, environment wasdesignated by the UN as one of four crosscuttingissues for special focus (the other threewere HIV/AIDS, gender and capacity-building).UNEP was nominated as the UN focal point forenvironment, and this assessment is one of itsinitial activities in attempting to ‘mainstream’ orintegrate environmental issues into the UN aidagenda in Sudan.The assessment results are overall fairly negative,but not uniformly so, as a number of highquality projects and efforts were noted. Two coreproblems were identified. First, the impacts ofgood individual projects and efforts are greatlyweakened by a lack of integration into the coregovernment and international aid programmes.Second, the environment and natural resourcemanagement sector suffers from a lack offunding and funding continuity. Indeed, the fiveenvironment-specific programmes within theUN 2006 Work Plan had a combined budget ofapproximately USD 2.8 million, representing lessthan 0.2 percent of the UN country programmeexpenditure.In order to direct corrective action, the underlyingcauses for these problems need to be understood.UNEP has identified the following five factors:1. Humanitarian focus. Humanitarian responsesare typically designed for fast mobilization inemergencies, which allows little time for integrationof cross-cutting issues like the environment.Agencies engaged in humanitarian work havemandates and management procedures to focus322 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

14 INTERNATIONAL AID AND THE ENVIRONMENTThe dyke by the Bor-Padak rural trunk road was dug to control flooding in the region, but is now a causefor concern as it is leading the land beyond it to dry out and is thus reducing grazing land for bothlivestock and wildlifeon supply to beneficiaries without correspondingattention to management of the (natural)resources used for supply. This exacerbates therisk of environmental degradation.Sudan is unusual in that the emergency hasbeen ongoing for many years, but given thatthe humanitarian needs are not diminishing onan annual basis, the general approach has notchanged. Long-term resident UN programmesare usually development-focused; in Sudan it isthe opposite.2. Lack of a resident agency focal point for theenvironment. The promotion of environmentalissues is a subject at the margins of the mandates ofmany UN agencies, but only one agency – UNEP– has it as its core mandate. Historically, UNEPhas not been present in the field on a residentialbasis. As a result, the topic of environment is in partorphaned and struggles to compete for attentionand funding, given the plethora of other often veryurgent issues facing the UN country team.3. Managerial separation of the global andregional environmental programmes fromthe UN country programme. At present, themajority of the funding for environment in Sudancomes from the secretariats of the multilateralenvironmental conventions (MEAs) and theGlobal Environment Facility (GEF). A verysmall regional contribution comes directly fromUNEP. None of these institutions currently havea residential presence in Sudan and are hence notanswerable in any way to the UN country team(bar UNEP starting in 2006). UNDP is oftentasked with administering convention and GEFprojects, but does not have full discretion onallocation and management issues.4. Lack of quantification and measurable results.In the general drive for aid effectiveness, it isimportant that needs and aid programme outputsbe measured. This is very well established for thehumanitarian sector (food tonnage delivered,number of wells installed etc.). In contrast, work inthe environmental sector in Sudan has been largely• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •323

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTqualitative. Needs and outputs have not alwaysbeen clearly defined and stated in the context of theoverall goals of the UN response. This tends to workagainst attracting and retaining aid investment.5. Lack of high-level government buy-in. Thelack of significant and high-level pressure onthe UN from GONU regarding environmentalissues indicates that the government has not beenconvinced of the scale and importance of theneeds in this sector either.14.5 Conclusions andrecommendationsConclusionThe assessment of the international aid programmein Sudan has raised a number of issues that needto be resolved to avoid inadvertently doing harmthrough the provision of aid, and to improvethe effectiveness of aid expenditure in theenvironmental sector.The dominant impact of aid on the environmentin Sudan is the provision of food aid to some 15percent of the population. Sudan is essentially nowcaught in a vicious circle of food aid dependenceand environmental degradation: if food aid werereduced to encourage a return to agriculture, theresult under current circumstances would be anintensification of land degradation, leading to thehigh likelihood of a return to food insecurity inthe long term.The analysis of the other links between internationalaid and the environment in Sudan indicatesthat most aid does not cause significant harmto the environment. However, integration ofenvironmental issues into the current programmeis negligible, and the environment-relatedexpenditure that does occur – while it isacknowledged and welcomed – suffers from arange of management problems that reduce itseffectiveness.Background to the recommendationsGiven the current environmental situation in Sudan,increased international aid for environmentalissues is warranted. All other issues being equal,the level of food security in many parts of Sudanwill gradually drop and rural livelihoods will beincreasingly threatened unless problems such asdesertification and deforestation are tackled. This inturn will drive conflict, displacement, and furtherdegradation, and as a result increase demands forhumanitarian aid and peacekeeping.At the same time as investment is increased, theeffectiveness of all expenditure for environmentalissues will need to be significantly improved throughbetter coordination and other structural reforms.The recommendations below are based onthe themes of improved UN coordinationand national ownership, which are two of theprinciples currently driving UN and aid reformin Africa and elsewhere. The majority of theprogrammes requiring investment are listed inother chapters; the financial investment in thischapter relates solely to coordination and UNagency assistance.Recommendations for the UnitedNations in SudanR14.1 Implement a focal point and long-term,centralized environmental technical assistanceservice for aid agencies in Sudan. The longtermgoal is the full integration of environmentalissues into the UN aid programme in Sudan.This recommendation entails the establishmentof UNEP offices in Khartoum and Juba, theprovision of a service for environmental adviceand rapid assessment for all agencies and NGOs,and a focal point to promote investment andcoordination in environmental issues.CA: TA; PB: UNCT; UNP: UNEP; CE: 3M;DU: 3 yearsR14.2 Help mainstream environmental issuesinto the UN programme through improvedstructure and monitoring via the UN Work Plan.This would entail measures such as collating andincluding all ongoing environmental projects fromall parties into the annual UN Work Plan processand elevating environment from a ‘cross-cuttingissue’ to an investment sector or sub-sector.CA: GROL; PB: UN RCHC; UNP: UNEP andUNDP; CE: nil; DU: ongoing324 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

14 INTERNATIONAL AID AND THE ENVIRONMENTR14.3 Advise future international environmentalaid proposals and funding offers to fit withina national management framework presentedby the combination of the UN Work Plan,the UNEP assessment and the GONU andGOSS NPEM processes. This would not entailadditional fund-raising, but only directing fundstowards priority areas and projects as determinedby these linked processes, which have alreadyconducted the groundwork to develop a list ofpriorities and have a high level of ownership atthe national level.CA: GROL; PB: UN RCHC; UNP: UNEP andUNDP; CE: nil; DU: ongoingR14.4 Set government counterpart fundingas a key criterion for funding environmentalprojects in Sudan. The level of funding providedby the government partner is a litmus test forgovernment commitment and the prospects forsustainable project benefits. The international:national funding ratio should in no case begreater than 4:1, and should ideally be 1:1 orless.CA: GROL; PB: GONU and GOSS; UNP:UNEP; CE: nil; DU: 3 years then reviewRecommendations for the Governmentof National UnityR14.5 Officially designate and support theGONU Ministry of Environment and PhysicalDevelopment as the GONU focal point forliaison for all international aid projects in theenvironmental sector that require a GONUgovernment partner, including MEAs andGEF projects. This will significantly assistcoordination and central planning. Once contactand a framework are established, liaison can bedelegated to the appropriate level on a projectspecificbasis. This initiative needs to includecapacity-building (see Chapter 13) to enablethe government to participate actively in suchprojects.CA: GROL; PB: MEPD; UNP: UNEP; CE: nil;DU: 3 years then reviewRecommendations for the Governmentof Southern SudanR14.6 Officially nominate and support theGOSS Ministry of Environment, WildlifeConservation and Tourism as the GOSSfocal point for liaison for all internationalaid projects in the environmental sectorthat require a GOSS government partner,including GEF projects. This will significantlyassist coordination and central planning. Oncecontact and a framework are established, liaisoncan be delegated to the appropriate level on aproject-specific basis. This initiative needs toinclude capacity-building (see Chapter 13) toenable the government to actively participate insuch projects.CA: GROL; PB: MEWCT; UNP: UNEP; CE:nil; DU: 3 years then review• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •325

ConclusionsA fish eagle crossing the White Nile floodplain, against a backdrop of seasonalrangeland fires set by pastoralists.Sustainable management and developmentof natural resources is one of the greatestchallenges facing post-conflict Sudan.

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTConclusions15.1 IntroductionThe UNEP post-conflict environmental assessmentof Sudan has made clear that Sudan is affected bya number of severe environmental issues, whichare closely tied to the country’s social and politicalproblems with conflict, food insecurity anddisplacement.Ignoring these environmental issues will ensure thatsome political and social problems remain unsolvableand even likely to worsen, as environmentaldegradation mounts at the same time as populationincreases. Resolving them will require a crosscuttingeffort in the political arena.Investment in the environmental sector has sufferedgreatly from the conflicts that have wracked Sudanfor most of the last fifty years, and environmentalconcerns still cannot be adequately addressed inDarfur today. Corrective action, however, canstart in much of the rest of the country. Moreover,thanks to the benefits of oil exports, Sudan can forthe first time afford to significantly invest its ownresources into such action.Recommendations on each of the various crosscuttingissues and sectors have already been setout in Chapters 3 through 14. These have beenviewed and vetted by the Governments of Sudanand other national and international stakeholders.As such, they represent an agreed way forward foreach sector.This chapter summarizes the findings and recommendationsof the UNEP post-conflict environmentalassessment, and proposes the general way forward forthe Governments of Sudan, civil society and theinternational community, to help ensure that theserecommendations are acted upon.15.2 Key findingsOver 100 environment and governance issuesare discussed in Chapters 3 through 14, many ofwhich are closely connected or different aspectsof the same problem. These items have beendistilled into three positive and seven negativekey findings:Positive findings1. The oil-driven economic boom can fundthe necessary investment in improvedenvironmental governance. The total costof the recommendations listed in this reportis USD 120 million over three to five years.With oil exports expected to be in excess ofUSD 5 billion in 2006, the government clearlyhas the capacity to pay some if not all of thesecosts. On this basis, all future international aidprojects for environmental governance shouldhave a strong element of matching governmentfunding.2. The combination of the natural resources ofthe south and the resource needs of the northrepresents a real opportunity for large-scalesustainable trade in raw and added-valuenatural resources. Many of the resourcesof Southern Sudan could be used to driveeconomic development, but are currently beingwasted. For example, Khartoum state importsconstruction timber even as mahogany treesare burnt to clear land for shifting agriculturein the southern states. While tight controls areobviously needed to avoid over-exploitation,extracting added value from the naturalresources of the south is key to both economicdevelopment and conservation.3. Politicalsupportfortheenvironmentisstrongin the newly formed Government of SouthernSudan, and rising in the Government ofNational Unity. Support is both political (interms of awareness-raising) and practical (interms of allocating GONU and GOSS corebudgets to tackling environmental governanceand natural resource management issues).Negative findings4. Environmental degradation in northern,central, eastern and western Sudan iswidespread, severe and continuing at alinear rate. The most common forms ofdegradation – desertification and deforestation– are long-term problems that may worsen inthe future. The northern coastline and marinehabitats have been locally damaged near urbanareas, but remain in good condition overall.328 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

