a review of the evolution of …planet.uwc.ac.za/nisl/gwen's files/geocourse/integrated...elsevier...

ELSEVIER

ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY MAKING

A REVIEW OF THE EVOLUTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PROCEDURES IN SOUTH AFRICA

Merle Sowman, Richard Fuggle, and Guy Preston University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa

In 1989, the Council for the Environment, an advisory committee to the Minister of Environment Affairs, published a document outlining an environmental evaluation procedure appropriate to South Aji-ica’s circumstances. This procedure, termed integrated environmental management (IEM), is designed to ensure that the environmental impacts and implications of proposals (including policies, programs, plans, and projects) are investigated and adequately considered in the planning and decision-making process. This article provides an historical perspective on the events that contributed to the development of IEM,as well as some insights into the socioeconomic and political factors that injluenced the form of evaluation eventually recommended for South Aj?ica. A description and appraisal of the IEM procedure is then presented.

Introduction

The enactment of the National Environmental Policy pict of 1970 (NEPA) in the United States is recognized worldwide as the formal inception of environmental impact assessment (EIA)-a procedure for identifying and investigating the environmental consequences of development, as an aid to decision-making. This event triggered the development and implementation of formal and informal environmental evaluation* procedures in both developed and developing

Address requests for reprints to: Merle Sowman, Environmental Evaluation Unit, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch. 7700, South Africa.

’ The broad term environmental evaluation is used because it encompasses the more specific activities of environmental (impact) assessment, environmental analysis, and initial environmental assessment.

ENVIRON IMPACT ASSESS REV 1995;15:45-67 0 1995 Elsevier Science Inc. 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010

0195-9255/95/$9.50 SSDI 0195-9255(94)00004-K

46 MERLE SOWMAN, RICHARD FUGGLE, AND GUY PRESTON

countries. Whereas the adoption of environmental evaluation procedures, either by legislative or administrative control, has been in evidence in many developing countries since the late 1970s (Horberry 1984; Wathem 1988; Brown 1990; Sorensen and West 1990), South Africa has been slow to develop procedures appropriate to its circumstances.

It was only as recently as 1989, that South Africa enacted legislation (Act 73) which provides for the determination of environmental policy to guide decision-making. Provisions exist in the new Environmental Conservation Act 73 of 1989 to regulate activities that may have a detrimental impact on the environment and to require that environmental impact reports be prepared. In that same year, a document was published (Council for the Environment 1989) outlining a recommended evaluation procedure for integrating environmental considerations into decision-making at all stages of the planning and development process. At the time of writing, there is still no legal requirement that these procedures be adopted.

The key constraints to the development and implementation of environmental evaluation procedures in South Africa have been: the absence of a general environmental policy, a lack of political will and awareness of the need to consider environmental issues, an authoritarian system of government, a lack of accountability by decision-makers, inadequate public participation, inefficient administrative structures, legislative inadequacies, as well as a lack of environmental expertise and financial resources. These constraints are not unique to South Africa and have inhibited the development of environmental procedures and practices in many developing countries (Horberry 1984; Kennedy 1988).

Another important factor constraining the development of an environmental policy and enabling procedures in South Africa has been the lack of popular support afforded environmental issues. This is understandable in light of past political policies and practices that effectively alienated black people from their traditional role as guardians of the land and engendered a negative attitude toward environmental issues (Khan 1990; Cock and Koch 1991; Ramphele 1991; African National Congress 1992). Consequently, until recently environmental issues have not been high on the political agenda. However, a perspective is emerging that views environmental issues as deeply political because they are concerned with access to and utilization of resources (Cock 1991). The concept of sustainable development is also receiving widespread support from academics, business leaders, grassroot groups, trade unions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and political groups.

A further factor that constrained the implementation of environmental evaluation procedures in South Africa was the recognition by proponents of EIA that the direct transfer of United States and European models to South Africa would not be appropriate. Consequently, considerable research and deliberation as well as public and authority participation was undertaken to formulate procedures appropriate for South Africa.

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION PROCEDURES IN SOUTH AFRICA 47

This article traces the events that led to the development and endorsement of an environmental evaluation procedure for South Africa. It examines the key socioeconomic and political factors that shaped the philosophy underlying integrated environmental management (IEM); the procedure eventually recommended by the Council for the Environment in 1989 for adoption in South Africa. A description and appraisal of the IEM procedure is then presented.

Background to the Development of Environmental Evaluation Procedures in South Africa

Historical Perspective

Evidence of concern for the environment can be traced to our earliest history, both in terms of the practices and lifestyles of indigenous people (West 1979; Owen-Smith 1987; Khan 1990) and the initial conservation efforts of the early foreign settlers and public officials (Hey 1977; Fuggle and Rabie 1992). The focus of initial conservation efforts was on the protection of wilderness areas and wildlife resources (Cock and Koch 1991; Fuggle and Rabie 1992). It is only in this decade that a more integrated, participatory approach to environmental concerns is in evidence, and “green politics” are slowly making their way toward the central political arena (Ramphele 1991).

