Dr Alex Weaver (facilitator), CSIR

Ms Sandra Fowkes, Metaplan

Dr Heather MacKay, DWAF

Ms Ingrid Coetsee, DEAT

Mr JLJ van der Westhuizen, DWAF

Mr Andrew Duthie, IAIA

Mr Mbangi Nepfumbada, Univ of Pretoria

Dr P Morant, CSIR

Ms Christine Colvin, CSIR

Dr Peter Ashton, CSIR

Ms Karin Ireton, Industrial Environmental Forum

Mr Wynand Fourie, DEAT

Ms Susan Brownlie, SAIECE

• What experience has been gained from implementation of the IEM procedure, which would be useful in implementation of the water resource protection policy ?

• Can we identify possible links between Integrated Environmental Management (IEM), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and water policy implementation processes, in particular classification of water resources and determination of the reserve ?

• How should stakeholder involvement be designed and incorporated into setting water resource management goals such as class, reserve and resource quality objectives, in a way that is most effective, efficient, and ensures that people's values are adequately represented ?

A brief overview of the water resource protection policy was given by H MacKay, on the basis of the discussion paper "Towards a classification system for water resources in South Africa" (MacKay, 1998). After some initial discussion, the group agreed to focus on drawing out general learning points from their own experience of applying the IEM procedures in a multi-stakeholder environment, which could contribute towards development and implementation of the water policy.

The following notes are a record of the main points which emerged from the day's discussion.

2. The role of science in the IEM process

• As a general rule, science supports the process (whether it be IEM or classification), but does not drive the process.

• Specialist scientists are not usually stakeholders in the process: they provide expert input to support decisions. Specialist studies are embedded in a larger process of decision making which is drive by societal values. Scientific input must be balanced with the stakeholder input.

• Allow public scoping and specialist scoping, both occurring early in the process - the specialists, not being stakeholders themselves, may not be able to identify stakeholder values, but they may be able to identify important technical or ecological issues which the I&APs may not pick up in the public scoping phase.

• Specialists and stakeholders should collaborate early on to determine at what level impacts are significant.

• Communication of scientific information, especially that related to risk and uncertainty, is important - this builds trust in the process if managed properly and begun early. Joint fact-finding should be encouraged.

• Allow iteration and scenario testing - establish communication between specialists and I&APs to support this, do not endeavour to always keep the groups separate. ("Don’t separate science and politics").

• Independent review is important in establishing the credibility and defensibility of the IEM process, and the same goes for classification and reserve determination.

• Suggested review process:

1. identify a well-known specialist(s)to review the process
2. allow stakeholders to agree on the reviewer (nominate 3 and select 1)
3. keep the review of the process open to the public
4. review of the scientific/technical studies does not necessarily have to involve the public, though the report must be available if requested.

• The group recommended that a Review Panel at some "higher level" could review the classification of rivers/water resources on a national basis, to ensure a balance is struck between national and local interests.

2. Managing the stakeholder participation process

• The participation process must:

1. be legitimate,
2. be robust,
3. be efficient,
4. be such that credibility is established in the outcome,
5. allow the building of long-term relationships amongst key players in order to deal with problems/issues arising later.

• There must be clear policy guidance and principles established for the consultation/participation process.

• Learn by doing - establish structures that allow feedback and learning from various studies. Debrief participants at the end of each process to consolidate learning for the future.

• The importance of transparency and accountability of decision makers was stressed. We may need to differentiate between stakeholders, decision makers and the custodians of the resource.

• Identify the different DWAF roles which could be relevant, and develop processes/principles to deal with the different situations. E.g. DWAF as:

1. Developer
2. Protector
3. Facilitator
4. Extension service

• One human being shouldn't act in several DWAF roles in a single process/study - DWAF may require several representatives in the process to cover the different roles.

• Define the roles of all players very clearly in the beginning, and maintain clarity during the process, though accepting that the roles may change over time.

• It costs to get people involved. Budget adequately for this in classification studies. Costs include:

1. Attendance
2. Education
3. Skills empowerment

• Some people/organisations/groups who will be stakeholders in the classification process may already be involved in other spatial planning processes: can this involvement in multiple processes be streamlined, possibly on a regional /provincial basis ?

• Participation in the process requires commitment - participants must understand the requirements and make the commitment.

• Stakeholders are frequently not able to make decisions on strategic issues. Either

1. don't expect them to make decisions way beyond their interest and/or expertise, or
2. provide education and training to allow them to participate meaningfully at a strategic level.

