presentation to the gis day event, 17-18 november 2014 ... · presentation to the gis day event,...

Presentation to the GIS Day Event, 17-18 November 2014, Environment House

Compiled and presented by Peter Lukey , Chief Policy Advisor: Strategic Environmental Intelligence

An Introduction the Department of Environmental Affairs’

Quarterly Environmental Threat, Weakness and Opportunity Scan

Background – The changing context for national environmental governance

• Mainstreaming of environment into sectors is a victory for the environment and sustainable development in general, but marks a subtle, but required, shift in the modus operandi of the DEA.

• The question “why should we consider the environment?” is changing to “how best should we consider the environment?”

• In practice, this means that the department must evolve from an organisation that implements environmental management to a sustainable development facilitation and knowledge management organisation.

Background – The changing context for national environmental governance (Cont.)

• In simple terms, the department must now –

– show leadership as opposed to merely lobbying leadership;

– demonstrate expertise rather than relying on the external “independent” expertise it needed to use to demonstrate the credibility of its positions;

– transition from “environmental management” to “sustainable development”

– demonstrate its efficacy as a driver of a new, green, development path by effectively challenging perceptions of it being simply a “hand brake” on the business-as-usual development path.

Organisational Agility

• QETWOS is a tool that has been developed to contribute to DEA’s organisational agility.

• Organisational agility refers to the capability of an organisation to rapidly change or adapt in response to changes in its operating context and environment.

• A high degree of organisational agility can help an organisation like the department to react timeously and successfully to –

– the emergence of new threats, weaknesses and opportunities,

– the development of new sector-changing strategies, systems and technologies, or

– sudden shifts in overall contextual or policy conditions.

QETWOS History

• The QETWOS system was approved at the departmental 3D Management Meeting of 21 January 2013.

• The inaugural QETWOS Workshop was held at the Leriba Hotel and Spa, Centurion, on Monday, 25 March 2013.

• There have been 4 QETWOS Workshops to date with the latest having taken place on 30 September 2014

• Workshops are held back-to-back with the department’s Knowledge and Information Forum (KNIMF) meetings every six months

• A QETWOS report is presented to 3D, 4D and/or the DEA Risk Management Committee every quarter

QETWOS Issues

• In order for an issue to be included in the QETWOS, it must meet at least the first and one other of the following criteria –

– The issue is a new and/or emerging issue, i.e. it is an issue that is not being specifically dealt with in any departmental strategic plan, Annual Performance Plan, Performance Agreement, MINTECHWorking Group Work Plan, DDG Cluster agenda item and/or any 3/4/5D Management Meeting decision;

– There is a reasonable concern that the issue is, or could become, a significant threat to the efficiency and/or effectiveness of the South African system of environmental governance;

– There is a reasonable concern that the issue is, or could become, a significant threat to the quality, integrity or functioning of the South African natural environment and/or environmental media – air, soil, fresh- and sea-water;

QETWOS Issues (Cont.)

– There is a reasonable concern that the issue indicates a possible significant weakness in the South African system of environmental governance;

– There is a reasonable belief that the issue presents a possible significant opportunity for improving the efficiency and/or effectiveness of the South African system of environmental governance;

– There is a reasonable belief that the issue is, or could become, a significant opportunity for improving the quality, integrity or functioning of the South African natural environment and/or environmental media – air, soil, fresh- and sea-water;

Step 1: Issue Identification

Issue identificationThe acceptance that an issue may

present a threat to-, indicate a weakness in- or present an

opportunities for- environmental governance in South Africa

Articles in newspapers, magazines, websites,

journals, etc.

Information from general contacts, stakeholder

networks, e-mails, etc.

Information from conferences, seminars,

workshops, etc.

Information from specialist information

gathering services, etc.

Information from

colleagues!!!

Step 2: Initial Screening

Issue identificationThe acceptance that an issue may

present a threat to-, indicate a weakness in- or present an

opportunities for- environmental governance in South Africa

Initial screeningThe identified issue is subjected to an initial, informal, significance

screening

Informal SMS discussion within EAS

Potentially significant

Insignificant issue

More inforequired

Focussed research, intelligence gathering, etc.

