Improved SIA through DRA integration: lessons from a South African legislative comparison

ABSTRACT

Social Impact Assessment (SIA) and Disaster Risk Assessment (DRA) are two distinct fields, with broadly similar aims relating to sustainable communities, but usually regulated by differing regulatory systems. In South Africa, SIA is an integral but often neglected component of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), while DRA informs Disaster Risk Management (DRM). The potential integration of SIA and DRA is a new trend internationally. This study examines South African EIA and DRM legislative and statutory provisions, searching for commonalities that could support potential integration between SIA and DRA – a phenomenon not yet reported on in South African literature or elsewhere. The EIA legislation was found to have a strong biophysical focus with limited provision for social issues, whereas DRM legislation more explicitly places people at the forefront of risk reduction. Despite the observed differences, commonalities were observed in SIA and DRA’s shared purpose to reduce risks, increase community resilience and achieve sustainable development. These findings suggest areas which offer opportunities for meaningful collaboration between SIA and DRA, leading to improved SIA status and practice in South Africa and valuable lessons for other countries with an SIA-DRA dichotomy.

KEYWORDS:

• Social Impact Assessment (SIA)
• Disaster Risk Assessment (DRA)
• legislation
• integration
• South Africa

Introduction

June 1992 marked a pivotal year globally for Environmental Management (EM) with the release of the 27 Rio Declaration principles at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The purpose of the Rio principles was to address pressing global problems and to ensure a sustainable future for all humankind (UN 1992; Wisner et al. 2012; Aucamp 2015). Principles 1¹ and 17² paved the way for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Social Impact Assessment (SIA) by placing human beings at the forefront of development and to ensure that the needs of present and future generations are met in a sustainable manner (UN 1992; UNESCO 1992; Gardiner 2002; Barrow 2006; Wisner et al. 2012; Hildebrandt and Sandham 2014; Aucamp 2015). The 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) reiterate that vulnerable communities need to be protected and that development must be sustainably managed and maintained (UNDP 2016). Aucamp et al. (2018) assert that a sustainable future and present needs are dependent on the interaction and balance between a protected environment and social- and economic development. It is therefore the purpose of an EIA to manage and influence human behaviour and to ensure that sustainable outcomes are met (Aucamp et al. 2018).

EIA refers to a process where potential biophysical and social impacts of proposed developments are identified, predicted, evaluated and mitigated prior to decision making (IAIA 1999). Moreover, EIA is perceived in many countries as a governance instrument that plays a significant role in raising environmental awareness and also incorporate environmental values into decision-making of proposed interventions (Arts et al. 2012). It is evident from the understanding of this definition that the social dimension is integral to the EIA process. SIA is defined as: ‘the process of analysing, monitoring and managing the intended and unintended social consequences, both positive and negative, of planned interventions and any social change process invoked by those interventions’ (IAIA 2003:5). This shows that EIA and SIA have an overarching purpose in impact assessment (Kruger and Sandham 2018). Since the inception of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969, SIA internationally evolved as an integrated component within the broader context of EIA. It is argued that internationally SIA is in effect ‘superior’ to EIA, because EIA developed and remained a regulatory tool in many countries, whereas SIA is largely driven by good practice, thereby it is now considered as a discourse in its own right (Vanclay 2014, 2019). However, Esteves et al. (2012) stated that despite numerous calls for SIA to become separate from EIA as an assessment in its own right, the domination of the biophysical component of the EIA process still prevails, which contributes to unbalanced EIA.

South Africa has a similar EIA scenario, where SIA forms an integral component of the EIA process by means of a specialist report that informs the EIA (Kruger and Sandham 2018). The effectiveness of SIA as well as the quality of SIA reports in South Africa have been investigated by the likes of Du Pisani and Sandham (2006), Hildebrandt (2012) and Hildebrandt and Sandham (2014). Globally the subsidiary status of SIA in the EIA process has also been under investigation and scrutinising the practice of SIA (Aucamp et al. 2011; Baines and Taylor 2011; Becker 1997:142–173; Bowd et al. 2015; Burdge 2002, 2003; Chadwick 2002; Du Pisani and Sandham 2006; Glasson and Heaney 1993; Hildebrandt and Sandham 2014; Kemp 2011; Kruger and Sandham 2018; Sandham et al. 2005; Suopajärvi 2013). Hildebrandt and Sandham (2014) explored the quality of Social Impact Assessment Reports (SIARs) in South Africa after two legislative regimes (Environmental Conservation Act (ECA) and National Environmental Management Act (NEMA)), which revealed a modest improvement in the quality of SIARs in South Africa, despite the many gaps that were identified in practice. Additionally, SIA practitioners’ perspectives on the neglected status of South African SIA identified some of the problems experienced in South African SIA practice, which included the ‘inadequacy of SIA frameworks and guidelines to address the uniqueness of different social environments’ and the ‘poor enforcement of implementation’ of SIA (Kruger and Sandham 2018). It is therefore suggested that for SIA in South Africa to move towards sustainable SIA and for improved SIA practice, regulatory frameworks need to be improved and SIA should become a legal binding requirement, i.e. SIA should not only be driven by best practice, but also by compliance (Aucamp et al. 2011; Hildebrandt and Sandham 2014; Kruger and Sandham 2018).

