The Custodian Project

The "issue list" collated from the comments which pertain to this theme include:

Benefit:Protection of poor communities
Consultants think they understand the public participation. They don’t. PP needs to be done independently with a real attempt to engage, answer, understand and continue to subscribe to “Batho Pele) by understanding South African people. Why does DEAT so loosely define public participation requirement? How does the DEAT monitor the PPP and ensure that consultants are not in control over it.
DEAT must legally bind the need for the introduction of a concise 2 page document.  Specific documents that offer a layman’s understanding of the EIA must be vetted by local readers and community based organisations.
Informative pamphlets must be distributed for the benefit of those who can not attend meetings or do not have access to traditional information channels such as telephones and newspapers
Laymen do not understand EIA processes. Communities do not adequately participate in EIA processes. The issue of language, culture and literacy barriers often is overlooked.
Need emphasis on capacitating marginalised and vulnerable communities to empower them to participate meaningfully in environmental processes
Regardless of the development taking place, the EIA documents must be fully translated from English to a minimum of 3 languages most used in the affected areas. These must be provided simultaneously with the release of English documents.
To ensure empowerment of marginalised communities in terms of training opportunities
DEAT must officially appoint consultants based on suitability according to rating reports and engagements with community based organisations.
Existing environmental training, education facilities must be better utilised. We propose that other spheres, and that is the industry as well, assist in educating the members of the public.
Capacity in civil society is concerned, what was raised is that there is no public awareness. Civil society does not understand the basics of environmental management.
Engage more seriously and listen to people in the industry such as IAIAsa, EAPSA, ICB as well as other industries such as engineers, planners, etc.
Engagement of community leaders must show inclusion of a wide spectrum of people (i.e. religious leaders, councillors, traditional leaders, school headmasters) as legislated by the DEAT.
How can a form of synergy between all the different stakeholders to efficiently drive the message of an eco-friendly sustainable society to the masses be established?
If Norway and Canada is our benchmark for better EM, how will we redress the bulk population that has been previously isolated from Environmental Affairs?
Include the community, inform and educate them.
More interaction between department and communities is required and more should be done to get schools involved.
The aspect of once again within the strategy, capturing the outreach, the awareness raising, basically building the entire nation’s capacity around the meaning of sustainable development and environmental management
The Department relies on old information when making decisions. They do not keep up with the current situation of the area.
The proposal is that environmental education is imperative on local level.
Youth involvement should be promoted where necessary.
The public is often bullied and because they are ill-informed and under-resourced, they quit. A process by which the public can have representation if needed, information and legal assistance is required.
Expensive – and caters to rich members of society while largely overlooking the plight of the poor.

Subtheme 7: Empowerment of Marginalized Communities

* Angela Andrews of the Legal Resource Centre compiled this summary of the Specialist Report.
The following constitutes a summary of a report written by consultants to the EIAMS process and does not reflect the views of the Legal Resources Centre.
Original Report by: The Green Connection

Problem Statement

Vulnerable and marginalised communities are not empowered to participate meaningfully in the environmental impact assessment and management strategy processes.

Status Quo

The Constitution guarantees all people the right to a safe and healthy environment.  NEMA states that environmental hazards should not be distributed in a discriminatory way and that everyone should have equal access to environmental resources.  NEMA also requires that all interested and affected parties (I&APs) be given the skills needed to effectively participate in environmental decisions.  Decisions must take into account their interests and values.

The current reality is that marginalised communities bear the greatest burden of pollution and are often unaware of the health risks they face or the rights they possess.  Environmental assessment practitioners (EAPs) conducting environmental assessments have not worked with communities to enable effective participation; rather, EAPs and government officials are widely distrusted and seen to be on the developer’s side.

Methodology

Three criteria were used to determine whether a community was marginalised:  geographic area (proximity to environmental hazards and distance from communication), dependency (dependency on land for survival, on EAPs for information, on development for jobs), and social standing (as measured by literacy, age, gender, health, culture, class, wealth).