Urgent issue

Step 3: Urgent DG/3D Briefing

Urgent issue

Urgent DG/3D BriefingIssues that are deemed to be

significant and urgent are immediately brought to the

attention of top management

Step 4: Issue Analysis and Significance Scoring


Six-monthly QETWOSworkshop

Urgent DG/3D BriefingIssues that are deemed to be

significant and urgent are immediately brought to the attention

of top management

Issue Analysis and significance scoringThe identified issue is included in the

issue analysis matrix and is analysed and scored against set parameters for specific

key priority areas

Step 4: Issue Analysis and Significance Scoring (Cont.)

Variable

Worst

Enviro.

Outcome

Best

Enviro.

Outcome

Variable

Worst

Enviro.

Outcome

Best

Enviro.

Outcome

Environmental Policy

Impact-5 -5 Air Quality Impact -2 4

Job Creation Impact 5 10 Water Quality Impact -5 -3

Poverty Alleviation

Impact2 5 Water Quantity Impact -5 -5

Public Health Impact -2 3 Soil Quality Impact -2 -1

International Standing

Impact-8 -5

General Biodiversity

Impact-2 -1

Climate Change

Mitigation Impact-8 5

Sensitive Habitat

Impact-4 -2

Climate Change

Resilience Impact-4 -1

Sensitive Species

Impact-4 -2


Variable interpretation

Scope and Scoring

-10 -5 0 +5 +10

Public

Health

Impact

Question -

the issue has

a [?] Impact

on public

health

Devastating -

the issue

could

seriously

undermine

public health

improvement

efforts or

could result in

>100,000

people

getting

measurably

sicker

Significant

negative - the

issue could

have a

measurable

negative

impact on

public health

improvement

efforts or

could result in

>10,000

people

getting

measurably

sicker

Neutral - the

issue is likely

to have little,

if any, impact

on public

health or

public health

improvement

efforts

Significant

positive - the

issue could

have a

measurable

positive

impact on

public health

improvement

efforts or

could result in

>10,000

people

getting

healthier

Impressive -

the issue

could

dramatically

contribute to

public health

improvement

efforts or

could result

in >100,000

people

getting

healthier


• Once the scoring is complete, the spread-sheet carries out a calculation that results in each issue being awarded comparative ratings for –

– Worst Case Scenario – This figure represents an average of all the key priority area scores awarded in respect of the worst environmental scenario for the issue.

– Best Case Scenario – This figure represents an average of all the key priority area scores awarded in respect of the best environmental scenario for the issue…

– Potential Down-side Rating – This provides worst and best case scenario figures for the average of all the negative scores awarded for each key priority area.

– Potential Up-side Rating – This provides worst and best case scenario figures for the average of all the positive scores awarded for each key priority area.

– Average Impact Rating – This figure provides the average of the “Worst Case Scenario” and “Best Case Scenario” indicators described above...


– Significance Rating – This figure takes the “Average Impact Rating” and multiplies this by the highest score (whether positive or negative, i.e. the score as an integer is assessed) awarded for any of the key priority area in respect of the worst and best possible outcomes. What this figure provides is a comparative indicator of the overall significance and/or proposed priority of the issue.


-45

-40

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

Outcome 10 AQTarget

Speciesextinction

RE rolloutgovernance

barriers

Peak phosporus Marine Mining Fracking e-Tolling Infrastructure Bill

2012/03/10

2012/09/20

2012/10/11

2013/01/11


Step 5 & 6: Trend Tracking and 3/4D Report

Quarterly 3/4D or RMC Environmental Threat, Weakness and Opportunity Report presentation

The quarterly QETWOS Report and associated presentation is compiled following the quarterly EAS QETWOS workshop and is based on the updated issue analysis matrix and score trends

3/4D discussion of the quarterly

QETWOS Report

Trend TrackingThe significance score

of issues that are subjected to on-going

monitoring iscompared to previous

scores

More inforequired


Insignificant issue

On-going monitoring

Issue Analysis and significance scoringThe identified issue is included in the issue analysis matrix and is analysed and scored

against set parameters for specific key priority areas

Step 5 & 6: Trend Tracking and 3/4D Report (Cont.)