Usman et al. (2013) explain that the purpose of development projects is to enhance quality of life and to ensure a sustainable future for the next generation. To enhance the proposed gains of development projects, disaster risks need to be identified and assessed prior to developments to anticipate the impact thereof on the environment and on vulnerable communities. SIA can play a vital role to reduce risks and increase community resilience. Thereby, development planning requires (of) both SIA and Disaster Risk Management (DRM) to reduce the potential disaster risks and severe social impacts developments might hold.

Following global agreements on disaster risk reduction (DRR), i.e. the Yokohama Strategy of 1994, the ISDR of 2000, and the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) (2005–2015), came the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR), which was adopted by UN member states in 2015 to globally reduce risks and vulnerabilities, and to find ways to build nations’ resilience. According to the UNISDR (2015) the SFDRR is the first agreement in the post-2015 development agenda that is mainly aimed to globally reduce disaster risks by the year 2030 and to ensure that communities will be more sustainable and resilient. Therefore, the SFDRR sets five priorities and seven targets for action for governments and policy makers worldwide in reaching its aim. The priority for actions includes that countries should develop legislation, policies and institutional frameworks for DRR to manage risks with a strong institutional basis to implement; that disaster risks need to be identified, assessed and monitored in all spheres of government; and that risks that are related to changing environmental, social and economic conditions be addressed prior to development planning (UNISDR 2015).

In January 2003 South Africa was one of the first countries in Southern Africa to legislate DRM with the promulgation of the Disaster Management Act No. 57 of 2002 (DMA) (RSA 2002a; Van Niekerk 2014). The National Disaster Management Framework of 2005 (NDMF) emphasises the need to identify and assess high risk developments that potentially might hold for environmental, social and economic impacts on vulnerable communities (Key Performance Area 2) (RSA 2005). However, DRM and EIA are two distinct fields internationally, and in South Africa, where the jurisdiction falls under different government departments, which are also mandated by separate legislation under: The National Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CoGTA) and the National Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) respectively (RSA 1998a, 2002a). Wisner et al. (2012) has attempted to justify the integration of DRM, EM and sustainable development due to their transdisciplinary nature. Impact assessment practices should align for efficiency and the wider drive towards sustainability (Morrison-Saunders et al. 2014), but Vanclay (2014) strongly criticised Morrison-Saunders et al. (2014) and suggested that impact assessment rather be better coordinated than integrated, and emphasised the need for effective, efficient, comprehensive impact assessment. This attempt followed earlier calls for the integration of SIA and Disaster Risk Assessment (DRA), which have been investigated internationally albeit on a limited scale (Becker 1997; Benson and Twigg 2007; Cottrell and King 2011; Mahmoudi et al. 2013; Usman et al. 2013; Tajima et al. 2014; Domínguez-Gómez 2016; Imperiale and Vanclay 2016).

However, this new international trend in the field of EM has not been researched in South Africa. Therefore, it is the aim of this paper to examine and compare current South African SIA and DRA legislation and statutory provisions for commonalities that could potentially offer opportunities for future integration³ of SIA and DRA.

SIA legislation and statutory provisions

Globally SIA developed alongside EIA, following the promulgation of the United States’ National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969 (Freudenburg 1986; Finsterbusch 1995; Barrow 2000; Momtaz 2005; Kruger and Sandham 2018). In most countries SIA is embedded in EIA legislative structures including key global initiatives such as Local Agenda 21 (LA21), the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the Equator Principles and the Socio-economic Assessment Toolbox of Anglo America, aiming to facilitate the incorporation of social issues in policies and legislative structures for decision making purposes (Aucamp et al. 2018; Bice 2017; Kruger and Sandham 2018). The discussions below include overviews of relevant environmental legislation in South Africa. To contextualise the environmental legislation, a brief overview of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa is given firstly.

Build-up to NEMA

The year 1994 has marked a pivotal change for all South Africans when South Africa became a democratic country, resulting in the adoption of a new constitutional legal order in 1996. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa No. 108 of 1996 included a Bill of Rights in Chapter 2 of the Act for the first time. According to this Act the Bill of Rights is considered as the ‘cornerstone of democracy in South Africa’, which includes the human rights of all South Africans (RSA 1996:1245). Section 24 (a-b)⁴ of the Bill of Rights stipulates South Africans’ rights in terms of the environment – meaning that present and future generations of South Africans have the right to a protected environment that does not threaten their health and livelihoods. This provides for a sustainable future in terms of the environmental and socio-ecological development for present and future generations to be promoted and protected.

South African EIA-practice began in the early 1970s (Kidd et al. 2018; Oosthuizen et al. 2018) on a non-mandatory basis. However, along with the promulgation of the new constitutional order and the increased awareness of the people’s rights in terms of the definition of the ‘environment’ included in the Bill of Rights, EIA became mandatory in 1997 with the promulgation of EIA regulations in terms of the Environment Conservation Act No. 73 of 1989 (ECA) (RSA 1989). This marks the first era of mandatory EIA in South Africa. In ECA, the ‘environment’ was broadly defined as the ‘aggregate of surrounding objects, conditions and influences that influence the life and habits of man or any other organism or collection of organisms’, (RSA 1989:1481) with limited focus on social aspects in the Act.