With its impressive network of national parks and game reserves, and a professional conservation corps unequaled in Africa, South Africa has cultivated its image as the continent’s conservation leader (Duming 1990). Yet evidence of severe environmental degradation and social deprivation, especially in the “homelands.“2 and the “black” areas of urban centers, suggests otherwise. Increasingly, environmental historians are linking environmental degradation and the negative, alienated stance of the majority of South Africans toward environmental issues to the policies and practices of the colonial and apartheid eras (Khan 1990; Ramphele 1990; African National Congress 1992). The processes of colonization, dispossession, and European expansion effectively alienated the majority of South Africans from the land and cultivated negative, even “hostile” attitudes toward environmental issues (Khan 1990). Efforts to foster greater environmental awareness and promote regulation of activities and decisions that were harmful to the environment were thus in the hands of the government and white elite.

Recent Events International events, such as the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment in 1972, and in particular the enactment of NEPA in the United

*In 1913 about 13% of the land in South Africa was set aside as “native reserves” for approximately 70% of the population. Africans could legally acquire land only in these areas. The government decided in 1959 that “Bantu peoples” formed separate nations and therefore ought to have their own “independent states” (“homelands”) based on the “rewves.” Examples: Transkei. Ciskei, and Venda.


States in 1970, as well as the introduction of EIA as an instrument of environmental policy encouraged concerned governmental officials, professionals, and academics to explore the merits of introducing a similar mechanism into the South African planning and administrative system. During the 1970s the debate on the necessity for and appropriateness of EIA as a tool for promoting environmental conservation was raised in several fora.

A review of the early minutes of the Habitat Council, a non-governmental organization established in 1974 to coordinate the activities of various environmental organizations in South Africa, reveals that the subject of EIA frequently featured on their agenda. In fact, at the 1977 Annual General Meeting, a resolution was taken, that “ . . . the Minister of Planning and the Environment be approached regarding the need for legislation which would demand the provision of EIS from developers . . . when embarking on major development or re-development planning” (Council for the Habitat 1977). Professional planners were identified as the group who should provide guidance on the integration of environmental concerns in project planning and design. An inter-disciplinary committee representing the various environmental planning professions (EPPIC) was also established in 1974. One of its primary tasks was to prepare a set of guidelines to assist the planning professionals in taking environmental aspects into account in an effective manner (EPPIC 1980). These guidelines, published in 1980, certainly played a role in enhancing the awareness among professionals of the need to consider environmental issues in project planning. However, there were major shortcomings in the guidelines-especially with respect to screening criteria, review procedures, public involvement, and consideration of altema- tives-and they were consequently never adopted.

A significant event in the development of EIA in South Africa was a gathering of organizations, government departments, academics, professionals, and members of the general public concerned with the question of environmental evaluation at a symposium on “Shaping our Environment” in 1979. The main objectives of the symposium were to emphasize the value of EIA as an aid to the management of environmental change and to examine the various methods of EIA, with a view to incorporating the principles of EIA into guidelines for use by professional planners (Blight 1980).

The symposium was seen as part of an ongoing process of developing the philosophy and procedures of environmental evaluation appropriate for South Africa. Organizations such as the Habitat Council, EPPIC, and the Department of Environmental Planning and Energy Affairs (the State Department responsible for environmental affairs at the time) were charged with the task of taking the EIA process further and developing the ideas generated at the conference (Blight 1980).

Increased awareness at the central government level of the need to consider the environmental impacts of major development projects is evident in a report “Bepaling en Evaluering van Invloede van Ontwikkelingsprojekte op die

EN~IR~NMENTALE~AL~AT~ONPROCEDURESINSO~THAFR~CA 49

Omgewing” [Identification and Evaluation of the Effects of Development Projects on the Environment] prepared by the South African Council for the Environment (1976). This council, formerly known as the South African Committee on Environmental Conservation, was established in 1972 to advise a cabinet committee concerned with environmental conservation (Fuggle and Rabie 1992). The above report addressed methods of identifying impacts and proposed procedures for environmental evaluation in South Africa; however, it does not appear that these proposals were ever developed or implemented.

The thinking among professionals and academics on the subject of EIA procedures in South Africa is reflected in many articles published in various journals and reports in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Patricios and Fuggle 1975; Rabie 1976, 1986; Boden 1980; Blight 1980; Cowen 1980; EPPIC 1980; Fuggle 1979, 1980; Hall et al. 1980; Fuggle and Rabie 1983; Stauth 1983; Beaumont 1984; Glavovic 1984; Retief and Bosman 1984; Zakrewski 1984). The promotion of the concept of EIA and the development of the philosophy underpinning the principles and procedures of environmental evaluation eventually adopted in South Africa was largely due to the work of a handful of dedicated academics and professionals, many of whom served on the various committees and councils concerned with environmental management in South Africa.

