PART C: AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
OF DECISION MAKING, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT BIODIVERSITY AND ECOSYSTEM
SERVICES
|
C.1 Good governance and administrative justice
in decision making |
Good governance
is especially important in the context of biodiversity because the
biophysical environment cannot speak for itself. Thus governments have a
responsibility to adopt a long-term view for a nation’s development as the
principal custodians of the environment. As noted in Part A.3, southern
Africa has a disproportionate fraction of global biodiversity, and it also
has a very high direct human dependency on ecosystem services. Thus any
decision which affects biodiversity, could also have a long-term effect on
the nation’s development and human wellbeing.
C.1.1 Principles of good governance
The term
‘governance’ is a complex and multi-dimensional concept since it
incorporates 3 key components,
namely:
§
A guiding
philosophy or core set of agreed operating principles, i.e. public
administration must be governed by the democratic values and principles
enshrined in a country’s constitution e.g. the right to an environment that
is not harmful to health and wellbeing;
§
The preferred ‘process’
that guides the way people interact with each other and with administrative
authorities, i.e. the country’s legal framework relating to, for example,
the Acts that govern impact assessment, biodiversity and natural resources;
and
§
A desired set of ‘products’
or outcomes which are articulated in a country’s hierarchy of conventions,
protocols, policies, plans and strategies. For example, by signing the
Convention on Biological Diversity the country is accepting a range of
obligations to ensure certain outcomes relating to biodiversity management.
So what is
‘good’ governance? The five common principles of good governance are
generally accepted to be:
-
Openness and transparency:
where government institutions work in an open and transparent manner,
communicating freely about what they do, and the decisions they take,
using language that is accessible and understandable by the general
public.
-
Participation:
where the quality, relevance and effectiveness of policies, legislation,
regulation and practice depend on wide public participation from
conception to implementation. More to the point is that public opinion
and comment is given due consideration both in the development of such
documents, and in making decisions on projects which will affect public
interests.
-
Accountability:
where every person responsible for making decisions, from the Minister
to the general public, takes full responsibility for what they do.
There must be clear and explicit demonstrations of honesty by
participants and leaders at all levels, human rights and freedoms must
be protected, and the processes and decisions adopted are consistent
with agreed policy outcomes and goals.
-
Effectiveness:
to achieve the efficient, economic and effective use of resources, based
on policies that are appropriate, as well as clear and agreed
objectives, taking into account past experience and potential future
impacts.
-
Coherence and consistency:
where both policies and implementation actions are clearly aligned and
well understood by all participants, and are consistent with other
related initiatives within a complex system.
Sustainable development can only be achieved if all
sectors of society co-operate and contribute to a common future. That is,
it is important that there is strong collaboration between government,
science (specialists), and society (including the business sector), as shown
in Figure C-1. Decision making must draw on reliable information as well as
the values of society and the socio-economic development imperatives of
developing nations; impact assessment processes strive to ensure that the
‘trialogue’ between society, decision makers and specialists is adequate.
Figure C-1:
Conceptual diagram
illustrating the linkages and interfaces between the public, government and
science, and their collective contribution to ‘good governance’.
 |
If Interested and Affected persons are not adequately consulted
during development planning, they might resort to street protests in
an attempt to be heard. Well designed public participation
programmes channel energy into constructive dialogue that usually
improves project design and implementation.
© P. Tarr |
C.1.2 Administrative justice in decision making
Interesting to note:
Environmental conflicts often arise as a result of the incorrect or
unjust use of administrative decision making powers.
In most
democratic countries, the national constitutions afford citizens the right
to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally
fair. Anyone whose rights have been adversely affected by
administrative action has the right to be given a written response for the
decision.
So, what are
the requirements of lawfulness, procedural fairness and reasonableness?
§
Lawfulness:
when the state has a legal duty to act in a certain way and fails to do so,
it is acting unlawfully.
§
Procedural
fairness: The
procedure that the government follows in making an administrative decision
must be fair. If there is a set of established rules that the government
must follow in coming to the decision, then these must be properly adhered
to, including the need to provide written reasons for making the decisions
(see Part E.7). The decision can be challenged if the rules are not
followed.
Interesting to note:
Procedural Fairness Rule
There is
one rule that decision makers must always follow, even if there are no
other established procedures in place. This rule requires that a person
whose rights stand to be affected by an administrative decision, must be
allowed to state his or her concerns before the decision is made.
Decisions that are made without the affected parties being allowed to
state their concerns is thus an unfair decision.
§
Reasonableness: Whether an administrative action is reasonable or not depends on the
circumstances surrounding the decision e.g. environmental considerations
against which the decision was taken. The questions that a court will ask
to test if the decision was reasonable or not are:
o
Was the decision the most suitable one to
make in the circumstances of the case?
o
Was the decision necessary?
o
Was the decision proportional? In other
words, does it balance the requirements of all the people who will be
affected by the decision i.e. the right to administrative or environmental
justice.