15 CONCLUSIONS5. Environmental degradation in southSudan is overall moderate but locallysevere and generally increasing at a rapidpace. Ongoing deforestation, which couldworsen considerably in the coming yearsdue to the massive refugee and IDP returnprocess underway, represents a significant lostopportunity in sustainable development andeconomic growth.6. Southern Sudan’s environment is highlyvulnerable to development-induced damagein the post-conflict period. Given thenear complete absence of environmentalgovernance, natural resources such as timberand the remaining wildlife are vulnerable toover-exploitation.7. Environmental degradation, as well asregional climate instability and change,are major underlying causes of foodinsecurity and conflict in Darfur – andpotential catalysts for future conflictthroughout central and eastern Sudan andother countries in the Sahel belt. Settingaside all of the social and political aspects ofthe war in Darfur, the region is beset witha problematic combination of populationgrowth, over-exploitation of resources andan apparent major long-term reduction inrainfall. As a result, much of northern andcentral Darfur is degraded to the extentthat it cannot sustainably support its ruralpopulation.Although not a novel finding to thoseworking in this field in Darfur, it is notcommonly understood outside the region.Yet it has major implications for the prospectsfor peace, recovery and rural development inDarfur and the Sahel. Indeed, the situationin Darfur is uniquely difficult, but many ofthe same underlying factors exist in otherparts of Sudan and in other countries ofthe Sahel belt. Darfur accordingly holdsgrim lessons for other countries at risk,and highlights the imperative for changetowards a more sustainable approach torural development.8. Long-term peace in Sudan is at riskunless sustainable solutions are found forseveral environmental issues identified aspotential conflict ‘flashpoints’ in Unityand Upper Nile states, the Three Areasand other north-south border zones. Ingeneral order of priority, these unresolvedissues are:• the environmental impacts of the developmentof the oil industry;• the southward migration of northern pastoralistsdue to land scarcity and degradation;• tree-felling for the charcoal industry in thenorth-south boundary zone;• new and planned dams and major waterprojects, including any revival of the Jongleicanal project; and• ivory and bushmeat poaching.An appreciation and long-term solutionsfor these environmental issues should beintegrated into peacebuilding efforts toreinforce the prospects for sustainable peace.9. Environmental governance and policyfailures underlie many of the problemsobserved. Many of the issues identifiedcannot be resolved by more aid or investment,but require changes in government policyinstead. This is particularly the case foragricultural development. In addition, thebasics for good environmental governanceare lacking or need substantial strengtheningthroughout the country. Areas necessitatingattention include legislation development,civil service capacity-building and datacollection.10. United Nations work in the field ofenvironment and aid in Sudan could bemuch improved by increased efforts incoordination. At present, environmentalissues are not integrated into the larger UNhumanitarian programmes, and numerousstructural and management problems reducethe effectiveness of environment-specificprogrammes, such as those funded by theGlobal Environment Facility. Improvedcoordination could resolve many of theseproblems without significantly raising overallaid expenditure.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •329

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT15.3 Key recommendations andinvestment requirementsEighty-five detailed recommendations are providedin Chapters 3 through 14. These have beendistilled into four general recommendations:1. Invest in environmental management tosupport lasting peace in Darfur, and toavoid local conflict over natural resourceselsewhere in Sudan. Because environmentaldegradation and resource scarcity are amongthe root causes of the current conflict inDarfur, practical measures to alleviate suchproblems should be considered vital tools forconflict prevention and peacebuilding. Climatechange adaptation measures and ecologicallysustainable rural development are needed inDarfur and elsewhere to cope with changingenvironmental conditions and to avoid clashesover declining natural resources.2. Build capacity at all levels of governmentand improve legislation to ensure thatreconstruction and economic developmentdonotintensify environmental pressures andthreaten the livelihoods of present and futuregenerations. The new governance contextprovides a rare opportunity to truly embedthe principles of sustainable development andbest practices in environmental managementinto the governance architecture in Sudan.3. National and regional governmentshould assume increasing responsibilityfor investment in the environment andsustainable development. The injection ofoil revenue has greatly improved the financialresources of both the Government of NationalUnity and the Government of Southern Sudan,enabling them to translate reform into action.4. All UN relief and development projectsin Sudan should integrate environmentalconsiderations in order to improve theeffectiveness of the UN country programme.Better coordination and environmentalmainstreaming are necessary to ensure thatinternational assistance ‘does no harm’ toSudan’s environment.Analysis of chapter recommendationsThe recommendations from each chapter havebeen collated by issue and economic sector inTable 31, and by theme in Table 32.Table 31.Recommendations by economic sector and geographic regionIssue and economic sector No. Cost of recommendation by region/target (USD million)National (includingDarfur)Southern SudanInternationalCommunityNatural disasters and desertification 3 4.0 – – 4.0Conflict 4 – – 2.9 2.9Displacement 4 – – 5.3 5.3Urban environment and6 5.0 2.0 1.0 8.0environmental healthIndustry 5 2.9 1.0 – 3.9Agriculture 8 14.6 9.2 – 24.0Forestry 13 10.6 7.8 0.3 18.7Water resources 9 11.6 2.0 – 13.6Wildlife and protected area5 3.5 6.0 – 9.5managementMarine and coastal resources 8 9.1* – – 9.1Environmental governance and 10 8.7 9.3 – 18.0awarenessInternational aid and the environment 6 – – 3.0 3.0Total 85 70 37.3 12.5 119.8*Includes USD 0.7 million by Red Sea stateTotal330 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

15 CONCLUSIONSTable 32.Recommendation themeRecommendations by theme and region/targetNational (includingDarfur)Costs of recommendation by region (USD million)Southern SudanInternationalCommunityGovernance 9.1 6.5 0.3 15.9Technical assistance 13.0 6.0 6.5 25.5Capacity-building 7.0 12.0 – 19.0Government investment 25.1 – – 25.1Awareness-raising 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.8Assessment 9.6 0.7 1.2 11.5Practical action 6.0 12.0 4.0 22.0Totals 70 37.3 12.5 119.8TotalCost of the recommendationsDepending on the approach, the cost of a list ofrecommendations for the substantial resolutionof the major environmental issues in Sudan couldrun from millions to billions of US dollars. In thecontext of the competing needs of post-conflictrecovery and the ongoing Darfur crisis, it is atpresent clearly unrealistic to expect such additionalexpenditure. However, it is critical that expenditurebe raised from its current negligible level to one atwhich a real difference can be made (and measured).Accordingly, the costed recommendations are keptbelow USD 5 million per government, per sector,and per annum – and address only the most urgentor logical first few items.The resolution of many of the issues raised will alsorequire considerable time. UNEP estimates thatbuilding national capacity and addressing some of themore complex policy, legal and political issues notedin this report will take a minimum of three to fiveyears. Reversing the noted trends of environmentaldegradation could take much longer.UNEP does not expect work on all of the listedrecommendations to commence in 2007; someindeed may never be taken up. Moreover, the costslisted are only basic estimates that will need to berefined in the project development stage. However,they provide a good indication of the scale ofinvestment required to make a significant differenceto the current environmental situation and trendsin the country.It should be noted that in addition to the expenditurediscussed above, a major investment in environmentalhealth infrastructure (water supply and treatment,sewage treatment etc.) is unavoidable if GONUand GOSS wish to achieve major improvements inthe health sector. In this area, ‘soft’ approaches likeawareness-raising and capacity-building will be oflimited benefit in the absence of ‘hard’ improvementsin water supply and sanitation infrastructure.The total cost of this report’s recommendations isestimated at approximately USD 120 million overthree to five years: USD 70 million for GONU,USD 37.3 million for GOSS and USD 12.5 millionfor the international community. These are not largefigures compared to the Sudanese GDP in 2005(USD 85.5 billion), and are hence considered to berelatively affordable for both GONU and GOSS.The recommendations aimed specifically at theinternational community come to approximately0.5 percent of annual aid expenditure for Sudan in2006 – again relatively affordable.Financing the recommendationsThe UNEP proposal is that the Government ofNational Unity and the Government of SouthernSudan own this list of sector recommendations andcontribute the majority of the funds. Internationalaid should make up the difference on a partnershipbasis, with a view to providing technical assistanceand capacity-building rather than just funding. Asmentioned in the previous chapter, sole funding bythe international aid community is specifically notrecommended for three reasons:1. Prior experience in Sudan and elsewhere hasshown that one hundred percent aid-fundedrecovery and development projects often have• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •331