Further evidence of the government’s recognition of the value of EIA as an aid to decision-making was given in the 1980 “White Paper on a National Policy Regarding Environmental Conservation.” The stated purpose of the White Paper was to “formulate a national policy on environmental conservation . . . which will, in broad outline, afford the necessary protection to the natural as well as the urban environment. . . . Furthermore . . . the environment (both natural and man-made) should become a normal consideration in the planning, development and operational phases of projects.” However, it should be noted that a white paper is a declaration of intention and is not legally binding. Its value is thus limited because it does not serve as an obligatory guideline for administrative actions affecting the environment (Rabie 1990). Following the White Paper, the State President appointed a Commission of Inquiry into environmental legislation in 1981. The Commission’s report adopted and expanded upon the policy recommendations contained in the White Paper, and a draft bill on environmental conservation was proposed.

The White Paper and draft bill formed the basis for the Environmental Conservation Act 100, promulgated in 1982. Despite its all-embracing title, this legislation was mainly concerned with the coordination of environmental matters and contained limited provisions to regulate activities and decisions harmful to the environment. It also provided for the establishment of a statutory Council for the Environment to advise the Minister of Environment Affairs. Despite its prominence in the White Paper, EIA was not mentioned explicitly in the legislation as a mechanism for achieving policy objectives. Pressure was also exerted on the South African government by the international community to

50 MERLE SOWMAN, RICHARD FIJGGLE, AND GUY PRESTON

introduce EIA as a legal mechanism for regulating activities likely to have a significant effect on the environment. At the third World Wilderness Congress held in Findhorm, Scotland in 1983, the following resolution was passed: “That the South African Council for the Environment be requested to recommend to the Minister of Environment Affairs that legislation be introduced as a matter of urgency providing for: . . , the fumishment . . . of environmental impact statements in respect of any regulations or development projects directed at or liable to have a substantial influence on the environment” (Glavovic 1984).

An indication of the government’s response to public concern regarding environmental impacts associated with development, was the State President’s request to the President’s Council, an advisory council, in June 1982, to advise on “the principles according to which priorities between development and conservation can be stated.” This resulted in the publication of two reports (PC 2/1984 and PC 5/1984) that advocated the compulsory introduction of EIA for development projects outside Guide Plan Areas.3 This committee also recommended that the Council of the Environment investigate and recommend policy to guide the implementation of EIA in South Africa. However, it would appear that these reports had little impact or influence as very few recommendations have ever been acted upon.

The establishment of the Council for the Environment in 1983 in terms of the 1982 Act, and the formation of various subcommittees, in particular the Committee for EIA, played a significant role in the development of environmental evaluation procedures in South Africa. The EIA Committee was instrumental in initiating research, workshops, and consultation on the subject of EIA for South Africa. From the outset there was a clear commitment to seek procedures and mechanisms of implementation that would suit the South African situation and not simply import procedures implemented elsewhere.

The initial research task of this committee was to gather, synthesize, and document all available information on models of EIA procedures adopted elsewhere-their strengths and weaknesses as well as various critiques on the state-of-the-art. This documented information (Schweizer 1985) provided the foundation for a National Workshop, held at Midmar, Natal in 1985, to recommend a South African policy on EIA. Here government officials, professionals, and academics explored the significance and necessity of EIA, which elements a South African model should embrace, and mechanisms of implementation. The conclusions reached at the workshop indicated almost unanimous support for the introduction of EIA as part of a comprehensive, holistic planning procedure (Council for the Environment 1986), but there was considerable divergence of opinion as to how EIA should be implemented (Rabie 1986). Based on the conclusions and recommendations of the workshop, the

3A guideplan lays down guidelines for future spatial development of a particular defined area, in that it determines that land may be utilized for a specific purpose/s only.


Council for the Environment was given the task of developing the ideas generated at the workshop through further research, consultation, and review.

Consequently, a working group, including members of the EIA Committee of the Council, was appointed to develop the philosophy on environmental assessment for South Africa and determine a systematic procedure for incorporating environmental considerations into planning, decision-making, development, and management actions and processes. What followed was a two-year period of research, consultation, and review that culminated in the publication of a document entitled Integrated Environmental Management (IEM) in South Africa (Council for the Environment 1989). The term IEM was chosen to indicate an approach that integrates environmental considerations into all stages of the planning and development process and requires post-impact assessment monitoring and management. It was felt that the term EIA was inappropriate as the EIA process was perceived to be too limited in scope, reactive, anti-development, too separate from the planning process, and often the cause of costly delays (Council for the Environment 1988). The council recommended that the government adopt the principles and procedures of IEM that would necessitate a more holistic and responsible attitude toward the environment by developers and professionals. In order to disseminate the ideas embraced in the IEM approach, popular pamphlets and posters were prepared and distributed, and several introductory workshops were held throughout the country.