C.2 Making decisions to achieve sustainable
development
Over and above satisfying the principles of good
governance and administrative justice in decision making, decision makers
must take into account the overarching goal of sustainable development in
making decisions.
Interesting to note:
A
‘business as usual’ attitude to decisions that affect the natural
environment is making it difficult to change course to a more
sustainable development orientated future.
Decision making for sustainable development requires
critical examination of purposes and alternatives, needs to take into
account the applicable regulatory framework, indirect and cumulative, as
well as direct and immediate effects, uncertainties and risks, and
scientific facts and societal values. It should seek to identify
alternatives that offer the greatest overall benefits and avoid undesirable
trade-offs, rather than merely enhancing or mitigating the effects of the
already chosen options. It also needs an effective means of monitoring
effects and enabling adaptive implementation of approved activities.
Interesting to note:
Findings of the Situation Assessment,
Southern Africa
In the
SADC countries, consideration of biodiversity and ecosystem services in
decision making is generally inconsistent. Decision makers do not seem
to use any explicit decision criteria or criteria for making trade-offs
in decision making. Neither the Records of Decision nor the outcome of
appeals on Records of Decision reflected any clear rationale.
In many instances it
seems as if environmental consultants and decision makers are asking
different questions of the environmental assessment process.
The
problem with current decision making is that it frequently fails to
adhere to the principles of sustainable development, due to a number of
possible reasons as highlighted in the Situation Assessment:
§
Decision makers’ personal and/or
professional opinions often count heavily in decision making.
§
Decision making is often characterized by
being ‘short-term and reactive’, ignoring the long-term consequences of
irreversible and irreplaceable impacts on ecosystem services. That is,
undesirable trade-offs are made between short-term socio-economic gains and
long-term impacts on those ecosystem services that support human wellbeing
(see Example).
EXAMPLE: UNDESIRABLE TRADE-OFFS, SOUTH AFRICA
Case Study 1:
The decision maker on a proposed development noted numerous
inconsistencies with spatial planning and land use policy, impacts on
the natural environment, the fact that the development changes the
predominantly rural and conservation nature of the area, and that the
development is not a sustainable land use. In spite of these
considerations, the development was authorized on grounds that it would
have a desirable socio-economic outcome because there would be benefits
to the families residing on the site and nearby. Clearly, the decision
did not support the objectives of sustainable development or meet the
criteria given in Box C-1. Short term socioeconomic gains were pursued
at the expense of significant impacts on both the natural and cultural
environment and the social context in the long term, given
inconsistencies with strategic planning.
In this instance,
no alternative layouts for the proposed development were considered in
the EIA. Most of the specialists involved in the EIA recommended that
an amended layout plan of the proposed development would avoid or
minimize potential negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem
services, and contribute to an improved proposal. However, the decision
maker did not ask for an amended plan.
Case
Study 2: A proposed development on the coast
was initially turned
down since it was in a National Lake Area of possibly international
importance, was inconsistent with spatial plans in the area,
inconsistent with the coastal zone policy, and was not supported by
local authorities.
An appeal on the
decision by the proponent resulted in the development being approved.
Reasons given were the ‘potential’ for tourism development, foreign
investment, and ‘several’ job opportunities, especially during the
construction phase. None of these reasons was justified or motivated
with facts. Here too, the decision did not support the objectives of
sustainable development or meet the criteria given in Box C-1. Short
term socioeconomic gains and perceived longer term gains for the economy
were pursued at the expense of significant impacts on both the natural
environment and the social context in the long term, given
inconsistencies with strategic planning and the value of the affected
site.
Additional
problems with current decision making as highlighted in the Situation
Assessment include:
§
Personal bias in decision making is
aggravated by impact assessment reports that are biased or give undue
emphasis to one or other issue without providing supporting information.
§
The problem of subjective decision making
is that many decisions are neither in line with the objectives of
sustainable development, nor are they transparent or defensible.
§
Decision making is often inconsistent,
leading to loss of credibility of the environmental authority by the public.
§
Changes to the environment as a result of a
proposed development are frequently compared to the current situation,
rather than to a desired state of the environment. The additive effects of
changes are seldom considered.
§
Alternatives are not always required by
decision makers or addressed in the impact assessment process, undermining
the basis for environmental decision making.
Interesting to note:
In the
words of Jared Diamond, the author of
“Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive”,
if our society is to succeed, we need:
o
The courage to practice long term thinking and to make bold, courageous,
anticipatory decisions at a time when problems have become perceptible
but before they have reached crisis proportions. This type of thinking
“is the opposite of short-term reactive decision-making that too often
characterizes our elected politicians”.