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTpoor sustainability and collapse when donorfunds are withdrawn. Part-financing by thegovernment typically results in much betterdesign and national ownership;2. International aid funding for Sudan has its limits,and urgent humanitarian needs will continue todraw the bulk of the available funds. It willsimply not be possible to raise all the requiredfinances from international donors; and3. Many of the recommendations focus on policyand governance, so the direct costs are limitedand internal to government civil services.Some sectors such as industry, urban developmentand forestry have a high potential for partfinancingby the private sector, but any revenuegeneratingoption, such as license fees and royaltyagreements, should be designed and introducedwith care to avoid governance problems.15.4 The way forwardEstablishing roles and responsibilitiesin GONU, GOSS and the UNUNEP’s recommendations envisage a key rolefor several government ministries within GONUand GOSS, as well as for over ten differentUN agencies. Their wholehearted supportis required for the implementation of manyrecommendations.UNEP and its government counterparts in theGONU and GOSS environment ministries cannotplay the roles of the other parties, as they do nothave the mandate or the capacity to do so. Theycan, however, catalyse action from their counterpartsto pick up the recommendations and assist themthroughout the process. The first stage in theimplementation of the recommendations has in factalready occurred, as the respective ministries andUN agencies were asked for their views and supportin the report drafting process. The recommendationsin this final report reflect that input.UNEP proposes to maintain a central rolethrough the establishment of a Sudan countryprogramme for the period of at least 2007-2009(funds permitting). For each recommendationlisted, UNEP will have one of three positions:• a central role as the lead UN agency or one ofa small joint agency team;• a catalysing and supporting role to other UNagencies; or• a tracking role for recommendations that donot require substantive UN input.On the government side, the environment and wildlifeministries and authorities will also need to determinetheir specific role for each recommendation, andengage the appropriate line ministries if required.UNEP country programmeThe UNEP Sudan country programme is stillunder development as of early 2007, but anoutline can be presented.Funds permitting, UNEP will establish morepermanent project offices in Khartoum andJuba, to implement a core programme for theperiod 2007-2009. In 2009, the possibility ofan extension will be reviewed against a set of exitcriteria based on the situation in the country andprogress on addressing the environmental issueslisted in this report. Key themes for the UNEPprogramme are anticipated to be the same as therecommendation themes:• governance (with a focus on legislation development);• technical assistance and capacity-building;• awareness-raising and advocacy;• assessment; and• practical action.The exception is the recommendation category ofgovernment investment, as this is considered tobe a role for the GONU and GOSS only.Advocacy, and awareness- andfund-raisingThe funding and political support required toimplement the recommendations will need to befound through an organized process of advocacyand awareness-raising. This effort will by defaultbe led in the first instance by UNEP and itsgovernment counterparts in GONU and GOSS.332 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

15 CONCLUSIONSUNEP has developed a range of assessmentproducts to assist this process and will lead fundraisingwithin the international community. Thegovernment counterparts will direct fund-raisingwithin their respective governments, using normalannual budgetary mechanisms and all otheravenues for extra-budgetary funding. The existingNational Plan for Environmental Management(NPEM) process could be utilized to this endby the GONU Ministry of Environment andPhysical Development.It is anticipated that awareness- and fund-raisingwill take a minimum of one year to completesubstantially. Some projects will start much soonerthan this, but major items, such as line ministrypolicy shifts and infrastructure investments, willprobably require one to three years.Development of national, regional andsectoral plans and action programmesOnce the agreed partners are on board and fundshave been allocated, the recommendations list canbe converted into a number of national, regional,sectoral and project plans for implementation.Wherever possible, these plans should beintegrated into general development and povertyreduction strategies rather than be stand-aloneinitiatives.In the water sector, for example, individual stateshave the responsibility to develop five-year StateWater Master Plans; this represents an idealopportunity to mainstream environment andsustainability issues into concrete policy andinvestment programmes at the intermediate level.At the international level, UNEP will be workingto integrate environmental issues into the UNDevelopment Assistance Framework (UNDAF)process, planned for late 2007, and the jointgovernment-UN Poverty Reduction StrategyPapers (PRSPs).Annual and three-year progress reviewThis UNEP assessment project has been a majorand relatively costly undertaking. Its first phasehas now been successfully completed. The realtest, however, will be the rate of implementationof its recommendations, which will only bepossible to accurately evaluate some time after thepublic launch of the report and other assessmentproducts.It is therefore recommended that UNEP andpartners conduct an evaluation of the statusof the recommendations at the end of 2009.Interim assessments should be conducted onan annual basis, starting in December 2007.15.5 Concluding remarksSudan is now at a crossroads. While the countryclearly faces many severe environmental challenges,the combination of the 2005 Comprehensive PeaceAgreement and the oil-driven economic boomrepresents a major opportunity for positive change.The sustainable management of the country’s naturalresources is part of the solution for achieving socialstability, sustainable livelihoods and developmentin the country. For this goal to be reached,however, it will be necessary to deeply embed acomprehensive understanding of environmentalissues in the culture, policies, plans and programmesof the Government of Sudan and its internationalpartners, such as the United Nations.This will require a long-term process and a multiyearcommitment from both the Governmentof Sudan and its international partners. As theenvironmental expert of the United Nations,UNEP is ready to assist the Government andpeople of Sudan, as well as their internationalpartners, in taking forward the recommendationsdeveloped from this assessment.• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •333

Appendices

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAppendix IList of acronyms and abbreviationsAMCEN African Ministerial Conference on the EnvironmentAMIS African Union Mission in SudanBOD Biological Oxygen Demand°C Degrees CelsiusCAR Central African RepublicCBD Convention on Biological DiversityCITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and FloraCPA Comprehensive Peace AgreementDEA Department of Environmental Affairs (GONU MEPD)DFID Department for International Development (UK)DPA Darfur Peace AgreementDRC Democratic Republic of CongoDSS Department of Safety and Security (UN)ECEuropean CommissionEIA Environmental Impact AssessmentERW Explosive Remnants of WarESPA Eastern Sudan Peace AgreementFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsFNC Forests National CorporationFRA Forest Resources AssessmentFSD Fondation Suisse de DéminageGDP Gross Domestic ProductGEF Global Environment FacilityGNP Gross National ProductGONU Government of National UnityGOS Government of SudanGOSS Government of Southern SudanGRASP Great Apes Survival ProjectGRID Global Resource Information Database (UNEP)GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (German Technical Cooperation)HCE Higher Council for EnvironmentHCENR Higher Council for Environment and Natural ResourcesIAEA International Atomic Energy AgencyICRAF International Centre for Research in AgroforestryICZM Integrated Coastal Zone ManagementIDP Internally Displaced PersonIGAD Inter-government Authority on DroughtINGO International Non-Governmental OrganizationIOM International Organization for MigrationIUCN The World Conservation UnionIWRM Integrated Water Resource ManagementJEM Justice and Equality Movementkm Kilometre (measurement)km² Kilometres squared (area)km³ Kilometres cubed (volume)LPG Liquefied Petroleum GasLRA Lord’s Resistance ArmymMetre (measurement)m² Metres squared (area)m³ Metres cubed (volume)MAF Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (GONU/GOSS)MAR Ministry of Animal Resources (GONU)MARF Ministry of Animal Resources and Fisheries (GOSS)MDG Millennium Development GoalMEA Multilateral Environmental AgreementMEPD Ministry of Environment and Physical Development (GONU)MEWCT Ministry of Environment, Wildlife Conservation and Tourism (GOSS)MFA Marine Fisheries Administration (GONU)MIMinistry of Interior (GONU)MIM Ministry of Industry and Mining (GOSS)336 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

APPENDICESMIWRMEMMEPAMoFMoIMOSSMOUMPAMTRMTWMWRINAPANBINCPNDVINCSANEPADNFINGONPEMNSASNSWCONTEAPNWAOCHAOHCHROLSPCDMBPCEAPERSGAPOPsPPDppmPRSPsSCESECSSPLASPLMSSARPSSCSESSNEAUNUNCCDUNCTUNCTADUNDAFUNDGUNDPUNDPKOUNEPUNESCOUNFCCCUNFPAUNHCRUNICEFUNIDOUNMASUNMISUNOPSUNRCHCUSAIDUXOWFPWHCWHOWUAMinistry of Irrigation and Water Resources (GONU)Ministry of Energy and Mining (GONU)Marine Environment Protection Authority (Red Sea state)Ministry of Finance (GONU)Ministry of Industry (GONU)Minimum Operating Security StandardMemorandum of UnderstandingMarine Protected AreaMinistry of Transport and Roads (GOSS)Ministry of Tourism and Wildlife (GONU)Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation (GOSS)National Adaptation Programme of ActionNile Basin InitiativeNational Congress PartyNormalized Difference Vegetative IndexNational Capacity Self-AssessmentNew Partnership for Africa’s DevelopmentNon-Food ItemNon-Governmental OrganizationNational Plan for Environmental ManagementNubian Sandstone Aquifer SystemNew Sudan Wildlife Conservation OrganizationNile Transboundary Environment Action ProjectNile Water AgreementUnited Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian AffairsOffice of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human RightsOperation Lifeline SudanPost-Conflict and Disaster Management BranchPost-Conflict Environmental AssessmentRegional Organization for the Conservation of the Environment of the Red Sea and the Gulf of AdenPersistent Organic PollutantsPlant Protection Directorate (GONU MAF)Parts per MillionPoverty Reduction Strategy PapersState Council for Environment (Red Sea state)Sudanese Environment Conservation SocietySudan People’s Liberation ArmySudan People’s Liberation MovementSouthern Sudan Agricultural Revitalization ProgrammeSouth Sudan Centre for Statistics and EvaluationSouth Sudan National Environment AssociationUnited NationsUnited Nations Convention to Combat DesertificationUnited Nations Country TeamUnited Nations Conference on Trade and DevelopmentUnited Nations Development Assistance FrameworkUnited Nations Development GroupUnited Nations Development ProgrammeUnited Nations Department of Peacekeeping OperationsUnited Nations Environment ProgrammeUnited Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural OrganizationUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUnited Nations Population FundUnited Nations High Commissioner for RefugeesUnited Nations Children’s FundUnited Nations Industrial Development OrganizationUnited Nations Emergency Mine Action Programme in SudanUnited Nations Mission in SudanUnited Nations Office for Project ServicesUnited Nations Resident and Humanitarian CoordinatorUnited States Agency for International DevelopmentUnexploded OrdnanceWorld Food ProgrammeUNESCO World Heritage ConventionWorld Health OrganizationWater Use Associations• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •337