Parallel to the activities of the Council for the Environment and their researchers, proposals for possible models of EIA for South Africa were forthcoming from academics (Fuggle 1983; Stauth 1983, 1989; Retief and Bosman 1984; Van de Westhuysen 1984; Sowman 1987), professionals (EPPIC 1980; Hail et al. 1980) and government departments (Departement van Waterwese 1990; Porter and Van de Vegte 1987; Van der Westhuysen and Little 1985). In particular, various procedures for evaluating the environmental impacts of development applications in the coastal zone were developed (Retief and Bosman 1984; Committee for Coastal and Marine Systems 1986; Sowman 1987). The latter proposals were in response to the increased concern regarding ad hoc planning and inadequate regulation of development activities in the coastal zone. Again, none of these proposals were ever fully developed, debated, or adopted. This is probably due to the fact that the proposals reflected the thinking of a particular individual or institute and had not been developed in consultation with theorists and practitioners as well as administrative authorities who would be responsible for their implementation.

Increasingly, it became evident that any environmental evaluation system developed for South Africa had to be flexible, generally applicable, widely accepted, and practical to implement. Once such a generic procedure was in place, more detailed procedures and guidelines for specific types of projects, policies, or plans could be developed.


The Practice of Environmental Evaluation in South Africa

During the 1980s the voluntary undertaking of EIAs as an input to decision-making increased. This was largely in response to enhanced environmental awareness among the public and their demands that environmental factors be explicitly considered in the decision-making process. Furthermore, the principle of environmental evaluations as compulsory components of all development projects received widespread support from business leaders and professional ecologists (Preston, Fuggle, and Siegfried 1989). Increasingly, decision-making authorities requested that proponents submit environmental impact assessment reports especially in the case of major controversial development applications.

Provisions in certain legislation, in particular the Natal Town Planning Ordinance 27 of 1949, the Physical Planning Act 88 of 1968, and the Cape Land Use Planning Ordinance 15 of 1985, enabled administrative authorities, at their discretion, to require additional information pertinent to the proposal to be submitted. Clearly, this could be interpreted to include the preparation of an EIA report. However, in the absence of clear procedures and guidelines for preparing such reports and in the absence of peer and public review, the quality and adequacy of these reports differed markedly (Cape Provincial Administration personal communication).

At the time of the publication of the IEM documents in 1989, professionals, business leaders, and administrative authorities were receptive to adopting a procedure that would ensure the structured inclusion of environmental considerations in decision-making. In general, IEM has been adopted either formally or informally by both businesses and authorities (Posnik et al. 1991). Many government departments, most notably the Departments of Water Affairs (De Kock 1991), Mineral and Energy Affairs, and Transport, are supportive of IEM and are currently modifying their policies and procedures to comply with the IEM approach. Furthermore, the provincial administrations, local authorities of the major urban centers, as well as agencies responsible for various aspects of environmental conservation such as Natal Parks Board (Porter and Brownlie 1990) have begun implementing the principles and procedures of IEM.

The publication of the IEM procedural document in 1989 coincided with the promulgation of the new Environmental Conservation Act 73 of 1989 that replaced Act 100 of 1982. Provisions contained in this legislation provide opportunities to give IEM the force of law. Of particular importance is the enabling clause that empowers the Minister of Environment Affairs to determine (or to amend or withdraw) a general policy with respect to the protection, sustained, utilization, maintenance, and improvement of the environment. The subjects in respect of which policy may be made are broadly phrased, allowing much scope and flexibility for the formulation of a comprehensive environmental policy (Rabie 1990). In terms of the new act, decision-making authorities would be required to comply with the stated policy.


Practical experience gained from implementing IEM suggested that certain changes were necessary to make the recommended procedures more effective and acceptable for policy formulation. In addition, extensive guidelines, in particular guidelines for scoping, report requirements, and review were required for the implementation of IEM. Consequently, the Department of Environment Affairs appointed consultants to refine the procedures in the light of practical experiences and develop a series of guidelines to assist planners, decision-makers, and the public fulfill the tasks of IEM.

The revised IEM procedure and a series of guideline documents and checklists were finally published in 1992 (Department of Environment Affairs 1992). Before describing the principles and main components of IEM, it is pertinent to consider the socioeconomic and political factors that influenced the philosophy underpinning IEM and the form of environmental evaluation eventually recommended for South Africa.

