SEAP - Policy, Legal and Institutional Working Group ReportContents | Introduction | Chapter One | Chapter Two | Chapter Three | Level One | Level Two | Level Three | Level Four | Annexures | Glossary and Acronyms INTRODUCTIONThis working group was formed to consolidate the policy, legal and institutional issues from the first set of working groups into an integrated framework for action, and at the same time elaborate upon the requirements for integrating the actions. The first set of working groups charged with addressing categories of concern in the SEAP were:
There are two other groups working in parallel with this group, one being concerned with economic issues, and the other with environmental education and public participation. The specific terms of reference for the policy, legal and institutional working group are as follows: "Review the reports of the sectoral working groups and other relevant literature, and based on the findings, make recommendations on the following:-
The group determined that the best approach to the task was to take on board the format of the report of the Land Resource Management / Desertification Working Group, which had linked policies and strategies into an action plan, and broaden it in two ways. Firstly, to place the Action Plan recommendations of the other five groups into a similar structure to deal with the policy issues, and secondly to provide two chapters before this hierarchical Action Plan one to consolidate the legal issues, and the other to submit proposals to deal with the institutional issues (the institutional framework, including human resource requirements / capacity building, and a monitoring and evaluation capacity). The group also adopted the definition of "land" in UN & FAO documents as "a delineable area of the earth's terrestrial surface, encompassing all attributes of the biosphere immediately above or below this surface, including those of the near-surface climate, the soil and terrain forms, the surface hydrology (including shallow lakes, rivers, marshes and swamps), the near-surface sedimentary layers and associated groundwater reserve, the plant and animal populations, the human settlement pattern and physical results of past and present human activity (terracing, water storage or drainage structures, roads, buildings, etc.)." Although very wide and covering most of the areas of concern to the SEAP, this definition still does not necessarily capture all of the concerns to be captured by this action plan (for example, the manufacturing industry and tourism, transboundary air pollution, educational policy recommendations, etc.). Consequently, the "Land" Action Plan headings in the adopted "Land Resource Management / Desertification" Working Group's report have been widened to "Land and Environment" the former emphasising the core importance of land as defined above in the Action Plan, the latter pointing out that the SEAP, although primarily concerned with land, is not just about land. Further, the longer the study has proceeded the clearer it has become that a segregation of "economic", "social" and "environmental" issues often simply muddies the waters. Such categorisations are artificial, insofar as action plans on one such category will inevitably impact upon another. Moreover, such categorisations can be mischievous, in tempting people to believe that an action plan must be for the environment, or the society, or the economy, and that what is good for one must be bad for the others. Therefore, even though the SEAP will proceed on its own authority under the SEA Act, the importance of encouraging synergy between this Action Plan and the National Development Strategy must be emphasised. That is, a conclusion emerging from the working group, perhaps surprising to many, is that the fights against environmental degradation, poverty, lack of accountability, overpopulation, crime, ignorance and illness are in many ways the same fight. Wealth creation and education are the key weapons in this fight for the complementary goals of human development and sustainable development, but the wealth creation must be genuine, not simply or only redistribution from the commons to individuals. In accord with Agenda 21, the Action Plan should "analyse and test methods to include land and ecosystem functions and land resources values in national accounts". If such a comprehensive accounting system is introduced, environmentally sustainable development will become more apparent as the only viable option. The present lack of such accountability ensures that some so-called development is simple exploitation of non-renewable resources without appropriate recompense. From the legal perspective pollution mainly takes the form of a transposition of problems from areas with more well-defined and/or enforced property rights to those with less well-defined and/or enforced property rights, be they to air, water, or poorly-managed land. That is not genuine development, but exploitation based upon poor accounting and management resulting in a lack of transparency and accountability. A policy distinction is therefore required, often in respect of activities of a single individual: full-blooded encouragement of sustainable development; active discouragement of exploitative or parasitical behaviour. The working group reports that there is a great deal that needs to be done in the three areas of its responsibility. External to this draft Action Plan, the draft National Development Strategy, and the shorter-term Economic and Social Reform Agenda, policies do not yet exist in many subjects crucial to human and sustainable development. The legal environment suffers from a backlog of unmaintained, unenforced and/or obsolete legislation and deficiencies even in current legislation, and the current institutional mechanisms are regarded as being clearly inadequate to address the challenges ahead. It is equally clear to the group, however, that in Swaziland's case none of these challenges appear to be insurmountable. The group considers the implementation of its recommendations would go a long way towards achieving those dual and compatible goals of human development and environmentally sustainable development. Membership of the group was by invitation from the following, (not all of whom responded):
|