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAppendix IIList of referencesChapter 2: Country Context1. United Nations and Partners Work Plan for Sudan 20072. United Nations and Partners Work Plan for Sudan 20063. The Economist Intelligence Unit (2006). Country Report: Sudan (December 2006), London: EIU4. The World Bank 2007 Sudan Country Data Profile (2003 data)http://devdata.worldbank.org/external/CPProfile.asp?CCODE=SDN&PTYPE=CP5. Khartoum Department of Statistics (1993). 1993 Population Census [in Arabic]6. CBS/UNFPA 2004 Population Data Sheet7. South Sudan Centre for Statistics and Evaluation (2004)8. Sulaiman, S. and A. Ahmed (2006). Urban Environmental Issues in Khartoum. SudaneseEnvironment Conservation Society Report to UNEP9. Government of Sudan and United Nations Country Team (2004). Sudan MillenniumDevelopment Goals: Interim Unified Report 200410. The World Bank (2003). Sudan Development Outcomes and Pro-poor Reforms11. UNDP (2006). The Human Development Report 200612. Chapin Metz, H. (1991). Sudan: A Country Study. Washington, DC: Library of Congress13. The International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook Database 2007http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/01/data/index.aspx14. The World Bank (2001). Country Economic Memorandum15. FAO Aquastat Information System on Water and Agriculture. Sudan Country Profile (2005)http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/aglw/aquastat/countries/sudan/index.stm16. Harrison M.N. and J.K. Jackson (1958). ‘Ecological Classification of the Vegetation of theSudan’ in Forest Bulletin 217. Bashir, M. et al (2001). Sudan Country Study on Biodiversity. Khartoum: Ministry ofEnvironment and Tourism18. FAO Multipurpose Africover Databases on Environmental Resourceshttp://www.africover.org/19. Itto, A. (2001). Agriculture and Natural Resources of New Sudan. A Report to the SPLM/A20. United Nations Sudan Joint Assessment Mission Report 2005Chapter 3: Natural Disasters and Desertification1. Government of Sudan (2003). Ministry of Environment and Physical Development. Sudan’s FirstNational Communications under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change2. Zeng, N. (2003). ‘Drought in the Sahel’ in Science, November 20033. Sudan Rainfall Station Data Tables, provided by the Sudan Meteorological Department4. Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute. Climate Change in West Africa: Eastern Sahelhttp://www.knmi.nl/africa_scenarios/West_Africa/region8/338 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

APPENDICES5. Held I. M et al. (2005). Simulation of Sahel Drought in the 20th and 21st Century (Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences Vol. 102, No. 50)6. Thornton P.K. et al (2006). Mapping Climate Vulnerability and Poverty in Africa. Report toInternational Livestock Research Institute7. Government of Sudan (undated). National Plan for Combating Desertification in the Republic of Sudan8. Stebbing E.P. (1953). The Creeping Desert in the Sudan and Elsewhere in Africa. Khartoum:McCorquodale & Co9. Communication with the Northern State Ministry of Water and Irrigation, August 2006Chapter 4: Conflict and the Environment1. Johnson, Douglas H. (2003). The Root Causes of Sudan’s Civil Wars. Bloomington: Indiana University Press2. Deng, Francis (1995). War of Visions: Conflict of Identities in Sudan. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution3. Wadi, A.I. (1998). Perspectives on Tribal Conflicts in the Sudan. University of Khartoum: IAAS4. United Nations Sudan Joint Assessment Mission Report 20055. Bashar, Z.M. (2003). Mechanisms for Peaceful Co-Existence among Tribal Groups in Darfur [MAThesis in Arabic]. University of Khartoum6. United Nations and Partners Work Plan for Sudan 20067. Christian Aid (2001). The Scorched Earth: Oil and Water in Sudan8. Alier, Abel (1990). Southern Sudan: Too Many Agreements Dishonoured. Exeter: Ithaca Press9. An Naim, Abdullahi and Peter Kok (1991). Fundamentalism and Militarism: A Report on the RootCauses of Human Rights Violations in the Sudan. New York: The Fund for Peace10. Beck, Kent (1996). ‘Nomads of Northern Kordofan and the State: From Violence to Pacification’in Nomadic Peoples 3811. Braukamper, Ulrich (2000). ‘Management of Conflicts over Pastures and Fields among theBaggara Arabs of the Sudan Belt’ in Nomadic Peoples Volume 412. Lind, J. and K. Sturman (2002). Scarcity and Surfeit: The Ecology of Africa’s Conflicts. AfricanCentre for Technology Studies and Institute for Security Studies13. Diehl, P.F. and N.P. Gleditsch (eds.) (2001). Environmental Conflict. Boulder: Westview Press14. Suliman, M. (ed.) (1999). Ecology, Politics and Violent Conflict. London: Zed Books15. Homer-Dixon, T.F. (1999). Environment, Scarcity and Violence. Princeton: Princeton University Press16. Fadul, A.A. (2004). ‘Natural Resources Management for Sustainable Peace in Darfur’ in ConferenceProceedings: Environmental Degradation as a Cause of Conflict in Darfur (December 2004)17. GONU Ministry of Animal Resources Published Statistics, 200518. UNEP/FAO/ICRAF (2006). Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment of the Rural Environment forSudan (Draft). Nairobi, Kenya19. Feinstein International Famine Centre (2005). Darfur: Livelihoods under Siege. Cambridge: Tufts University20. University for Peace (2004). Conference Proceedings: Environmental Degradation as a Cause ofConflict in Darfur (December 2004)21. African Union Mission in Sudanhttp://www.amis-sudan.org/22. Tobiolo, M. L. et al. (2006). A Report on the Status of the Forest Reserves in Greater Yei County,South Sudan. Kagelu Forestry Training Centre• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •339

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT23. UN Information Gateway on Sudanwww.unsudanig.org/24. USAID Sudan Strategy Paper 2006-2008http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/countries/sudan/docs/sudan_strategy.pdfChapter 5: Population Displacement and the Environment1. UNHCR (2006). 2005 Global Refugee Trends2. UNHCR (1994). Populations of Concern to UNHCR: A Statistical Overview3. UNHCR (2001). Statistical Yearbook 20014. UNHCR (2006). Sudan Country Operations Plan5. Norwegian Refugee Council Global IDP Project (2005). Profile of Internal Displacement: Sudan(29 October 2005)6. Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (2006). Internal Displacement: Global Overview ofTrends and Developments in 20057. United Nations and Partners Work Plan for Sudan 20058. Kelly, C. (2004). Summary Report: Darfur Rapid Environmental Assessment. CARE Internationaland Benfield Hazard Research Centre9. Women’s Commission on Refugee Women and Children (2006). Beyond Firewood: FuelAlternatives and Protection Strategies for Displaced Women and Girls10. BBC Press Release (21/1/01): ‘New Appeal for Drought-hit Sudan’http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1129567.stm11. International Committee for the Red Cross (2004). ‘Darfur’s Turbulent Times’ in The Red CrossMagazine, December 200412. Malik, S. (2005). ‘Sustainable Return Depends on Collaborative Approach’ in Forced MigrationReview 24. Oxford: Refugee Studies Centre13. McCallum, J. and Willow, G. Y. (2005). ‘Challenges Facing Returnees in Sudan’ in ForcedMigration Review 24. Oxford: Refugee Studies Centre14. OCHA Press Release (23/2/01): ‘Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Warns ofSudan Disaster: 600,000 People at Immediate Risk of Starvation’http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/AllDocsByUNID/bf9697ed24f039d2852569fc005efb0815. OCHA Press Release (17/8/06): ‘Sudan: the UN Expresses Concerns at Forced Relocation of12,000 Displaced People in Greater Khartoum’http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/EGUA-6SRMPX?OpenDocument16. UNHCR (2006). The State of the World’s Refugees: Human Displacement in the New Millennium.Oxford: Oxford University Press17. UNHCR (2006). Global Appeal 200618. Tearfund (2007). Darfur: Relief in a Vulnerable EnvironmentChapter 6: Urban Environment and Environmental Health1. Khartoum Department of Statistics (1993). 1993 Population Census [in Arabic]2. El Amin Abdel El Rahman, M. and M. Osman El Sammani (2006). Natural Resources andSocio-Economic Parameters (Workshop on the Post-Conflict National Plan for EnvironmentalManagement in Sudan, Khartoum, July 2006)340 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

APPENDICES3. Creative Associates International, Inc. (2005). Juba Assessment: Town Planning and Administration(Draft)4. Ahmed, A.E.M. (1998). The Prevailing Situation of Urban Housing in Sudan [in Arabic].Conference on Housing in the Arab World (Khartoum, Sudan)5. Sulaiman, S. and A. Ahmed (2006). Urban Environmental Issues in Khartoum. SudaneseEnvironment Conservation Society Report to UNEP6. Burhan Eltayeb Bushra Elghazali (2006). Urban Intensification in Metropolitan Khartoum:Influential Factors, Benefits and Applicability [Doctoral Thesis]. Stockholm: Royal Institute ofTechnology7. Khartoum Department of Statistics (1993). 1993 Population Census [in Arabic]8. United Nations and Partners Work Plan for Sudan 20079. United Nations and Partners Work Plan for Sudan 200510. Government of Sudan and United Nations Country Team (2004). Sudan MillenniumDevelopment Goals: Interim Unified Report 200411. United Nations Sudan Joint Assessment Mission (2005). Volume III Cluster Report12. Nile Basin Initiative (2005). National Nile Basin Water Quality Monitoring Baseline Report for Sudan13. World Health Organization (2004). Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Links to Health14. World Health Organization Sudan (2006). ‘Cholera’ in Sudan Update 4http://www.who.int/csr/don/2006_06_21a/en/index.html15. World Health Organization verbal report of a Juba UN Country Team Meeting, May 200616. Abdelgani M.E. and Z.E. Alabjar (2006). Environmental Research Capacity in Sudan (Workshop onthe Post-Conflict National Plan for Environmental Management in Sudan, Khartoum, July 2006)17. Norwegian Refugee Council Global IDP Project (2005). Profile of Internal Displacement: Sudan(29 October 2005)18. Al Adam, E. et al (2001). Compressed Stabilized Earth Block Manufacture in Sudan. Paris: UNESCO19. Al Adam, E. et al (2006). Urban Environment: Low-Cost Buildings (Workshop on the Post-Conflict National Plan for Environmental Management in Sudan, Khartoum, July 2006)Chapter 7: Industry and the Environment1. Sudan Update (2001). Raising the Stakes: Oil and Conflict in Sudanhttp://www.sudanupdate.org/REPORTS/Oil/Oil.pdf2. PennWell Petroleum Group (2001 and 2006 editions). International Petroleum Encyclopedia3. Sudan Oil and Gas Conference, London, November 2006http://www.sudandevelopmentprogram.org/sp/events/oilgas.htm4. Reuters Press Release (14/8/06): ‘Sudan to Ship 400,000 Barrels of Crude’5. US Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2006http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html6. The Economist Intelligence Unit (2006). Country Report: Sudan (December 2006), London: EIU7. United Nations Joint Logistics Centre (2006). Fuels 2006: A Survey of the Humanitarian FuelsSituation in the Context of Humanitarian and Peacekeeping Operations in the Republic of the Sudan8. US Energy Information Administration. World Proved Reserves of Oil and Natural Gas, MostRecent Estimateshttp://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •341