Factors Influencing the Form of Environmental Evaluation Recommended for South Africa

The Need to Promote Economic Growth and Development

As in most developing countries, the promotion of economic growth and development are essential national goals in South Africa (Fuggle 1989; Huntley et al. 1989). This is necessary in order to provide for the needs of an expanding population and to redress the inequalities of the apartheid era. The following example serves to illustrate the enormous development effort required to redress these imbalances: there are at the present time, approximately 7 million people living in informal settlements4 in South Africa (Strelitz 1991) and it is estimated that in order to meet the housing shortage by the year 2000 between 2-3 million dwelling units are needed.

Hence, an environmental evaluation process would have to take cognizance of these requirements and encourage development through the identification of environmentally acceptable alternatives to meet the stated need rather than on focusing on the negative impacts associated with the proposal (Fuggle 1989). The emphasis has to be on enhancing the positive aspects of the proposal, identifying appropriate mitigatory measures, and ensuring that the social benefits of the preferred alternative outweigh the social costs. This approach applies equally to policies, programs, plans, and projects.

In order to minimize delays in drafting policies and processing development applications, environmental considerations and public concerns must be integrated into the existing system of proposal formulation, assessment, and decision-making. Furthermore, only key issues should be investigated to avoid

4 Informal settlements are formed when disenfranchised communities settle on public or private land for the purpose of constructing temporary shelters using unconventional building materials such as zinc. plastic, and hardboard.


costly delays required to investigate and prepare lengthy reports, often containing information irrelevant to the decision-making process.

Practical Considerations

The failure of South African politicians to recognize the importance of environmental issues in the planning and decision-making process has retarded the development of environmental expertise in the country. It is estimated that at present there are less than 200 persons with higher degrees related to environmental expertise and less than 500 persons that have been exposed to short intensive training programs to equip them to undertake environmental evaluations.

In reviewing the various procedures of environmental assessment employed elsewhere, the advantages of utilizing an expert system for environmental evaluation in South Africa were recognized. However, the lack of suitably trained personnel raised several concerns regarding the appropriateness of such a sophisticated system for South Africa. This was corroborated by a telephonic survey of a representative sample of local authorities in South Africa, which revealed that the majority of smaller local authorities did not possess the computer hardware nor the skilled personnel to implement such a system. There was definitely a reluctance, again from the smaller local authorities, to utilize a computer-based system. Instead, a firm preference was expressed for an approach that employed checklists.

With changing political circumstances in South Africa and its increased international involvement, it was desirable that the procedure developed for South Africa be compatible with, but not dependent upon, systems utilized elsewhere in the world. These practical considerations also influenced the direction in which environmental evaluation developed in South Africa.

Failure of the ExpertlElitist Approach

The system of apartheid has encouraged the adoption of an expert/elitist approach toward planning and decision-making (Sowman, Gawith, and Robins 1992). Proponents of this model-professional planners and engineers, decision-makers and politicians-believe that those who are best qualified and most knowledgea- ble should be responsible for making societal decisions (Hudspeth 1986). A key criticism of this approach is that technical and financial, rather than environmental and social considerations, dominate the decision-making process.

As many projects involve complex technical issues often beyond the understanding of the public, many professionals and politicians believe that the public is not qualified to make judgments or provide meaningful contribution to the planning and decision-making process.

However, an increased awareness among the public of the environmental implications of development activities, as well as a growing insistence from


communities of the right to be consulted, suggest that this approach is no longer acceptable and workable. Clearly, a more holistic, multidisciplinary, and participatory approach is urgently required. Any proposed environmental evaluation procedure in South Africa would have to address these concerns. In particular, the public would have to be involved throughout the lifecycle of projects, including the monitoring of developments once implemented.

A Move Toward Participatory Democracy

Policy formulation and administrative decision-making in South Africa is highly centralized, secretive, and dominated by the political executive and higher reaches of the bureaucracy (Boulle 1980). The apartheid system, designed to exclude the majority of South Africans from political participation, necessitated the development of administrative, legal, and social structures that prevented people from participating in decisions affecting their lives. However, recent political developments in South Africa, in particular the activities of the mass democratic movement and more recently, President De Klerk’s historic speech in February 1990, represented a decision from the white minority government to move away from authoritarian rule to a more democratic, non-racial, and participatory system of government (Ramphele 1991).

Although a national political settlement is required before participatory mechanisms can be meaningfully constructed, Boulle (1990) has identified other changes that would be necessary prerequisites for meaningful participation in administrative decision-making. These include improved access to state- controlled information (and the courts) and to the decision-making process, the encouragement of critical debate, and the furnishing of reasons for decisions taken. The need for uniform procedures that would be familiar to the public and that would compel public authorities to satisfy at least minimum standards of participation was also identified. The environmental evaluation procedure recommended for South Africa would thus have to embrace these principles if it is to achieve widespread support.

These factors significantly influenced the principles guiding the evaluation procedure developed as well as the procedural requirements of IEM.