National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998

Following the first regime of mandatory EIA under ECA, the second era of mandatory EIA came into effect in April 2006 with a new set of EIA regulations in terms of the National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998 (NEMA). The NEMA regulations were then amended again in 2010, 2014 and in 2017 for improved effectiveness and efficiency (Du Pisani and Sandham 2006; Hildebrandt and Sandham 2014; Kidd et al. 2018; Oosthuizen et al. 2018).

The Preamble of NEMA stipulates the rights of the people of South Africa in accordance with Chapter 2, sub-section 24 of the Constitution (RSA 1998a: Preamble, RSA 1996), and provides three key definitions pertaining to environmental management (EM) which are relevant for the purpose of this study. First, in NEMA Section 1(xi) a very broad definition of the ‘environment’ states that it refers to people and the conditions in which they live. It includes: ‘(i) the land, water and atmosphere of the earth; (ii) micro-organisms, plant and animal life; (iii) any part or combination of (i) and (ii) and the interrelationships among and between them; and (iv) the physical, chemical, aesthetic and cultural properties and conditions of the foregoing that influence human health and well-being’ (RSA 1998a:8). Second, the term ‘hazard’ refers to ‘a source of or exposure to danger’, without the specification of people. Third, ‘sustainable development’ is defined, in a way that connects people and the environment, as ‘the integration of social, economic and environmental factors into planning, implementation and decision-making so as to ensure that development serves present and future generations’ (RSA 1998a:8–10).

The first chapter of NEMA stipulates the National Environmental Management Principles. Sections 2(2), (3), 4(a)(vii)(viii), (b) and (i) are important in highlighting the fact that the principles for EM call for people and their needs to be prioritised, social impacts to be considered, development to take place sustainably by integrating its social, environmental and economic aspects and sustainable development to consider the application of a ‘risk-averse and cautious approach’, so as to minimise and mitigate the negative impacts on people and the environment and always to pursue the best practice option for the benefit of both people and their environment (RSA 1998a:12). Section 23 of the fifth chapter of NEMA also requires the integration of EM activities and the principles of EM provided in Section 2 of the Act. Section 23 (2)(b) and Section 24 (1) (a–c) emphasise the three spheres to be considered in impact assessments: (1) the environment, (2) socio-economic conditions, and (3) cultural heritage (RSA 1998a). According to Section 24 (3)(a) of the Act, the potential impacts identified within these three spheres must be addressed in accordance with the procedures prescribed in sub-section (7) of Section 24⁵ (RSA 1998a). Notably, SIA is nowhere explicitly specifically mentioned in the Act.

Since the inception of EIA following the promulgation of NEPA in 1969 in the USA, SIA evolved as a specific type of impact assessment within the broader framework of EIA. Globally, the interest in SIA grew as nations embedded SIA in their legislation (Pope et al. 2013; Hildebrandt and Sandham 2014; Kruger and Sandham 2018). Despite significant recognition in the social field, globally the biophysical paradigm in EIA still dominates the social paradigm (Esteves et al. 2012; Kruger and Sandham 2018). This dominant state of the biophysical component also prevails in South African EIA. The very broad definition of the ‘environment’ as provided in the NEMA, considers people as integral to the environment, thereby contributing to the integration of EIA and SIA in South Africa. This observation is supported by Aucamp et al. (2011), Du Pisani and Sandham (2006) and Hildebrandt and Sandham (2014), all of whom ascribe the reason and/or need for the integration of EIA and SIA in South Africa to the broad definition of the ‘environment’ in the NEMA. SIA in South Africa has therefore developed fully as an integral component of EIA, where SIA is produced in the form of a specialist report of EIA, or as a component of Basic Assessments (BAs) (Kruger and Sandham 2018). Additionally, the dominance of the biophysical paradigm of the environment in EIA, at the cost of the social paradigm, has also contributed to SIA’s subsidiary status in comparison with EIA, resulting in an unbalanced sustainability scale internationally as well as in South Africa (Glasson and Heaney 1993; Burdge 2002, 2003; Chadwick 2002; Sandham et al. 2005; Du Pisani and Sandham 2006; Aucamp et al. 2011; Suopajärvi 2013; Hildebrandt and Sandham 2014; Bowd et al. 2015; Kruger and Sandham 2018).

The National Heritage Resources Act No. 25 of 1999 (NHRA)

The National Heritage Resources Act No. 25 of 1999 (NHRA) is one of the first acts relevant to the environmental and social field (Aucamp et al. 2018). The NHRA empowers communities to protect and nurture their national heritage for future generations. The South African government is hereby also obliged to manage the national heritage resources in an integrated and interactive manner. Thus, the NHRA is the act that protects the national heritage and culture of all South Africans. The NHRA further includes detailed provisions for the protection and the management of the country’s inherited resources. Section 5 of Chapter 1 provides the general principles for the management of heritage resources, and sub-section 7 includes the provisions that must be included in the identification, assessment and management of these resources. Here, sub-section 7(d) specifically makes provision for the NHRA’s contribution to ‘social and economic development’ (RSA 1999:16).