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT9. ‘Oil Flow Starts at Sudan’s Thar Jath Field’ in Oil and Gas Journal, June 29 200610. ‘Sudan - Oil and Gas: Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction’http://www.mbendi.co.za/indy/oilg/ogus/af/su/p0005.htm11. Sudan News Archive. Gulf Oil and Gas 2007http://www.gulfoilandgas.com/webpro1/Main/NewsCTRY.asp?nid=SD12. Switzer, J. (2002). Oil and Violence in Sudan. International Institute for Sustainable Development13. International Crisis Group (2002). God, War and Oil: Changing the Logic of War in Sudan14. Gagnan, G. and J. Ryle (2001). Report of an Investigation in Oil Development, Conflict andDisplacement in Western Upper Nile, Sudan15. European Coalition on Oil in Sudan (2006). Oil Development in Upper Nile16. Sudan National Oil Spill Response Contingency Plan 2000-2004http://www.persga.org/Publications/Technical/pdf/4%20Technical%20Series/TS6%20NOSCP%20Sudan%20Part%20II%20(Eng).pdf17. Human Rights Watch (2003). Sudan, Oil, and Human Rightshttp://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/Chapter 8: Agriculture and the Environment1. FAO Aquastat Information System on Water and Agriculture. Sudan Country Profile (2005)http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/aglw/aquastat/countries/sudan/index.stm2. Chapin Metz, H. (1991). Sudan: A Country Study. Washington, DC: Library of Congress3. Government of Sudan (undated). Sudan National Report to the Conference of Parties on theImplementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification4. Abbadi, K and A. Ahmed (2006). A Brief Overview of Sudan’s Economy and Future Prospects forAgricultural Development. Khartoum Food Aid Forum (WFP)5. Mohammed, H. and Hamid (2006). Range Management and Conservation in Sudan (Workshop onthe Post-Conflict National Plan for Environmental Management in Sudan, Khartoum, July 2006)6. Agaemi, O. (undated). Towards a State Environmental Action Plan (for Gedaref). Gedaref:Gedaref Ministry of Environment and Tourism7. UNEP (2002.) Global Environment Outlook 3 (GEO-3)8. El Faki, A. (undated). The Problem of Land Use: The Issue and Future Vision [in Arabic]. Gedaref:Gedaref State Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Resources and Irrigation9. Abdel Nour, H. ‘Gum Arabic in Sudan: Production and Socio-Economic Aspects’ in Medicinal, Culinaryand Aromatic Plants in the Near East (FAO - Proceedings of the International Expert Meeting, Cairo)10. Harragin, S. (2003). Nuba Mountains Land and Natural Resources Study (Part I – Land Study).USAID/UNDP-NMPACT11. Manger, F. The Issue of Land in the Nuba Mountains. UNDP-NMPACT12. Gezira State Board (undated). An Introduction to the Gezira Scheme [Arabic]13. Hindi, A. et al. (2003). Management of Public Health Pesticides in Sudan (Inter-CountryWorkshop on Public Health Pesticides Management in the Context of the StockholmConvention of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), Amman, Jordan)14. Sirag, A. et al. (2004). ‘Identification and Concentration of Organochlorine Residues in theBlood of Sudanese Workers at the Gezira Agricultural Scheme’ in International Research on FoodSecurity, Natural Resource Management and Rural Development (Peter, K. ed.). Berlin: Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin342 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

APPENDICES15. KSC (2006). Kenana Corporate Environment Strategy16. FAO (1995). Prevention and Disposal of Obsolete and Unwanted Pesticide Stocks in Africa and the Near East17. Dukeen, M. et al. (2006). Vector Control Situation within the Context of Sectoral Coordination inSudan (The First Regional Meeting of the Global Environmental Facility-supported countries inthe Eastern Mediterranean Region, Muscat, Oman)18. Gedaref SCENR (undated). Report of the Environment Secretariat on the Pesticide Warehouse in theCity of El Fao [in Arabic]19. Northern State Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Resources and Irrigation (undated). NorthernState [in Arabic]20. Lahmeyer International (2002). Environmental Assessment Report for Merowe Dam Project.Khartoum: Merowe Dam Project Implementation Unit21. FAO Multipurpose Africover Databases on Environmental Resourceshttp://www.africover.org/22. UNEP (1998). Mutsambiwa, F. and F. Ali. Community Forestry Project, Ed Debba, Sudan23. UNEP/FAO/ICRAF (2006). Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment of the Rural Environment forSudan (Draft). Nairobi, Kenya24. UNICEF (2003). Analysis of Nine Conflicts in Sudan25. Zaroug, M. (2000, updated 2002). FAO Sudan Pasture/Forage Resource Profile26. Elsiddig, E. (2002). Developments in Forestry Education in the Sudan (VITRI InaugurationWorkshop on Tropical Dryland Rehabilitation June 2002, University of Helsinki, HyytiäläForestry Field Station).http://www.mm.helsinki.fi/mmeko/VITRI/research/workshops/abdalla.htm27. Suttie, J. et al (2005). Grasslands of the World. Rome: FAO28. International Fund for Agricultural Development (2004). Report and Recommendation of thePresident for the Western Sudan Resources Management Programme29. Europa (1964). The Middle East and North Africa 1964-65. London: Europa PublicationsLimited30. HCENR/WCGA/UNDP (2004). Management Plan for Dinder National Park31. Sudan Ministry of Environment and Tourism/HCENR/SECS/Friedrich Ebert Foundation(1996). Toward a National Environmental Action Plan for Sudan [in Arabic]32. Wallach, B. (2004 revised). ‘Improving Traditional Grassland Agriculture in Sudan’ inGeographical Review33. Gedaref State Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Resources and Irrigation (undated). Gedaref StateLand Uses [in Arabic]34. Northern State Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Resources and Irrigation (undated). StatePreparations for the Winter Season 2006-2007 [in Arabic]35. Ayoub, A. Linkages between food security and natural resources conditions. (Workshop on the Post-Conflict National Plan for Environmental Management in Sudan, Khartoum, July 2006).36. Government of Sudan (undated). National Plan for Combating Desertification in the Republic ofSudan [in Arabic]37. International Fund for Agricultural Development (2003). Gash Sustainable LivelihoodsRegeneration Project38. International Fund for Agricultural Development (2004). Local Governance to Secure Access toLand and Water in the Lower Gash Watershed• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •343

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT39. Bashar, K. et al. (2005). Watershed Erosion and Sediment Transport. Nile Basin Capacity-BuildingNetwork, Khartoum40. El Rahman, M. and M. El Sammani (2006). Natural Resources and Socio-Economic Parameters(Workshop on the Post-Conflict National Plan for Environmental Management in Sudan,Khartoum, July 2006).41. Musnad, H. and N. Nasr (2004). Experience-Sharing Tour and Workshop on Shelterbelts andFuelwood Substitutes in Sudan. NORAD/NORAGRIC42. McNeil, M. (1972). ‘Lateritic Soils in Distinct Tropical Environments: Southern Sudan andBrazil’ in The Careless Technology: Ecology and International Development (Farvar, T. and J. Milton,eds.). Garden City: The Natural History PressChapter 9: Forest Resources1. FAO Forestry Department. Sudan Country Profilehttp://www.fao.org/forestry/site/countryinfo/en/2. Gaafar Mohamed, A. (2005). ‘Improvement of Traditional Acacia Senegal Agroforestry’ inTropical Forestry Reports 263. El Taib, A. A. and C. Holding (1988). Forestry and the Development of a National ForestryExtension Service: A Sudanese Case Study4. Sudan Forests National Corporation (1994). Studies on Consumption of Forest Products5. El Warrag, E.A., El Shiekh and A.A. El Feel (2002). Forest Genetic Resources Conservation inSudan. Khartoum: University of Khartoum6. FAO (2005). Global Forest Resources Assessment 20057. UNEP/FAO/ICRAF (2006). Post-Conflict Environmental Assessment of the Rural Environment forSudan (Draft). Nairobi, Kenya8. Tobiolo, M. L. et al. (2006). A Report on the Status of the Forest Reserves in Greater Yei County,South Sudan. Kagelu Forestry Training Centre9. Government of Sudan (2003). Ministry of Environment and Physical Development. Sudan’s FirstNational Communications under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change10. Badi, K. H and A.M. Ibrahim (2006). Forest Management and Conservation in Sudan(Workshop on the Post-Conflict National Plan for Environmental Management in Sudan,Khartoum, July 2006)11. Gorashi, A.R. (2001). State of Forest Genetics in Sudan. FAO/IPGRI/ICRAF12. Ibrahim, A.M. (2004). National Report to the Fifth Session of the United Nations Forum on Forests.Khartoum: FNC13. Van Noordwijk, M. (1984). The Ecology Textbook for the Sudan. Khartoum: Khartoum UniversityPress14. Raddad, E.Y.A. (2006). ‘Tropical Dryland Agroforestry on Clay Soils’ in Tropical Forestry Reports 3015. FAO Multipurpose Africover Databases on Environmental Resourceshttp://www.africover.org/Chapter 10: Freshwater Resources1. FAO Aquastat Information System on Water and Agriculture. Sudan Country Profile 2005http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/aglw/aquastat/countries/sudan/index.stm2. GONU Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resources: unpublished data and UNEP interviewsduring field missions in 2006344 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

