QUICK NAVIGATION : Preface | Acknowledgements | Summary | Introduction | Purpose of this document | Defining Stakeholder Engagement | Stakeholder Engagement in Intergrated Environmental Management | The objectives of Stakeholder Engagement | Responsibilities of Stakeholders, Environmental Consultants and Stakeholder Engagements Practitionsers | Approaches and Facilitation Techniques | Overview of Stakeholder Engagement Experiences in Intergrated Environmental Management | Conclusions | Glossary | References | Appenix A: Stakeholder approaches and techniques

ISSUED BY
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Private Bag X447
Pretoria
0001 South Africa

PLEASE NOTE: This document is intended as an information source and cannot take the place of legal advice in a specific situation governed by legislation. The document is not a guideline document, but serves as a reference and supportive text. This document will not take the place of official guidelines and regulations published by DEAT.

ENQUIRIES AND COMMENTS
All enquiries and comments should be addressed to:
The Director: Environmental Impact Management
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Private Bag X447
Pretoria
0001 South Africa
REFERENCING
When referencing this document, it should be cited as follows:
DEAT (2002) Screening, Information Series 3, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), Pretoria.

Preface

This document is one of a series of overview information reports on the concepts of, and approaches to integrated environmental management (IEM). IEM is a key instrument of South Africa's National Environmental Management Act (NEMA). South Africa's NEMA promotes the integrated environmental management of activities that may have a significant effect (positive or negative) on the environment. IEM provides the overarching framework for the integration of environmental assessment and management principles into environmental decision-making. It includes the use of several environmental assessment and management tools that are appropriate for the various levels of decisionmaking.

The aim of this document series is to provide general information on techniques, tools and processes for environmental assessment and management. The material in this document draws upon experience and knowledge from South African practitioners and authorities, and published literature on international best practice. This document is aimed at a broad readership, which includes government authorities (who are responsible for reviewing and commenting on environmental reports and interacting in environmental processes), environmental professionals (who undertake or are involved in environmental assessments as part of their professional practice), academics (who are interested and active in the environmental assessment field from a research, teaching and training perspective), non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and interested persons. It is hoped that this document will also be of interest to practitioners, government authorities and academics from around the world.

This document has been designed for use in South Africa and it cannot reflect all the specific requirements, practices and procedures of environmental assessment in other countries.

This series of documents is not meant to encompass every possible concept, consideration, issue or process in the range of environmental assessment and management tools. Proper use of this series of documents is as a generic reference, with the understanding that it will be revised and supplemented by detailed guideline documents.

Acknowledgements

This document has been prepared by the CSIR. The production of this document would not have been possible without the valuable comments and contributions from the various authorities, environmental consultants and practitioners who freely gave of their time to share their experiences.

Special thanks are due to the following people:

• David Shandler and Jonathan Hanks, Common Ground Consulting
• Jonathan Crowther and Grant Wroe-Street, Crowther Campbell and Associates
• Keith Wiseman, City of Cape Town
• Natalie Newman, South Peninsula Administration, City of Cape Town
• Stephen Davey, Cape Metropolitan Council Administration, City of Cape Town
• Dennis Laidler, Western Cape Department of Environment, Cultural Affairs and Sport, Cape Town.

Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at are those of the authors and are not necessarily the official view of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. Any misrepresentation of views or errors of fact are those of the authors and are not a reflection of the individuals acknowledged.

All sources used have been acknowledged by means of complete references.

Summary

This document provides an introductory overview of stakeholder engagement as it applies to intregrated environmental management

In order to overcome existing problems with the process stemming from the use of different definitions and interpretations of "public participation", it is proposed that stakeholder engagement is a more appropriate term to describe the spectrum of increasing levels of engagement between stakeholders. Levels of engagement between stakeholders range from stakeholder protest, to informing, consulting, involving, collaborating with, and empowering stakeholders in the decision-making process. Various examples of stakeholder engagement in IEM are identified, along with references for further information.

The objectives associated with these different levels are provided, and the need for setting objectives that are more specific for different stages of the process is highlighted. The responsibilities of various stakeholders, environmental consultants and stakeholder engagement practitioners are clarified.

The appropriate level of engagement should take into account a number of factors such as the objectives for engaging with stakeholders, the social profile of stakeholders, context-related issues (such as the levels of literacy), the spatial scale of the proposed activity, the number of people involved, the resources available for conducting the process, legislative requirements and the norms and societal values defining a particular context.

Approaches to stakeholder engagement and techniques for facilitating the process are suggested and brief summary descriptions provided. The need to use approaches that are more appropriate and techniques for stakeholder engagement is highlighted, particularly for processes that are run in developing country contexts.

An overview of stakeholder engagement in environmental decision-making is provided, which identifies current challenges, shortcomings and lessons learnt. The document draws largely from the experience of stakeholder engagement in South Africa. However, many of the principles and outcomes are expected to be more generally relevant and applicable.

Introduction

There is growing dissatisfaction by stakeholders around the world at being inadequately engaged in processes and decisions that affect their biophysical, social, cultural and economic environment. This dissatisfaction is reflected, for example, in anti-globalisation protests such as those that took place in Seattle in 1999 and Genoa in 2001, and in calls by the business sector for co-regulation. An increasing number of cases are being taken to court because the concerns of interested and affected parties ( I and APs) have not been adequately taken into consideration in the decision-making process. Opportunities for stakeholder engagement have, however, been increased by democratic governance, the increasing degree of decentralization in decision-making and the growing influence of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), community-based organizations (CBOs) and the private sector.

Effective and equitable engagement between stakeholders contributes to the identification of key issues of concern and possible solutions, as well as of relevant local or traditional knowledge. This helps to ensure that environmental considerations are taken into account in the planning, design and decision-making for proposals that may have a significant effect on the environment. In this way the potential negative impacts of a proposal or activity may be minimized and the positive benefits

Furthermore, through engaging stakeholders proactively proponents and decision-makers are able to understand and clarify the degree to which other stakeholders will be willing to accept any trade-offs which may be required (IAP2, 2002). This ensures more informed decision-making and ultimately more sustainable development. Greater transparency in the decision-making process, along with the opportunity for interested and affected parties to play a role in this process, helps to build the credibility of environmental assessment and management processes.

These potential benefits of stakeholder engagement are, however, often discounted. Poorly run stakeholder engagement processes have led to a large degree of cynicism by proponents, authorities, I and APs, environmental consultants and stakeholder engagement practitioners on the value of stakeholder engagement. Proponents often regard the process as an opportunity for political grandstanding by I and APs, which leads to little more than standoffs and costly delays. In addition, if there are unrealistic demands for the disclosure of sensitive information, proponents may be hesitant to voluntarily enter into a stakeholder engagement process. On the other hand, in some cases I and APs may regard the process as being nothing more than a token effort at engagement without any real commitment to incorporating their opinions.

The negative perceptions of stakeholder engagement processes described above stem from two fundamental problems with the process. The first relates to a lack of clarity on the definitions used to describe the engagement process. This leads to poorly defined objectives for the process and for the responsibilities of the different stakeholders, environmental consultants and stakeholder engagement practitioners. The result is often that the expectations of different stakeholders regarding the outcomes of the process are mismatched.

The second problem relates to the use of inappropriate approaches and techniques in the stakeholder engagement process. The outcome of the process, and consequently the perceptions of stakeholders regarding its value, will be influenced by the context within which stakeholder engagement is conducted (such as the levels of literacy). The combination of these problems and challenges has led to accusations in some cases of token stakeholder engagement, which takes advantage of unequal balances of power and resources to force proposals through the decision-making process.