Report being prepared by

obvious vested interests

with environment probably

the least of their concerns

DG bilateral

appears to ensure

that environment on

the agenda

Acting DG bilateral

appears to ensure

that environment

remains on the

agenda

Cabinet decision

appears to support

a risk-averse step-

wise approach

Approved response action3/4D or DEA RMC minutes reflect the approved actions to be taken in respect of issues that are

potentially significant and that require a response other than on-going monitoring

Step 7: Approved Response Action


E-wasteFrackinge-Tolling

Famine weedMarine Mining

Peak phosphorusInfrastructure Bill

Environmental OffsettingOutcome 10 Air Quality TargetSpecies extinction (Blue Crane)

Marine oil spill response capacitySoil decontamination – waste license

Optimal land-use for climate resilienceUnseaworthy patrol and research vessels

Social dialogue / Participatory governance The Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (Act No. 16 of 2013)

Governance barriers to renewable energy rollout (e.g. DAFF's wind farm regs)

Current QETWOS Issues• 7 issues were confirmed as issues to be analysed, scored and monitored under the

QETWOS system at the last QETWOS workshop held on 30 September 2014 –

– including 3 re-confirmed issues:

• Social dialogue / Real Public Participation;

• Infrastructure Act; and

• Optimal land-use for sustainable development

– 2 previous issues subjected to 3R questions:

• Closing the phosphate cycle; and

• Traffic Management

– and 2 completely new issues:

• Solar Energy Research Centre; and

• DEA and Disaster Management.

Current QETWOS Issues

-15.0 -10.0 -5.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0

Absolute Worst Case Reference Case

Social Dialogue / Real Public Participation

Infrastructure Act

Optimal land-use for sustainable development

Traffic Management

Closing the phosphate cycle

Solar Energy Research Centre

DEA and Disaster Management

Absolute Best Case Reference Case

My top 5 new and emerging trends within the environmental sector

• Climate Change response – the most important game in town:• Kicking the fossil fuel addiction

• Protecting and restoring degraded ecological infrastructure for increased resilience

• The mind-shift and governance transition from “environmental management” and the perception of the environment sector being “a hand-brake on business-as-usual” to leadership in -, and facilitation of -, “sustainable development”

• Impact monitoring, reporting and verification, including:– Environment and sustainable development Indicators

– Utilising big data

– Accounting (natural resources, carbon, optimal land-use, etc.)

• Optimal land-use – water / minerals / food / ecological infrastructure conflict

• Environmental offsetting – reversing environmental quality decline through the effective implementation of the polluter-pays principle

An Introduction to the DEA/CSIR Rapid Response Research (3R) Facility

Background

• In early 2013, the department’s Environmental Advisory Services proposed using the DEA-CSIR MoU to utilise the specialist knowledge, experience, expertise and skills available within the CSIR to provide the department with a rapid scientific response to strategic questions requiring urgent answers.

• To this end, the so-called “Rapid Response Research” or 3R component of cooperation under the DEA-CSIR MoU was devised.

• On 12 August 2013, the Acting Director-General approved the establishment of the 3R Facility by means of an appropriate Service Level Agreement between the department and the CSIR.

Background (Cont.)

• The required Service Level Agreement was vetted and approved for signature by Legal Services on 20 December 2013 and the Agreement was finally signed by both parties on 30 January 2014.

• The first 3R questions were devised and submitted on 7 March 2014.

• An initial R1,5 million was transferred into the 3R Fund on 13 March 2014.

• To date, 9 questions have been submitted.

The 3R Facility

The Rapid Response Research (3R) Facility provides a fast-track means of exploiting

the extensive CSIR human resource base to provide initial information gathering and

assessment in respect of new and/or emerging environmental and sustainable

development threats, weaknesses and opportunities

3R Support Criteria

• Duration - The time taken from the formal submission of an acceptable research question to the formal receipt of the written findings of the quick turn-around research and analysis should not exceed 30 calendar days.

• Scope and Cost - The work involved in compiling and submitting high quality written findings of the quick turn-around research and analysis should not require more than 24 dedicated work hours by a senior researcher and the cost to the department may not exceed R99,999.

• Expertise - The CSIR will make every effort to ensure that the most appropriate expertise is employed in compiling and submitting high quality written findings of the quick turn-around research and analysis, i.e. the CSIR will not accept a 3R assignment if they cannot employ the most appropriate expertise in its completion.