APPENDICES3. GONU Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resources (undated). Irrigation and Water Resources ofthe Sudan (Past, Present and Future)4. Hassan, H. and M. Osman (2006). Gaps in Natural Resources Management in North SudanStates (Workshop on the Post-Conflict National Plan for Environmental Management in Sudan,Khartoum, July 2006)5. Mahboub, E. and K. Riak (2006). Wetland Management (Workshop on the Post-ConflictNational Plan for Environmental Management in Sudan, Khartoum, July 2006)6. Lahmeyer International (2002). Environmental Assessment Report for Merowe Dam Project.Khartoum: Merowe Dam Project Implementation Unit7. Teodoru, C., Wüest, A., and B. Wehrli (2006). Independent Review of the Environmental ImpactAssessment for the Merowe Dam Project. Kastanienbaum: EAWAG Aquatic Research Group8. Giles, J. (23/3/06). ‘Tide of censure for African dams’. Nature Publishing Group News Release9. International Rivers Network Merowe Campaignhttp://www.irn.org/programs/merowe/10. Mohammed, Y (2005). The Nile Hydroclimatology: Impact of the Sudd Wetland [PhD Thesis].Delft: Delft University of Technology/UNESCO-IHE, Balkelma Publishers11. Liabwel, I. (2006). Water Management in Southern Sudan (Workshop on the Post-ConflictNational Plan for Environmental Management in Sudan, Khartoum, July 2006)12. Mefit, Babtie (1983). ‘Development Studies in the Jonglei Canal Area: Final Report, Vol. 5’ inWildlife Studies, April 198313. Winter, P. (1997). ‘Southern Sudan’ in Antelope Survey Update 514. Moghray, A. et al (1982). ‘The Jonglei Canal: A needed Development or Potential Ecodisaster’ inEnvironmental Conservation 915. World Commission on Dams (2000). Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making. London: Earthscan Publications16. UN Sudan Transition and Recovery Database (July 2004 data). Southern Kordofan State17. Ramsar Convention (2006). Ramsar Information Sheet for the Sudd Wetlands18. Thieme, M. et al. (2005). Freshwater Ecoregions of Africa and Madagascar: A ConservationAssessment. Washington, DC: Island Press19. PERSGA (2003). Status of Mangroves in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, Technical Series No.1120. Bashir, M. et al (2001). Sudan Country Study on Biodiversity. Khartoum: Ministry ofEnvironment and Tourism21. Blower, J.R. (1977). Wildlife Conservation and management in the Southern Sudan (UNDP/ FAOSudan Project Findings and Recommendations)22. Navarro, Luis A. and George Phiri (eds.) (2000). Water Hyacinth in Africa and the Middle East. ASurvey of Problems and Solutions. International Development Research Centre23. Agaemi, O. (undated). Towards a State Environmental Action Plan (for Gedaref). Gedaref: GedarefMinistry of Environment and Tourism24. Al Sunut Development Companyhttp://www.alsunut.com/index.php25. International Fund for Agricultural Development Exploitation of Groundwater Resources Websitehttp://www.International Fund for Agricultural Development.org/evaluation/public_html/eksyst/doc/lle/pn/l103nrme.htm26. Tearfund (2007). Darfur: Relief in a Vulnerable Environment• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •345

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT27. Abu Zeid, K. (2002). The Transboundary Nubian Groundwater Basin. CEDARE28. South Valley Development Project (Toshka and East Oweinat)http://www.amcham.org.eg/BSAC/StudiesSeries/report20.asp29. Action Programme for the Integrated Management of the Shared Nubian Aquiferhttp://www.gefonline.org/projectDetails.cfm?projID=202030. Report of the Symposium on Aquaculture in Africa in Accra, Ghana, 30 September – 2 October 1975.Reviews and Experience Papers: CIFA Technical Paper No. 4 (Supplement 1)http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/AC672B/AC672B31.htm31. Murakami, Masahiro (1995). Managing Water for Peace in the Middle East: Alternative Strategies.Tokyo: United Nations University Press32. UNICEF Sudan Country Statistics (2002)http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/sudan_statistics.html33. HCENR/WCGA/UNDP (2004). Management Plan for Dinder National Park34. Sudan Ministry of Environment and Tourism/HCENR/SECS/Friedrich Ebert Foundation(1996). Toward a National Environmental Action Plan for Sudan [in Arabic]35. The Juba Post Press Release (10/8/06): ‘Digging Jonglei Canal Resumes with Egypt’Chapter 11: Wildlife and Protected Area Management1. Sudan Ministry of Environment and Physical Development (2003). Assessment of Capacity-BuildingNeeds and Country-Specific Priorities in Biodiversity Management and Conservation in Sudan2. Boma Wildlife Training Centre (2006). UNEP PCEA Wildlife Conservation and Protected Areas (Draft)3. Sudanese Environmental Conservation Society (2006). Sudan Wildlife Status Report (Draft)4. Hillman, J.C. (1985). Wildlife Research in the Sudan in Relation to Conservation and Management(Proceedings of the Seminar on Wildlife Conservation in the Sudan, Khartoum, March 1985)5. Kemp, R. and J. (1984). Survival Anglia. The Mysterious Journey [Film Documentary]6. Hillman, J.C. (1982). Wildlife Information Booklet. Sudan Ministry of Wildlife Conservation andTourism, Department of Wildlife Management7. Bashir, M. et al (2001). Sudan Country Study on Biodiversity. Khartoum: Ministry ofEnvironment and Tourism8. Blower, J.R. (1977). Wildlife Conservation and management in the Southern Sudan (UNDP/ FAOSudan Project Findings and Recommendations)9. Cave et al (1958). Birds of Sudan, their Identification and Distribution. UK: Oliver and Boy10. Robertson, P. (2001). ‘Sudan’ in Important Bird Areas in Africa and its Associated Islands: PrioritySites for Conservation. Fishpool, L.D.C. and M.I. Evans (eds). Birdlife International Series 1111. Setzer, H.W. (1956). Mammals of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan (Proceedings US Natural History Museum 106)12. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2006http://www.iucnredlist.org/13. Abdel Salam, Mohammed Younis (2006). Marine and Costal Environmental Conservation inSudan: The Role of Marine Protected Areas (Workshop on the Post-Conflict National Plan forEnvironmental Management in Sudan, Khartoum, July 2006)14. Mackinnon J. and K. (1986). Reviews of the Protected Areas System in the Afrotropical Realm.IUCN/UNEP15. World Resources Institute (1995). Twelfth Annual Report16. Birdlife Internationalwww.birdlife.org/datazone/sites/346 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

APPENDICES17. Seymour, C. (2001). Saharan Flooded Grassland. WWFwww.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial/at/at0905_full.html18. Stuart, S.N. and R.J. Adams (1990). Biodiversity in Sub-Saharan Africa and its Islands:Conservation, Management and Sustainable Use19. Winter, P. (1997). ‘Southern Sudan’ in Antelope Survey Update 520. East, R. (1998). African Antelope Database 1998. IUCN/SSC Antelope Specialist Group21. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1981). Forest Resources of TropicalAfrica (Part II: Country briefs – Sudan). FAO Tropical Forest resources Assessment project22. Hammerton, D. (1964). Hydrological Research in Sudan (Sudan Phl. Soc. 12th AnnualSymposium, Khartoum)23. Hughes, R.H. and J.S. (1991). Directory of African Wetlands. IUCN/UNEP24. Moghray, A. et al (1982). ‘The Jonglei Canal: A needed Development or Potential Ecodisaster’ inEnvironmental Conservation 925. Nikolaus, G. (1985). Necessary Conservation and Education Programmes, Protection of Wetlands ofInternational Importance and Migratory Birds in Sudan (Proceedings of the Seminar on WildlifeConservation and Management in the Sudan, March 1985, Khartoum)26. Ojok, L.I., Morjan, M.D., and B.B. Nicholas (2001). The Impact of Conflict on Wildlife and FoodSecurity in South Sudan: the Survey of Boma National Park, South Sudan (Draft)27. Ramsar Convention. Sudd Nomination Documentwww.ramsar.orgChapter 12: Marine Environments and Resources1. Hassan, M. (2006). Sudan Marine and Coastal Environment (Draft)2. Abdel Salam, Mohammed Younis (2006). Marine and Costal Environmental Conservation inSudan: The Role of Marine Protected Areas (Workshop on the Post-Conflict National Plan forEnvironmental Management in Sudan, Khartoum, July 2006)3. UNEP/IUCN (1988). Coral Reefs of the World Vol. 2: Indian Ocean, Red Sea and the Gulf. UNEPRegional Seas Directories and Bibliographies4. PERSGA/GEF (1998). Strategic Action Programme for the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. CountryReport: Republic of the Sudan5. UNEP-WCMC (2006). World Database on Protected Areas6. African Parks Foundation (2006). Expedition to Sanganeb and Dongonab National Parkshttp://www.africanparks-conservation.com/sudan-expedition.php7. PERSGA (2003). Status of Mangroves in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, Technical Series No.118. Government of Sudan. 2004 Marine Fisheries StatisticsChapter 13: Environmental Governance and Awareness1. Government of Sudan (2005). The Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the Government of theRepublic of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army, Nairobi, 9 January 20052. Government of Sudan (2005). The Interim National Constitution of Sudan3. Government of Southern Sudan (2005). The Interim Constitution of Southern Sudan4. UNEP (2006). Assessment of Environmental Policy, Institutions and Legal Framework in North andSouth Sudan (Draft)• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •347

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT5. Sudan National Environmental Action Plan (2007) (Draft)6. Scholte, P. and M. Babiker (2005). Terminal Evaluation for the Conservation, Management of Habitat,Species and Sustainable Community Use of Biodiversity in Dinder National Park (Report to UNDP-GEF)7. UNEP (2002). Capacity-Building for Sustainable Development. An Overview of UNEPEnvironmental Capacity Development Activities8. Abdel Ati, Hassan A. (ed.) (2002). Sustainable Development in Sudan, Ten Years after the RioSummit. A Civil Society Perspective. Environmentalists Society, EDGE for Consultancy andResearch and Heinrich Boll Foundation Regional Office Horn of Africa9. Bashir, M. et al (2001). Sudan Country Study on Biodiversity. Khartoum: Ministry ofEnvironment and Tourism10. Government of Sudan, Secretariat for Wildlife Conservation and Tourism (2004). Draft FrameDocument, The New Site – South Sudan, January 200411. UNEP (2005). Ridding the World of POPs: A Guide to the Stockholm Convention on PersistentOrganic Pollutants12. IUCN (2004). An Introduction to the African Convention on the Conservation of Nature andNatural Resources. Environmental Policy and Law Paper No. 5613. Government of Sudan (2003). Ministry of Environment and Physical Development. Sudan’s FirstNational Communications under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change14. Convention on Biological Diversity. Three Sudan National Reports to the Conference of the Partieshttp://www.cbd.int/reports/list.aspx?type=all15. Government of Sudan (undated). Sudan National Report to the Conference of Parties on theImplementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification16. Government of Sudan. Sudan’s Ninth Report to the Conference of the Parties of the RamsarConvention17. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafetyhttp://www.unep.ch/biosafety/development/countryreports/SDNBFrep.pdf18. Ramsar Conventionwww.ramsar.org19. The Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control ofTransboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africahttp://www.ban.org/Library/bamako_treaty.html20. The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposalhttp://www.basel.int/Chapter 14: International Aid and the Environment1. United Nations and Partners Work Plan for Sudan 20062. UN Mission in Sudanhttp://www.unmis.org/english/en-main.htm3. Sphere Standards, Sphere Project Websitehttp://www.sphereproject.org/4. UNEP-ETB (2002). Environmental Impact Assessment Resource Manual5. Chapin Metz, H. (1991). Sudan: A Country Study. Washington, DC: Library of Congress6. The Economist Intelligence Unit (2006). Country Report: Sudan (December 2006), London: EIU7. Andrews F.W. (1950). The Flowering Plants of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Arbroath, T. Buncle andCo. Ltd for the Sudan Government348 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

