8. CONCLUSION
8.4 A framework for assessing HIVIAIDS in EIA
"The need for closer integration between environmental assessment and economic and social appraisal in the development process is widely recognised however the practice is weak (Lee and Kirkpatrick, 2000, pg 1). The framework proposed for addressing HIV/AIDS impacts in the EIA process came about as a result of the need identified by stakeholders for guidance on how to undertake the process. Most interviewees recognized that HIV/AIDS was a valid impact to be assessed in the EIA process but were unsure how to go about it. The framework presented works from the premise that the principles of justice, namely, participatory; commutative;
distributive; contributive; and retributive, can be upheld by building appropriate actions into the EIA process. At a broader level it is also put forward that the application of the framework presented in chapter 7 may serve to engender a more fundamental reframing of EIA practice. Introducing new principles, engagement processes and tools in the conventional EIA process may over time result in "double- loop learning"(Owens et aI, 2004) which will eventually challenge the status quo as participants accept new facts and change their beliefs regarding the purpose of EIA.
This could contribute to greater acceptance of social issues in EIA and a better assessment of qualitative impacts in the process.
133
8.5 Enhancing EIAs contrib utionto sust ainable devel opment in Af ri ca
Additionally, Cashmore et al(2004. pg 306) recognize that EIA promotes sustainable development in "multifarious ways through an indirect influence on environmental management; its educative and stimulative role; promoting enhanced stakeholder involvement in environmental decision-making; increasing transparency and accountability; changing society's expectations of democracy and development; and the development of science and scientific methods". Recognising the role of EIA as an agent of change, a response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa is enhanced through the same 'multifarious'ways. For example, the EIA process can be used to:
• Educate people on the potential risks associated with development projects and stimulate appropriate mitigation measures being put in place to reduce the risks
• An appropriate engagement process will attract vulnerable, and largely ignored stakeholder groups, such as women and the poor interact with the EIA process.
• There will be greater accountability in society at large for the creation of socio- economic drivers that lead vulnerable people to unsafe sexual practices.
• Improvement of scientific methods in assessing HIV/AIDS and managing its impact through policy,social, behavioural and medical responses.
This could lead to a greater focus on social issues and extending the policy debate on HIV/AIDS as a development issue.
8.6 Reframing EIA practice
Drawing together the findings of both the literature and the research, it is evident that there is a problem with the mainstream environmental management discourse, especially in its application in Africa. This is clearly reflected in the difficulties experience in rigorously assessing HIV/AIDS impacts of development projects.
Whilst the policy framework for EIA broadly encompasses social and health issues,it is evident that the practice is closely tied to its positivistic and technocratic history.
The situation however is not irredeemable as it is evident from both interviews and case studies that there is not an outright denialof the validity of assessing HIV/AIDS impacts in EIA. Some of the case study material shows that there are EIA practitioners that have recognized the potential HIV/AIDS threat and tailored EIA processes to address these impacts properly. These case studies seem to be few and far between and this begs the question of why,on a continent with such serious
social issues, the EIA process still continues to maintain a biophysical focus in assessment? Christoff (1999, pg 496) argues that "it is critical to make explicit the normative principles of social justice upon which practice is predicated. The challenge is to replace the mainstream principles of technical and institutional efficiency associated with weak sustainability with the more democratic and socially oriented principles of strong sustainability". There is thus a need to challenge EIA practice and reframe the process in the context of social justice and strong sustainability.
Laws and Rein (2003) provide an understanding of the problems in achieving this through an analysis of the Green Heart frame in the Netherlands. In this particular case, the frame of the Green Heart which depicts the less developed green region in the urban ring has found widespread favour. Critics of the frame have been unable to displace this frame and Laws and Rein (2003, pg 179) argue that the frame remains dominant because "frames become institutionalized in habits of thought and action, in practices". In a similar way, the framing of EIA as a tool for assessing biophysical impacts has become institutionalized and it is difficult to displace this frame as the practice,which has been founded on ecolog ical modernisation thinking, has been adopted internationally . Some level of reflexive analysis has taken place in EIA with the recognition of some authors of the contributionof the tool to sustainable development. This however is not widespread and attempts to deal with doubts regarding the assessment of social impacts are often done in a superficial manner.
The issue of HIV/AIDS provides an interesting challenge to the dominant frame of EIA and can belikened in some ways to the controve rsysurrounding the Love Canal in the United States . Pollution impacts from toxic waste dumped at the Love Canal led to increas ing doubts and uncertainty about environmental management in the country (Laws and Rein, 2003). Conflicts arose between public officials and communities in trying to reconcile the different ways in which the problem was experienced. Over time,on-going protests by the community began to challenge not just individual proposals butthe policyframe itself(Laws and Rein,2003,pg 190). In a similar way, commun ities are increasingly concerned about the social and environmental costs they carry for developmen tprojec ts in Africa. The magnitude of the HIV/AIDS pandemic and its far-reaching development impacts has raised doubts about our current understanding of development progress. Organisations such as the World Bank have to rethink their policies and HIV/AIDS mainstream ing has become an acceptance policy approach.
135
Mainstreaming HIV/AIDS issues in EIA is not a simple process because of the stability of the frame that has prevented a critique of EIA'spurpose and scope. Itcan be argued that ad hoc adjustments have occurred in the EIA process as evidenced by the Kihansi Hydropower Project but often these actions simply abate the challenges in order to maintain the continuity of beliefs (Laws and Rein, 2003).
However, HIV/AIDS introduces serious doubt about the ability of the EIA process to appropriately consider social impacts and this moment of doubt could be the turning point when the system is open to new insights, ideas and behaviour (Laws and Rein, 2003). The nature of the HIV/AIDS impact is such that it has triggered a global response with high levels of commitment and strong leadership. These factors may be critical to reframing EIA practice as there is constant questioning of the status quo.
Ultimately, development is meant to improve the quality of human life and EIA, as a tool in this process, should always be undertaken with this fundamental purpose in mind. HIV/AIDS is having a devastating impact on Africa and demands action on all fronts. Environmental practice can no longer be seen to operate in isolation of this context. There is thus an urgent need for the practice of EIA to give recognition to the fact that development in Africa can only be successful if we address the HIV/AIDS pandemic in all aspects of development.