|
|
 |
Annex 8
Feedback from
Workshop on
Environmental Technology Assessment (EnTA) of Cyanide Technology
Johannesburg, South Africa, 21 to 25 February, 2000
The following comments were provided by the workshop convenors:
- The workshop went most satisfactorily; most participants seemed to feel that
they could, and were keen to, put EnTA into practice in their own contexts;
- It seems important to demonstrate that EnTA is applicable to the widest
possible range of environmental questions, so that people take the concept and
run with it; one of our participants has already indicated that he wants to
apply EnTA in connection with mercury;
- The Manual proceeds clearly and systematically - the participants at the
workshop felt that a useful addition would be a table showing the differences
between TA, EIA and EnTA;
- The Manual, once a final draft is produced, needs to be subject to rigorous
language and style editing;
- The Manual works well in conjunction with the worksheets, and the latter met
with a favourable reception on the whole;
- EnTA is considered to be the first step in the TA process, but nowhere in
the Manual is the reader informed what this process is, nor is the reader
enabled to perform/organise a TA process;
- According to Agenda 21, EnTA should have a participatory element, intrinsic
to the idea of sustainable development; this is nowhere found in the EnTA Manual
as it exists now;
- The economic aspects (costs) of, for example, determining the feasibility of
alternatives should be part of a comprehensive EnTA;
- The ICE (Pressures/Impacts/Evaluate) model is to a degree adequate, but it
lacks the possibility of addressing possible responses (mitigating strategies,
policy implications etc); the model used by OECD (Pressure, Impacts, Responses)
could serve as an example to broaden EnTA;
- The idea of introducing the concept of a "technology system" is
confusing because it is not operationalised systematically in the Manual; the
only place it can be used is in Step 1 for the description of the technology;
the fact that a technology should not be regarded as a static system, but as an
holistic entity, is valuable and should be maintained; a technology can,
however, also be defined as a "cycle"- initiation, implementation,
operation, regulation, utilization, disposal; this has consequences for doing an
EnTA;
- Step 1, sections (e) and (f) - participants found it difficult to
distinguish between the requirements of the two worksheets; we had to compare
wording in the two worksheets carefully before we were clear as to the
difference; while this may not be a problem in an actual use of EnTA, in a
workshop situation it is not desirable; there is also the possibility this may
be a second-language problem, but it should be addressed; possibly some labelled
steps on the two pages would be of assistance;
- Step 2 was well received, but participants found Step 3 repetitive; maybe it
could be made clearer to them why it is desirable to do a cursory survey first
and then a more elaborate one;
- Step 3 (f) - participants reacted well to the encouragement of the
reiterative process here, and elsewhere;
- We found Steps 3, 4 and 5 to be comprehensive, detailed, and easy to
complete under workshop conditions;
- A Step 6 should be introduced - "communication on the EnTA"; the
validation and use of an EnTA depend to a large degree on the way its results
are communicated; this should be integrated in the Manual
- Some criticism was made of the fact that the cost factor was not really
discussed - this is probably a very important consideration, especially in
developing economies; and
- The EnTA Manual will be a valuable tool in undergraduate teaching.
|
