Download Environmental Handbook: Requirements for High Pressure

Environmental Handbook:
Requirements for High Pressure Development Areas
Environmental Regulatory Services
Project Detail
• Environmental guideline for high pressure development areas (GMS categories)
• Intention is to consolidate all the relevant environmental management guidance available in the
City into a concise guideline for development planning, open space management and services
provision, especially where development pressure is threatening environmental resources
• Bohlweki-SSI Environmental as technical service provider
• January – April 2009, but has since been extended to June
• 3 Phases:
– Stakeholder consultation and information gathering
– Strategic regional analysis
– Guideline document with specific intervention strategies for critical areas
2
Methodology
Seeing both the trees
and the wood
Best
Practice
Planning
g
Guidelines
& Policies
Regional
Analyses
Strategic
Themes &
Issues
Regional
Guidance
3
Approach
Challenging convention
Making
g best-practice
p
in environmental management,
g
, and the latest scientific
knowledge, count for social development.
4
Stakeholders
• City of Joburg Departments:
– Environmental Management
– Development Planning and Facilitation
– Waste Management
• Municipal Entities:
– Joburg Roads Agency (Transportation and Stormwater)
– City Power
– Joburg Development Agency (BRT)
– Joburg Water
5
Information review
• Planning
• Open Space
– GMS
– JMOSS I&II
– GDS
– OSF (Open Space Framework)
– SDF
– Wetland Audit
– Land Strategy
– Ridges
• Environmental management
– Biodiversity Assessment
– SOER
– Climate Change
– Energy
E
Effi
Efficiency
i
– Air Quality
– EMF
– Catchment Management
6
Findings
• Environmental
Environmental, GMS & SDF Issues Matrix (see separate handout)
• Division between strategic planning approach and detailed planning response
– Growth Management Strategy vs. Local SDF open space provision/conservation
• Inaccessibility of environmental management information
– Volume and technical recommendations from multiple reports
– Integration of OSF open space information into RSDFs etc.
• Institutional knowledge
g falling
g into disuse
– Planning maps, ridges, developed areas, conservation efforts
• Knowledge gaps
– Landcover
• Urban conservation planning conundrum
– Network vs. species
– Patches vs. large units
7
Breaking the cycle
•
•
•
•
‘Lost in
translation’
B aware off the
Be
th information
i f
ti losses
l
Make guidance accessible
Co-operate
Knowledge
Planning
E
Experiment,
i
t
Monitor & Improve
Selfconfrontation
Theory:Practice
Reflection
f
I l
Implementation
i
8
Forward Linkages
•
•
•
•
•
Region-based critical interventions
Complete Environmental Handbook
Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (BSAP)
2010 SDF review
Open Space Framework (OSF)
For any further questions, comments and suggestions please contact:
Rajeshree Bhana-Ranchhod
Bhana Ranchhod
Environmental Impact Management
Tel: (011) 407 6439
E-mail: [email protected]
Gerard
G
d van W
Weele
l
Bohlweki-SSI Environmental
Tel: 084 505 2901
E-mail: [email protected]
9
Discussion
• How and where is environmental knowledge lost to detail planning?
• Who is responsible for implementation on the ground – Environmental Planning and
Management or all the sectors and entities? How can this be realised?
• What is the best way of monitoring and continuously improve open space management
practices?
• What are the core objectives of urban conservation? Are they realistic, and are they ‘mutually
achievable’?
– Maintain an open
p space
p
network to conserve a few critical species
p
or as manyy as p
possible?
– Provide ecosystem services or conserve grassland biodiversity?
• Defined thresholds – are they possible?
– 5ha, 50m
– 200m edge effect buffer
• Fine scale habitat mapping is sure to conserve more species than universal buffers applied at a
course scale. How can this be achieved?
10