The Task
Force on Environmental Sustainability of the United Nations Millennium
Project
echoed this thinking, noting that:
o
Achieving environmental sustainability requires dramatic changes in the
ways societies and citizens manage biodiversity and the wastes and
by-products of human consumption.
Optimum
decision making for sustainable development would mean that:
§
Decisions would reflect the realities of
the supporting ecological systems, since these systems set constraints and
limits on society’s activities. These constraints and limits determine
whether or not a society can survive, develop and prosper.
Good decision processes will be able to detect threats to systems, identify
options to keep systems within safe ranges and allow freedom of choice among
the safe decision options according to their present-day goals, values,
perceptions and beliefs whilst not jeopardizing future sustainability.
§
The comparison of alternatives forms an
essential part of making good decisions. Decision making for sustainable
development seeks to identify alternatives that offer the greatest overall
benefits and avoid undesirable impacts, rather than merely enhancing or
mitigating the effects of the already chosen options.
§
Decision making would be based on specified
goals and desired outcomes, rather than being a comparison with the
status quo. Stated simply, if we don’t know where we want to be, we
will never get there.
·
Decision making would make use of explicit
criteria and strive to achieve particular outcomes.
Important to note:
o
Increasingly, it is being recognised internationally that explicit
criteria for decision making are needed, to provide a clear, transparent
and consistent basis for decisions affecting the environment.
o The use of explicit criteria in decision making helps focus the decision
maker on internationally and locally accepted objectives for sustainable
development, and obligations with regard to, amongst others,
biodiversity conservation and the need to strive to achieve the
Millennium Development Goals.
|
C.3
Criteria and desired outcomes for
decision making to support
the objectives of sustainable development |
Figure C-2:
The Decision Maker’s Dilemma
Box C-1
provides decision criteria and desired outcomes in support of sustainable
development.
|
Box C-1: Decision
criteria and desired outcomes |
|
Over-arching
criteria and desired outcomes |
|
Decisions
should:
o
Try to
meet all the requirements for sustainability together as a set of
interdependent parts, seeking mutually supportive benefits (e.g.
gains in the local economic base will collapse if key ecological
functions are not maintained).
Decisions
should not:
o
Accept
compromises or trade-offs if they entail further decline, or risks
of decline, in officially recognised areas of concern (e.g. official
policies, plans, strategies, etc).
o
Accept any
significant long-term loss in any one of the requirements for
sustainability.
o
Accept
enhancement of benefits as compensation against incomplete
mitigation if stronger mitigation efforts are feasible.
o
Make
compromises or trade-offs where at all possible. Where they are
made, they must be explicitly and openly described and justified.
o
Justify
significant negative effects on the integrity of social and
ecological systems, or equity and social justice, by compensation
through increased economic efficiency (or vice versa). |
|
Protecting the
integrity and resilience of social and ecological systems |
|
Decision criteria |
Desired outcomes |
|
Decisions
should:
o
Protect
the integrity of social and ecological systems, and the
irreplaceable life-support functions on which human and ecological
wellbeing depends.
o
Ensure
that livelihoods are maintained or improved.
o Favour
those actions and options that are most likely to preserve and
enhance the opportunities and capabilities of future generations to
live sustainably.
o Provide
and maintain a base for ensuring sustainable livelihoods for all. |
o
No net
loss of species or ecosystems diversity.
o
Maintain
and conserve natural linkages and corridors between habitats within
the same ecosystem, and between ecosystems, along altitudinal and
climatic gradients, to allow for ecological and evolutionary
processes to continue.
o
Positive
contribution to the conservation of biodiversity and integrity of
ecosystems, where at all possible.
o
The
quality and quantity of natural / harvestable goods and ecosystem
services, on which the livelihoods and resilience of society in
general - and vulnerable communities in particular - depend, should
be safeguarded.
o
Use of
natural resources (biodiversity and ecosystem services) should be at
or less than rates of replenishment or renewal, or agreed upon
thresholds or limits of acceptable change.
o
Development should avoid the destruction of ecosystems that protect
communities from natural hazards. (These ecosystems may not be
threatened from a biodiversity perspective but have value and
importance by virtue of the protection they afford local
communities). |
|
Decisions should not:
o
Accept any
significant long term loss. |
|
Precaution and
adaptation |
|
Decision criteria |
Desired outcomes |
|
Decisions
should:
o
Respect
uncertainty and allow for adaptation. Avoid poorly understood risks
of serious or irreversible harm to the foundations of
sustainability. Plan to learn, design for surprise and manage for
adaptation.
|
o
Development should have minimal risk of irreversible effects on, or
irreplaceable loss of genetic, species or ecosystem diversity.
o
High level
of confidence in predictions as to the effects on biodiversity and
ecosystem services. Where confidence levels are low, and / or there
are major gaps in information, a risk-averse and precautionary
approach should be adopted.
