IV. ASSESSMENT OF THE INTEGRATION OF URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES INTO DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

Fiji's development planning process described in chapter III focuses on economic issues. However, development does not only involve economic issues. To be sustainable, social and environmental issues need to be integrated into the decision-making process. Under the current system, environmental considerations are marginalized in the decision-making process, both at the national and local government levels. 

The present promotion of growth-oriented development shows a lack of understanding of the wider socio-environmental issues and their implications for longer-term development. Only when a thorough awareness is achieved will sustainable development become part and parcel of the intricate process of development planning and development project formulation and implementation. Stanely (1996) concluded: 

The present promotion of growth-oriented development shows a lack of understanding of the wider socio-environmental issues and their implications for longer-term development. Only when a thorough awareness is achieved will sustainable development become part and parcel of the intricate process of development planning and development project formulation and implementation. An economic analysis should be required within an EIA so that economic values on natural resources can be integrated in the decision-making process. Such values keep planners and policy makers informed of just how crucial biological diversity and environmental management is to sustainable development and national development objectives. That approach would require expertise in resource/environmental economics which, in turn, calls for closer interaction between the Department of the Environment and economic planners in CPO and/or line ministries. But, as yet, there is no formal process for such interaction, and no personnel are available with the resource/environmental economics skills which will be needed for the process. Under current conditions, any economic evaluation of external effects of development projects requires the expertise of overseas consultants. Some provisions exist under the proposed Sustainable Development Act for quantifying natural resources in financial terms. 

There have been a series of major reports on Fiji's environment as well as environmental planning and management, over the last decade, commencing with the National Environmental Management Systems (NEMS); followed by the National State of Environment Report (NSER), Capacity 21, the National Environmental Strategy (NES); and culminating with the draft Sustainable Development Bill. As a part of the ESCAP project a report was prepared on "Integrating environmental considerations into economic policy making processors at the national level in Fiji". 

All the reports reveal major weaknesses in environmental management at the national level. Those weaknesses apply equally at the local level such as in Suva City. The common problems identified include: 

• A lack of coordination;
• Environmental problems being dealt with on a compartmentalized sectoral basis;
• Outdated and fragmented legislation;
• The existence of too many laws;
• A lack of enforcement;
• An absence of political will; 
• A lack of public awareness.

At the sectoral and local municipal government levels environmental considerations are taken into account to a certain extent through EIAs. However, EIAs are not mandatory and only apply to identifiable new development projects. Most environmental degradation is resulting from ongoing activities. Furthermore, very little monitoring of projects is undertaken once they have started. In the case of Suva, air pollution from vehicle emissions and the cement factory are clear examples. 

Fiji, with assistance from the international community, has in recent years made progress toward establishing the institutional framework necessary for achieving sustainable development. The main achievements have been: 

• The creation of the Department of Environment;
• A comprehensive review of immediate institutional and legislation needs;
• The formulation of the internationally pioneering Sustainable Development Bill to meet those needs.

There has been encouragingly close consultation in the development of the Sustainable Development Act. It is a good omen for the future that the Bill has received good support from the business community, which recognizes that it establishes the "rules of the game" and a "level playing field" in competing with firms that are damaging the environment. Yet most of the consultation has been, by necessity, with official and organized bodies. It is unfortunate that more resources were not devoted to consultation and the promotion of the Bill at the community level, both in the rural and urban areas. 

Many of the requirements for improving the sustainability of current development practices have been identified in NES 1992 and in the reports leading up to the formulation of this present document. Many of the recommendations are being implemented or are under consideration. However, Fiji is far from incorporating environmental considerations into decision-making, particularly at the macroeconomic level. 

