The Capacity Building in Biodiversity in Impact Assessment (CBBIA) project is a three-year global project managed by the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) and funded by the Netherlands government.  The CBBIA project aims to integrate biodiversity conservation with impact assessment and develop capacity among stakeholders in developing countries in several regions, including southern Africa, Central America and Asia. 

Under the coordination of the Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment (SAIEA), the project in the southern African sub-region is focussing on building capacity within decision-making authorities on biodiversity issues.  It aims to provide training, posters, case studies, and other capacity building tools to assist authorities in the region in making sound decisions about development.

This document provides guidance for decision-makers on a range of biodiversity principles and issues which confront decision-makers every day when they evaluate impact assessments.  It is based on the findings of a Situation Assessment conducted as part of this project during 2005[1].  The Situation Assessment made use of the input received from authorities and conservation agencies from the southern African region[2] in response to questionnaire surveys and structured workshops.  It also drew heavily from 24 case studies on impact assessment and decision making from four SADC countries.

The key findings of the Situation Assessment can be broadly divided into two categories: those relating to the biodiversity information provided to the authorities in impact assessment reports; and those relating to how the decision-makers interpret and make use of the biodiversity information provided to them in impact assessment reports.

The Situation Assessment found that there are a number of weaknesses in the way that biodiversity issues are addressed in impact assessment reports.  These include:

§         The timing of biodiversity input is often too late in the impact assessment process to influence the proposal;

§       The relevance of biodiversity information provided in EIA reports is not made explicit, leaving the non-specialist with the question “so what?”

§         Lack of sufficient information on biodiversity, either due to lack of data, or lack of effort to find existing data;

§       The implications of gaps in information, uncertainty and/or risks are often not made explicit in terms of irreversibility of impacts, irreplaceable loss of resource, etc;

§         Biodiversity input is often focused on the affected site and at species-level, rather than addressing broader, landscape-scale effects on ecosystems and processes;

§         There is little consideration of indirect or cumulative effects;

§         The economic value of ecosystem goods and services is seldom addressed;

§         The Terms of Reference for many impact assessments and specialist studies are often poorly defined;

§      The criteria used to determine the significance of impacts are often questionable.  They are often not linked to a broader strategic context (e.g. policy objectives, spatial frameworks, conservation plans).

§      The linkages between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human wellbeing, including the dependence on resources by vulnerable communities, are seldom clearly articulated.  Consequently, the effects of development on these linkages – and ultimately communities – are not addressed.

§       There is inappropriate reliance on environmental management plans and programmes for effective mitigation; the so-called ‘proper management will fix all ills’ approach. 

It is small wonder, therefore, that authorities find it difficult to make informed decisions when the information being supplied to them is inadequate.  However, there are many cases where the information on biodiversity in an impact assessment report is adequate, but decision making does not seem to support sustainable development.  There are several possible reasons:

§         The development imperative in most SADC countries requires short-term socio-economic benefits to be realized;

§       There is a general lack of clear guidance or criteria on which to base decisions.  This often results in inconsistencies in decision making e.g. the lack of clarity about sustainability principles and how to apply them, such as the Precautionary Principle;

§         Inadequate consultation and cooperation between authorities;

§         Lack of experience within the government departments to properly review environmental reports;

§        Cumulative effects are seldom addressed at project-level EIA and therefore developments are approved on a piecemeal basis, without the bigger picture being considered;

§       Records of decision or letters of authorization are vague and the associated conditions of approval are often impossible to implement or audit, and are vulnerable to legal challenge;

An additional issue highlighted in the Situation Assessment is that the implementation of conditions of authorization is seldom, if ever, followed up by authorities.

The purpose of this guidance document is:

§         To define what is meant by the terms ‘environment’, ‘biodiversity’ and ‘human wellbeing’ and how they are inter-related.

§         To explain how biodiversity impacts on, and is impacted by, human activities.

§         To provide guidance on how biodiversity should be considered in an impact assessment.

§       To provide guidance on how to make decisions on biodiversity issues, especially in the face of major capacity and data constraints.

§       To provide guidance on how to ‘steer’ the SEA and EIA processes to get the answers/information needed to make an informed decision.

§         To provide information on the key biodiversity issues in different development sectors.

This document is primarily intended to provide guidance for all those who have to make decisions on biodiversity issues through the impact assessment process, namely:

§         National, provincial/state and local authorities who make decisions about the environment and development, and comment on impact assessment reports.  These authorities include, but are not limited to: departments or ministries of environment, planning and land use, mines, energy, water, agriculture, forestry, housing, roads, tourism, heritage and health.

