GH EnviroLinks: Teresa, thank you for taking the time to talk with us. Can you please introduce yourself for our readers?

Teresa Bernhard: I am the acting Agency Environmental Coordinator, E3 Bureau Environmental Officer, and Multilateral Development Bank (MDB) lead. I’ve been at USAID for 13 years—my how time flies! I previously was an environmental impact professional with the U.S. Navy.

GH: Please tell us a little bit about E3. What are some areas of focus or examples of projects led by the Bureau?

TB: The E3 is about to become the Development, Democracy, and Innovation (DDI) Bureau, which will cover sectors relating to engineering/construction, energy, youth, gender, climate, education, environment, and private sector engagement. DDI will also cover innovation, democracy and governance, and the American Schools and Hospitals Abroad program. E3 manages a lot of “central mechanisms” that Missions buy into. The focus for 22 Code of Federal Regulations 216 (22 CFR 216) compliance is getting the mechanism—and any Operating Units (OUs) buying into it—prepared for performing the environmental and social impact assessment. We have some interesting projects. An air quality monitoring project just came across my desk—it’s a great and innovative activity. I’ve also seen other efforts, such as small-scale wetlands, spring and riverbed restoration, water provisioning, and construction.

GH: Can you describe your work as E3 BEO and acting AEC? How are you balancing the two sets of responsibilities?

TB: HAHA, that’s a funny question! My main responsibility as the E3 BEO is to work with the E3 staff to make sure that OUs who are buying-in understand the approach they need to take for Reg. 216. As acting AEC, I have been focusing on social impact assessments, accountability mechanisms, revising Automated Directives System (ADS) 204, and the development of an automated system for performing Reg. 216 analysis and documentation.

Balancing is about priorities. As I said, I am committed to E3 as their BEO. Nothing is more important than getting environmental and social assessment considerations into project design and implementation. Balancing is also about bringing in other BEOs to work together on solving issues. Like all things at USAID, we need to adjust as the Agency adjusts. I work with the BEOs to make those adjustments, though in reality, the BEOs take the lead on each of their issues. It’s great to see the BEOs, MEOs, and REAs working together as a team to accomplish goals in the interests of the Agency’s development objectives!

GH: How are you working with GH to support the environmental compliance process?

TB: GH is a great program with a clear and compelling mission. It also has a great BEO, Dennis Durbin, who has vast experience in environmental and social impact assessments. I support Dennis when he needs an ear to bounce ideas off, and we’re collaborating on updating the Sector Environmental Guidelines (SEG) on Small Healthcare Facilities (SHCF). In reality, Dennis has the program on a great path and doesn’t need much from me. On a more Agency-focused scale, efforts such as social impact assessments, automation of the Reg. 216 process, and revision of ADS 204 will impact all the Agency BEOs, so we are working together to make these improvements work.

GH: From your perspective, what are the top three environmental compliance challenges faced by USAID?

TB: Water is always a big one! Water is a limited resource, yet so many people that we are trying to support need it. Providing safe drinking water doesn’t mean just sinking a well or piping water in from a stream. And it doesn’t mean that the only thing that’s needed is chlorination. Water must be examined for a number of contaminants that have direct and acute impacts, which takes time—time that people don’t seem to want to take. But we are working on it!

Another big issue is health care waste management (HCWM), including medical, pharmaceutical, solid, liquid, and other types. Every time I visit the field, there’s a plethora of HCWM questions. There are numerous examples globally of how healthcare waste mismanagement has caused illness. People need to start thinking about HCWM as part of the project cycle, from design through monitoring. It adds some costs, but it saves lives in the long run. Also, there are some great approaches to monitoring and managing healthcare waste, so don’t think your project is too big or too small to make proper HCWM possible!

I would say that making environmental compliance a meaningful part of project design and the program cycle is crucial. Too many people think that it’s just paperwork. It’s not. The whole goal of Reg. 216 is to make better, more sustainable projects that ensure a strong journey to self-reliance. Reg. 216 analysis can point out limitations in a project design, such as a lack of water or land tenure issues. It can also point to ways that the environment can be adversely affected, which, in turn, can adversely affect the communities we serve. It is important that people don’t lose sight of these adverse impacts even though the project has the potential for such a positive impact. We know that with a little pre-planning, these adverse impacts can be erased or mitigated at a very low cost.

GH: How is the Agency addressing those challenges and improving the environmental performance and sustainability of USAID interventions?

TB: The Africa Bureau (AFR) is leading the effort to develop a template to ensure that water quality and quantity are addressed as part of project design. This is hard because it is a “foreign concept” for project design, but it’s a great way to ensure that the appropriate contaminants are examined in a way that allows for good decision-making. GH is also working to establish standard approaches to HCWM mitigation measures.

As for integration into the program cycle, we are working on revising ADS 204 so that the policy requirements are integrated into the ADS 201 program cycle. ADS 201 is USAID’s operational model for planning, delivering, assessing, and adapting development programming in a given region or country to advance U.S. foreign policy. The automation of Reg. 216 helps alleviate the administrative burden of completing documentation and assists in gathering information on standard mitigation measures and impacts for smaller scale projects. This system will be part of the Agency’s overall Development Information Solution (DIS), so it will be fully integrated into the program cycle. Hopefully, this will get project and activity teams to start thinking about adverse environmental and social impacts earlier.

Other important initiatives include working on a virtual Reg. 216 training, and we just completed a 1.5-hour online course (located at USAID University). We are also in the infancy of an effort to work on capacity building with host country partners. It’s very notional at this point, but we see it as critical to ensure that environmental and social impacts are considered in project design so sustainable outcomes can be realized.

GH: Thanks, Teresa. We’ve really enjoyed your insights!

Subscribe to GH EnviroLinks to receive our quarterly newsletter, including future spotlights, direct to your inbox! To learn more about USAID’s environmental procedures, officers, and initiatives, visit the USAID Environmental Procedures Hub. If you have specific questions related to the GH’s environmental program, please contact ghcompliancesupport@usaid.gov.