Sandveld Environmental Management Framework: Overview & Lessons Learned Genevieve Pence & Paul Hardcastle

Transcription

1 Sandveld Environmental Management Framework: Overview & Lessons Learned Genevieve Pence & Paul Hardcastle Biodiversity Planning Forum Wilderness, 7-10 June 2016

2

3 Background & Need for EMF Issues raised to DEA&DP in 2011 Too many reports on illegal development Too many farmers complain about the cost & length of EIAs making farming unprofitable Reports on ecological degradation & biodiversity loss (cumulative impacts) Can we reduce regulatory burden of EIA without compromising our mandate?

4 National Environmental Management Act NEMA provides for different environmental management instruments

5 Some examples Standards Proposed draft national Abalone Standards for land based aquaculture SEA s Development of the Renewable Energy SEA Development of the Shale Gas SEA EMF s Gauteng EMF (provincial) Greater Saldanha Area EMF (regional) City of Cape Town (metro) Development of Drakenstein EMF (municipal) Sandveld EMF (in progress & sector-specific)

6 DEA&DP s response 1. Compliance & enforcement strategy reactively deals with alleged illegal commencement of land clearing & abstraction of groundwater; 2. Sandveld EMF Project proactive approach to deal with challenges of reducing cost & length of statutory EIA processes, whilst protecting natural resource base of the Sandveld.

7 Sandveld EMF Project Two Phased Approach: Phase 1: Compilation of an EMF for the Sandveld & Agter-Cederberg. Phase 2: Signing of an agreement by the land owner to implement a farm-level plan (agreement) based on the information contained in the EMF.

8 Project Timeframe Original Timeframe: 01 Oct Mar 2015 Milestone 1 - Draft Inception Report Milestone 2 - Final Inception Report Milestone 3 - Draft Situation Analysis Report Milestone 4 - Focus Group Meeting Minutes Milestone 5 - Final Situation Analysis Report Milestone 6 First Draft EMF Milestone 7 Revised Final SAR & First Amendments to EMF Revision of Critical Biodiversity Area Maps Milestone 8 Reworked First Draft EMF Milestone 9 Public Participation Focus Groups for EMF 25-Oct Nov May Sep Nov Dec Apr Jan Feb-16 Milestone 10 Second Draft EMF Milestone 11 Final Draft EMF Milestone 12 Project Closeout Development of Implementation Strategy 15-Mar Mar Mar-16

9 Super EIA Strategic guide to sustainable agricultural development Vision & objectives Situation analysis Maps environmental priorities Maps areas suitable for farming Establishes farm-level planning approach to implementation

10 CBAs = Core 1 ESAs = Core 2 (Spatial Planning Category)

11 Phase 2 Implementation - FLMPs Farm Level Management Plan negates need for individual EIA or reduces regulatory requirements - What areas should be conserved? - What areas are available for production without any EIA process? - What areas are available for production with reduced process? Using info in EMF & ground-truthing input

12 Contents of FLMP s Botanical/ecological assessment Farm use map Best practice farming methods & technologies Environmental Management Plan (combines generic EMP in EMF with farm-specific measures identified during ground-truthing) Appraisal of all previous authorisations received Reduced public participation process

13 Preferred Regulatory Option standard developed i.t.o. Section 24(5)(bA)(vii) & Section 24(10) of NEMA for the study area, where specified activities associated with appropriate agricultural expansion could be undertaken without the need for EA, on condition that the proposed expansion is done in line with the standard. requires compilation & publication of a standard by the Minister, or MEC with concurrence of the Minister. 14

14 Implementation Options Compilation of the FLMP: 1. Responsibility of proponent (farmer) 2. Responsibility of Implementing Authorities DEA&DP CapeNature Western Cape Department of Agriculture Department of Water & Sanitation 3. Undertaken by a Special Purpose Vehicle 4. Combination of above 15

15 FLMP Pilot 5 FLMP s to be completed by authorities Resource & time implications TBD Ideal ground-truthing Terms of Reference TBD Incentivise participation Draft Standard developed

16 The Question of Eligibility & Legal Compliance Low confidence loss data High confidence loss data

17 The draft standards for the implementation of the EMF state that landowners cannot participate if illegal activities have been undertaken. This then effectively rules out most of the properties within the EMF, bringing us right back to where we started. The illegal activities must be addressed. Landowners cannot use the EMF if they are illegal. This is also why the Potato Best Practice came to an end because you cannot be certified best practice if you have illegal developments on the property

18 Lessons Learned Value of analyses & headline indicators CapeNature s Ecosystem Threat Status = best available science No compromise on key principles Systematic biodiversity planning approach CBA Map unbiased Linked to national targets & guidelines Ground-truth to confirm ONAs not CBAs Especially in newly threatened ecosystems Keeping an eye on all the balls Disincentives to act illegally Sunk cost fallacy & S24G implications

19 Thank you