The National Water Act No. 36 of 1998 (NWA)

The National Water Act No. 36 of 1998 (NWA) is another relevant act pointing to social issues. Chapter 1 of the Act provides the fundamental principles and interpretation of the Act. The principles state that ‘sustainability and equity are identified as central guiding principles in the protection, use, development, conservation, management and control of water resources’ (RSA 1998b:14). These principles further recognise the basic human needs of present and future generations, including the promotion of socio-economic development regarding the use of water. The purpose of the NWA (Chapter 1, Section 2 (a-e)) affirms that everyone must have equitable access to water resources, that the results of past gender and racial discrimination be readdressed, that the efficient, sustainable and beneficial use of water resources be promoted, and lastly that social and economic development be facilitated (Aucamp et al. 2018; RSA 1998b).

The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act of 2002 (MPRDA)

The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act of 2002 (MPRDA) is another act that recognises the social upliftment of communities which are affected by mining and the need to promote local and rural development (RSA 2002b: Preamble). Chapter 2, Section 2 of the MPRDA states that, amongst others, the objectives of the Act are to:

‘(e) promote economic growth and mineral and petroleum resources development in the Republic;

(f) promote employment and advance the social and economic welfare of all South Africans; and

(i) ensure that holders of mining and production rights contribute towards the socio-economic development of the areas in which they are operating’ (RSA 2002b:18).

Furthermore, Section 37 of Chapter 4 endorses the EM principles as set out in Section 2 of the NEMA. Section 39 b (i-ii) states that EM applicants must investigate, assess and evaluate the impacts of proposed mining operations and prospected mining on ‘(i) the environment’ and ‘(ii) the socio-economic conditions of any person who might be directly affected by the prospecting or mining operation’ (RSA 2002b:44). By including these sections in the MPRDA an EIA and SIA is required by the Act. Unlike the previously mentioned related acts, this is the only environmental act explicitly requiring a social development output by means of a Social and Labour Plan (SLP) (Aucamp et al. 2018).

Promotion of Administrative Justice Act No. 3 of 2000 (PAJA)

The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, No. 3 of 2000 (PAJA) gives effect to the human rights that South Africans have in terms of legal administrative action, echoing what was also stated in the South African Bill of Rights. This ensures that citizens have a right to comment on decisions that affect them and that state organisations must provide clear explanations and evidence which their decisions are based upon, especially decisions that hold social impacts (Aucamp et al. 2018; RSA 2000a).

National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act No. 39 of 2004 and the National Environmental Management: Waste Act No. 59 of 2008

Lastly, the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, No. 39 of 2004 (RSA 2004) (NEMAQA) and the National Environmental Management: Waste Act, No. 59 of 2008 (RSA 2008) (NEMWA) are also considered relevant acts in EM. These are two specific Acts that fall under the jurisdiction of the NEMA, meaning that the principles as set out in Chapter 1 of the NEMA also apply to these two Acts (Aucamp et al. 2018).

The overview of the other relevant environmental legislation provides additional specifications to what is included in the NEMA. It shows that the social dimension in these legislative provisions are both implicit and explicit. Having dealt with the legislation and statutory provisions pertaining to SIA, the focus in the following sections will move to the legislation pertaining to matters of DRA.

DRM legislation and statutory provisions

South Africa was one of the first countries in Southern Africa to legislate disaster risk management (DRM) (Van Niekerk 2014). A milestone event that spearheaded the country’s DRM legislation development was the severe flooding in the Western Cape province in 1994, culminating in the Disaster Management Act No. 57 of 2002 (DMA) and the National Disaster Management Framework of 2005 (NDMF) (Van Niekerk 2014). The promulgation of the DMA and the NDMF emphasised the decentralisation of DRM activities within all spheres of government⁶ in South Africa (Van Niekerk 2014). This is in line with the procedures and promulgation of the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act, No. 32 of 2000, which in Chapter 5 enforces Integrated Development Planning (IDP) as a legislative requirement (RSA 2000b). This has placed more responsibility on all spheres of government to find a balance between the ‘social, economic and ecological pillars of sustainability’ (Van Niekerk 2006:110) and to socially and economically ‘uplift’ communities (RSA 2000b). The promulgation of the DMA and the NDMF introduced a new way to manage the complex societies in South Africa (Van Niekerk 2006). It is also noteworthy that the DMA and the NDMF is in line with the broader international context of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA) (2005–2015) and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR) in their efforts to globally reduce disaster risks and in future ensure more resilient and sustainable communities (ISDR 2005; UNISDR 2015).

Disaster Management Act No. 57 of 2002

The Disaster Management Act No. 57 of 2002 (DMA) makes provision for a disaster management policy that is integrated and co-ordinated focusing on ‘preventing or reducing the risk of disasters, mitigating the severity of disasters, emergency preparedness, rapid and effective response to disasters and post-disaster recover’ (RSA 2002a:2). Section 1 of the first Chapter of the DMA provides various definitions, including the detailed definition of what constitutes a ‘disaster’. The severity of conditions and the resulting impacts on people are emphasised in the DMA by referring to a ‘disaster’ as a ‘progressive or sudden, widespread or localised, natural or human-caused occurrence which – (a) causes or threatens to cause – (i) death, injury or disease; (ii) damage to property, infrastructure or the environment; or (iii) disruption of the life of a community; and (b) is of a magnitude that exceeds the ability of those affected by the disaster to cope with its effects using only their own resources’ (RSA 2002a:6). The DMA focuses mainly on establishing various DRM structures, including the establishment of disaster management centres and intergovernmental structures in all spheres of government, the development of a policy framework and the procedures involving the declaration of a state of a disaster, i.e. the DMA contains South Africa’s guiding policy as to ‘what’ DRM should be (Van Niekerk 2014:861).