o
Assurance
should be provided that the required mitigation and management of
impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services could - and would -
be effectively implemented. |
|
Equity and social
justice |
|
Decision criteria |
Desired outcomes |
|
Decisions
should:
o
Reduce the
gaps in wellbeing between the wealthy and the poor.
o
Build
democratic governance.
o
Pursue the
benefits of actions that would support both the immediate and long
term needs for sustainable development. |
o
Decision
making should be based on due consideration of all stakeholder
values, and should make adequate provision for their access to
impact assessment and associated decision processes.
o
The
outcome of development should be an improvement in the fair
distribution of rights and access to, management of, and benefits
from biodiversity and ecosystem services.
o
Development should not result in a net cost to society, particularly
where the “beneficiaries” of a specific development are single
individuals or corporations that derive personal benefit from
collective loss.
o
Development should not result in vulnerable or poor sectors of
society having to bear the costs of losing biodiversity or of
negative effects on ecosystem services, and any negative effects
should not make them increasingly vulnerable or marginalized.
o
Development should not result in future generations having to bear
the costs of lost biodiversity or impaired ecosystem services
o
Biodiversity and ecosystem services should be preserved for future
generations, to optimise their capability of living sustainably.
|
|
Decisions
should not:
o
Displace
significant negative effects from the present to the future.
|
|
Efficiency |
|
Decision criteria |
Desired outcomes |
|
Decisions
should:
o
Ensure
that the net overall effects of development are positive, and choose
the development option that promises the greatest long-term gain
overall.
o
Seek to
provide a larger base for ensuring sustainable livelihoods for all
while reducing threats to the long term integrity of
social-ecological systems. |
o
Negative
effects on the natural environment should not result in a net cost
for society, through having to pay to replace or substitute for lost
or negatively impacted - and previously free - ecosystem services.
o
Opportunities and potential benefits lost through a proposed
activity should not outweigh gains from that activity. |
|
C.4 Co-operative governance at SADC and
national levels |
Governments and
authorities in SADC countries must ensure that development complies and/or is
consistent with a hierarchy of international conventions, regional (NEPAD/SADC)
protocols, national and provincial/state laws, policies, plans, programmes and
strategies. In most cases, consideration of these conventions, protocols, laws,
policies, plans, programmes and strategies requires either co-operation between
countries and/or co-operation between different government authorities and
agencies.
Box C-2 lists those
conventions, agreements, policies and statutes that are of particular relevance
to this guidance.
|
Box
C-2: Key conventions, protocols, laws, policies and plans relating to
biodiversity requiring co-operative governance |
|
International conventions
o
The Convention
on Biological Diversity
o
The Ramsar
Convention
o
The Convention
on International Trade in Endangered Species
o
The Convention
on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn
Convention or the CMS)
o
The UN Convention to Combat
Desertification (CCD)
Regional protocols
o
NEPAD and SADC protocols, particularly
those related to the Southern Africa Sub-regional Environmental Action
Plan of the Environmental Action Plan of NEPAD (currently being revised)
o
The Protocol on Shared Water Resources
o
The Protocol on Trade
o
The Protocol on Mining
o
The Protocol on the Development of
Tourism
o
The Protocol on Wildlife Conservation
and Law Enforcement
o
The Fisheries Protocol
o
The Forest Protocol
National laws, policies and
plans
o
Impact assessment laws
o
Spatial development plans and
frameworks
o
Land use plans |
 |
A number of SADC treaties make
provision for cooperative management of resources, especially those with
transboundary dimensions. A more innovative approach would be to negotiate the
sharing of benefits rather than resources, so as to prevent “national projects”
being implemented in places with no comparative advantage.
©
P.Tarr |
Four African
initiatives have emphasised the importance of strong political commitment and
good governance in all African countries to ensure that development does not
destroy the resource base on which it is based.
The central theme that emerged from these meetings was the recognition that
sustainable development was essential, but would only be achieved if African
countries had sufficient institutional, technological and human capacity.
Significantly, it was also recognised that this would require close cooperation
from all sectors of government and civil society.
Interesting to note:
Findings of the Situation Assessment, Southern
Africa
o
Projects which had a high degree of
inter-departmental co-operation were usually more successful than those
which had little or fragmented consultation with relevant line ministries.
o
Difficulties arise when the roles and
responsibilities of local and national (or provincial) government overlap
e.g. in metropolitan areas where there is a lack of adequate consultation
between different levels of government.
o
Involvement of the biodiversity agency
and biodiversity NGOs seem to have had a major beneficial effect on shaping
proposals and optimizing decision making. Omission of these bodies from the
planning and EIA / SEA process frequently led to the decision being appealed
or delayed.
It is essential to
ensure co-operation and consultation with other government departments and
ministries, both within countries and between neighbouring countries for a
number of reasons:
§
Co-operation as early as
possible in the planning process allows for shared objectives, outcomes and
criteria for both the impact assessment and associated decision making to be
determined. In many instances, different countries or jurisdictions have
different laws, policies and priorities; the early rationalisation of these
different formal requirements and value systems is important to ensure an
optimum outcome for sustainable development.
