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[65], 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:[66]
- 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’[67].
 |
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.[68]
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?[69]
§ 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[70].
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[71]
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”[72], 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 [73] 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[74]. 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[75].
§ 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[76].
§ 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. [77]
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.