Sections 20, 33 and 47 of the DMA include the people-centred legislation pertaining to all of Government’s prevention and mitigation provisions (RSA 2002a). Here it is indicated that national, provincial and local disaster management centres must provide guidance to national departments, organisations, private-sector bodies, communities and individuals to determine and prevent or reduce disaster risks. Such guidance takes the form of determining levels of risk, assessing the vulnerabilities of communities and individuals, increasing the resilience of communities and individuals by minimising risks and impacts, developing and implementing appropriate methods for prevention and mitigation and integrating them into development initiatives and the managing of high-risk developments. The DMA also stipulates that all spheres of government must promote and encourage risk-avoidance behaviour (RSA 2002a). Although the DMA does not specifically and formally refer to the development of DRAs, it is however insinuated through Sections 20, 25, 33, 38, 39, 47, 52 and 53 of the Act that DRAs and matters pertaining thereto must be conducted as part of the development of disaster management plans (DMPs), thus making DRAs for planning purposes a legislative requirement for all spheres of government. Additionally, Section 7(1) of the DMA provides for the development of a national DRM policy framework that is coherent, inclusive and transparent (RSA, 2002a). Section 7(2) (d–e) stipulates that the framework should guide the development and implementation of DRM and the provisions made for in the DMA at all levels of government. This, in turn calls for co-operative governance on issues relating to DRM. Therefore, three years after the promulgation of the DMA, the National Disaster Management Framework of 2005 (NDMF) was developed.

National Disaster Management Framework of 2005

The NDMF emerged as the policy framework providing guidance on DRM in the country. The NDMF emphasises the disaster risk reduction (DRR) concepts of ‘disaster prevention and mitigation as the core principles to guide disaster risk management in South Africa’ (RSA 2005:2). Van Niekerk (2014:861) explained the NDMF is the guiding framework on ‘how’ the objectives of the DMA can be achieved. It further recognises diverse risks and prioritises developmental measures to reduce vulnerability and increase the resilience of communities and individuals (RSA 2005:2). Hereby, the NDMF goes one step further than the DMA, by setting a formal process in place for spheres of government to guide government officials and relevant stakeholders in conducting DRAs for the development of DMPs and matters pertaining thereto.

The NDMF consists of two parts comprising four key performance areas (KPAs) and three Enablers (Table 1). The objective of the Enablers is to guide and to ensure that the objectives are met as stipulated in the KPAs.

Table 1. The NDMF’s key performance areas (KPAs) and Enablers (adapted from RSA 2005).

	Description
KPA 1	Integrated institutional capacity for disaster risk management
KPA 2	Disaster risk assessment
KPA 3	Disaster risk reduction
KPA 4	Response and recovery
Enabler 1	Information management and communication
Enabler 2	Education, training, public awareness and research
Enabler 3	Funding arrangements for disaster risk management

The purpose of this section is to identify the sections in the NDMF relevant to DRA, and for this reason only KPA 2 (disaster risk assessment) and KPA 3 (disaster risk reduction) are relevant for they respectively address the need for DRA, which in turn informs DMP. The NDMF (RSA 2005:25) describes KPA 2’s objective as establishing ‘a uniform approach to assessing and monitoring disaster risks that will inform disaster risk management planning and disaster risk reduction’ efforts, and further stipulates the requirements for implementing and monitoring DRA by different spheres of government. KPA 2 introduces the process of conducting DRA, DRA methodology and the way in which DRA informs the DRM planning process. It further describes the requirements for updating and monitoring disaster risk information, exploring measures to effectively monitor risk assessments and ensure quality DRAs, as well as to inform and guide KPA 3 (RSA 2005:25–38). The importance of effective DRR and DRM efforts is highlighted in the DMA (Sections 20, 33 and 47), constituting the need for DRA. By formally legislating DRA in the Act, it enforces the different levels of government towards efforts in guiding effective DRR in the country.

Sections 25, 38 and 52 of the DMA provides for the development and implementation of disaster risk management plans and disaster risk programmes. The objective of KPA 3 is to ensure that integrated disaster risk management plans and disaster risk reduction programmes are developed and implemented (RSA 2005:39). It provides the requirements for effective disaster risk management planning within all spheres of government ensuring that the main disaster risk reduction principles of prevention and mitigation, as set out in the DMA, are incorporated for future disaster risk planning initiatives. KPA 3 thus differentiates between three levels of DRM plans (see Figure 1) (RSA 2005:41–42).

Figure 1. KPA 3’s levels of DRM planning (adapted from RSA 2005:41–42).