§
Because environmental issues are cross-cutting,
most project applications will involve at least one other line ministry.
§
Large-scale infrastructure projects e.g. a
national road, may cross provincial or state boundaries and therefore more than
one environmental authority may be involved, depending on the administrative
structure of the country;
§
Large-scale infrastructure projects may involve
more than one country, e.g. transmission lines or any water projects in a shared
river basin, and then different national jurisdictions need to be consulted to
ensure harmonisation in approach;
§
Projects which are planned in and around an
urban area may fall under both national and local authorities.
The checklist in
Box C-3 provides an aide mémoire for environmental authorities to ensure that all the
correct government stakeholders are consulted at the outset of a planned
development.
|
Box C-3: Checklist of government departments |
|
Local
Government* |
Provincial/
National Dept./ Ministries* |
Other
Countries |
|
o
Housing
o
Water
o
Sewage
o
Waste
o
Roads
o
Traffic
o
Town planning
o
Parks and recreation
o
Electricity |
o
Energy
o
Mines and mineral resources
o
Water
o
Natural resources
o
Transport
o
Public works
o
Health
o
Trade and Industry
o
Agriculture
o
Forestry
o
Fisheries
o
Heritage
o
Conservation, wildlife and parks
o
Tourism
o
Town, regional and rural planning
o
Marine resources |
o
Foreign Affairs
o
All countries affected by proposed
laws, policies or plans (e.g. trade)
o
All downstream countries affected by a
river development project
o
All countries which may be affected by
a pollution plume from the proposed project
o
All countries which may be party to a
trans-frontier park or other similar development
o
All countries involved in inter-basin
transfer schemes
o
All countries affected by power line
inter-connectors |
* Generic titles have been given, but
each country has its own nomenclature for its government Ministries or
Departments.
Some biodiversity
agencies may fall directly under line ministries, but in some countries they may
form separate parastatal agencies e.g. parks boards, institutes, museums,
aquaria, foundations, trusts and societies. These agencies must be contacted at
the outset of the impact assessment process and need to be involved in the
decision-making process.
Most inter-basin
states have set up joint management commissions or authorities e.g. the Zambezi
River Authority, which need to be consulted for any project which will affect
the flow and quality of water within the affected river catchment.
 |
It is increasingly common that
different government agencies combine their capacity to consider development
initiatives. Best practice has shown that the addition of civil society and
experts to such fora, considerably improves transparency in decision making
processes and increases technical understanding of the issues at hand.
©
P.Tarr |
|
C.5 Deciding on the most appropriate level of
assessment – SEA or EIA? |
One of the first
and most critical decisions is to determine which level of assessment is
appropriate for the application – a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) or
an environmental impact assessment (EIA). The following guidance is intended to
help with this decision.
C.5.1 Definitions
§
Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) is
the application of impact assessment to individual projects. Typically,
EIA is not proactive in its approach, focuses on a specific project and
the affected site, and seldom considers landscape scale or cumulative impacts.
§
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)
is the application of impact assessment
to policies, plans, and programmes. There are many different approaches to
SEA, ranging from the ‘EIA’ model where the impact assessment is
carried out on a policy, plan or programme once it has already been developed
(i.e. reactive), to an integrated and/or ‘sustainability led’ approach that
strives to meet sustainable
development objectives, is proactive and can be ‘built into’ policy and planning
processes. Importantly, impact assessment at strategic level encourages an
‘opportunities and constraints’ type approach to development, where such things
as natural resources and ecosystem services at landscape scale define the
‘framework’ within which development can take place and the types of development
that could be sustained.
Use Box C-4 to
decide whether an SEA or EIA would be the most appropriate tool to assess the
impacts of a development proposal, plan, policy or programme.
|
Box
C-4: Characteristics of SEA and EIA |
|
EIA |
SEA |
|
Is
reactive to a development proposal. |
Is
often pro-active and informs development proposals. |
|
Assesses the effect of a proposed development on the environment. |
May
assess the effect of existing environmental conditions on development
needs and opportunities. |
|
Relates to a specific project and thus seldom considers cumulative
effects. |
Relates to areas, regions or sectors of development and thus has to
consider cumulative effects. |
|
Has
a well-defined beginning and end and focuses on informing a specific
decision at a particular point in time. |
May
be a continuing process aimed at providing information at the right
time. |
|
Enables the identification of specific impacts. |
May
create a framework against which specific project types can be selected
and where impacts and benefits can be measured. |
|
Focuses on the mitigation of negative impacts and the enhancement of
positive impacts. |
May
focus on maintaining a chosen level of environmental quality, e.g.
