A critical analysis of biodiversity offsets in South Africa

M Environmental Management, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2016Biodiversity offsets are widely considered to offer a workable solution to the environment versus development dilemma by allowing development with residual biodiversity loss to continue, in turn for protection of equal biodiversity elsewhere. Offsets have been used in South Africa for at least a decade, but without formal regulatory guidance. The practical implications of this have not yet been explored. This research aimed to identify the challenges and opportunities experienced in the conceptualisation and planning phases of offsets that could impact on the quality and implementability thereof. It was also investigated what impact the timing of when an offset is introduced in the EIA process, has on the quality of offsets. A methodology to measure quality of offsets was developed. Five case studies were analysed by using document analysis and interviews. The research revealed that the offset quality is considered acceptable, but that there are various challenges experienced in the conceptualisation and planning phases. A lack of transparency, trust and understanding between parties of the purpose of offsets and the availability of land for offset sites were some of the challenges mentioned. A lack of understanding about offsets in government, but also among developers, is the cause of many of these challenges. The research reflected a desperate need for national policy guidance. Interestingly, interviewees had diverse opinions on when an offset should be introduced in the EIA process. The timing of the introduction of the offset was found to have an impact on the application of the mitigation hierarchy, the ability to have an agreement in place before the activity starts, the consideration of long-term effects and the enforceability of the offset – it could have detrimental consequences when an offset is only introduced at the very end of project planning. The national policy for offsets that is currently under development should make it clear when in the EIA an offset should be introduced. It should have a focus on capacity development for all parties involved in offsets to improve trust and transparency. An opportunity exists to use the significant amount of biodiversity information available in South Africa to strategically identify offset sites.Master

Biodiversity offsets in EIA: Getting the timing right

Major developments can result in significant impacts on biodiversity, which the mandated process of environmental impact assessment (EIA) aims to mitigate. There has been a recent move towards the application of biodiversity offsets as a last-resort, compensatory measure when options at the earlier stages in the mitigation hierarchy of avoidance, minimisation and restoration have been exhausted. Guidance on biodiversity offset planning available in different jurisdictions, however, demonstrates a lack of consensus about when biodiversity offsets should be formally introduced into the EIA process, and previous research has highlighted the perceived risks associated with commencing detailed offset planning too early as well as too late. Here we explore the implications of how and when offset considerations are introduced within EIA. We do this by reviewing and synthesising best practice principles for biodiversity offsets from the international literature, and then exploring how and when offsets were considered in a number of case studies that draw on documentary analysis and interviews with key role players. Our case studies are based in South Africa where regional guidance on offsets exists, supporting a body of practice. The research finds that the timing of involvement of biodiversity specialists is critical in determining whether considering offsets early will reap the combined benefits of: transparency and stakeholder engagement; guaranteeing the offset before development commences; and offset enforceability without jeopardising adherence to the mitigation hierarchy. Bypassing the mitigation hierarchy was perceived as allowing proponents to ‘buy’ approvals for developments that might otherwise be found unacceptable, although there was no evidence for this in any of the case studies evaluated. Although some of our findings may be specific to the South African context, the approach taken using international best practice principles for biodiversity offsets as a benchmark can equally be applied to evaluate practice in other EIA systems. We confirm the utility of this approach by evaluating the recently released South African Draft National Biodiversity Offset Policy for its potential to support best practice biodiversity offsets in EIA

Introducing a flat ontology into landscape research: a case study of water governance experiments in South Africa