However, although it is targeted at decision makers, several other stakeholder groups will find this useful as a reference document:

§         Conservation authorities such as parks boards, national or provincial conservation authorities and wildlife agencies, who are the custodians of the nation’s wildlife and flora, and who often have to comment on, and provide input to impact assessment reports.

§      Non-governmental and community-based organisations who have an interest in, or could be affected by proposed development, and who participate in impact assessment processes.

§       Consultants who manage and coordinate impact assessment reports, including writing Terms of Reference for specialist studies, managing the outputs of the specialist studies and integrating the results of specialist reports into the overall impact assessment findings.

§         Specialists who provide expert input on biodiversity issues for impact assessment reports.

The guidance document is also a useful reference document for academics (the trainers), students (trainee decision-makers and consultants), as well as politicians who would like to implement sustainability policies.

The term ‘sustainable development' was coined by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987, in an attempt to capture the concept that economic development, the natural environment and people are entirely inter-dependent.  This concept seeks to ensure that social and economic development follows a path that enhances the quality of life of humans whilst ensuring the long-term viability of the natural systems (resources) on which that development depends[3].

The concept of sustainable development has been taken up at all levels and particularly in Africa.  There is now rapidly growing agreement amongst African governments that socio-economic well-being and a healthy biophysical environment cannot be separated.  Indeed, the fifth session of the African Ministerial Conference on the Environment (1993) recognised the need for African countries to look at emergency and disaster issues from a new perspective and shift away from ad hoc short-term approaches to medium and long-term planned policies and strategies.

In southern Africa, acceptance of the concept of sustainable development has been marked by the ratification of international conventions by most countries, particularly the Convention on Biological Diversity, Ramsar Convention and CITES, as well as the development of SADC-based protocols on environmental issues.  However severe capacity constraints in most countries have made it difficult to translate these policies and concepts into practice.

In recent years, increasing attention has been focused on the role of biodiversity in sustainable development at a global scale:

§     Global studies such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2001-2005) have highlighted the significant role played by our ecosystems in supporting our lives and livelihoods. 

§     Recognition has been given to the fact that conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services is fundamental to achieving the Millennium Development Goals, which are respected as a framework for sustainable development. 

§    Global bodies such as the UNDP are investing resources in developing countries, helping them to integrate biodiversity considerations and commitments in terms of international conventions into national policies and programmes, and into key sectors of their economies.

§    International funding bodies and banks have incorporated sustainable development and the associated use of renewable natural resources and protection of biodiversity into their policies, performance standards and principles since 2003 (e.g. International Finance Corporation, World Bank and other Development Finance Institutions that have adopted the Equator Principles).

§     The International Council on Mining and Metals has produced “Good practice guidance for mining and biodiversity”  (May 2005).

§    The International Association for Impact Assessment has produced a Special Publication on “Biodiversity in Impact Assessment” (July 2005). 

§     The Eighth Ordinary Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (Curitiba, Brazil in March 2006) endorsed the voluntary guidelines on biodiversity-inclusive impact assessment as being one of the major tools to include biodiversity in holistic decision making. 

In spite of the global uptake of sustainable development as a concept, and of the growing recognition of the critical role that biodiversity plays in human wellbeing, most politicians and administrators have failed to make the link between conservation of biodiversity, social and economic development, and human wellbeing.

Terminology

This guidance document is meant to be used throughout the SADC region.  While most countries within the region have EIA legislation, which broadly follows a similar process of studies and approvals, the terminology applied to these studies and approval processes is slightly different.  In order to avoid confusion, Box 1 provides a listing of equivalent terms for each country in SADC, together with the World Bank definitions for each stage.  This guidance document will use the World Bank terminology and the reader is referred to Box 1 to check the equivalent terms for his/her country.

The reader is referred to Appendix 1 for a glossary of terms.

Structure of the guidance document

This guidance document is to be used as a reference text.  Each part therefore deals with different aspects of biodiversity and the decision-making process.  Parts A to C provide a theoretical background, while Parts D to E provide specific guidance for decision makers for guiding and reviewing the impact assessment reports and for making decisions on biodiversity issues at SEA and EIA levels respectively.  Part F provides sectoral guidelines on biodiversity issues.  The text has been kept to a minimum and use has been made of text boxes throughout.  Text boxes coloured green contain information which expands upon concepts raised in the text, and those coloured yellow denote a matter of interest.  Boxes coloured blue provide examples and case studies.

* These countries have only got draft EIA legislation