The government has failed to provide sufficient support to the Department of Environment to enable it to adequately undertake the tasks expected of it. The Department has inadequate core funding (it secures most of its funding through specific aid funded projects) and staffing (staffing levels are only half the minimum levels recommended in NES). That indicates a persistent lack of will by the government to commit itself to the issue of sustainable development. The Department of Environment needs to be adequately staffed, both in terms of numbers and qualifications. If that is not done, there is little point in implementing the Sustainable Development Bill. In an atmosphere of declining overall staff ceilings in the civil service that will be a difficult task, and can only be achieved through the reallocation of staff within the service. However, with the changing role of government in the development process, some departments are greatly over-staffed. One example is the Extension Division of the Ministry of Agriculture (Asian Development Bank, 199). However, major reallocations of staffing numbers, within a declining overall ceiling, will require an unprecedented level of cooperation between ministers and PSC. Progress on that front in recent years has not been particularly encouraging. 

The enactment of the Sustainable Development Bill should begin as soon as the necessary consultations have been completed and any appropriate modifications to the draft legislation made. However it must be recognized that the Bill merely creates the necessary legal and institutional framework and is far from adequate for ensuring that sustainable development occurs. Monitoring and enforcement mechanisms need to be strengthened in parallel with legislation. For the Bill to achieve its objectives there must be strong and ongoing political commitment and, perhaps more importantly, a sustained desire on the part of the civil servants administering the Bill to make it work. Those civil servants will, however, need to be trained in the required technical skills to do what is expected of them under the Bill. 

Legislation has an important role to play in achieving the desired environmental and sustainable development objectives. However, because of the poor record of Fiji in that area, particularly with respect to enforcement, it is recommended that economic incentives and environmental awareness be given greater attention in support of the goal of achieving of compliance. 

The planning and decision-making machinery needs to be strengthened, along the lines indicated in the Siwatibau Report, if environmental considerations are to be mainstreamed. As with the enactment of the Sustainable Development Bill, those institutional reforms provide only the basic necessary conditions. That strengthening will need to be accompanied by a collective determination among public servants and decision makers to use the planning and decision-making machinery for promoting sustainable development. 

Fiji's most apparent limitation for incorporating environmental considerations into macroeconomic decisions is its current lack of an appropriate administrative and institutional framework. The reasons include: 

• A lack of integration of development and environmental policies; 
• A predominance of economic and social goals in national decision-making, which are isolated from any environmental framework; 
• Permitting the formulation of macroeconomic policies to remain the exclusive domain of committees of macroeconomists and central bankers;
• A legislative and administrative framework that is inadequate and highly sectoral;
• Environmental decisions that remain highly sectoral and are not reflected in macroeconomic policies;
• Inadequate resources and expertise in environmental economics; 
• A lack of political will to confront issues; 
• A relatively poor public response to environmental degradation, resulting from the inability to articulate concerns and an unwillingness and inability to act on those concerns;
• The continuing perception among many government officials that the environment is a minor development issue. 

• A lack of integration of city development and environmental policies;
• The prominence given by the administrative structure of SCC to engineering considerations;
• The predominance of financial and social considerations in decision-making that are isolated from any environmental framework;
• Inadequate resources and expertise in urban and environmental planning;
• Environmental decisions remaining highly sectoralized, with the power of decision vested with national government agencies (e.g., Ministry of Health, Department of Road Transport etc.);
• A lack of political and administrative power on the part of local government authorities which prevents them from confronting urban environmental issues;
• A lack of political will to confront issues;
• A relative poor public response to environmental degradation, resulting from the inability to articulate concerns and an unwillingness and inability to act on them;
• The widespread perception among local government officials that the environment is a minor development issue that is not closely related to urban issues such as housing and public health.