Context Contemporary resource management paradigms within the developed world build on an understanding of human agency as ontologically distinct from the mode of existence of plants and animals. Because of this perspective, which gives priority to human agency, policies typically take their point of departure with human societies and associated ecosystems deemed of particular value. Objectives As an alternative to this worldview, social theorists have introduced what is known as "flat ontology", where all beings are bestowed equal rights to negotiate their existence. To explore the implications of introducing such an understanding into landscape management, a participatory planning process for water allocation was developed and tested in a case study in the Eerste River Catchment in South Africa. Methods The planning process was mediated using the approach "politics of nature" (PoN), which aims to operationalize flat ontology to renegotiate water allocation based on the needs of all beings instead of the desire of a subset of humans. PoN allowed participants to playfully co-develop a common ontology and value-set. Data documenting these processes were collected digitally and analysed. Results Results indicate that the approach engendered a rethinking of key relationships between human agency and ecosystem functionality, illustrating a potential for PoN-approaches to be deployed for governance of complex landscapes. Conclusions On the basis of experiments using PoN-methodology in the context of watershed management, it is discussed how the introduction of a flat ontology in landscape research, could inspire new ways of designing and intervening with collaborative resource management processes

Biodiversity offsets in EIA: Getting the timing right

Major developments can result in significant impacts on biodiversity which the mandated process of environmental impact assessment (EIA) aims to mitigate. There has been a recent move towards the application of biodiversity offsets as a last-resort, compensatory measure when options at the earlier stages in the mitigation hierarchy of avoidance, minimisation and restoration have been exhausted. Guidance on biodiversity offset planning available in different jurisdictions, however, demonstrates a lack of consensus about when biodiversity offsets should be formally introduced into the EIA process, and previous research has highlighted the perceived risks associated with commencing detailed offset planning too early as well as too late. Here we explore the implications of how and when offset considerations are introduced within EIA. We do this by reviewing and synthesising best practice principles for biodiversity offsets from the international literature, and then exploring how and when offsets were considered in a number of case studies that draw on documentary analysis and interviews with key role players. Our case studies are based in South Africa where regional guidance on offsets exists, supporting a body of practice. The research finds that the timing of involvement of biodiversity specialists is critical in determining whether considering offsets early will reap the combined benefits of: transparency and stakeholder engagement; guaranteeing the offset before development commences; and offset enforceability without jeopardising adherence to the mitigation hierarchy. Bypassing the mitigation hierarchy was perceived as allowing proponents to ‘buy’ approvals for developments that might otherwise be found unacceptable, although there was no evidence for this in any of the case studies evaluated. Although some of our findings may be specific to the South African context, the approach taken using international best practice principles for biodiversity offsets as a benchmark can equally be applied to evaluate practice in other EIA systems. We confirm the utility of this approach by evaluating the recently released South African Draft National Biodiversity Offset Policy for its potential to support best practice biodiversity offsets in EIA

Applying the water-energy-food nexus to farm profitability in the Middle Breede Catchment, South Africa

The water-energy-food nexus has emerged as a useful concept to understand the multiple interdependencies that exist between the water, energy and food sectors. The nexus is an ambitious attempt to work across disciplines and scales to understand the workings of these complex systems. It is, however, criticised for being more of a general framework than a practical methodology because of the vast amount of data it would need to make real-life contributions to sustainable development. We show how the nexus approach, when used within a farm budget model, can transform the problem focus in water governance. By changing the relationship among water, energy and food production of a farm, profitability is significantly changed. The water-energy-food nexus debate is discussed within the context of the South African water sector, particularly the Breede River Catchment. Working from within the farm budget model, we demonstrate the impact of moving from an irrigation canal system that requires electricity for pumping, to a gravity-fed piped irrigation system in the Middle Breede River. The finding is that the water-energy-food nexus has the potential to unlock groundbreaking solutions to complex problems in agricultural water management when used in appropriate modelling systems.Significance: The water-energy-food nexus approach can lead to an entirely new framing of water governance problems and therefore solutions to these problems. The water-energy-food nexus when used in farm budget models can identify ways of altering farm profitability. By addressing the energy cost of farming through an irrigation pipeline system in parts of the Breede Catchment Area, farm profitability could significantly increase. A gravity-fed closed pipeline system in parts of the Breede River can improve water availability and reduce farm and management costs