Disaster Management Amendment Act No. 16 of 2015

In 2013 the DMA was reviewed through the Disaster Management Amendment Act No. 16 of 2015 (DMAA) (RSA 2015), to make substitutions and additions to the DMA. Some of the key additions included: the insertion of further definitions to elaborate on the contents of DRM plans, to formally include the functions and requirements of DRAs, and also to clarify the roles of local municipalities in DRM (RSA 2015:2).

Terms newly defined in Section 1 of the DMAA included ‘disaster risk reduction’, ‘mitigation’, ‘vulnerability’ and ‘risk assessment’. ‘Disaster risk reduction’ (DRR) refers to ‘a policy goal or objective, and the strategic and instrumental measures employed’ aimed to foresee potential disaster risks, to reduce exposure to hazards and risks, identify vulnerable communities and improving resilience (RSA 2015:4). ‘Mitigation’ is the lessening of potential impacts of and to vulnerable communities and/or individuals, whereas ‘vulnerability’ is the condition that increases the susceptibility of communities and individuals to the impact of various risks (RSA 2015:6). ‘Risk assessment’ is defined as the methodology to ‘determine the nature and extent of risk by analysing potential hazards and evaluating existing conditions of vulnerability’ that could potentially pose a threat to harm vulnerable people and their livelihoods on which they depend (RSA 2015:6). It is noteworthy that in the amendment of the Act DRA was still not formally defined, however the inclusion of the definition of ‘risk assessment’ did insinuate the proposed methodology for DRA.

The needs and requirements for DRA in the DMA were therefore revised and addressed in the promulgation of the DMAA (Sections 11, 14, 15, 20 and 21). This reveals that all levels of government must be compliant with the DMA and DMAA to conduct DRAs for municipal areas, risks need to be identified and mapped and disaster risk management plans need to be developed and implemented (RSA 2015), hence also enforcing KPA 2 and KPA 3 in the NDMF.

Exploring commonalities

The integration of Environmental Management (EM) and Disaster Management (DM) policies have been explored by Tajima et al. (2014), who found that their integration could be beneficial, however some practical shortcomings were emphasised. Internationally the integration of SIA and DRA has been investigated focusing more on the possible mainstreaming of the two fields, specifically on applied methodology in practice. Becker (1997) stated that SIA in integrated studies requires the SIA community’s attention and has discussed how to cope with risks and uncertainty in SIA by comparing SIA and risk assessment project phases. Benson and Twigg (2007) have provided guidance notes for mainstreaming DRR and SIA as a tool in development planning, whereas Mahmoudi et al. (2013) has investigated the combination of SIA and social risk assessment to introduce a new consolidated integrated framework they named ‘Risk and Social Impact Assessment (RSIA)’, and found that SIA and risk assessment complement each other and that SIA can be significantly improved thereby. Cottrell and King (2011) in their study on disasters and climate change have found that SIA needed to be mainstreamed into emergency management practices to reduce vulnerabilities and increase community resilience. Other examples include the incorporation of disaster risk into community projects, through the utilisation of SIA – emphasising the benefit of integrating SIA and risk assessment (Usman et al. 2013). The integration of social and environmental factors in risk and impact assessments has been also explored, which suggested four conceptual issues that underpin an integrated approach in development projects for complex and dynamic sociological contexts (Domínguez-Gómez 2016). Finally, Imperiale and Vanclay (2016) have investigated how community resilience can be applied into the social world. Although all these studies have broadly focused on different elements of mainstreaming SIA and DRA, many found that the possible integration thereof might be beneficial in addressing risks and increasing community resilience.

The integration of SIA and DRA in practice and in terms of legislation is a new trend internationally, but has not yet been researched in South Africa. The potential commonalities between SIA and DRA for possible future collaboration are further explored below. A summary of the commonalities in the legislation discussed earlier, and in what respect they are complimentary are demonstrated in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Summary of legislative commonalities (Own contribution).

Legislation pertaining to SIA	Legislation pertaining to DRA	Commonalities
NEMA: Section 1 (xi); (xvii); (xxix)	DMA: Section 1 DMAA: Section 1 (d); (g); (k); (l).	No formal definitions of ‘social impacts’ or ‘social’. SIA exclusion: social impacts implied (biophysical paradigm prominent). DRA inclusion: human factor at centre of concern (social paradigm prominent).
NEMA: Section 2 (2–4); Section 2 (4)(l); Chapter 5; and Section 23 (a–b)	DMA: Sections 20; 33; 47 DMAA: Sections 11; 14; 15; 20; 21 NDMF: KPA 2; KPA 3	Shared motives to reduce risk, increase community resilience; promote integrated EM and sustainable development.