The study was conducted by reviewing legislation, reading academic literature, and conducting interviews with people active in NGOs and CBOs (community based organisations) working with marginalised communities.

Fieldwork Results

The following are the common frustrations marginalised communities experience with the environmental management process.

1. Lack of environmental awareness and knowledge:  People living in these communities are focused on survival, with little spare time and energy to devote to activism, and often favor any development that might result in jobs.  EAPs tend to exploit the tension between community members concerned about the environment and those seeking jobs.  People expressed distrust of the government, which is seen as promoting development without listening to community concerns.  NGOs and CBOs were more trusted sources of information.  Schools often lack environmental programmes.
2. Lack of funds and resources to participate:  Community members lack spare time to attend meetings and read documents, spare cash to pay for transportation to and from meetings, stationary or writing skills to submit written comments, and access to the internet and other sources of information.  In short, marginalised communities are ill-equipped to participate through the channels set up by the current EIA process.  Public meetings are often alienating, with EAPs not taking questions and requiring comments in writing.
3. Lack of awareness of environmental rights:  Many community members are unaware of their environmental rights, or at least confused by constant amendments to the EIA regulations.  Community members had never experienced an EAP explaining their rights to them but instead relied on NGOs for information.  Most people believed that EAPs were biased but did not know that the government could take action against EAPs suspected of bias.  EAPs point out that developers will not be willing to pay EAPs to empower communities.
4. Technical language:  Most meetings are held in English with no translation provided.  Moreover, the reports are in technical language and often difficult to translate into local languages.  There is a need for creative ways to convey information – such as visual media – and for community specialists who have technical knowledge, are trusted by the community, and can interpret the information in a way the community can understand.  Public meetings, with question and answer periods, can help communities understand the issues better.  “Open days,” during which community members can approach EAPs for information, are seen as propaganda tools.
5. 5. Decisionmaking, monitoring, and compliance: Community members distrust the decisionmaking process, perceiving the rankings of various projects (as high, medium, or low impact) to be inaccurate and the EIA to be a rubber stamp.  Community members also often do not understand the final decision on the proposed development or the conditions of the approval.  Thus, they are unable to determine whether the development is in compliance with the authorisation.

Recommendations

Given that a large proportion of South African citizens fall into the marginalised category, public participation processes should be adjusted so that the standard is one suitable for maginalised communities, with some special methods (such as internet participation) available for the elite.  NGOs and CBOs play a key role in mobilising communities to stand up for their rights, raising environmental awareness, and organizing community-based environmental management.

1. Raising general environmental awareness:
   1. Use existing educational models (such as NGO-designed programmes) to raise awareness in schools.
   2. Work with interest groups and facilitators that are trusted by the community.  Faith communities can act as information hubs.
   3. Communicate through channels appropriate to the community, such as meetings called by traditional authorities and radio rather than TV or internet.
   4. Compile short environmental mini-programmes to be played over radio and on video in public buses.
   5. Hold meetings with sufficient notice, provide transport, and use an accessible language and format.
   6. Enable community groups to teach the information they learn to other community members (train the trainers).
   7. Tailor methods to the needs of particular groups (rural, youth, women, etc.)
2. Increasing training opportunities: 
   1. Continue and expand existing NGO courses and workshops on sustainable development and environmental awareness, such as Green Connection’s workshops that helped rural communities understand the environmental impact of climate change and the Abalimi Bezikhaya project promoting urban farming.
   2. Expand internship programs at NGOs for activists from marginalised communities.
   3. Design a training programme for EAPs, government officials, and local authorities that includes how to provide technical information in an accessible format, sensitivity to and appreciation for community context, and conflict management skills.
3. Empowering communities to effectively participate in environmental assessment processes:
   1. Communication: 
      1. i.      Information must be presented in the local language of the development site in an accessible format.
      2. ii.      Meetings must be mandatory, held at times and places convenient to the community, and barriers such as transportation should be removed.
      3. iii.      Open days should be discontinued.
      4. Working in areas of poverty without resources:
         1. i.      EAPs should use a social impact assessment to understand the needs of a community before the EIA process begins – such needs should then inform how to design the public participation process.
      5. Working to inform communities about the EIA process and their rights:
         1. i.      Workshops should be conducted covering the entire environmental management process.
         2. ii.      A rating system for EAPs, indicating their independence and track record, could be implemented to help inform the communities’ acceptance or rejection of an EAP.
      6. Overcoming technical language:
         1. i.      Specialist advisors should be appointed to assist the community in understanding technical data.
         2. ii.      NGOs should assist communities in preparing their own EIA submissions.
      7. Monitoring and Enforcement:
         1. i.      Community members should be trained to monitor developments and report violations.  They should be included in environmental monitoring committees.
         2. ii.      Developers should be required to report their monitoring results to the affected communities.
4. Improving access to resources and funding:
   1. The developer should not only pay EAPs but also allocate funds to NGOs that work with the community, which can then contract a specialist to help empower the community.  The developer should have no say over the specialist.
   2. Government must also ensure that marginalised communities get the expertise they need.
   3. Professional organisations could provide a database of consultants and specialists as well as implement a grading system.