1. Old laws. The majority of Fiji's environmental legislation dates from the colonial days. For example, the Public Health Act came into force more than 60 years ago when Fiji was entirely an agrarian society. That Act still remains the as the core of the environmental legislation. Yet under that Act, atmospheric pollution is classified as a mere nuisance, rather than a major public health problem;
2. Environmental laws which are many and varied. There are least 25 Acts that affect environmental management, and they are administered by at least 14 different ministries, statutory bodies or other agencies;
3. Fragmented legislation. The environmental laws of Fiji comprise a number of different pieces of legislation, which creates loopholes in the law, particularly with respect to urban environmental problems such as industrial pollution. The problem is illustrated by Manuel (1991) from her experience as a former Senior Legal Officer with the Attorney-General's Chambers. On one occasion she had to consider the provisions of seven pieces of legislation (the Irrigation Act, the Drainage Act, the Water Supply Act, the Mining Act, the Public Health Act and the Penal Code) in an attempt to take action against an industrial operation which accidentally polluted a river through a failure in its effluent disposal system. The Attorney-General's Office investigated whether an offence had been committed against any pollution laws but none were found to apply to the particular situation. Hence no legal action could be taken against the alleged polluter. Such occurrences are not uncommon in Fiji;
4. Fragmented responsibility. While there are a large number of authorities responsible for the enforcement of the various pieces of legislation there was no one body with the responsibility for investigating infringements and ensuring compliance. This has been a particular constraint for the enforcement of legislation relating to urban environmental problems such as air pollution;
5. A lack of training and resources. Enforcement officers in Fiji lack the necessary specialist training and resources. According to McBride (1992), "when prosecutions are brought, the courts, on occasions, appear to lack the necessary expertise to deal appropriately with criminal offences against the environment. As a result, in the area of pollution offences there are usually one or two prosecutions per year;
6. Prosecutions against government agencies do not take place. There do not appear to have been any attempts in the past to 'force' local authorities to perform their legal duties in relation to the enforcement of pollution laws (McBride, 1992). Complaints to the Office of the Ombudsman about the non-performance of local authorities in the area of enforcement do not appear to be possible in Fiji. The Ombudsman has limited powers and limited resources at its disposal (e.g., there is, at present, no lawyer attached to the Ombudsman's Office);
7. Insignificant penalties. This problem applies particularly to the areas of pollution and land degradation. For example, the Ports Authority of Fiji Regulations, 1990, provide for a maximum fine of only F$ 400 for pollution offences. Cleaning up a chemical spill in Suva harbour could cost the government millions of dollars;
8. A lack of commitment to enforcement. This problem can be found at just about every level of government. For example, the Fiji School of Medicine has pointed out that atmospheric pollution is a continuing health problem and that a concerted effort is needed in Fiji to control existing and future emissions. However, present effective control programmes are hindered by a lack of commitment and resources (transport, analytical facilities and manpower);
9. An entrenched negative public attitude to enforcement. Attitudes which have built up over the years of neglect in enforcement are now becoming more and more difficult to modify. The problem has become clearly evident with recent efforts to enforce the Anti-Litter Degree. This problem is an indication of the lack of environmental awareness which exists among members of the public;
10. The ineffectiveness of civil law with respect to pollution. Civil law in Fiji does not function effectively because most people do not have the time, the commitment or the money to take a polluter to court (Manuel, 1991). Also, polluters harm society at large rather than individuals, which makes it difficult to take them to court;
11. Nascent environmental institutions. For example, the National Air Pollution Control Unit was established only recently by the Ministry of Health with the task of planning and implementing air pollution control programmes for the prevention and control of atmospheric pollution. The Unit is still building up its capacity to act and requires further support to enable it to carry out its functions. Its development is restricted as a result of the lack of an industrial chemist and a laboratory with full analytical capabilities, according to the Fiji School of Medicine;
12. Culturally inappropriate legislation. Some legislation based on Western models may be inappropriate for Fiji. Such arguments are, however, less valid when referring to environmental problems in urban areas where traditional power and authority structures are largely non-existent.

Thus the problem of old, excessive and fragmented laws is addressed. The Bill goes to great length to overcome the ineffectiveness of civil law with respect to pollution. The requirements and responsibility for enforcement are now more clearly defined; although they are not necessarily vested in one government agency. To quote the requirements of the policy on integrated waste management: "Upon approval by the National Council for Sustainable Development, every government ministry, department or statutory body shall observe, and to the extent of its authority, enforce the policy on integrated waste management." 