This cynicism heralds an urgent need to refocus on the definition of, and approaches to stakeholder engagement in order to ensure that, within the constraints imposed by external circumstances, the stakeholder engagement process is as effective, efficient and equitable as possible.

Purpose of this document

The purpose of this document is to provide an introductory overview of stakeholder engagement as it applies to IEM. It is proposed that 'stakeholder engagement' replace the term 'public participation' in order to clarify some of the current misconceptions related to the process. It highlights the need for more careful selection of approaches and techniques in order to meet the desired objectives of the stakeholder engagement process. The document considers stakeholder engagement in its broader application, extending beyond its more traditional role in environmental impact assessment (EIA).

The rationale for replacing 'public participation' with the term 'stakeholder engagement' is explained, a working definition of stakeholder engagement is proposed and the general objectives associated with different levels of engagement are introduced (Chapter 3). The concept of IEM is described and examples of the opportunities for stakeholder engagement within the broader IEM framework are provided (Chapter 4). The overall purpose and benefits of stakeholder engagement are identified, as well as the need for setting specific objectives for different stages of the process (Chapter 5). The responsibilities of various stakeholder groups, environmental consultants and stakeholder engagement practitioners are highlighted (Chapter 6). A range of approaches and techniques for identifying stakeholders, engaging with stakeholders and for facilitating the process are summarized (Chapter 7). An overview of stakeholder engagement in IEM is provided, including current challenges and shortcomings and the lessons learnt (Chapter 8). The appendix provides a brief description of some of the commonly used stakeholder engagement approaches and techniques (Appendix A).

Defining Stakeholder Engagement

The engagement of I and APs in the decision-making process is frequently referred to as public participation. However, a review of definitions for public participation reflects some of the current difficulties associated with the term and provides the motivation for replacing it with 'stakeholder engagement'.

Canter (1996) defines public participation as "a continuous, two-way communication process which involves promoting full public understanding of the processes and mechanisms through which environmental problems and needs are investigated and solved by the responsible agency; keeping the public fully informed about the status and progress of studies and implications of project, plan, programme, or policy formulation and evaluation activities; and actively soliciting from all concerned citizens their opinions and perceptions of objectives and needs and their preferences regarding resource use and alternative development or management strategies and any other information and assistance relative to the decision."

By this definition public participation refers to a process of two-way information exchange and consultation without any reference to sharing responsibility or delegating authority to I and APs for decision-making.

On the other hand, Creighton (1993, as cited in Glavovic et al., 2001) defines public participation as "a mechanism by which the public is not only heard before the decision, but has an opportunity to influence the decision from the beginning to the end of the decision-making process."

Greyling (1999) regards public participation as a collaborative process by defining public participation as "a process leading to a joint effort by stakeholders, technical specialists, the authorities and the proponent who work together to produce better decisions than if they had acted independently."

Two conclusions can be drawn from these different definitions. First, the use of the term 'public' is misleading. Although every citizen, regardless of association, forms part of the public, the term may be misinterpreted as excluding the private sector and non-decision-making authorities. These groups may therefore feel excluded from the 'public participation' process. Furthermore, 'the public' may be misconstrued as being a homogenous group with a set of agreed common interests and aims (Lee & George, 2000). The term 'stakeholder' is thus proposed as a more appropriate alternative and one that implies a diversity of opinions and interests. Stakeholders can be considered a sub-group of the public whose interests may be positively or negatively affected by a proposal or activity and/or who are concerned with a proposal or activity and its consequences. The term therefore includes the proponent, authorities (both the lead authority and other authorities) and all I and APs. The principle that environmental consultants and stakeholder engagement practitioners should be independent and objective excludes these groups from being considered stakeholders. However, they are role-players in the environmental decision-making process (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Clarification of the term "public" versus "stakeholders"

The second conclusion to be drawn from the range of definitions presented, is that definitions for 'participation' differ widely in the degree to which I and APs influence decision-making. The concept of a spectrum of different levels of influence on decision-making provides a useful starting point for addressing this issue. The International Association for Public Participation (IAP2, 2000) describes public participation as a spectrum of increasing levels of public impact on decision-making. This spectrum ranges from the public being informed, consulted, involved, collaborating with decision-makers, or fully empowered through delegated decision-making.

However, some modifications to the IAP2 spectrum are required, including the replacement of the term 'participation' with 'engagement'. This is based on the reflection that being informed does not constitute participation and that it is therefore more appropriate to speak of 'engagement' between stakeholders in the decisionmaking process. In this document the term 'stakeholder engagement' is thus used in preference to 'public participation'.

A further modification to the spectrum included in this document is the addition of protest as the lowest level within the stakeholder engagement spectrum. Although undesirable and indicative of a breakdown in the stakeholder engagement process, it should be recognized that through protest I and APs may have a significant impact on the decisionmaking process. As protest sits at the opposite end of the spectrum from full empowerment, it is incorrect to describe the shift across the spectrum as reflecting an increasing impact on decision-making. Engagement between stakeholders, however, does increase along the spectrum. Based on these changes, stakeholder engagement can be defined as a spectrum of increasing levels of engagement between stakeholders in the decision-making process (Figure 2).

Figure 2: The stakeholder engagement spectrum (adapted from IAP2, 2000)

The following definitions are used in the interpretation of the different levels of the spectrum. Although there may still be some disagreement around the finer details of these definitions, it is hoped that the degree to which misunderstanding has previously taken place will be substantially reduced.

Protest: This refers to the efforts of I and APs to influence decision-making through challenging specific, visible targets (e.g. events, issues, sites, proponents and authorities). The existence of protest reflects a breakdown in relationships because of the failure of proponents and/or authorities to effectively and equitably engage with I and APs. It can be seen as a demand by I and APs to be more effectively and equitably engaged in decision-making processes that may have a significant effect on the environment. Protest activities may take a number of forms, including petitions, marches, strikes, boycotts and vandalism. There has recently been an increase in protest, for example, in connection with the impacts of international trade agreements, globalization and the activities of mining and oil companies. Protest is adversarial and will not be dealt with further in this document.

Inform: This refers to the provision of information to inform stakeholders of a proposal, activity or decision. The information provided may be designed to help stakeholders in understanding an issue, alternatives, solutions or the decision-making process (IAP2, 2000). Information flows are one-way. Information can flow either from the proponent to other stakeholders or vice versa. Advocacy and lobbying is a way in which I and APs, on their own initiative, can inform and influence the decisionmaking on environmental issues. If this level of engagement is not coupled to a process of consultation, there is no opportunity for stakeholders to comment on the information received.

It is important to stipulate that within the spirit and principles of IEM "informing stakeholders" is not about trying to influence or change opinions and attitudes. This falls under public relations and should not be confused with stakeholder engagement (Greyling, 1999).

Consult: Consultation involves an exchange of information between stakeholders, which provides an opportunity for stakeholders to raise concerns and comment on the impacts and merits of a proposal or activity before a decision is made. In principle the proponent or authorities should take into account the concerns and views expressed by I and APs in making the final decision.

Involve: Involvement builds on the consultation process and refers to the process in which stakeholders work together to ensure that concerns and issues are directly reflected in the planning, assessment, implementation and management of a particular proposal or activity (IAP2, 2000). However, the responsibility for decision-making is retained by the proponent or the authority.