The Integrated Environmental Management Procedure5

Background Integrated Environmental Management is a systematic procedure for ensuring that the environmental impacts and implications of proposals (including policies, programs, plans, and development projects) are investigated and adequately

5 The description of the IEM procedure has been largely drawn from the recently published IEM document (Department of Environment Affairs 1992). The author(s) were senior members of the research learn that developed the procedure and guidelines and prepared the document.

56 MERLESOWMAN,RICHARDFUGGLE,ANDGUYPRESTON

considered in the planning and decision-making process. The purpose of IEM is to reconcile conflicting interests and concerns and improve proposals by minimizing negative impacts and enhancing positive aspects. This can be achieved by adopting the principles of IEM and adhering to the procedural framework provided. The key principles underpinning the IEM procedure are:

a broad understanding of the term, environment (i.e., one that includes physical, biological, social, economic, cultural, historical, and political components); informed decision-making; accountability for decision taken; an open, participatory approach in the planning of proposals; consultation with interested and affected parties; due consideration of alternative options; mitigation of negative impacts and enhancement of positive aspects of proposals; ensuring that the “social costs” of development proposals (those borne by society, rather than the developers) be outweighed by the “social benefits” (benefits to society as a result of the actions of the developers); democratic regard for individual rights and obligations; compliance with these principles during all stages of the planning, implementation, and decommissioning of proposals (i.e., from “cradle to grave”), and the opportunity for public and specialist input in the decision-making process.

IEM applies to all public and private sector proposals that are subject to the approval of any government authority.

A flow diagram showing the various stages and decision points in the IEM procedure is shown in Figure 1. Various guidelines and checklists have been developed to fulfill the tasks of IEM and are referred to throughout the description that follows.

The IEM procedure recognizes three stages in the development of any proposal: stage 1 is concerned with the development and assessment of proposals, stage 2 with decision-making, and stage 3 with the implementation of proposals. However, rigid adherence the various stages is not required as long as the principles are embraced and the appropriate level of investigation and assessment is undertaken.

Stages of IEM

Stage I: Develop and Assess Proposal

DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSAL. In order to encourage proponents to give early consideration to environmental issues in the planning and development of proposals, the following tasks are recommended:


Stage 1: Plan and Assess

bposal

Slgnlflcant Impact r--

m and no swxflcant Impact Meets planning requwments I List of actlvltles / List of enwronments

+ uncertainty

I Initial Ax3ment I 4 I

No formal assessment

Stage 3: Implementation

1;:; w

Figure 1. The integrated environmental management procedure.

. notify and consult with authorities and members of the public likely to be interested in, or affected by, the proposal;

. identify proposal alternatives, as well as environmental issues and community concerns associated with these alternatives;

. establish the policy, legal, and administrative requirements applicable to the proposal, and

. consider possible mitigatory measures.


By undertaking these tasks at the initial stages of project planning, a more integrated and interactive approach to the planning and assessment of proposals will result, thereby expediting the process and facilitating informed decision- making.

CLASSIFICATION OF PROPOSAL. At the classification of proposal stage (referred to as screening in some countries), the proponent determines whether the proposal follows the no formal assessment, initial assessment, and impact assessment route.

1. NO FORMAL ASSESSMENT If the proposal meets planning requirements and the indications are that the proposal will not result in significant impacts then the proposal is submitted for review. The proponent and authority (who may invite specialist or public review) must refer to the summary list of environmental characteristics (see Table 1) before concluding that the proposal will require no formal assessment. Should the authority feel that additional information required in order to make an informed decision, he/she may request an initial assessment be undertaken.

2. INITIAL ASSESSMENT If the proposal is included in the list of activities6 or is located in the list of environments,’ (see Tables 2 and 3) and no significant impacts have been identified during the initial proposal generation stage, then an initial assessment must be undertaken. An initial assessment is also required in cases where uncertainty exists.

The initial assessment will typically be a brief investigation and involves obtaining just enough information to determine whether or not there will be significant impacts. Whether significant impacts are identified or not, an initial assessment report must be prepared. If the initial investigation concludes that significant impacts will result, then an impact assessment must be undertaken, and the report will provide useful Input to the impact assessment.

If there is a “finding of no significant impact” then responses to the questions contained in the summary list of environmental characteristics (see Table 1) should form the basis of the report and should be submitted with any other relevant information (e.g., specialists’ reports) that led to the finding of no significant impact.

It may also be possible during the initial assessment process to identify appropriate mitigatory measures that could reduce the potential impacts to acceptable levels, thus avoiding the need to undertake a full impact assessment. Adoption of these mitigatory measures may form part of the conditions of approval (see Figure 1) and may be required as part of a management plan.

6The list of activities includes those activities that are likely to result in significant impacts (see Table 2). ‘The list of environments indicates areas known to be sensitive and easily disturbed or degraded by development

activities (see Table 3).