through the identification of sustainability objectives and limits of
acceptable change. |
|
Has
a narrow perspective and includes a high level of detail. |
Has
a wide perspective and a low level of detail to provide a vision and
overall framework. |
Figure C-3: Strategic Environmental
Assessment and Environmental Impact Assessment
C.5.2 SEA and EIA as complementary tiers of impact
assessment
To
ensure that development meets the objectives of sustainable development, both
SEA and EIA are desirable; the broad scope and low level of detail of the SEA
being complemented by the narrow scope and relatively high level of detail of
the EIA (Figure C-3). It is important that the impact assessment of a project
is ‘nested’ within a strategic environmental assessment, thus ensuring that it
is contextually sound and consistent with broader development objectives.
 |
SEAs are especially valuable in
places where many similar projects could be established alongside each other –
such as linear beach development. The uptake of SEA as a useful planning tool is
much too slow in
southern Africa. ©
P.Tarr |
C.5.3 Dealing with cumulative effects
Where a particular
geographic area is experiencing rapid development and/or additive impacts on
specific biodiversity and/or ecosystem services (e.g. destruction of offshore
reef habitat or coastal dune cordon that protects inland villages), a focused
strategic environmental assessment should be commissioned for that area,
with a view to providing a robust framework within which to evaluate the
cumulative impacts of future development, and addressing those specific
biodiversity or ecosystem services as being limiting factors for
sustainable development in that area.
Therefore, the
issue of cumulative impacts on biodiversity and/or ecosystem services is best
addressed at a landscape, regional or sectoral scale through SEA, not on a
project-by-project basis. Examples of the need to ‘upscale’ impact assessment
from a project to a strategic level are given below.
EXAMPLE:
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES IN SOUTH AFRICA
Permits for the
cultivation of ‘virgin land’ (land that has not been cultivated in the
previous 10 years) are required from the Department of Agriculture. In
addition, water permits are required from the Department of Water Affairs to
abstract groundwater.
In the ‘Sandveld’ of
the Cape Floristic Region, potato farming using pivot irrigation and drawing
on groundwater resources was started in the late 1980s.
At that time, the Sandveld was considered not to be under threat.
Over 45,550ha
of natural habitat has been approved for cultivation; about 20% was approved
in 2003.
About
12 million m3 of groundwater was
abstracted seasonally in 1998 for the potato industry; by 2002 that figure
had reached 18 million m3 per season and has increased since with
the rapid growth of cultivation.
Now, all of
the habitats are listed as threatened in terms of the National Spatial
Biodiversity Assessment. With the pumping of
groundwater, there are concerns about saltwater intrusion from the coast, as
evidenced by increasingly saline borehole water. The drawdown of
groundwater has had a negative impact on a coastal Ramsar wetland site of
international significance.
Clearly, decision making on a project-by-project, piecemeal basis is
ignoring the landscape-scale effects on ecosystem services and
biodiversity. That is, decision making is not supporting sustainable
development. A strategic level study is needed urgently, to address the
landscape-scale effects of potato farming in the Sandveld.
EXAMPLE:
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF TOURISM DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE GARDEN ROUTE, SOUTH
AFRICA
The
proliferation of golf estates along the coast on the Garden Route, South
Africa, was cause for alarm on the part of the environmental authority in
that province. In 2004, along a 100km stretch of coastline, at least six of
these developments were proposed in addition to the 15 or so existing golf
courses/estates. These developments were being evaluated on a case-by-case
basis on individual merit.
At the scale
of the Garden Route, however, collectively the golf courses/estates were
responsible for (amongst others) conversion of large tracts of natural
habitat, interruption of ecological corridors both from inland to the coast
and along the coast, changes in landscape and scenic character, and
substantial use of freshwater resources.
Given that
freshwater is a limiting factor for development on this coast, and that many
towns experience water shortages during the peak holiday season, the
opportunity costs associated with diversion of freshwater resources is of
major significance.
Recognizing
the potential for the cumulative effects of golf courses/estates to be
substantial, the provincial environmental authority commissioned consultants
to carry out a ‘rapid review’ and to prepare guidelines for these
developments.
The
guidelines
are to act both as a decision support mechanism for the authority and to
give proponents a clear sense of the criteria to be used in evaluating
future applications. The implementation of these guidelines should ensure
consistency and transparency in decision making.
An
inter-departmental forum, with representatives of key stakeholders in the
private sector, has been established to address the current issues and work
towards a reasonable and effective solution.
C.6 Decision making in a strategic vacuum
Interesting to note:
Findings of the Situation Assessment, Southern
Africa
o
Many
countries in southern Africa lack policies or plans at strategic level, so
that decision making at project level is effectively taking place in a
vacuum.
o
It is
important that a robust tiered framework of policies, plans and programmes,
where each tier ‘talks’ to the next, is provided for biodiversity
conservation within the context of impact assessment for sustainable
development.
