The Art and Science of Environmental Impact Assessments
by Dr Alex Weaver and Dr Sibusiso Sibisi, CSIR
Forty years ago, environmental impact assessment (EIA) did not exist. Today it
is recognised as one of the most successful policy innovations and a formal - if
not legal - requirement in most countries world wide, including South Africa.
"Sustainable development" was introduced as a concept almost 20 years
ago (Brundtland Report, 1987). It is encouraging that the reality of being true
to that concept is something that policy makers, scientists and the public at
large are learning not to ignore.
Recent public debate and media coverage of EIA processes surface very
pertinent issues relating to sustainable development. Examples include the
Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) project, the development of the N2 Wild Coast
Toll Road and the Expansion of the Cape Town Container Terminal Stacking area -
the CSIR was involved in the Cape Town project as an EIA consultant. The
development dilemmas and tensions related to these projects require the
engagement of all sectors of society, as they shape the sustainable development
process South Africa follows in a dynamic rather than a static manner. It is
said that sustainable development is a journey; we are still far from the
destination.
With government implementing its infrastructure programme as part of the
Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa (ASGISA) initiative,
these issues will no doubt continue to be a matter of public discourse. Indeed,
one of the binding constraints identified in the ASGISA process was that
"... the planning system (including EIAs) ... unnecessarily hampers the
development of business" (ASGISA,
2006). Concerns about EIAs hampering the development process have been expressed
directly and indirectly by a number of senior politicians in recent months
(Media briefing on the mid-year Cabinet Lekgotla by President Thabo Mbeki, 30
July 2006, Budget vote speech by Ms Lindiwe Sisulu, Minister of Housing, 24 May
2006).
As commentators with expertise in the world of science and practice of EIAs,
we would like to express and confine our opinions regarding the other dimension
of the discourse that tends to accompany projects undergoing EIAs. Our comments
relate to the persistent critique of the EIA processes including matters
pertaining to stakeholder participation, diligence and robustness of the science
underpinning EIA studies.
The CSIR has been involved in the field of EIAs since the late 1980s and has
a track record in both the policy development (e.g. the DEAT IEM Guideline
series) and the practice of EIAs (e.g. mineral sand mining on the eastern shores
of Lake St Lucia, the Alusaf Hillside Aluminium Smelter and Saldanha Steel). We
have reflected deeply on a number of these issues and would like to reinforce
that EIA is one of the key support tools for ensuring sustainability of
development, as envisaged by the Brundtland Commission. The fact that EIA
appears to be a constraint to development, is anchored in various factors
including poor institutional capacity and competence, leading to time delays in
decision making and a poor understanding by applicants of the role of EIAs in
the overall development life cycle.
It is our contention that EIA remains a key tool - as with all tools, it is
the way in which it is used that requires improvement. An important question for
those of us in the sciences is to how to improve our contribution within the EIA
process and contribute to it realising its full potential in guiding sustainable
development.
The EIA has its origins in the sciences. It was originally practised within
an analytical, reductionist paradigm wherein separate studies were brought
together, covering the various components of the (largely biophysical)
environment and how each was likely to be affected (either positively or
negatively) by the proposed development. These studies were then stapled
together as an "integrated report". Decision makers were often
presented with complex data matrices with scores in them and were left to make
important, often political, decisions on the basis of objective scientific data.
Some observers contend that this artificial fracturing of knowledge has, in
fact, become a key contributor to our limited ability to address the
environmental problems we face.
During the 1980s and 1990s, the public started losing faith in the
"science" of EIAs and increased public involvement in these processes
became the global norm. In South Africa, increased public involvement coincided
with the introduction of our integrated environmental management process (that
provided the framework for EIA) and a rapid acceptance of the importance of
public involvement in decision making within our new democracy. Of particular
importance was the role interested and affected parties played in determining
key issues of concern, which then provided the focus for detailed assessment.
The South African EIA approach soon gained worldwide recognition as being one of
the more inclusive and progressive of such processes - many countries,
especially in southern Africa, have based their EIA systems on South Africa's
learning.
So - where did things go wrong? We think the answer lies in the loss of
balance between what we would call the "art " and the
"science" of EIA. The pendulum has swung too far from over-reliance on
the quantitative and largely objective (science) to over-reliance on the
qualitative and more subjective (art) needs in the EIA process. Science is not
finding sufficient purchase within typical EIA processes and is not playing a
sufficient role in improving decision making. The art aspect in EIAs is not able
to provide decision makers with quantitative predictions of the consequences of
their decisions. On the other hand, science as we know it is not well-equipped
to deal with many of the value-laden subjective views and multiple perspectives
that are often expressed in EIA processes.
To restore the balance, scientists need to be more explicit about the
assumptions (be they empirical or wholly subjective) that underpin their
predictive modelling. They should also continue to improve their modelling
capabilities in a broad range of fields such as ground and surface-water
movement and contamination, air pollution dispersal, coastal dynamics, oil-spill
prediction and ecosystems functioning.
Correspondingly, scientists should be explicit about the uncertainties
involved in the predictions arising from their models. Most importantly, they
need to ensure that their results are communicated in a way that is clearly
understood by not only the decision maker, but also the participating public.
Hence the challenge for scientists is to assist decision makers to understand
the potential consequences of development choices based on uncertain
predictions. This entails clear communication of the nature of uncertainty
involved - if it is quantifiable then the risk of a definitive choice of policy
or action may be correspondingly quantifiable. It may also be the case that so
little is known about a phenomenon of interest that purely qualitative
statements can be made about attendant uncertainties; for example if the
appropriateness of a chosen model under different environmental conditions
cannot readily be assessed in quantitative terms. In the extreme, uncertainty
may amount to ignorance (where it is not known what is unknown) and
indeterminacies (where outcomes are outside the scope of scientific prediction).
EIA is ultimately about making informed choices where we can ill-afford to
take extreme views on what ought to be allowed to inform those choices. We must
neither adopt the stance of a pristine and objective quantitative investigation
nor one of purely subjective qualitative judgement. The study of
social-ecological systems calls for a fusion of the two extreme stances into a
"sustainability science" that will facilitate choices that can be
described as both informed and balanced. It is in this way that EIA, which is
neither pure "science" nor pure "art", can retain its
rightful position as a key support tool for sustainable development in South
Africa. - CSIR
More information:
 Article
courtesy CSIR
About the authors
Dr Alex Weaver is a Research Fellow and the Research Group Leader for
Sustainability Science at the CSIR. He was President of the International
Association for Impact Assessment in 1998/1999 and led a number of pioneering,
large-scale EIAs in South Africa in the early 1990s. Dr Sibusiso Sibisi is the
President and Chief Executive Officer of the CSIR.
|