Collaborate: This refers to the process of shared decisionmaking in which all stakeholders constructively explore their differences and develop a joint strategy for action (London, 1995). Collaboration is founded on the belief that decisionmaking does not have to be a zero-sum game with "winners" and "losers" or where the result is an unsatisfactory compromise. Rather, it is based on the ethos that, through dialogue, the provision of appropriate information, collectively defined goals , and the willingness and commitment to find a solution acceptable to all parties, it is possible to overcome the initially limited perspectives of what is achievable and to reach a decision which best meets the interests of the various stakeholders. At this level, responsibility for decisionmaking is shared between stakeholders.

Empower: When stakeholder engagement has reached the level of full empowerment, the responsibility for decisionmaking and accountability for the outcome have been delegated from the authority to the proponent and/or I and APs. Empowerment, as it is used elsewhere, is often associated with partnerships between stakeholders which are entered into for financial reasons. However, it should be borne in mind that not all financial partnerships empower effectively, and empowerment does not imply financial gain. In the context of this document, empowerment refers to the delegation of the decision-making authority, which is initiated without the primary objective being the realization of financial benefits.

It is important to bear in mind that in IEM, stakeholder engagement processes will typically move through a number of different levels in the spectrum over the course of the engagement process. For example, the engagement of I and APs and authorities in an environmental impact assessment (EIA) will initially require that I and APs and authorities are informed about the proposed development. After that the process moves to consultation, when I and APs and authorities are given the opportunity to identify issues of concern that should be addressed by the environmental consultants. When authorization for the activity is granted, the subsequent implementation of the recommendations included in the EIA may support the establishment of an environmental monitoring committee (composed of representatives of different stakeholder groups) to monitor and review the activity regularly. In this event stakeholders are involved in the operational management phase of the proposal.

It is important to recognize that, due to the range of different stakeholders that may be interested or affected by a particular proposal or activity, it is likely that the stakeholder engagement process may operate simultaneously at different levels for different stakeholders. For example, the process of commenting on environmental impact reports may involve facilitating collaboration between the different authorities that will be affected by the outcome of the final decision and responsible for enforcing the conditions attached to an authorization. At the same time, comments from a wider group of stakeholders may be obtained through a process of consultation.

Each level of the stakeholder engagement spectrum is characterized by a different set of objectives and implicit promises (Table 1). Explicitly locating any stakeholder engagement process on the spectrum at the start of the process should help to reduce the problem of mismatched expectations between stakeholders.

Table 1: Objectives and implicit promises associated with each level of the stakeholder engagement spectrum

Source: Adapted from IAP2 (2000)

This document does not advocate that any particular level is the most desirable level of stakeholder engagement. The "right" level of engagement will depend on the particular situation and circumstances (Chapter 7). Of critical importance is that the level and objectives of engagement and the boundaries to engagement are clarified and agreed upon by all stakeholders from the outset. Initiating a stakeholder engagement process without explicitly clarifying what is understood by the term can lead to confusion, misinterpretation and conflict. The door is left open for each stakeholder to bring along his/her own implicit assumptions regarding the outcome of the stakeholder engagement process, based on his/her own particular understanding of the term. Engagement based on differing, unexpressed objectives and expectations has little chance of success.

Stakeholder Engagement in Integrated Environmental Management

Integrated environmental management (IEM) is a philosophy which prescribes a code of practice for ensuring that environmental considerations are fully integrated into all stages of the development process in order to achieve a desirable balance between conservation and development (DEA, 1992).

The IEM philosophy is interpreted as applying to the planning, assessment, implementation and management of any proposal (project, plan, programme or policy) or activity – at local, national and international level - that has a potentially significant effect on the environment and sustainable development. To implement the IEM philosophy, a number of tools have been developed. These include environmental assessment tools (such as EIA, strategic environmental assessment, sustainability assessment and risk assessment), environmental management tools (such as monitoring, auditing and reporting) and decision-making tools (such as multi-criteria decision support systems or advisory councils). Selection and application of the appropriate tool will depend on the particular proposal or activity. However, the opportunity exists for stakeholder engagement to form an integral component of any IEM tool in order to inform and improve the decision-making process. Examples of these opportunities are provided in Table 2. These examples highlight that stakeholder engagement extends beyond EIA alone.

The Objectives of Stakeholder Engagement

The objectives associated with each of the different levels of the stakeholder engagement spectrum have been summarized in Table 1 (Chapter 3). This section deals with the purpose and benefits of improving engagement between stakeholders, as well as the specific objectives of stakeholder engagement at different stages of any proposal or activity.

The purpose of consultation, involvement, collaboration and empowerment of stakeholders in the decision-making process include (Canter, 1996; IAP2, 2002):

• Raising awareness, educating and increasing understanding between stakeholders (a two-way information exchange).
• Assisting in the identification of key issues of concern that need to be considered.
• Raising a diversity of opinions and perspectives and obtaining a balanced perspective of key issues.
• Identifying common interests and opportunities for meeting these.
• Identifying sources of information and the knowledge of local and other stakeholders.
• Learning from the knowledge and understanding of the environment of local and other stakeholders.
• Commenting on the findings of technical studies.
• Identifying reasonable alternatives.
• Managing and minimizing conflict.
• Identifying creative solutions to problems or deadlocks.
• Informing and improving dec is ion-making.
• Ensuring greater credibility and legitimacy in the decision-making process.
• Establishing trust and cooperation.
• Generating a sense of joint responsibility and ownership for the environment.
• Assisting in the review and monitoring of activities that may negatively affect the environment.
• Contributing to the development of appropriate policy, legislation and regulations.
• Promoting democracy.

Ultimately, the goal of stakeholder engagement is to improve communication between stakeholders (including the proponent) in the interest of facilitating better decisionmaking and more sus tainable development .

Sustainable development implies some degree of tradeoff between economic growth, social equity and ecological integrity. The stakeholder engagement process enables decision-makers to understand and clarify to what degree stakeholders are willing to accept or live with the tradeoffs involved (IAP2, 2002). This allows decisions to be made that take into consideration the limits of acceptability. This is the foundation for making decisions that have a wide level of support. In the face of unpopular decisions, sustainable development is an unlikely achievement.

Bearing in mind the overall goal of sustainable development, a prerequisite for effective, efficient and equitable stakeholder engagement is setting clear, specific, achievable objectives for each stage of the IEM process, taking into account the context of any specific proposal or activity and the level of engagement required. These objectives relate both to the process and the content of the proposal or activity. As an example, the objectives associated with each stage of the EIA process are provided in Table 3.

Table 2: Examples of opportunuties for stakeholder engagement in IEM

Table 3: An example of specific objectives of the stakeholder engagement process for different stages of an EIA

Source: Adapted from Canter (1996).

** Not all stakeholder engagement processes are initiated at the screening stage of an EIA. Where stakeholder engagement starts during the scoping stage, the objectives for the screening stage will automatically shift to the scoping stage.

Although stakeholder engagement is often regarded by proponents as being a costly exercise resulting in delays to the authorization process, a well-planned and appropriate stakeholder engagement process can potentially result in s ignificant tangible benef it s for proponents.