Risks & Rewards

Expending resources to empower communities will likely increase the costs of environmental assessments and perhaps cause delays.  It may also result in less developments being authorised.  However, more input from communities will lead to better decisionmaking and many projects that should not go forward will be stopped, reducing negative impacts on the environment.  The principles of NEMA and the Constitution will also be better realised.

The report produced by The Green Connection highlights the problems experienced by marginalised communities when engaging with environmental impact and assessment management.  This is principally through the public participation processes required for various tools used in assessment and management.

Lack of environmental awareness and knowledge:
•    People living in these communities are focused on survival, with little resources to spend on participation/activism. They often default to favouring any development that might result in jobs.
•    EAPs tend to exploit the tension between community members concerned about the environment and those seeking jobs.
•    People distrust government, which is seen as promoting development without listening to community concerns.
•    NGOs and CBOs were more trusted sources of information; the normal constraints on CBOs and NGOs in this instance are then more poignant.
•    Schools often lack environmental programmes.  [This is significant as Stats SA shows that 44% of the population of African/Black people are under 19 years of age.  For other groups the percentages are 36.3%   Coloured, 30.7% Indian/Asian and 24.9% White].
Lack of funds and resources to participate:
o    Community members lack spare time to attend meetings and read documents
o    Transport issues inhibit public participation
o    The customs in public participation meetings are alienating  - including insufficient time to hear all points of view; requiring written comment.  There is no mechanism for incorporate protests that take the form of marches, petitions, etc.
o    [EAPs/proponents do not allow sufficient funds to establish if people with disabilities will be affected, and to engage with them appropriately]

Lack of awareness of environmental rights:
•    Many community members are unaware of their environmental rights, or at least confused by amendments to the EIA regulations, the process or the Acts.
•    Interventions tend to be reactive and focused on a proposal rather than proactive capacity building
•    EAPs do not sufficiently explain to communities their right
•    Communities have to rely on the EAP’s interpretation of the development and its impact; there is no counter-argument for them to gain a balanced understanding.
•    Communities do not sufficiently understand that an EAP is required to be objective, and that there is recourse for them if this is not the case.  EAPs indicate that developers will not pay for the community to be empowered.
Technical language:  Language is a barrier to effective participation -
o    The language used in most meetings and reports is English with no translation, and also have a high technical content.
o    Relevant information is not provided in a transparent manner which would foster participation
o     “Open days,” during which community members can approach EAPs for information, are seen as propaganda tools.
Decision making, monitoring, and compliance: Community members mistrust the decision making process
o    They assume conditions of approval would mitigate any potential negative impacts, therefore protecting the community from harm
o    There is no engagement to help them understand the implications of the authorisation
o    Their issues fail to be addressed
o    Conditions for development are not feasible and the authorization is almost becomes tacit agreement to break the law e.g. pollution levels
o    Community members do not have the skills or the resources to monitor the development; where authorities fail in this role, the burden of both the impact and the development fall on the community.