APPENDICES8. Tearfund (2007). Darfur: Relief in a Vulnerable Environment9. USAID Interim Strategic Plan for Sudan 2004-200610. USAID Sudan Strategy Paper 2006-2008http://www.usaid.gov/locations/sub-saharan_africa/countries/sudan/docs/sudan_strategy.pdf11. USAID Sudan Transitional Environment Programme (2006). Programmatic EnvironmentalAssessment of Road Rehabilitation Activities in Southern Sudan12. The Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa, Faculty of Natural andAgricultural Sciences, University of Pretoria (2006). Environmental Impact Assessment of the BorCounties’ Dyke Rehabilitation Project, South Sudan: Integrated Assessment Report13. Sustainable Options for Livelihood Security in Eastern Sudan (SOLSES) Project Websitehttp://www.unhabitat.org/content.asp?cid=4544&catid=271&typeid=13&subMenuId=014. Global Environmental Facility Projects Websitehttp://www.gefweb.org/Projects/Focal_Areas/focal_areas.htmlSpecial note: In the course of the assessment in 2006, UNEP sponsored two majorenvironmental workshops, one held in Khartoum in July and the other in Juba in November.At these events, technical papers were presented on the environmental issues of Sudanas input to both the UNEP report and the forthcoming government-owned National Planfor Environmental Management. The full list of these papers is offered below. Individualpapers have been included in the chapter references where appropriate.Proceedings of the Khartoum Workshop on the Post-Conflict National Planfor Environmental Management in Sudan, July 2006••••••••••••Abdelgani, M.E. and Z.E. Alabjar. Environmental Research Capacity in Sudan.Kitundo, M. Environmental Education and Public Participation in Sudan.Mohamed, Y.A. Public Participation in Natural Resources Management in Sudan.El Tayeb, G. and N. Kuku. The Role of Environmental Societies in Post-Conflict Sudan.Bashir, M. and F. Tong. Sudan Protected AreasMahgoub, E.F.E.T and K. M. Riak. Wetland Management in SudanIbrahim, A.M and K. H. Badi. Forest Management and ConservationMohamed, H.M. and A. R.M. Hamid. Range Management and Conservation in SudanAbdel Rahman, M.E.A. and M. O. El Sammani. Natural Resources and Socio-economic ParametersAbdel Salam, M.Y. Marine and Coastal Environment Conservation in Sudan.Omwenga, J.M. Global Management of Freshwater Resources – The Nile Basin – A PerspectiveLiabwel, I. Water Management in Southern Sudan• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •349

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT•••••••••Ayoub, A.T. Linkages between Food Security and Natural Resource ConditionsAwad, N.M. International and Regional AgreementsSatti, M. Partnership for Sustainable Development on the Red Sea CoastEl Hassan, H.M. and M. Osman. Gaps in Natural Resources Management in North Sudan StatesEl Hassan, B.A. Resource-Based Conflicts and Land Use SystemsAbdelbagi, A.O., Mohamed, A.A., El Hindi, A.M. and A.M. Ali. Impact of Pesticides and OtherChemicals on the EnvironmentMurkaz Ali, E.T. Overview of Relevant Policies, Strategies and Legislation Related to Environmentand their Relevancy under the CPAIbnoaf, M. A Pro-Poor Post-Conflict Participatory ApproachEl Moghraby, A.I. Management of Natural Resources in the Sudan• Desertification Control and Mitigation of Drought Effects in SudanProceedings of the Juba Workshop on the Post-Conflict National Planfor Environmental Management in Sudan, November 2006••••••••••••Hassan, K.I. The Impact of Climate Change on Food SecurityBojoi, M. Wildlife Tourism and Poverty. Present State and Strategy for Development in South SudanDima, S.J. Land Use Systems in South Sudan and their Impact on Land DegradationWurda, V. The Current Development of Instructional and Regulatory Framework for EnvironmentalManagement in South SudanBadawi Bashir M. K. Management of the Environment in the Sudan’s Oil IndustryDhol, J.C. Sustainable Agricultural Development in SudanAbate, A.L. Livestock Production Challenges in the Rangelands Ecosystem of South SudanUdo, M.G. Sustainable Livestock/Range Management Systems – A Way Forward to ProgressiveDevelopment of South SudanRiak, K.K. Sudd Area as a Ramsar Site: Biophysical FeaturesLiabwel, I. Water Resources in Southern SudanTier, A.M. The State and Capacity of Environment Institutions: Legal and StructuralGore, P. A Demographic Profile of Southern Sudan350 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

APPENDICESAppendix IIIList of contributorsMembers of the UNEP Assessment TeamUNEP Post-Conflict and Disaster Management Branch – Senior ManagementMr. Henrik Slotte, ChiefMr. Muralee Thummarukudy, Operations ManagerMr. David Jensen, Policy and Planning CoordinatorUNEP Assessment TeamMr. Andrew Morton, Sudan Project CoordinatorMr. Hassan Partow, Senior Environment ExpertMr. Grant Wroe-Street, Project CoordinatorMr. Joseph Bartel, Natural Resources ExpertMr. David Meadows, Programme OfficerMr. Edward Wilson, Wildlife ConsultantMr. David Stone, ConsultantMr. John Carstensen, Environmental Law ExpertMr. Mahgoub Hassan, Marine ExpertMs. Silja Halle, Report EditorUNEP Regional Office for Africa and HeadquartersMr. Sekou Toure, Director, Regional Office for AfricaMr. Nehemiah Rotich, Programme Officer (Biodiversity), Regional Office for AfricaMr. Mohammed Abdel Monem, Programme Officer (Natural Resources), Regional Office for AfricaMr. Serge Bounda, Chief LibrarianMr. Steve Jackson, Head of AudiovisualSpecial ThanksMinistry of Environment and Physical Development (GONU)H.E. Ahmed Babikir Nahar, MinisterH.E. Ms. Teresa Siricio Iro, State MinisterMr. El Fadil Ali Adam, UndersecretaryMr. Saadeldin Izzeldin, Secretary General, Higher Council for Environment and Natural ResourcesMr. Mamoun Abdel Kader, Director, Directorate of EnvironmentMr. Mahgoub Hassan, Deputy Secretary General, Higher Council for Environment and Natural ResourcesMs. Mona Abdel Hafeez, Directorate of EnvironmentMr. Bashir Omar, Directorate of EnvironmentMs. Samyah Ibrahim, Secretary, Environment Council Secretariat, Gedaref StateMr. Ahmed El Rashid Said, Secretary General, State Council for Environment and Natural Resources, Nile StateMr. Yacoub Salih, Secretary General, State Council for Environment and Natural Resources, Northern StateMr. Ghassan Ahmed, Marine Environment Protection AuthorityMinistry of Environment, Wildlife Conservation and Tourism (GOSS)H.E. James Loro Siricio, MinisterMajor General Alfred Akwoch Omoli, Permanent UndersecretaryMr. Victor Wurda LoTombe, Director General for EnvironmentMr. George Modi, Environment Information CentreMs. Kapuki Tognun, Librarian, Environment Information CentreMr. Moses Gogonya, Environmental InspectorMr. Alex Gubek, Environmental Inspector• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •351