SIA exclusion vs. DRA inclusion

SIA has been identified earlier as the process to assess the potential impacts of proposed interventions. Risk Assessment is referred to as the process of identifying and analysing potential risks and hazards which might have a potential impact (positive or negative) on vulnerable communities and their livelihoods, and to ensure more sustainable and resilient communities (UNISDR, 2009). In comparing these definitions, it is evident that the purpose of both SIA and DRA is to reduce risks and vulnerabilities and achieve sustainable development. Earlier three definitions have been highlighted in Section 1 of the NEMA, i.e. (xi) environment, (xvii) hazard and (xxix) sustainable development (RSA 1998a). The NEMA further indicates that sustainable development requires the integration of social, economic and environmental factors (RSA 1998a:2). Section 1 of the DMA provides the definition of a ‘disaster’ (RSA, 2002a), while Section 1 of the DMAA added the definitions of (d) disaster risk reduction, (g) mitigation, (k) risk assessment and (l) vulnerability (RSA 2015). An evident commonality is that neither NEMA, or the DMA and DMAA provide a definition of the term ‘social’ or ‘social impacts’. Thereby, in all statutory provisions descriptive details on what constitutes ‘social’ or ‘social impacts’ are excluded from the Acts. However, in the 2017 amendments to the NEMA, the definition of ‘significant impact’ has been added to the Act and referred to as any impact that might hold a notable effect ‘on one or more aspects of the environment’ (RSA 2017). It can therefore be argued that the term ‘social impacts’ is implied firstly in the broad definition of the ‘environment’ as provided for in the NEMA and secondly by its inclusion in the definition of ‘significant impact’. The DMA and DMAA also refer to the social and/or human factor within many of the definitions included in these two Acts. Words like ‘communities’, ‘individuals’, ‘people’ and ‘livelihoods’ have been extensively included throughout the Acts, hence placing humans and their rights to a protected environment as provided for in the Bill of Rights (RSA 1996) at the forefront of disaster management in South Africa.

The Environment Conservation Act, No. 73 of 1989 (ECA) has provided a very broad, albeit inclusive definition of the environment (RSA 1989). In 2006, with the promulgation of the NEMA, people were given a more prominent role, focusing on their interrelationship with the environment. However, the ‘environment’ is still defined broadly. In the absence of the term ‘social’ in the NEMA, the ‘environment’ is defined as the environment within which humans exist consisting of ‘(iv) the physical, chemical, aesthetic and cultural properties and conditions of the foregoing that influence human health and well-being’ (RSA 1998a:8). This broad definition, as included in the NEMA where reasoned earlier in this paper, is also relevant here.

The NEMA further provides for environmental governance, including details pertaining to the national environmental management principles, the establishment of institutions, the procedures for co-operative governance and provisions for fair decision-making and integrated environmental management. Although social impacts have been included in the Act, albeit on a limited scale, the inclusion of the biophysical paradigm in the Acts still prevails. Additionally, nowhere in the NEMA explicit legislative provisions have been made for SIA as a specialist report within EIA, except for the inclusion of the human factor in the definition of the environment and the limited mention of social impacts in certain sections of the Act. Nor have ‘social impacts’ been clarified, or a flexible checklist been provided of possible social impacts which could be considered in the EIA process. Therefore, examination of the legislative requirements suggests that compared to the biophysical components, social impacts are to a larger extent excluded from the EIA process. By contrast, analysis of the legislative provisions also showed that with the inclusion of the human factor throughout the DMA, NDMF and the DMAA, the social paradigm in DRA plays a more prominent role.

Du Pisani and Sandham (2006) reason that in a developing country such as South Africa environmental issues and the need for socio-economic development cannot be separated, hence contributing to the justification for integrating SIA and DRA due to their shared purpose as a commonality. Usman et al. (2013) corroborate and suggest that the integration of SIA and DRA will assist in the reduction of disaster risk, and improve community resilience, thereby also contributing to sustainable development for future generations.

Shared motives

In Chapter 1 of the NEMA the principles for National Environmental Management are provided. It is evident from the examination of the NEMA in the sections above that some of the principles relate directly to the field of DRR. Section 2 (2–4) of the NEMA emphasises that development should take place in a sustainable manner, but also that the identified risks of developments should be considered, minimised and mitigated (RSA 1998a:10). Chapter 5 further outlines the objectives of integrated environmental management and Section 23 (a–b) adds that the integration of the principles in Section 2 needs to be promoted. Risks need to be identified, predicted, evaluated and the impact thereof on the environment and socio-economic conditions needs to be determined. Mitigation measures should be identified and the enhancement of benefits promoted (RSA 1998a:34). The analysis of the legislation has revealed that the NEMA has a stronger social focus than the ECA, but a strong biodiversity focus still dominates. This emphasises the need for improved SIA status and practice in the environmental assessment process. Furthermore, Section 2 (4)(l) in the NEMA clearly stipulates that ‘there must be intergovernmental coordination and harmonisation of policies, legislation and actions relating to the environment’ (RSA 1998a:12). This contradicts Schedule 1 and 2 in the NEMA’s list of National Departments which exercise functions which may affect the environment (RSA 1998a:66–68). These lists exclude the National Department of DRM. Although there are commonalities between the two fields, this emphasises their segregation.

