After its preliminary environmental assessment of the affected areas - through a field mission - immediately following the October 8 earthquake, the World Conservation Union (IUCN) undertook two missions to select districts of NWFP and AJK, in the affected areas, to have a more detailed assessment of environmental risks and needs. The report that follows is based on these field missions: November 19-26 to NWFP and December 4-7, 2005 to AJK. The methodology for carrying out the assessment was based on visits to the affected areas and communities; observation of the environmental damages; meetings and consultations with affected communities as well administrators and aid agencies; and finally, a review and analysis of the findings, including the compilation of a pre-quake environmental overview of the visited areas.

In both NWFP and AJK, apart from the huge losses in life and property, badly disrupting the socio-economic activities, there has been considerable damage to the biophysical environment. This includes the destruction caused by the land and mudslides that continued after the main earthquake due to the frequent aftershocks; siltation of rivers and streams; damage to both natural and man-made water channels rendering them unusable for irrigation purposes; damage to the forest resources, essentially due to landslides and rockfalls; damage to agriculture land - especially that on the slopes - roads, water mills and fish farms; and finally, the huge amount of debris, the safe disposal of which poses a major environmental challenge.

Among the most serious risks is the danger of flash floods and more landslides; the pressure on dwindling natural resources, especially forests for fuel and shelter needs; health hazards due to poor sanitation and inadequate solid waste management practices in the relief camps; the dangers of heavy siltation in rivers feeding into the Mangla Dam and those of haphazard reconstruction. An important psycho-social risk, with far reaching socio-economic implications, is the danger of affected people becoming dependent on relief aid and lose their motivation for work.

The final section of the report assesses the environmental needs and suggests the way ahead. This includes interventions at the planning stage calling for proper land use and zoning plans; enforcement of updated building codes and guidelines (extended to the mountain hamlets); mainstreaming of multiple hazards and environmental risks into all development sectors, policies and procedures, especially to develop a comprehensive natural disaster risk management framework for mountain areas.

There was also a need for collaboration between the government, civil society, private sector and the academia to design and implement such a framework.

Among the sector-wise interventions is the need for a coordinated effort for information and knowledge dissemination; technical assistance in camp management; optimal and environment-friendly ways and means for catering to the energy and construction requirements; restoration of livelihoods; rehabilitation of rural community infrastructure; sustainable forest management and environmental rehabilitation. Finally, the lessons learnt from the earthquake should inform the approaches to rehabilitation and reconstruction. The earthquake, though devastating, has created unique opportunities for rebuilding and re-engineering of the social, economic, environmental and cultural fabrics and institutional arrangements for research, planning and service delivery in the affected areas. The overarching principles on which it should be based are detailed in the Section 4.3 of the report.