Benefits to proponents through proactively engaging with stakeholders may include the following:

• Cost savings: By ensuring that specialist studies focus on and consider key issues identified by the stakeholders, resources are not wasted on irrelevant or inappropriate studies.
• Improvements in the proposal design: By capturing and capitalizing on local and traditional "wisdom" and understanding of the particular environment, the risk of failure is reduced.
• Minimize conflict: By identifying and understanding environmental issues at the outset which may cause later difficulties if not addressed, conflict may be minimized or avoided.
• Avoidance of possible legal costs: Proactive engagement may assist in identifying and mitigating issues which may otherwise lead to a later dispute or non-compliance entailing legal costs.
• A reduction in delays in the authorization process: Late stakeholder inputs may delay the decision-making process.
• Reduced cost of repair (in cases where lack of support is shown through vandalism or theft).

Responsibilities of Stakeholders, Environmetal Consultants and Stakeholder Engagements Practitioners

All stakeholders, environmental consultants and stakeholder engagement practitioners have a responsibility to ensure that the agreed objectives of the stakeholder engagement process are achieved. It is possible to identify generic responsibilities for the different groups (Table 4), but it should be borne in mind that the division of responsibilities will be influenced to some extent by the level of engagement entered into. Increasing responsibility will be placed on I and APs as engagement increases from consultation to empowerment.

The scale of the proposal or activity generally determines whether the stakeholder engagement process is run by an environmental consultant or whether a specialized stakeholder engagement practitioner is contracted to run the process. When both an environmental consultant and a stakeholder engagement practitioner are involved, the division of responsibilities will depend on the contractual agreement.

Accountability for the stakeholder engagement process will depend on whether or not stakeholder engagement is a legal requirement and to whom accountability is assigned by law. It may also depend on agreements made between the stakeholders at the outset of the stakeholder engagement process.

Table 4: Differentiating the responsibilities for different roleplayers in the stakeholder engagement process

Source: Adapted from DECAS (2001) and Consultative Forum on Mining and the Environment (2002).

Approaches and Facilitaion Techniques

A diversity of stakeholder engagement approaches and facilitation techniques have been developed, which range widely in creativity, complexity and the technology used. Each has advantages and shortcomings. Effective, efficient and equitable stakeholder engagement depends largely on selecting the right combination of approaches and techniques for a particular process.

There is, however, no single recipe for making this selection - particularly when operating in the context of a multi-cultural, developing country. The choice of approaches and techniques will depend on the level of stakeholder engagement decided upon for each stage of the proposal or activity. The selection of the level of engagement will depend on a number of factors, including the objectives for engaging with stakeholders, the social profile of stakeholders, context-related issues (such as the levels of literacy), the spatial scale of the proposed activity, the number of people involved, the resources available for conducting the process, legislative requirements and normative criteria. The last factor refers to underlying societal norms and values that determine the principles of stakeholder engagement. For example, these may determine whether or not there is support and demand for participatory, transparent decision-making, co-operative governance, equitable access to information or procedurally fair administrative action (Glavovic, et al. 2001).

The following sections provide an overview of various options that are available for identifying stakeholders, engaging with them, and for facilitating the process to achieve a more satisfactory outcome.

1 Identification of stakeholders

It is generally the responsibility of the environmental consultant (or the stakeholder engagement practitioner) to identify those stakeholders, other than the proponent, whose interests may be positively or negatively affected by a proposal or activity and/or who are concerned about the consequences. This process will include identifying stakeholders such as relevant local, provincial and national government authorities, traditional leaders, community organizations, environmental organizations, development groups, special interest groups, trade unions, landowners, sport and recreational bodies, tourism organizations, business associations, and vulnerable and previously disadvantaged or underrepresented groups, including the elderly, women and the youth. Stakeholders may be either individuals or group representatives.

The following means of identifying stakeholders are commonly used:

• Social profiles or probes provide a comprehensive summary of the key characteristics of the people of a community or area and can serve as a starting point for identifying stakeholders.
• Brainstorming sessions with the proponent and/or authorities, based on previous experience, to identify key stakeholders who may be interested or affected by the proposal.
• Established lists and databases, held by consultancies, authorities or research institutions, may hold additional contact details of residents, NGOs, CBOs or constituents.
• Public announcements, advertisements and notices can be placed strategically to invite and encourage stakeholders to engage in the process (selfidentification).
• Network or chain referral systems according to which key stakeholders are asked to assist in identifying other stakeholders.

2 Approaches to stakeholder engagement

Environmental consultants and/or stakeholder engagement practitioners have a range of approaches to choose from, and generally a number of different approaches will be used in combination over the course of the stakeholder engagement process. Possible approaches have been summarized in Table 5 according to their suitability to meet the objectives of the different levels of engagement. A brief definition of each of these approaches, as well as references to texts which provide more detailed information, are provided in Appendix A.

Table 5: Examples of common approaches to stakeholder engagement

Source: Adapted from Cambers (1997), Shell International Exploration and Production B.V. (1999), LAP2 (2000) and Motteux (2001).

In countries such as South Africa, the concept of cooperative or participatory democracy has opened the arena for consultation, involvement and collaboration to play a greater role in national, provincial and local governance and decision-making. Hence, "imbizo" and "indaba" have joined the suite of stakeholder engagement approaches. Imbizo refers to the process of building partnerships between government and stakeholders to implement government initiatives. Indaba involves fostering open, transparent dialogue between government and stakeholder groups in order to address common concerns.

In addition, the potential for participatory rural appraisal (PRA) approaches and techniques to achieve successful outcomes in IEM in developing countries is increasingly being realized (Versfeld, 1995; Motteux, 2001; DWAF, 2001). PRA stems from development theory and practice and "…enables local people to share, enhance and analyze their knowledge of life and conditions, to plan and to act" (Chambers, 1994 as cited in Motteux, 2001, p27). The use of the term "rural" is misleading. However, as these techniques can be applied with equal success to urban settings where more commonly used, technocratic stakeholder engagement techniques may be inappropriate, ineffective, inefficient and inequitable. The use of the term "appraisal" is also incorrect, since this implies that PRA is a technique by which consultants or stakeholder engagement practitioners gather information, consult and make an assessment without the greater involvement of stakeholder engagement practitioners. To overcome these definitional problems, there is a shift towards using the term "participatory learning and action" (PLA) to describe the process of building the capacity of stakeholders to engage more effectively in the decision-making process, irrespective of the level of engagement (Versfeld, 1995; Chambers, 1997).

The focus on capacity-building over and above the objective of exchanging information differentiates PRA and PLA from many of the more commonly used stakeholder engagement approaches, such as open days, surveys and public meetings. The aim is more inclusive stakeholder engagement, as opposed to using techniques that rely on highly technical oral and written presentations, which exclude less literate stakeholders. PRA/PLA relies heavily on using simple visual and interactive techniques and is therefore useful in bridging gaps in literacy and cultural understanding between different stakeholders. In addition, the techniques are designed to ensure that local knowledge and wisdom is more effectively incorporated in the planning, assessment, implementation and management of proposals and activities. The principles underlying the PRA/PLA approach (i.e. capacity-building, use of more effective communication techniques and two-way learning) should form the cornerstone of any stakeholder engagement process.

3 Facilitation techniques

A wide range of techniques are available to facilitate the stakeholder engagement process and to ensure effective, efficient and equitable engagement (Appendix A). These facilitation techniques assist in setting goals, capturing and incorporating local knowledge and, where appropriate or necessary, managing conflict and building consensus. Generally a variety of techniques will be used during any stakeholder engagement process.

