Sandveld Environmental Management Framework:

Overview & Lessons Learned

Genevieve Pence & Paul Hardcastle

Biodiversity Planning Forum Wilderness, 7-10 June 2016

• 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?

Background & Need for EMF

National Environmental Management Act

NEMA provides for different

“environmental management instruments”

• 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)

Some examples…

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.

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.

Project Timeframe

Milestone 1 - Draft Inception Report 25-Oct-13

Milestone 2 - Final Inception Report 25-Nov-13

Milestone 3 - Draft Situation Analysis Report 21-May-15

Milestone 4 - Focus Group Meeting Minutes 05-Sep-14

Milestone 5 - Final Situation Analysis Report 14-Nov-14

Milestone 6 – First Draft EMF 05-Dec-14

Milestone 7 – Revised Final SAR & First Amendments to EMF 29-Apr-15

Revision of Critical Biodiversity Area Maps

Milestone 8 – Reworked First Draft EMF 25-Jan-16

Milestone 9 – Public Participation Focus Groups for EMF 26-Feb-16

Milestone 10 – Second Draft EMF 15-Mar-16

Milestone 11 – Final Draft EMF 25-Mar-16

Milestone 12 – Project Closeout 31-Mar-16

Original Timeframe: 01 Oct 2013 – 31 Mar 2015

Development of Implementation Strategy

“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

• CBAs = Core 1

• ESAs = Core 2 (Spatial Planning Category)

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

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

14

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.

15

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

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

Low confidence loss data High confidence loss data

The Question of Eligibility & Legal Compliance

“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…”

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

Thank you