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTGovernment of Southern Sudan Cabinet and Line MinistriesH.E. Luka Biong Deng, Minister of the Office of the PresidentHon. Gabriel Matur Malek, Chairman of the Committee for Land, Natural Resources and EnvironmentMr. Waragak Gatluak Fequir, Undersecretary, AgricultureMr. Jaden Tongun Emilio, Undersecretary, ForestryMr. Raymond Pitia, Undersecretary, Housing, Land and Public UtilitiesMr. Francis Latio, Undersecretary, Economic PlanningDr. Cirino Hiteng Ofuho, Undersecretary, Regional CooperationDr. Majok Yak, Undersecretary, HealthMr. Chour Deng Mareng, Undersecretary, Industry and MiningDr. Daniel Wani, Undersecretary, Transport and RoadsDr. Makuei Malual Kaang, Undersecretary, Animal Resources and FisheriesMr. Bortel Mori Nyombe, Undersecretary, Cooperatives and Rural DevelopmentMr. Isaac Liabwel, Undersecretary, Water Resources and IrrigationOther Sudan Government AgenciesMr. Ismail Jelab, Governor, Southern Kordofan StateMr. Ahmed Saad, Governor, Sennar StateMr. Azhari Abdel Rahman, Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Gezira StateMr. Mustapha El Khalil, Minister of Health, Gedaref StateMr. Jaafer Salih, Minister of Planning and Public Works, White Nile StateMr. Ahmed Gamal Dawood, Minister of Agriculture, Animal Resources and Irrigation, Northern StateMr. Abdallah Mohammed Edam, General Director, Ministry of Health, Northern Kordofan StateMr. Saoud Mohammed, Director, Office of the Minister of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Gezira StateMr. Abdel Adhim Tayfoor, Deputy Director, Ministry of Agriculture, Nile StateMs. Amna Hamid, Director, Remote Sensing AuthorityDr.Salwa Abdel Hameed, Director, Wildlife Research Centre and Ramsar Focal Point, Ministry of Scienceand TechnologyMr. Mohammed Ballal, Director, Gum Arabic Research Station Office, Agricultural Research CorporationMr. Salah El Din, General Director, Ministry of Energy and MiningMr. Mukhtar Ali Mutkhtar, Environment and Sustainable Development Advisor, Dams Implementation UnitMr. Muawia Salih Elbager, Environmental Affairs Director, Dams Implementation UnitMr. Haidar Bekhit, Director, Nile Water Directorate, Ministry of Irrigation and Water ResourcesMr. Muatism Al Awadh, Director, Sennar DamMr. Ahmed Abbas, Assistant Director, Roseires DamMr. Sameer Ahmed, Director, Khashm El Girba DamMr. El Hadi Adam, Research Engineer, Ministry of Irrigation and Water Resources, SennarMr. El Tayib El Alam, Director, Agricultural Directorate, Gezira SchemeMr. Abel Adhim Banaga, Director, Occupational Health and Saftey, Gezira SchemeMr. Hassan Kambal, Director, Directorate of Planning and Social and Economic Research, Gezira SchemeMr. El Tayib El Feel, Director, Irrigation Unit, Gezira SchemeMr. Amr Hassan, Deputy Director, New Halfa Agricultural SchemeMr. Tabayq Tabayq, Acting Director, Ministry of Agriculture, Sennar StateMr. El Nour El Nour, Director, Forest National Corporation, Southern Kordofan StateMr. Mohammed El Jaak, Director, Forestry Directorate, Gezira StateMr. Ibrahim Daoka, Director, Forestry Directorate, Gezira StateMr. Youssif Obeid, Director, Forestry Directorate, Nile StateMr. Awadh Adam, Forestry Director, El ShuwakMr. El Tijani Hussein Abdallah, Forestry Inspector, TalodiMr. Jamal El Deen Mohammed, Forestry Inspector, KadugliMr. Muhayi Adam Othman, Assistant Forestry Director, Abu JubayhahMr. Adam Jadallah Ardeeb, Forestry Inspector, DillingMr. El Sheikh Dein Hussein, Forestry Inspector, Umm RawabaMr. Abdullah Hamid, Director, Marine Fisheries Association, Ministry of Animal and Fish ResourcesMr. Maknoon Othman, Ministry of Agriculture, El Hasahesa352 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

APPENDICESMr. Merghani El Sayid, Director, Plant Protection Directorate, Gedaref StateMs. Samiha Ishaq, Director, Rangelands and Fodder Directorate, Gedaref StateMr. Ousama Ibrahim, Deputy Director, Forestry Department, KhartoumMr. Abdellah Harun, Wildlife Conservation General Administration, Ministry of Interior, Red Sea StateMr. Asam Qassem, Manager, Suba Wastewater Treatment Station, KhartoumColonel Sanad Bin Suleiman, Dinder National Park, Wildlife Conservation General Administration, Ministry of InteriorMr. Mubarak Ibrahim, Wildlife Research CentreSudan Civil Society and Private SectorMr. Muawia Shadad, Chairman, Sudan Environment Conservation SocietyMs. Suad M. Sulaiman, Director, Sudan Environment Conservation SocietyMs. Huda Khogali, Environment Expert, Sudan Environment Conservation SocietyMr. Taalat Abd El Majed, Environment Expert, Sudan Environment Conservation SocietyMr. Sumaia M. Elsayed, Sudan Environment Conservation SocietyMs. Salma El Tayb, Deputy Director, Sudan Environment Conservation Society, KostiMr. Hussein Musa, Director, Sudan Environment Conservation Society, Wad MedaniMr. Abel Latif, Jawdan, Sudan Environment Conservation Society, Wad MedaniMr. El Nayir Suleiman, Sudan Environment Conservation Society, GedarefMr. Izat Taha, ConsultantMs. Susan Ayot, ConsultantMr. Malik Marjan, Principal, Boma Wildlife Training CentreCaptain Abdel Helim bin Abdel Helim, Red Seas EnterpriseMs. Somaya Mohammed, Head, Department of Biological Oceanography, Red Sea UniversityMs. Nahid Osman, Faculty of Marine Sciences and Fisheries, Red Sea UniversityMr. Suliman Suliman, HSE Consultant, Shell SudanMr. Hamza Ibrahim, Deputy General Manager, Nile Cement Co.Mr. Samuel Mule, Concern, Southern Kordofan StateMs. Nidal Ibrahim, Jamiyat Ro’ait El KheirMr. Ahmed El Bashir, Deputy Dean, Wadi El Neel UniversityMr. Alex Murray, Field Coordinator, ADRA, Um JawasirMr. Nasser Bur, Section Head Environment, HSE Department, GNPOCMr. Fatih Youssif, HSE Supervisor, Heglig, GNPOCMr. Mohammed Abdullah, Director, Administration Department, Gezira TanneriesMr. Hamza Fath El Rahman, Deputy Director General, El Rabak Cement FactoryMr. Siddiq Abdul Rahman, Chemical Engineer, El Rabak Cement FactoryMr. Muawia Ali, General Manager, Kenana Sugar CompanyMr. Mohammed El Sheikh, General Director, Assalaya Sugar FactoryMr. Mohammed Abou Raouf, President of the Pastoralist Union and Leader of the Al Rifaa Tribe, Sennar StateMr. Mahmood Khalid, President, Farmers Union, Nile StateUnited Nations in SudanMr. Omer Egemi, Head of Environmental Section, UNDPMs. Hanan Mutwakil, Senior Programme Associate, UNDPMr. Thomas Carter, UNDP JubaMr. John Fox, UNDP JubaMr. Sadig Ibrahim Elamin, Sudan Interagency Mapping, OCHAMr. George Okech, Head of Office, FAO JubaMr. Mohammed Hussein, FAO KhartoumMr. John Smith, Livestock Officer, FAOMr. Greg Wilson, Country Director, UNOPSMr. Akuila Buadromo, Project Manager, UNOPSMr. Steve Crosskey, Roads Programme Manager, WFPMs. Malar Smith, Head of Office, UNHCR BorMr. Tom Hockley, Deputy Head, RCO KhartoumMr. Marcus Culley, UNDSS JubaMr. Kakuca Mladen, OIM Juba• United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •353

SUDANPOST-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTInternational Organizations and IndividualsMr. Yves Barthélemy, Remote Sensing ExpertMr. Dominique Del Pietro, UNEP DEWA GRID-EuropeMr. Brendan Bromwich, TearfundMr. Azene Tesemma Bekele, Project Manager, ICRAFMr. Sean White, Winrock InternationalMr. Douglas Varchol, DZAP ProductionsMr. Philip Winter, Rift Valley InstituteMr. Thomas Catterson, USAIDMr. Paul Symonds, European CommissionMr. Gedion Asfaw, NTEAP Manager, Nile Basin InitiativeMs. Astrid Hillers, World BankMr. Jörn Laxén, University of HelsinkiMr. Steve McCann, MMackintoshMr. Jon Bennett, Oxford Development ConsultantsMr. Evert Van Walsum, ConsultantMs. Jane Upperton, ConsultantMs. Mette Møglestue, ConsultantMr. Laks Akella, ConsultantUNEP Post-Conflict and Disaster Management BranchMr. Henrik Slotte, ChiefMr. Muralee Thummarukudy, Operations ManagerMr. Andrew Morton, Country Operations CoordinatorMr. David Jensen, Policy and Planning CoordinatorMr. Joseph Bartel, Natural Resources ExpertMr. Mario Burger, Senior Scientific AdvisorMs. Rachel Dolores, Project AssistantMs. Silja Halle, Communications AdvisorMr. David Meadows, Programme OfficerMs. Cecilia Morales, AdvisorMs. Mani Nair, Project AssistantMs. Satu Ojaluoma, Administrative OfficerMs. Elena Orlyk, Project AssistantMr. Hassan Partow, Senior Environment ExpertMr. Matija Potočnik, Media AssistantMr. Gabriel Rocha, Systems AdministratorMs. Joanne Stutz, Programme AssistantMr. Koen Toonen, Project CoordinatorMs. Maliza van Eeden, Associate Programme OfficerMs. Anne-Cécile Vialle, Operations and Research AssistantMr. Richard Wood, Technical CoordinatorMr. Grant Wroe-Street, Project CoordinatorMr. Dawit Yared, Project Assistant354 • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme • United Nations Environment Programme •

Further informationCopies of this report may be ordered from:SMI (Distribution Services) LimitedP.O. Box 119StevenageHertfordshire SG1 4TP, UKTel: +44 1438 748111Fax: +44 1438 748 844UNEP has an online bookstore at: http://www.earthprint.comFurther technical information may be obtained from the UNEP Post-Conflict and Disaster Management Branchwebsite at: http://postconflict.unep.ch or by email: postconflict@unep.ch

www.unep.orgUnited Nations Environment ProgrammeP.O. Box 30552 Nairobi, KenyaTel: +254 (0)20 762 1234Fax: +254 (0)20 762 3927Email: uneppub@unep.orgThe Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed in January 2005 by theSudanese Government and the Sudan People’s Liberation Army putan end to more than two decades of continuous civil war. With peaceand a fast-growing economy fueled by its emerging oil industry,most of the country can now focus on recovery and development.Sudan, however, faces a number of challenges. Among theseare critical environmental issues – including land degradation,deforestation and the impacts of climate change – that threaten theSudanese people’s prospects for long-term peace, food security andsustainable development. In addition, complex but clear linkagesexist between environmental problems and the ongoing conflict inDarfur, as well as other historical and current conflicts in Sudan.With a view to catalysing action to address the country’s keyenvironmental problems, the Government of National Unity andthe Government of Southern Sudan requested UNEP to conducta comprehensive assessment of Sudan’s environment. Extensivefieldwork was carried out in 2006 by different teams of experts whospent a total of 150 days in the field, on ten separate field missions.The sectors investigated include natural disasters and desertification,linkages between conflict and environment, the impacts ofpopulation displacement, urban environment and environmentalhealth, industry, agriculture, forest resources, freshwater resources,wildlife and protected areas, marine environments, environmentalgovernance and international aid.This report by UNEP presents the findings of the post-conflictenvironmental assessment of Sudan and detailed recommendationsfor follow-up action.ISBN: 978-92-807-2702-9Job No.: DEP/0816/GE