Overview of Stakeholder Engagement Experiences in Integrated Environmental Management

1 Stakeholder engagement in developing countries

Opportunities for stakeholder engagement in IEM, and the level at which engagement occurs, typically are related to the degree to which a country's economy is open or closed. In general, the greater the role of the private sector in the economy, the lower the government's sensitivity to criticism of proposals and activities and the greater the overall opportunity for higher levels of stakeholder engagement in decision-making (George, 2000).

An overview of stakeholder engagement in environmental assessment in developing and transitional countries has shown that, although many countries make reference to 'public participation' in their environmental assessment systems, requirements are often general and lack detail, resulting in difficulties in practical implementation (George, 2000). The need to strengthen the 'public participation' process in environmental assessment was highlighted as one of the pressing issues and emerging challenges in an international study considering the effectiveness of environmental assessment (Sadler, 1996). It is assumed here that these findings also apply more broadly to stakeholder engagement across the whole IEM spectrum.

South Africa serves as a best practice example of a country where the opportunity for stakeholder consultation, involvement and collaboration in IEM is facilitated and supported by the constitution, environmental framework legislation, sectoral legislation and regulations.

The democratization and process of transformation in South Africa have led to an increasing devolution of power to local levels of government and a restructuring of the institutional network to include a range of mechanisms to allow stakeholders to become increasingly engaged in decision-making (Scott et al., 2001). Many political civil groups, which had previously challenged Apartheid, have reformulated their objectives and are exercising their constitutional rights to be informed, consulted and involved at all levels of government and in the environmental decision-making process. In the tide of enthusiasm and optimism that characterized the transition from Apartheid to democracy, a wide range of stakeholders have played an active and important role in shaping the current environmental agenda and in influencing environmental decision-making.

In countries that make provision for stakeholder engagement, "stakeholder fatigue" and cynicism regarding the outcomes of the stakeholder engagement process are at times evident across stakeholder groups: among authorities, I and APs and proponents, as well as environmental consultants and stakeholder engagement practitioners.

There are a number of challenges and constraints imposed by the broader context within which formal stakeholder engagement processes operate, as well as shortcomings in how individual stakeholder engagement processes are run. Alone and in combination these challenges and shortcomings hamper open, participatory and inclusive decision-making on environmental issues.

Without understanding and acknowledging these problems, it is difficult to identify ways of addressing them.

2 Challenges to stakeholder engagement

Policy and institutional constraints

Stakeholder engagement in environmental decision-making is not a legislated requirement in all countries. In many cases there is thus no supporting legislation and institutional framework to ensure that stakeholders are effectively, efficiently and equitably engaged in the decision-making process. Governments may find the delegation of power and authority difficult and, although requirements to inform, consult, involve, collaborate with, or empower stakeholders in the decision-making process may exist in law, this has not always been translated into practice. The rights and responsibilities of the different stakeholder groups may therefore not be clarified, which leads to confusion and dis illusionment in the process.

A further problem relating to the institutional frameworks is that a formal stakeholder engagement process is often only undertaken during the environmental assessment stage after many of the planning and strategic-level decisions have already been taken. This leads to accusations of token stakeholder engagement, which does not have a real influence on decision-making.

Cultural and historical complexities

In countries such as South Africa, which has a history o repression, a strong element of mistrust often remains between different sectors of society, despite progressive and enabling frameworks for higher levels of stakeholder engagement. Even if repressive governments have since been replaced, a strong culture of stakeholder engagement may not yet exist, because communities may still fear adverse consequences if they openly express a difference of opinion or demand a say in the decision-making process.

The difficulty of identifying the appropriate approach to stakeholder engagement is further exacerbated by the inherent complexities in social structures in many societies. This may stem from cultural hierarchies (age- or genderbased), which limit the ability of members lower down in the hierarchy to enter into the engagement process, as well as from the large income and development gap, which exis ts between different stakeholder groups .

Capacity constraints

In many areas there is a lack of capacity to engage effectively, efficiently and equitably, because of low levels of literacy, language barriers, the remoteness of the location, or financial and time constraints to attending meetings. Capacity constraints often extend to the NGOs and CBOs, who act as "watchdogs" or as representatives of a particular group. They are often expected to comment on, or get involved in the implementation and management of a large number of proposals and activities related to IEM. Their ability to engage is, however, often limited by t ime, cos t and human resource cons t raints.

Low level of interest in environmental issues

Stakeholder engagement is often difficult, due to a lack of interest, awareness or concern among stakeholders of environmental issues. The level of support and engagement in environmental assessment and management may be low when the "environmental agenda" is seen to conflict with addressing pressing social development needs. This may arise when environmental issues are interpreted narrowly as being "green" issues, focusing on the biophysical component of the environment only.

3 Shortcomings of stakeholder engagement processes

Apart from the context-related challenges that pose hurdles to achieving effective, efficient and equitable stakeholder engagement, objectives may not be met due to problems with the process itself. An analysis of the issues commonly raised in connection with stakeholder engagement processes reveals that most issues relate to two underlying problems:

• The lack of clarity around the definition and objectives of stakeholder engagement and the responsibilities of stakeholders, environmental consultants and stakeholder engagement practitioners.
• The selection of inappropriate approaches and techniques to facilitate stakeholder engagement.

Lack of clarity on the definition, objectives and responsibilities of stakeholders

The range of definitions and terminology used in the stakeholder engagement arena has allowed terms to be misinterpreted, or interpreted differently by different stakeholders engaged in the same process. If the level of engagement and the associated objectives are not clarified from the outset, stakeholders may enter into the stakeholder engagement process with widely differing expectations of the outcomes. This brings with it a host of secondary problems, which undermine the success of the stakeholder engagement process.

The level of engagement and the objectives of the stakeholder engagement process influence the responsibilities of different stakeholders, environmental consultants and stakeholder engagement practitioners. A lack of clarity on the former will thus likely lead to illdefined responsibilities. If the various groups engaging in the process do not fully agree upon and accept their individual responsibilities, commitment is not guaranteed. Ultimately the entire stakeholder engagement process is then founded on insecurity and mistrust. Trying to achieve objectives under these circumstances is difficult, if not impossible.

Stakeholder engagement may be misinterpreted as seeking to achieve consensus among stakeholders (Greyling, 1999). This may discourage certain groups or individuals from participating for fear that the pressure to reach consensus will result in co-option. While consensus may be a desirable outcome in some circumstances, reaching consensus is not the overriding objective of stakeholder engagement in IEM. The confusion between stakeholder engagement and public relations creates similar mistrust if the objectives of stakeholder engagement are not clarified at the outset.

If the stakeholder engagement process is seen as an obligatory "add-on" requirement, rather than as a process that adds value to decision-making, inadequate time and resources are allocated to the process, and stakeholder engagement is planned to meet the bare minimum legal requirements. This rarely results in effective, efficient and equitable stakeholder engagement and leads to accusations by other authorities and I and APs of reactive, token stakeholder engagement, which is undertaken without true commitment to ensuring that stakeholder input is properly taken into account in the planning, assessment, implementation and management of proposals and activities.

Stakeholder engagement practitioners and environmental consultants themselves sometimes do not fully understand the purpose and objectives of stakeholder engagement, nor their own responsibilities in the process. This is reflected in cases where consultants and practitioners act in a promotional capacity for the proponent, rather than as "independent, objective information professionals". This may exacerbate the perception that stakeholder engagement is little more than a token exercise. A knockon effect is the lack of interest, buy-in and commitment by other authorities and I and APs.