• Set up databases of I&APs for quick and easy access when required. Apparently databases have already been developed through the EIA process.

• "Stratify" the selection of I&APs - select different groups for different aspects or levels of the process, as appropriate.

• It may be important to scan the stakeholder values early on in the process so that the assumptions/perspectives are understood.

• Clear rules must be agreed for closure of the process. When it's over, it's over - if stakeholders miss deadlines for comments, input etc, that should not require re-opening of the whole process. Map out the process very clearly, establishing milestones and time frames. Some processes, however, will be ongoing. For these, long term role definition may be required. A quorum should be agreed upon for decision making in such situations.

• There was significant voluntary adoption of IEM because the clear procedural guidelines gave users and stakeholders a "predictable" route through the process.

• Guidelines for stakeholder participation have been developed by IAIA (and by many other groups/organisations) - these could potentially be used as a basis for guidelines for water resource classification processes.

2. Balancing protection and utilisation

• Once the boundaries for protection have been set, as represented by the class, reserve and resource quality objectives, allow the generation and testing of multiple options/alternatives for economic development which achieve utilisation objectives but still ensure protection.

• A common currency is needed for the value of the resource, and this is not likely to be solely an economic-based currency.

• Provide a stable planning framework - this is most important. If it is known in good time that no water is or will be available, developers can look for other options. This encourages searching for the creative options which can balance protection with utilisation.

2. Follow-through on the process

• Ensure that post-impact monitoring, feedback and review happen. This is the only way to improve confidence in predictions and determinations, and to ensure irreversible damage is prevented as far as possible. A process that allows for the checking of underlying assumptions will be powerful and robust.

• Auditing of implementation and/or commissioning of developments must be undertaken, as a check and for learning purposes. (This was one of the disappointments of IEM, and many valuable opportunities for learning and improvement of understanding have been lost.) Poor enforcement of the decisions of a stakeholder process undermines confidence and participation in future processes.

• For reserve determinations and setting of resource quality objectives, the process should be cyclical, with monitoring and review as critical steps in the cycle.

2. Additional issues raised

• How does water resource classification relate to spatial planning objectives ?
• Establish clearly the routes and structure for decision making, including civil society and all 3 spheres of government.
• Establish minimum requirements/criteria for decision-making regarding impacts.
• Place equal emphasis on process and product.
• Stakeholders' role in decision-making includes information (2-way transfer), advisory, sharing in the decision.
• Establishing the significance or importance of the resource at a very early stage.
• An agreed basis must be established for deciding what future impacts are acceptable/unacceptable.
• At some stage, a decision must be taken and it cannot necessarily please everyone - politicians are paid to make these decisions.
• Authorities are ill-equipped to play the role of conciliator and mediator (in addition to their own stakeholder roles in the process).
• IEM did not "enable" ways of interactively negotiating differences - rather it tended to polarise people in hard positions. Learn from this in developing classification guidelines.
• Sometimes the potential numbers of I&APs may be huge - how to effectively bring their values into the process through adequate representation ?

2. What have we learned from today's discussion ?

• We have the ability to "do" or develop the scientific and technical aspects of water resource protection, but integrating them into the larger "social" process is a huge challenge.

• Hindsight is alive and well and should be used as an important way of learning and improving our processes and understanding.

• It is important to build on our strong existing technical foundation.

• Nothing will be achieved without trust - in the process, in the people.

• There is a considerable body of expertise and experience available, which can contribute to water policy implementation.

• The discussion of the experiences arising from the ongoing Mhlatuze project was very valuable in helping us to understand the procedures set out in the Water Act.

• Allow time for learning and testing of processes and principles before constraining them too strictly in regulation.

2. Recommendations arising from the workshop

• Consider a well-publicised launch of the classification system and procedures, as IEM was launched - with roadshows and popular booklets/cartoons/etc.

• IAIA (SA) can form a regional vehicle for explaining the principles and policy implementation process to professional groups.

• Investigate possible joint information/education exercises with SAIE and SAICE.

• Consider linking the IAIA 1999 conference with a 3-day national conference on classification and the reserve.

• Investigate an alliance with the Water Research Commission to support further development and testing of these ideas.

• Establish a national reference group, such as met today, which can meet regularly to discuss water policy implementation issues and development of water policy tools, and which can allow people to contribute from their experience and expertise in related fields.

• This group would be interested in further involvement in drawing up a "primer" - the first set of consultation guidelines for the classification process.