ENVlRONMENTALEVALUATIONPROCEDURESINSOUTHAFRICA 59

Table 1. Summary List of Environmental Characteristics

Could the proposed development have a significant impact on, or be constrained by, any of the following?

. Physical characteristics of the site and its surroundings

. Ecological characteristics of the site and its surroundings

. Current and potential land use and landscape character ?? Cultural resources . Socioeconomic characteristics of the affected public . Infrastructure services . Social and community services and facilities . Levels of present and future environmental pollution . Risk and hazard . Health and safety ?? Cumulative and synergistic effects

Could the proposed development be. modified to significantly enhance the positive aspects of the previous points?

Finally, in the light of the foregoing questions, a judgment should be made as to how well the proposed development meets the following criteria:

. Will the proposed development be efficient when all social costs are taken into account?

. Will the proposed development bc fair in the way different groups and individuals are affected?

. Will the proposed development be sustainable and in the interests of future generations?

The authority may involve specialists and/or the public in the review process. Should the authority, or other reviewers, feel that further information is required, the proposal could be sent back for further investigation.

3. IMPACT ASSESSMENT If it has become clear during the develop proposal stage that there will be significant impacts, or if the initial assessment indicates that the proposal will result in significant impacts, then an impact assessment must be undertaken. This is likely to be the case for proposals that are included in the list of activities (see Table 2) or occur in the list of environments (see Table 3).

SCOPING. Scoping is the most did Stage in the impact assessment process as it determines the extent of and approach to the investigation. The purpose of scoping is to focus the impact assessment so that only the significant issues and reasonable alternatives are examined. Fundamental to scoping is the involvement of relevant authorities and interested and affected parties. The scoping exercise also determines the procedures to be followed and the particular requirements (for example, opportunities for public involvement) for the impact assessment. An opportunity to object to the scoping procedure followed is also provided.

UNDERTAKING THE INVESTIGATION. The investigation is guided by the scoping process and should provide the authorities with adequate and accurate information on the positive and negative impacts of a proposal and feasible alternatives, in a form that facilitates decision-making.


Table 2. List of Activities”

Policy and planning proposals: 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7.

~Structure plansZ(or; in the absence thereof, town planning schemes and zoning schemes). Rezoning applications. Subdivisions. Land acquisition for national parks, nature reserves, marine reserves, protected natural environments, or wilderness areas. Establishment of townships. Declaration of limited development areas. Any government policy on the use of natural resources.

Project proposals: 8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13.

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39.

Nuclear installations. The formal disposal of waste. The transportation of hazardous substances and radioactive waste. Mining, mineral extraction, and mineral beneticiation. Power generation facilities with an output of 1 megawatt or more. Electrical substations and transmission lines having equipment with an operating voltage in excess of 30,000 volts rms phase-to-phase. Storage facilities for chemical products. Industrial installation for the bulk storage of fuels. Bulk distribution facilities. Scheduled Processes under Schedule 2 of the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act (4511963). Industries requiring a permit under section 12 of the Water Act (541956). Manufacture of explosives. Control Measures under section 6 of the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act (43/1983). Battery and feedlot farming installations. Propagation of invasive alien plant and animal species. Afforestation projects. Genetic modification of organisms and release of such organisms. Major roads. Railways. Commercial aerodmmes. Port, harbors, and marinas. Major pipelines. Cableways and cableway stations. Television and radio transmission masts. Permanent racing and test tracks for cars and motor cycles. Major canals, aqueducts, river diversions, and water transfers. Permanent flood-control schemes. Major dams, reservoirs, levees, and weirs. Buildings with a total floor space of 500 square meters or more. Public transport mode transfer facilities. Establishment of armaments testing areas. Reclamation of land from the sea.

“Taken from Department of Environment Affairs (1992) list of activities.

PRODUCTION OF REPORT. The findings of the investigation must be documented in a report. Fundamental requirements of these reports are: integrated and accurate information, comprehensiveness, concise writing, and accessibility to non-


Table 3. Extract from the List of Environment9

Designated areas or features: 1. Limited development areas. 2. Protected natural environments. 3. National, provincial and municipal nature reserves. 4. Private nature reserves. 5. Mountain catchment areas. 6. Wilderness areas. 7. National monuments. 8. Shipwrecks. 9. Archaeological and palaeontological sites.

10. Graves and burial sites.

Demarcated areas or features: 20. Estuaries and lagoons. 21. Streams and river channels and their banks. 22. Floodplains. 23. Wetlands. 24. Lakes. 25. Dunes. 26. Beaches. 21. Reefs. 28. Indigenous forests. 29. High-potential agricultural land. 30. Caves.

