I received this note this morning:
>
> What I have learned in my dealings re EIA’s is that “according to the Act they
> are site specific” and it is this interpretation that those seeking to develop
> Zambia’s protected areas appear to hide behind. Rather than a holistic look at
> all the varied impacts of any one development on all the surroundings (i.e.
> how it would affect the entire Mosi oa Tunya NP and all its stake holders in
> this case) they tend to put on blinkers and only look at the direct impacts
> within the boundaries of the site of the development. It is my view therefore
> that during the meeting to which you have been invited, a call is made for an
> independently run, more in depth environmental study that takes into
> consideration the more far reaching impacts the development might have as well
> as the studies required per the Environmental Act (which I have not made a
> study of)."
>

The writer is absolutely right. Site-specific EIAs tell one nothing, hence the development of SEAs (Strategic Environmental Assessments) and the requirement for comprehensive participatory actions: workshops, hearings and so on. ECZ, within the SADC framework, should adopt the standards put forward by the Southern African Institute of Environmental Assessment, a holistic view which leaves nothing out and certainly is not merely a legal rubber stamp for any specific development. Those with a vested interest in development – without sustainability, are happy with this framework and therefore support it. - ZAWA’s response on requirements for an SEA on the Zambezi NP being a case in point, and its response to the Legacy development in the Mosi-oa-Tunya National Park being another example. A holistic view and requirement is also implicit in our international commitments regarding the proposed Kavango-Zambezi TFCA, and for the World Bank SEED project in the Mosi-oa-Tunya, which appears to have gone very quiet and where calls for civil society participation have not been met.