Where there
is no strategic guidance at a level above that at which project-level decisions
are taken, i.e. at the relevant policy, plan or programme level, decision makers
should:
§
Adopt a precautionary approach so as not to
foreclose future options.
§
Where the need for strategic guidance is clear
in terms of providing a much-needed, robust and urgent framework for decision
makers, to help them decide if and where particular developments should be
allowed, a strategic level study should be commissioned.
§
Where thresholds for acceptable impacts on
biodiversity and ecosystem services are not clear and need to be determined in
line with the precautionary principle, relevant specialists should be
commissioned to determine these thresholds and thus inform decision making in
such a way that risks of irreversible effects and/or irreplaceable loss of
natural capital are avoided.
§
Involve other government departments and the
agency/agencies responsible for biodiversity and ecosystem services in decision
making to get clarity and agreement on the best outcome, taking into account the
guidance given in Box C-1.
§ Where
impacts could cross international boundaries, encourage the countries concerned
to conduct
a regional-level SEA e.g. the Mid-Zambezi Agricultural Self-Sufficiency Project.
EXAMPLE:
CASE STUDY FOR DEVELOPMENT ON THE WILD COAST, SOUTH AFRICA
Background: The Wild Coast has great natural scenic beauty and is one of
the few southern African coastal areas that have not as yet been subjected
to large-scale development processes. Development pressures are escalating
rapidly as a result of drives to increase tourism to the area, in an effort
to stimulate both the national and local economies.
Proposed
Development: A proponent wanted to develop a resort with accommodation
for about 100 people, five boat houses, a meeting hall and various minor
ancillary structures such as a slipway for launching ski boats. The site of
the project was outside an existing settlement area within an area which may
be considered near-pristine and of outstanding natural beauty.
The
Problem: A major problem confronting regional and local planning
authorities is the lack of a spatial development framework for the Wild
Coast in general and the affected area in particular. Ad hoc
development proposals have the capacity to impact on future sustainable
development and conservation planning.
The Decision:
The authority denied permission for the proposed development because it fell
outside draft development boundaries for the area. The authority noted that
the absence of a spatial development plan meant that the proper tools for
ensuring sustainable development were missing. Also that allowing the
development would set a precedent for ribbon development (outside
development boundaries) and might compromise the essential and most
marketable feature of the Wild Coast which was its wilderness aspect.
 |
 |
|
Because of poor spatial development
planning, urban encroachment of pristine areas, especially the coastal strip,
has proceeded largely unchecked. Nowadays, local authorities are much more aware
of the need to maintain “biodiversity corridors” and green spaces.
©
B.Walmsley |
C.7 Dealing with uncertainties, gaps in
information, and risks
When dealing
with uncertainties, gaps in information and risks, decision makers should:
§ Ensure that all relevant information about the
likely consequences of a proposed activity for biodiversity and ecosystem
services has been provided. That means ensuring that the right specialists, who
can best answer questions about biodiversity and ecosystem services and impacts
on these services, have been involved in the impact assessment.
§
Ask for additional
studies to be commissioned by the proponent where there are gaps in information
that can be addressed relatively quickly, and where that information is highly
likely to influence decision making. The findings of these studies should
inform the decision. That is, the actual studies should not be included as
conditions of authorization.
§ Ensure that all reasonable alternatives that
could avoid or minimize uncertainty and the risk of irreversible impacts and
irreplaceable losses have been investigated. That is, that every effort has
been made to find the best option for sustainable development.
§
Ensure that the gaps in information, risks and
uncertainties associated with a proposed activity are clearly explained. Also,
that the level of confidence in each impact prediction is clearly stated. Where
there are low levels of confidence, and there is a risk of negative and
irreversible impacts, a risk-averse approach must be taken.
§
Consider the opportunity cost of taking a
particular decision (See Examples in Part A.5.2).
§
Consider the costs of replacing or providing a
substitute for any resources that could be lost (see Examples in Part A.5.2)
§
Apply a risk-averse approach when taking
decisions where the consequences of actions are not certain but could be
significant, could lead to irreversible effects or the irreplaceable loss of
biodiversity and/or ecosystem services.
EXAMPLE:
APPLYING PRECAUTION - CASE STUDY FOR TOURISM DEVELOPMENT, SOUTH AFRICA
Proposed
Development:
Municipal land was to be sold to a developer on condition that a proposed
golf estate, hotel and housing estate were authorized by planning and
environmental authorities. The site was situated
on the slopes of a mountain abutting a provincial nature
reserve.
Significance of Impacts on Biodiversity:
The property provides habitat for Critically Endangered vegetation
of the Cape Floristic
Region and a Red Data Book flowering bulb,
and soils are highly productive. The region lies in a water-deficit area
and increased water use over the years has had significant adverse effects
on the aquatic ecology and ecosystem services of the rivers in the area.