Sections 20, 33 and 47 of the DMA and Sections 11, 14, 15, 20 and 21 of the DMAA call for the need of DRA and that risk-avoidance behaviour should be encouraged. For this purpose, KPA 2 and KPA 3 in the NDMF include the statutory provisions pertaining to DRA in South Africa. DRA is therefore enforced through the DMA at all spheres of government in South Africa as provided for in Sections 20, 33 and 47 of the DMA. By contrast, SIA in South Africa is not explicitly legislated in terms of the NEMA, however it is inherent in EIA by means of a specialist report. Guidelines for SIA in South Africa have been developed over the years, learning from international best practice principles (Interorganizational Committee 1994; Becker 1997; Barbour 2005, 2007; Vanclay et al. 2015). Although these guiding documents are available to SIA practitioners, Hildebrandt and Sandham (2014) have reported on the poor performance of SIA in the EIA process, hence referring to SIA as the ‘lesser sibling’ or ‘orphan’. One of the possible reasons for the poor performance in the quality of SIAs is the lack of flexible methodological guidance and a shortage of skills for conducting SIAs (Kruger and Sandham 2018).

Barrow (2010:293), Hildebrandt (2012:3), and Esteves and Vanclay (2009:140) suggest that SIA should be considered as a mechanism or tool in sustainability issues, and that SIA should be integrated with various disciplines which main motive is to reduce risk, increase community resilience and assist in achieving sustainable development. Aucamp et al. (2018) also argue for an integrated approach that recognises the interrelationship between social- and environmental systems. In this paper it is shown that DRA can be considered such a discipline. By collaborating DRA with SIA, the status and practice of SIA within the EIA process in South Africa can be strengthened by providing more efficient guidance on risk reduction, hence contributing to the resilience of vulnerable communities and individuals, and encouraging sustainable development initiatives in South Africa.

Conclusion

Internationally, the neglected status of SIA has been well investigated, demonstrating that the biophysical paradigm still prevails over the social paradigm in the environmental assessment process. South Africa shares a similar EIA-bound scenario. Additionally, poor inclusion of SIAs in legislative frameworks and the lack of unique guidelines for South Africa’s social context were emphasised. Moreover, the need for improved SIA regulatory frameworks to improve SIAs status and practice in moving toward sustainable development have been highlighted. Due to the transdisciplinary nature of DRM the integration of DRM, EM and sustainable development is encouraged, which is in broad agreement with international trends. The potential value that the integration of SIA and DRA can contribute to SIA practice should therefore not be overlooked.

The findings of this paper are divided into two sub-sections for discussion purposes, i.e. SIA exclusion vs DRA inclusion; and Shared motives. The findings have revealed that the overarching purpose of SIA and DRA is to identify and reduce disaster risk that threatens vulnerable communities, whose resilience could be enhanced through the implementation of prevention and mitigation measures. Although SIA and DRA have a shared purpose, nowhere in the acts pertaining to SIA and DRA is the term ‘social impacts’ clarified. However, it can be argued that ‘social impacts’ are insinuated by the inclusion of other definitions and different wording in the acts. The NEMA and its mandatory EIA regimes provide a broad definition of the environment by including the human factor. Researchers argue that it is partly due to this reason that SIA evolved as a specialist report, albeit integral to the EIA process in a South African context. It was evident from the examination of the legislative provisions pertaining to SIA that the biophysical paradigm still prevails over the social paradigm, adding to SIAs subsidiary status. By contrast, the social paradigm features prominently in the acts pertaining to DRA and explicitly places people at the forefront of DRR.

SIA in South Africa is not explicitly legislated, but is included as a specialist report in EIA, whereas DRA is explicitly legislated and enforced on all spheres of Government. The findings have further revealed that SIA and DRA do have a shared motive to reduce risk, increase community resilience and contribute to sustainable development for future generations, despite EIA and DRM being separate fields of practice in South Africa. This paper suggests that DRA can be profitably collaborated with SIA and thereby offer opportunities for improved SIA status and practice in South Africa, which could potentially also contribute more effectively to sustainable development in accordance with the SDGs. This is in line with international trends, suggesting the integration of SIA and DRA due to the benefits it can add to addressing risks and impacts on vulnerable communities, community resilience and sustainable development.

Acknowledgments

The valuable comments and suggestions from the anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged. The valuable guidance and training by Dr. Graham Baker and Dr. Elisabeth Lickindorf from Kerlick Editorial and Research Solutions are gratefully appreciated and acknowledged.

Notes

1. ‘Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature’ (UNESCO, 1992:1).

2. ‘Environmental Impact Assessment, as a national instrument, shall be undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent national authority’ (UNESCO 1992:4).

3. The term ‘integration’ refers here to SIA and DRA as two separate fields with shared interests functioning as a cohesive whole, making provisions for practical cooperation between SIA and DRA, and potentially contributing to improved SIA status and practice.

4. ‘Everyone has the right- (a) to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and (b) to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that – (i) prevent pollution and ecological degradation; (ii) promote conservation; and (iii) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development’ (RSA 1996:1251–1253).

5. Section 24 (7)(a-i) provide for the procedures for the investigation, assessment and reporting of potential impacts of environmental management activities. Sub-section 7(b) emphasises the identification of potential impacts, cumulative effects and alternatives, and the assessment of the significance of potential impacts on the environment, cultural heritage and on socio-economic conditions (RSA 1998a:36).

6. South Africa consist of the following spheres of government: local, district (comprising a number of local municipalities), metropolitan (not comprising any local or district municipality), provincial (comprising a number of district municipalities), and national (comprising of nine (9) provincial municipalities).