Furthermore, environmental consultants and stakeholder engagement practitioners may not have the right skills and experience to facilitate an effective, efficient and equitable stakeholder engagement, leading to disputes and delays. It is a misperception that anyone can be a good facilitator and run a stakeholder engagement process. However, there are currently few formal training programmes to ensure the correct skills are developed by individuals wishing to conduct a stakeholder engagement process.

A problem frequently experienced in public meetings is that of "political grandstanding", where individuals or groups dominate the meeting to advance their own positions. This again stems for the fact that objectives (and boundaries) of stakeholder engagement have not been clarified at the outset. Furthermore, this may result in unrealistic expectations and demands being made of the proponent and the authorities, the environmental consultant and the stakeholder engagement practitioners.

The potential value of facilitating and improving the exchange of information between stakeholders in the environmental assessment process frequently remains unrealised and local knowledge is not effectively utilized and incorporated. This is largely attributed to the fact that this objective has not been made explicit in the stakeholder engagement process.

Selection of inappropriate approaches and techniques

Differences in context and challenges are often ignored in the planning for, and design of stakeholder engagement processes. The outcome is frequently the adoption of a mechanistic, "one-size-fits-all" approach to the stakeholder engagement process.

The practical difficulties and constraints of identifying stakeholders and ensuring that they have adequate and equitable opportunities to engage effectively mean that frequently key stakeholders are excluded from the process or that participants are not representative of the diversity of stakeholders who should be engaged in the process. In particular, stakeholders outside the immediate impact zone are often overlooked, as are minority and less advantaged groups. Although it is practically impossible to engage with every stakeholder, relying only on the views presented by community "leaders", or individuals claiming to represent a wider group, has at times led to later problems when these individuals have not acted in the wider interests of their constituents.

The selection of inappropriate approaches and facilitation techniques may also result in the exclusion of minority and disadvantaged groups and a lack of information exchange and interaction between different stakeholders. The latter may lead to an unequal balance of power between the range of stakeholders. In addition, poor facilitation techniques may lead to public meetings being used as forums for "political grandstanding" or may mean that sensitive issues are avoided entirely for fear of breaking trust and relationships. Neither achieves the objectives of stakeholder engagement.

In many cases, it may be difficult for communities to understand the affect a proposal may have on their current livelihoods. This may limit their ability to identify possible points of concern and engage effectively in the environmental decision-making process.

4 Lessons learnt

In order to address some of these shortcomings, guidelines and best practice manuals for public participation and stakeholder engagement have been developed by a range of organizations, including financing institutions, international governance bodies, professional associations, government departments and business. Existing guidelines highlight the range of interpretations of the term 'public participation' and reflect the need for more careful definition of the terminologies used. For example, Shell International Exploration and Production's Health, Safety and Environment manual refers to "Stakeholder Consultation" (Shell International Exploration and Production B.V., 1999), the International Finance Corporation's good practice manual refers to "Public Consultation and Disclosure" (IFC, 1998), the Australian Environment Protection Agency has consolidated best practice for "Community Consultation and Involvement" (EPA, 1995) and the South African Department of Water Affairs and Forestry has developed generic guidelines for "Public Participation" (DWAF, 2001). Nevertheless, these guidelines commonly include a set of best practice principles for the particular sector and/or a particular environmental method. It is therefore not the intention of this document to repeat these.

Public participation guidelines for mining-related EIAs in South Africa are currently being drawn up in consultation with a forum consisting of representatives from NGOs, CBOs, labour and the mining industry. Through this process, a wider group of stakeholders have the opportunity to define the engagement process. In this way greater support for, and adherence to the guidelines proposed will potentially be achieved (Consultative Forum on Mining and the Environment, 2002).

The following lessons can be drawn from current and past stakeholder engagement processes in environmental decision-making:

It is important to understand the need for, and value of effective, efficient and equitable stakeholder engagement in the environmental decision-making process

The opportunities for achieving mutually beneficial outcomes of the stakeholder engagement process need to be communicated to all stakeholders. This includes raising awareness on the value of local knowledge and experience and effectively capturing and utilizing this knowledge. Examples of successful stakeholder engagement have to be more widely communicated.

The purpose and objectives of stakeholder engagement, and the responsibilities of different stakeholders, environmental consultants and stakeholder engagement practitioners should be clarified from the outset of the process

The expectations of all stakeholders have to be managed. This involves clarifying the level of engagement, the specific objectives of different stages of the process, as well as how the decision will be made, when and by whom.

Importantly, the level of engagement selected should seek to balance the value of identifying key issues and enhancing the credibility and transparency in the decision-making process, with the potential delays that stakeholder engagement may cause (DEAT, 2001). In addition, a balance needs to be sought in which local knowledge is used and stakeholder opinions and preferences are taken into account, without compromising on good technical knowledge and science (Beierle & Konisky, 2001). Effective and efficient utilization of the former should enhance proposals and activities through an overall improvement in technical quality.

Approaches and tools should be selected to achieve effective, efficient and equitable stakeholder engagement and not only to meet minimum regulatory requirements

As long as the stakeholder engagement is characterized by inconspicuous advertisements in newspapers and stressful, ineffective and inefficient public meetings, the gap between tokenism and achieving successful stakeholder engagement will remain. It should be accepted that effective and equitable processes require continuity in order to build and maintain trust, and should not be mechanistic, once-off exercises. Frequent revision and refinement of the stakeholder engagement process may be necessary to ensure that it meets the agreed objectives. In addition, stakeholders should be engaged as early as possible in the decision-making process.

There is a range of alternative approaches on which can be drawn, depending on the particular circumstances at hand. Flexible, creative, inclusive and adaptive stakeholder engagement processes should be encouraged. Especially in a developing country context, the experience of PRA/PLA approaches used by development practitioners hold value for stakeholder engagement processes that are carried out in communities where literacy levels are low and the capacity to engage effectively is constrained. Through the use of these approaches, the values, interests and knowledge of all stakeholders are recognized and taken into account. Proponents, stakeholder engagement practitioners, environmental consultants and authorities need to be willing to learn and to be open to new possibilities and solutions.

Overall, choosing the right approach should be guided by the goals of effectiveness, efficiency and equitability. Furthermore, any approach should be underpinned by the principles of transparency, openness, honesty and integrity. Commitment to the process is required from all stakeholders.

Capacity should be built among all stakeholders to engage more effectively, efficiently and equitably

Innovative ways of building the capacity of proponents, authorities, I and APs, environmental consultants and stakeholder engagement practitioners to engage in a particular process need to be developed and implemented. This may include informing I and APs of their legal rights and responsibilities, raising awareness on environmental issues and providing information in an accessible and understandable form and style. However, it is clear that there is a limit to what can realistically be expected of, and achieved by any single stakeholder engagement process. Many capacity-related issues need to be simultaneously addressed at a broader scale.

Stakeholder engagement practitioners should develop the appropriate skills to run an effective, efficient and equitable process

It has to be recognized that facilitating a stakeholder engagement process is a specialized skill, which depends as much on developing the right personal skills (e.g. integrity, trustworthiness and listening empathetically and respectfully) as on developing the specific facilitation and communication skills required to ensure, for example, that the right information is captured, information is communicated appropriately, capacity is built amongst stakeholders and conflict situations are managed effectively.

Conflict management should be improved

Although conflict management is not the purpose of stakeholder engagement, it is important to acknowledge and accept that conflict may arise in situations where there are differences of opinions and interests. It is crucial to manage this conflict, so that it does not derail the entire process. Conflict management should focus on identifying the underlying interests of different stakeholders, rather than on maintaining and entrenching predetermined positions. Adopting an interest-based approach provides opportunities for identifying common interests and working towards these. In the process new alternatives may be identified, which would otherwise not have been considered if different stakeholders' positions were f ramed in terms of inflexible options .