The EIA:
Information on the supply of water for the development was insufficient and
inconclusive. Potential ecological impacts of a proposed water supply dam
were not addressed in the EIA.
The Decision:
The development was authorized first by the planning authority and then by
the environmental authority. Many of the ‘unanswered questions’ of the EIA
were incorporated in the conditions of authorization. For example, one of
the conditions was that an EIA for the proposed water supply dam had to be
carried out.
The Outcome and
Lessons Learned:
A key Non Government Organization (NGO) took the matter to the
High Court
on the basis that decision
making had been incremental, and
an unlawful
‘cart before the horse approach’ had been adopted.
The judge upheld the NGO’s contention that the official responsible for
decision making was not empowered to make his decision conditional on
further piecemeal EIAs, and that his approval of the development was
therefore unlawful. It was ruled that EIAs must be completed before any
consent decisions are taken, and environmental impacts of all components of
a development must be identified and probed in their entirety before a
decision is taken. If that did not happen, the
environment would be
prejudiced.
Stated
another way, environmental approval should not be conditional on potentially
significant studies being conducted on parts of the development after the
decision.
C.8 Dealing with
lack of capacity within
regulatory authorities
Interesting to note:
Findings of the Situation Assessment, Southern
Africa
o
Inadequate
capacity within decision making authorities highlights the need to improve
not only the current capacity, but also to invest resources in improving the
capacity of emerging and future decision makers.
When the decision
maker receives an application for an environmental authorisation, supported by
the relevant impact assessment documents, the authorities must consider the
following:
-
Match skills to complexity:
the capacity of officials to evaluate the adequacy of impact assessments should
be carefully matched with the complexity of the proposed activity and the likely
significance of effects or impacts.
-
Ask for expert opinion:
where there are likely to be significant adverse effects on biodiversity pattern
or process, or on ecosystem services, or where there is a high risk of such
effects, a person with sufficient competence and experience in ecology should be
given responsibility for handling that application.
-
Ask for independent
review: where the necessary capacity is
lacking within the authority, and where the information provided to decision makers is inadequate, the authority should call
for independent review either of the impact assessment as a whole, or
specifically of the specialist input on biodiversity (see part E). Review
should contribute to building of local capacity (i.e. provided that the
authority and local specialists can participate in the review). An independent
review or advisory panel would be preferable to individual reviewers as it
introduces balance in judgment and perspective, and lends greater credibility
for decision makers. Independent review should be carried out at key points
throughout the impact assessment process rather than at the end of that process.
-
Consultation and cooperation
with other authorities that have relevant expertise, and with biodiversity
agencies (where they exist), would help to evaluate impact assessments submitted
to the decision making authority.
-
Proponent pays:
authorities should establish and maintain a network of experts outside its
structures, and use these persons strategically to assist them. The costs of
this outsourcing should always be carried by the proponent. It is important,
however, that the authorities make the proponent aware that external review
might be required, along with associated costs.
Hot tips!
§
Look after biodiversity pattern and the
ecological processes that maintain ecosystem
health, ensure delivery of ecosystem services and support human wellbeing in
general; knowing that they play a particularly important role in the
livelihoods and lives of poor communities.
§
Consider the full value of biodiversity
and ecosystem services, not just the market value
– and the costs of having to replace or find substitutes for lost
biodiversity or ecosystem services.
§
Use precaution
in decisions that may affect biodiversity and ecosystem services: Many of
the effects of our actions on biodiversity and ecosystem services are not
known and may be unpredictable.
§
Ensure that society as a whole, poor
communities in particular, and future generations, are not made more
vulnerable by negative impacts on ecosystem
services.
§
Always consider not only the regulatory
framework and all relevant information, but also the value systems of
affected society.
§
Use the decision criteria and desired
outcomes (Box C-1) as a constant guide.
§
Ask for independent review
of the impact assessment if it seems that there has been
poor integration of biodiversity studies with social, economic and/or health
impact studies, and for peer review of the biodiversity specialist study if
it does not adequately address biodiversity and/or ecosystem services.
5
Figure from
Ashton PJ (2006). The
role of good governance in sustainable development. In: AR Turton,
DR Roux, M Claassen and J Hattingh (Eds.) Governance as a Trialogue:
Government-Society-Science in Transition. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
17 pages. (In press). This figure is modified and re-drawn from an
earlier version of this figure in Turton AR, Hattingh J, Claassen M,
Roux DR and Ashton PJ (2006). Towards a model for ecosystem
governance: An integrated water resource management example. In: AR
Turton, DR Roux, M Claassen and J Hattingh (Eds), Governance as a
Trialogue: Government-Society-Science in Transition. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag. 18 pages. (In press)
Ashton PJ, MJ
Patrick, HM MacKay and AvB Weaver (in press). Integrating biodiversity
concepts with good governance to support water resources management in
South Africa. Water SA (October 2005 issue).
5