3R – The 10 Step Process

• Step 1 – Issue identification

• Step 2 – The Research Question

• Step 3 – Formal submission

• Step 4 – Quote

• Step 5 – Go-ahead

• Step 6 - Quick turn-around research and analysis

• Step 7 – Draft findings and feedback

• Step 8 – Submission of Findings

• Step 9 – Confirmation of receipt and payment approval

• Step 10 – Final DEA wrap-up meeting

3R Issue Identification

• New and/or emerging issues that may have a significant impact on the quality of the South African environment and, in particular, issues that meet the following criteria, are brought to the attention of the department’s Strategic Environmental Intelligence (SEI) Unit by a “3R Client” –

– Issues that are, or could become, a significant threat to the efficiency and/or effectiveness of the South African system of environmental governance;

– Issues that indicate a possible significant weakness in the South African system of environmental governance; or

– Issues that present a possible significant opportunity for improving the efficiency and/or effectiveness of the South African system of environmental governance.

3R – Posing the Question

• The question is submitted using a simple 1 page template that –

– Describes the issue in 10 brief bullet points or less

– Provides a one sentence research question

– Provides contact details for the 3R Client

3R Funding

• The SEI Unit has deposited the initial R1,5 million for use in 2014/15

• Sections who wish to use the 3R are encouraged to cover their costs through transfers into the 3R fund

• All unspent 3R funds must be returned to the department by mid-February every year

The 3R Questions So Far

1. With reference to local and international norms and standards and benchmarks (case studies), is there a significant mine dust and/or radioactivity problem in the West Rand and, if so, what would be the most important health concern – the dust, or the radioactivity?

2. Would significantly improving a city the size of Pretoria’s traffic flow have a measurable and/or significant impact on fuel usage and atmospheric emissions?

3. Could the Municipal Finance Management Act No. 56 of 2003 (MFMA) significantly hinder or frustrate effective municipal climate change responses and/or a transition to a green economy and, if yes, how?

The 3R Questions So Far (Cont.)

4. Is South Africa using the methane it could viably, if not cost-effectively, extract from its larger waste water treatment facilities, especially those already equipped with methane capture infrastructure, as efficiently and effectively is it could and, if not, why not?

5. Is there a potentially significant social, environmental and/or economic justification for the development of a national phosphorus strategy that could guide South Africa’s extraction, processing, use, recovery and general management of its phosphorus resources?

6. What is soil health, what is its environmental significance and who is doing what and why in the area of soil health, including monitoring, research, policies, legal provisions and governance provisions?


7. When compared to traditional coal mining and coal use, could UCG and the use of the extracted gas provide a significantly more environmentally benign means of exploiting South Africa’s coal reserves?

8. What are the potential environmental impacts, both positive and negative, of the extraction and use of coalbed methane in South Africa?

9. Based on the work already carried out by the CSIR in respect of waste management charges, what could a possible pricing strategy look like that would meet the requirements of the strategy contemplated in Section 13A of the National Environmental Management: Waste Amendment Bill?


10. How could we reduce the SA Agulhas II’s carbon footprint?

11. Do we have significant ocean-related energy resources (e.g. offshore wind, wave, tidal, current, salinity, temperature difference, etc.) when compared to our more traditional energy resources and, if so, what is the technological readiness for potential large-scale exploitation of these marine renewable energy resources in the short-term (say the next five years), medium-term (say within the next 10 years) and long-term (say to the NDP’s 2030 planning horizon)??

Current StatusNo. Question Status

1. West Rand Radioactive Dust Awaiting much delayed researchresults

2. Urban Traffic Flow, Fuel Use and Emissions Revised quote accepted, and work underway

3. The MFMA and the Green Economy Awaiting delayed quote

4. GHG Emissions and Wastewater Treatment Facilities Awaiting much delayed researchresults

5. “Peak Phosphate” and its Implications Research completed and signed off

6. Who’s Who in Soil Health? Research completed and signed off

7. Underground Coal Gasification (UCG) and the Environment

Awaiting delayed quote

8. Coalbed Methane (CBM) and the Environment Awaiting delayed quote

9. Possible Pricing Strategy as Contemplated In S.13A of Waste Management Amendment Bill

Work underway

10. SA Agulhas II’s carbon footprint Question still being formulated

11. ocean-related energy resources Research completed awaiting sign-off

presentation to the gis day event, 17-18 november 2014 ... · presentation to the gis day event,...

Documents