The problem of the lack of training and resources cannot be addressed directly by the Sustainable Development Bill. A major training initiative is being planned to complement the implementation of the Act. A project paper has been prepared that identifies the necessary training needs and institutional building requirements for the implementation of the Act. The package was to be presented by the Department of Environment for funding consideration at a forthcoming donors' meeting. The public sector requirements include training in: 

• Environmental impact assessment. This training, which should include the environmental management units within various government departments and agencies, should cover the practical aspects of environmental impact assessment management and the use of mediation in the environmental impact assessment process;
• Environmental auditing and environmental cost accounting for various government departments and agencies. This training should include environmental accounting and ISO 14,000 audits, and in the case the Auditor-General's office the practical aspects of environmental cost accounting and sustainable development assurance audits;
• The development of a "Training Programme and Procedures Manual" for Sustainable Development Tribunal officers and staff, together with the establishment of an environmental awareness programme for the Judiciary;
• The collection and presentation of technical evidence, for environmental inspectors, marine pollution inspectors and environmental prosecutors; implementing port state control, ship inspectors; air quality management, for environmental inspectors, including motor vehicle inspectors; specific training for fisheries inspectors as well as environmental inspectors in the Ozone Depleting Substances Unit; and the enforcement of the CITES Convention, for customs, quarantine and agricultural officers;
• Environmental information management, for Environmental Registry staff within the Department of Environment;
• In addition to specific training requirements, technical support is required for environmental and legal officers within the Department of Environment

Support is expected to be forthcoming for the ambitious, but nevertheless necessary, public sector training package that is detailed above. The question of adequate funding being allocated for the implementation of the Sustainable Development Bill, particularly in the area of enforcement, is much more problematic. It would be unrealistic to expect a significant increase in the allocation of public funds to environmental protection. The fiscal position of the national government is particularly precarious, with a large proportion of the capital budget being reallocated to write off the debts of the National Bank of Fiji. In the 1997 budget only the Ministry of Education received an increase in its budgetary allocation. A freeze is in place on public service recruitment, with a target of a 10 per cent reduction in civil service personnel over the next few years. The Suva City Council is in an equally tight fiscal position as a result of its limited revenue base and the increasing demand for services. However, it is felt that a major investment of public funds is not what is required, although the Department of the Environment will need a significant increase in financial and human resources if it is to undertake what will be required of it under the Sustainable Development Act. What is required is a better allocation of existing resources and the focusing and coordination of efforts if sustainable development goals are to be achieved. 

One clear area that the Sustainable Development Act will address is the currently inadequate penalties for environmental offences, at least in the area of pollution. As noted above, the 1990 Ports Authority of Fiji Regulations provide for a maximum fine of only F$ 400 for pollution offences. Under the Sustainable Development Act, a first offender will be liable for a fine of F$ 10,000 or imprisonment of not more than one year, or both. For a second offence those penalties will be doubled. In cases of gross negligence that result in "serious impairment to human health or severe damage to the environment" a fine of F$ 100,000 or five years' imprisonment will apply. It is hoped that the severity of those penalties will act as a significant deterrent. That proved to be the case when the Quarantine Regulations were changed in 1996, in order to raise the then trivial penalties for smuggling fruit and vegetables to significant punitive penalties. In that case the mere thought of spending some time in a Fiji prison appears to have been a sufficient deterrent. Accompanied by a public awareness campaign, the serious penalties under the Sustainable Development Act may go a long way to overcoming the entrenched negative public attitude to enforcement. 

Sustainable Development Act will put into place an institutional structure for promoting sustainable development. Of particular importance are the umbrella bodies, the National Council for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Tribunal. The focus has been on improving coordination and empowering existing entities rather than building new structures requiring substantial resources. The new arrangements represent significant progress in integrating environmental considerations into the development planning process. However, structural weaknesses remain; one notable weakness is the fact that the Permanent Secretary who heads CPO does not sit on NCSD. 

Top