Conclusions

Opportunities for stakeholder engagement in IEM extend beyond its traditional role in EIA. This is supported in countries such as South Africa by legislation and policies promoting participatory democracy. Effective, efficient and equitable stakeholder engagement holds the potential to realize both tangible and intangible benefits for the range of stakeholders involved in the process. However, this is frequently constrained by problems associated with the context within which the stakeholder engagement process is conducted, as well as shortcomings regarding the way in which the process is designed and implemented.

Addressing context-related challenges is generally beyond the scope of any individual stakeholder engagement process. To a certain extent conflict can be managed, capacity can be built and environmental awareness raised, but it is not the objective or responsibility of individual stakeholder engagement processes to solve these higher-level, contextrelated problems. The stakeholder engagement process is, however, constrained to work within a particular context and should be designed to be as effective, efficient and equitable as possible.

The success of a stakeholder engagement process hinges on clarifying definitions, objectives and responsibilities, as well as selecting the most appropriate approach and technique to meet these objectives. Creativity, innovation, flexibility and adaptability are required, rather than mechanistic, ineffective processes.

The additional resources required initially to ensure effectiveness and equitability should result in efficiency gains in the long run by ensuring greater support for proposals and increasing the sustainability of plans, projects, programmes and policies.

References

Acutt, N. (2001) The Emerging Role of Voluntary Approaches for Environmental Management: Implications for South Africa, Paper presented at IAIAsa Conference in White River, South Africa: 8-10 October 2001.

Beierle, T.C. and Konisky, D.M. (2001) What are we Gaining from Stakeholder Involvement? Observations from Environmental Planning in the Great Lakes, Environment and Planning C: Government & Policy, 19, 515-527.

Binns, T., Hill, T. and Nel, E. (1997) Learning from the People: Participatory Rural Appraisal, Geography and Rural Development in the "New" South Africa, Applied Geography, 17 (1), 1-9.

Bisset, R (2000) Methods of Consultation and Public Participation, In: N. Lee, N. and C. George (eds.) Environmental Assessment in Developing and Transitional Countries , John Wiley and Sons Ltd, 149-160 pp.

Business Partners for Development (2002) Business Partners for Development. http://www.bpdweb.org

Canter, L.W. (1996) Environmental Impact Assessment, 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill Inc.

Chambers, R. (1997) Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last, Intermediate Technology Publications, London.

Consultative Forum on Mining and the Environment (2002) Public Participation Guidelines for Stakeholders in the Mining Industry, South African Chamber of Mines, Johannesburg.

DEAT (1998) Environmental Impact Management Guideline Document: EIA Regulations - Implementation of Sections 21, 22 and 26 of the Environment Conservation Act, Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria, South Africa.

DEAT (2001) Environmental Management Co-operation Agreements in South Africa. EMCAs Workshop - Discussion Document: Intended for a Workshop on Developing and Implementing Environmental Management Co-operation Agreements in South Africa, Department of Environmental Af fairs and Tourism, Pretoria, South Af rica.

DEAT and CSIR (2000) Strategic Environmental Assessment in South Africa: Guideline Document. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria, South Africa.

DECAS (2001) EIA Guideline Series: Guideline for the Public Participation for the EIA Process, Western Cape Provincial Department of Environment, Cultural Affairs and Sport: Directorate Environmental Management, Cape Town, South Africa.

DPLG (2001) IDP Guide Pack: Guide 1, Department of Provincial and Local Government, Pretoria, South Africa.

DWAF (2001) Generic Public Participation Guidelines, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, South Africa.

EPA (1995) Community Consultation and Involvement: Best Practice Environmental Management in Mining, Environment Protection Agency, Australia.

George, C. (2000) Comparative Review of Environmental Assessment Procedures and Practice, In: N. Lee and C. George (eds.) Environmental Assessment in Developing and Transitional Countries, John Wiley and Sons, 35-68 pp.

Glavovic, B., Shandler, D. & Abrahams, D. (2001) Discussion Document: Towards a Policy for Public Participation in Spatial Planning, City of Cape Town, CMC Administration: Spatial Planning Department. Planning, Environment and Housing Directorate, South Africa.

Greyling, T. (1999) Towards Managing Environmental Disputes: Appropriate Public Participation. Prepared for Conference on Environmental Dispute Resolution 10-11 June 1998, Fourways, Gauteng, Manyaka Greyling Meiring (Pty) Ltd, South Africa.

Hoadley, M., Limpitlaw, D. and Weaver, A. (2002) Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development in Southern Africa: The Report of the Regional MMSD Process, MMSD Southern Africa.

IAP2 (2000) Public Participation Spectrum, http://www.iap2.org/practitionertools/spectrum.

IAP2 (2002) Public Participation: Critical for Sustainable Development,http://www.iap2.org/worldsummit/worldsummit2002.pdf.

IFC (1998) Doing Better Business through Effective Public Consultation and Disclosure: A Good Practice Manual, http://www.ifc.org/enviro/Publications/Practice/practice.htm.

IIED (2000) Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development, http://www.iied.org/mmsd/index.html.

Isaacs, M., Mohamed, N., Ntshona, Z. & Turner, S. (2000) Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) in Southern Africa: Constituting the Commons in the New South Africa, An Occasional Paper Series. Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, School of Government, University of the Western Cape and Centre for Applied Social Sciences, University of Zimbabwe.

Khanya (2002)Khanya-Managing Rural Change Making the Link Between Micro and Meso: Learning from experience on community based planning, http://www.khanya-mrc.co.za.

London, S. (1995) Collaboration and Community, http://www.scottlondon.com/reports/ppcc.html.

Motteux, N. (2001) The Development and Co-ordination of Catchment Fora through the Empowerment of Rural Communities, Water Research Commission, WRC Report No. 1014/1/01, South Africa.

Neudoerffer, R.C., Malhotra, P.and Ramana, P.V. (2001) Participatory Rural Energy Planning in India - A Policy Context, Energy Policy, 29, 371-381.

Republic of South Africa (1998) National Environmental Management Act, No. 107 of 1998, Government Gazette, South Africa.

Sadler, B. (1996) International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment: Final Report. Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating Practice to Improve Performance, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and International Association for Impact Assessment.

Scott, D. (1999) Is Public Participation in the Pipeline? A Social Impact Assessment of Marine Waste Disposal in Southern KwaZulu-Natal, Water Science and Technology, 39 (10-11), 47-54.

Scott (2000) Guidelines for including public participation in the permitting process, Water Research Commission, WRC Report No KV125/00, South Africa.

Scott, D., Oelofse, C. and Weaver, A. (2001) The Institutionalisation of Social Assessment in South Africa: The Post- Apartheid Window of Opportunity, In: A. Dale, N. Taylor, M. Lane and R. Crisp (eds.) Social Assessment in Natural Resource Management, CSIRO Publishing, Australia.

Shandler, D. (2001) Development of a Management Policy for the Cape Peninsula National Park, Cape Town, South Africa, Common Ground Consulting, Cape Town.

Shell International Exploration and Production B.V. (1999) HSE Manual EP 95-0374: Stakeholder Consultation. Shell International Exploration and Production B.V.

Social Investment Forum (2002) Social Investment Forum, http://www.socialinvest.org.

