Alex Weaver and Sibusiso Sibisi
 
FORTY years ago, environmental impact assessment 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 worldwide, including SA. “Sustainable development” was introduced as a concept almost 20 years ago. It is encouraging that being true to that concept is something policy makers, scientists and the public at large are learning not to ignore. Recent public debate and media coverage of environmental impact assessment (EIA) processes bring to the surface very pertinent issues relating to sustainable development. Examples include the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor project, the development of the N2 Wild Coast toll road and the expansion of the Cape Town container terminal stacking area. The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) was involved in the Cape Town project as an EIA consultant. The development dilemmas associated with these projects require the engagement of all sectors of society, as they shape the sustainable development process SA follows in a dynamic, rather than static, manner.

With government implementing its infrastructure programme as part of its Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for SA (Asgi-SA), these issues will continue to be a matter of public discourse. Indeed, one of the binding constraints identified in Asgi-SA was that “the planning system (including EIA) unnecessarily hampers the development of business”. Concerns about EIA hampering development have been expressed directly and indirectly by a number of senior politicians in recent months (including at the media briefing on the midyear cabinet lekgotla by President Thabo Mbeki on July 30, and the budget vote speech by Housing Minister Lindiwe Sisulu on May 24).

As commentators with expertise in the world of science and the practice of environmental impact assessments, our comments relate to the persistent critique of the EIA processes, including stakeholder participation, diligence and robustness of the science underpinning EIA studies.

The CSIR has been involved in environmental impact assessments since the late 1980s and has a track record in both the policy development (for example, the environment and tourism department’s Integrated Environmental Management Guideline series), and the practice of assessments (for example, 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 stress that EIA is one of the key support tools for ensuring sustainability of development. The fact that EIA appears to be a constraint on development is anchored in various factors, including poor institutional capacity and competence, which leads to delays in decision making, and a poor understanding by applicants of the role EIA plays in the overall development life cycle.

It is our contention that EIA remains a crucial tool — and as with all tools, it is the way in which it is used that needs improving. An important question for those of us in the sciences is how to improve our contribution within the EIA process and help it to realise its full potential in guiding sustainable development.

EIA has its origins in the sciences. It was originally practised within an analytical paradigm wherein separate studies were brought together, covering the various components of the (largely biophysical) environment and how each was likely to be affected by the proposed development. These studies were then stapled together as an “integrated report”. Decision makers were often presented with complex data matrices 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 EIA and increased public involvement in these processes became the global norm. In SA, 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 — many countries have based their EIA systems on SA’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 overreliance on the quantitative and largely objective — science — to overreliance 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 EIA 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 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. They need to ensure their results are communicated in a way that is clearly understood by the decision maker and the participating public.

Hence the challenge for scientists is to help decision makers understand the potential consequences of development choices based on uncertain predictions. This entails clear communication of the nature of uncertainty involved.

It may also be the case that so little is known about a phenomenon of interest that only purely qualitative statements can be made about attendant uncertainties. In extreme cases, 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 judgment. The study of socialecological 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 SA.

Dr 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 1998-99 and led a number of pioneering, large-scale EIAs in SA in the early 1990s. Dr Sibisi is the president and CEO of the CSIR.