Spash, C.L. (2001) Broadening Democracy in Environmental Policy Processes. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 10 (4), 475-481.

Stone, J.V. (2001) Risk Perception Mapping and the Fermi II Nuclear Power Plant: Toward an Ethnography of Social Access to Public Participation in Great Lakes Environmental Management. Environmental Science and Policy, 4, 205-217.

Versfeld, D.B. (1995) Participatory Catchment Management - An Opportunity for Southern Africa, Water, Science and Technology, 32 (5-6), 145-151.

WCD (2001) Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-making. http://www.dams.org/

WESSA (2000) The Environmentally F.A.I.R. Process. Report of WESSA: WC Development Planning and the Environment Project which Analysed the Environmental Impact Assessment Process in the Western Cape, Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa: Western Cape Region.

WMO and UNEP (2002) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: About IPCC. http://www.ipcc.ch/about/about.htm.

World Bank (1990) World Bank Operational Directive OD 4.30: Involuntary Resettlement. Washington D.C., USA.

Appendix A: Stakeholder Engagement approaches and techniques

Approaches to Stakeholder Engagement

• Information and Consultation
• Consultation, Collaboration and Empowerment
• Collaboration and Empowerment

Facilitation Techniques

• Goal Setting, Capturing and Incorporating Local Knowledge
• Conflict Management/Consensus Building

Glossary

Definitions

Affected environment

Those parts of the socio-economic and biophysical environment impacted on by the development.

Affected public

Groups, organizations, and/or individuals who believe that an action might affect them.

Alternative proposal

A possible course of action, in place of another, that would meet the same purpose and need. Alternative proposals can refer to any of the following, but are not necessarily limited to these:

• Alternative sites for development
• Alternative projects for a particular site
• Alternative site layouts
• Alternative designs
• Alternative processes
• Alternative materials.

In IEM the so-called "no-go" alternative also requires investigation.

Authorities

The national, provincial or local authorities that have a decision-making role or interest in the proposal or activity. The term includes the lead authority, as well as other authorities.

Baseline

Conditions that currently exist. Also called "existing conditions."

Baseline information

Information derived from data that:

• Records the existing elements and trends in the environment.
• Records the characteristics of a given project proposal.

Decision-maker

The person(s) entrusted with the responsibility for allocating resources or granting approval to a proposal.

Decision-making

The sequence of steps, actions or procedures that result in decisions, at any stage of a proposal.

Environment

The surroundings within which humans exist and that are made up of:

1. The land, water and atmosphere of the earth.
2. Micro-organisms, plant and animal life.
3. Any part or combination of (i) and (ii) and the interrelationships among and between them
4. The physical, chemical, aesthetic and cultural properties and conditions of the foregoing that influence human health and well-being. This includes the economic, cultural, historical, and political circumstances, conditions and objects that affect the existence and development of an individual, organism or group.

Environmental Assessment (EA)

The generic term for all forms of environmental assessment for projects, plans, programmes or policies. This includes methods/tools such as EIA, strategic environmental assessment, sustainability assessment and risk assessment.

Environmental consultant

Individuals or firms that act in an independent and unbiased manner to provide information for decision-making.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

A public process that is used to identify, predict and assess the potential environmental impacts of a proposed project on the environment. The EIA is used to inform decision-making.

Fatal flaw

Any problem, issue or conflict (real or perceived) that could result in proposals being rejected or modified.

Impact

The positive or negative effects on human well-being and/or the environment.

Integrated Environmental Management (IEM)

A philosophy which prescribes a code of practice for ensuring that environmental considerations are fully integrated into all stages of the development and decision-making process. The IEM philosophy (and principles) is interpreted as applying to the planning, assessment, implementation and management of any proposal (project, plan, programme or policy) or activity - at local, national and international level - that has a potentially significant effect on the environment. Implementation of this philosophy relies on the selection and application of appropriate tools to a particular proposal or activity. These may include environmental assessment tools (such as strategic environmental assessment and risk assessment), environmental management tools (such as monitoring, auditing and reporting) and decision-making tools (such as multi-criteria decision support systems or advisory councils).

Interested and Affected Parties ( I and APs)

Individuals, communities or groups, other than the proponent or the authorities, whose interests may be positively or negatively affected by a proposal or activity and/or who are concerned with a proposal or activity and its consequences. These may include local communities, investors, business associations, trade unions, customers, consumers and environmental interest groups. The principle that environmental consultants and stakeholder engagement practitioners should be independent and unbiased excludes these groups from being considered I and APs.

Lead authority

The environmental authority at the national, provincial or local level entrusted, in terms of legislation, with the responsibility for granting approval to a proposal or allocating resources and for directing or coordinating the assessment of a proposal that affects a number of authorities.

Mitigate

The implementation of practical measures to reduce adverse impacts or enhance beneficial impacts of an action.

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

Voluntary environmental, social, labour or community organizations, charities or pressure groups.

Proponent

Any individual, government department, authority, industry or association proposing an activity (e.g. project, programme or policy).

Proposal

The development of a project, plan, programme or policy. Proposals can refer to new initiatives or extensions of, and revisions to existing ones.

Public

Ordinary citizens who have diverse cultural, educational, political and socio-economic characteristics. The public is not a homogeneous and unified group of people with a set of agreed common interests and aims. There is no single public. There are a number of publics, some of whom may emerge at any time during the process, depending on their particular concerns and the issues involved.

Roleplayers

The stakeholders who play a role in the environmental decision-making process. This role is determined by the level of engagement and the objectives set at the outset of the process.

Scoping

The process of determining the spatial and temporal boundaries (i.e. extent) and key issues to be addressed in an environmental assessment. The main purpose of scoping is to focus the environmental assessment on a manageable number of important questions. Scoping should also ensure that only significant issues and reasonable alternatives are examined.

Screening

A decision-making process to determine whether or not a development proposal requires environmental assessment, and if so, what level of assessment is appropriate. Screening is initiated during the early stages of the development of a proposal.

Significant/significance

Significance can be differentiated into impact magnitude and impact significance. Impact magnitude is the measurable change (i.e. intensity, duration and likelihood). Impact significance is the value placed on the change by different affected parties (i.e. level of significance and acceptability). It is an anthropocentric concept, which makes use of value judgements and science-based criteria (i.e. biophysical, social and economic). Such judgement reflects the political reality of impact assessment in which significance is translated into public acceptability of impacts.

Stakeholders

A subgroup of the public whose interests may be positively or negatively affected by a proposal or activity and/or who are concerned with a proposal or activity and its consequences. The term therefore includes the proponent, authorities (both the lead authority and other authorities) and all interested and affected parties ( I and APs). The principle that environmental consultants and stakeholder engagement practitioners should be independent and unbiased excludes these groups from being considered stakeholders.

Stakeholder engagement

The process of engagement between stakeholders (the proponent, authorities and I and APs) during the planning, assessment, implementation and/or management of proposals or activities. The level of stakeholder engagement varies, depending on the nature of the proposal or activity and the level of commitment by stakeholders to the process. Stakeholder engagement can therefore be described by a spectrum or continuum of increasing levels of engagement in the decisionmaking process. The term is considered to be more appropriate than the term "public participation". Stakeholder Engagement

Stakeholder engagement practitioner

Individuals or firms whose role it is to act as independent, objective facilitators, mediators, conciliators or arbitrators in the stakeholder engagement process. The principle of independence and objectivity excludes stakeholder engagement practitioners from being considered stakeholders.

Abbreviations