“Taken from Department of Environment Affairs (1992) list of environments.

specialists. To assist with the preparation and review of reports, guidelines for report requirements have beeri prepared. These provide guidance on the format of reports and the aspects that should be covered in both the impact assessment and initial assessment reports.

Stage 2: Decision

If the responsible authority is satisfied that sufficient information has been provided to make a decision, that adequate consultation has taken place, and that the proposal complies with planning requirements, then a decision is taken. This decision could be to: approve the proposal (with or without imposing conditions), request that further information be obtained, or refuse approval. The preparation of an environmental management plan incorporating any conditions of approval may be required when granting a decision.

Guidelines to assist in the review process have been prepared. These offer guidance on assessing the adequacy and completeness of reports and provide guidelines for determining significance. A guideline document providing a checklist of environmental characteristics has also been prepared to assist reviewers in identifying the environmental factors that may potentially be affected by


development activities or that may place significant constraints on a proposed development. This list, although comprehensive, is not exhaustive and the reviewer may require the assistance of experts to assist in the review process. An opportunity exists for the review of the impact assessment by the public and/or specialists, if requested by interested and affected parties during the scoping exercise.

Where the proponent is the decision-making authority, compulsory specialist review is strongly recommended. The decision is taken, and the reasoning behind it, must be officially recorded in a record of decision document. This document should be made available to any interested party on request.

IEM makes provision for the proponent or an affected party to appeal to a higher authority against decisions taken. Should this appeal prove unsuccessful, legal provision must allow for appeal to a court of law.

Stage 3: Implementation

Once approval is granted, the proposal may be implemented. In certain instances, the conditions of approval may require that a management and/or an environmental contract be drawn up. A monitoring program should be implemented to ensure that the proponent adheres to the conditions of approval and complies with provisions in the management plan and/or environmental contract.

Periodic audits of the positive and negative aspects of implemented proposals should be undertaken. This will provide constructive feedback on the adequacy and effectiveness of IEM as an approach that seeks to achieve environmentally appropriate planning and informed decision-making.

Conclusions

This article has reviewed the evolution of the environmental evaluation procedures in South africa. It has provided an historical perspective on the events that contributed to the development of IEM as well as some insights into the socioeconomic and political factors that influenced the form of evaluation procedure eventually recommended for South Africa. The IEM procedure is a general approach to environmental assessment, planning and decision-making and applies to a wide variety of activities including policies, programs, plans, and projects. Therefore, government departments and organizations responsible for undertaking or authorizing specific activities (e.g., dams, subdivisions) should be required to develop and refine the IEM procedures and prepare guidelines appropriate to the planning, assessment, and development of such activities.

For the successful implementation of IEM, it will be necessary to require mandatory adherence to the principles and procedures of IEM for all proposals likely to impinge on the environment. This could be immediately achieved through the declaration of an environmental policy in terms of Act 73 of 1989. In addition, the list of activities identified in the guidelines as those requiring, at


least, an initial impact assessment, should be identified by the minister in terms of the act (section 21). Authorization of these activities would only be issued after an impact assessment report had been prepared and reviewed. Furthermore, the Environment Conservation Act should be amended to allow the minister to declare areas or features as listed environments (see Table 3). By instituting these proposals, professionals and authorities would be required by law to integrate environmental and public concerns into proposal formulation, assessment, and decision-making.

Whereas certain planners in South Africa have expressed concern that the implementation of IEM may result in the duplication of existing planning procedures and practices, our review has shown that environmental considerations have not been an integral part of the planning and decision-making process. Where EIAs have been prepared, the trend has been for them to be undertaken as a separate activity, independent of the planning process. IEM does not intend to take over or duplicate the role of planning, but seeks to be a complimentary and integral part of the planning, design, and decision-making process.

It has been stated that the success of any EIA process depends to a large extent upon the political context and the adequacy of existing institutional structures for planning and development control (Sorenson and West 1990). Thus, raising the level of awareness of political leaders regarding the need to incorporate environmental concerns in decision-making is a major challenge. Furthermore, the development of adequate administrative structures and the expansion and development of personnel to implement IEM are required. Given the broad similarity between the overall goals of environmental evaluation and planning, it is the authors’ view that the administrative focus of IEM should be placed in an independent environmental planning agency. This agency would,‘among other tasks, be responsible for ensuring the integration of environmental issues in the planning process, providing guidance on undertaking impact assessments, and coordinating the review process. To ensure its effectiveness, this agency would require adequate resources, trained personnel, and political credibility. In addition, it would have to have the legal and political strength to enforce compliance by other government departments. Until such time as environmental assessment and planning procedures are amalgamated, it is essential that close liaison be encouraged between departments and professionals involved in environmental planning.

Although the refined IEM proposals were only published in June 1992, the general philosophy underpinning IEM and the guiding principles and procedures have been adopted by many South African professionals, authorities, and political groups. The inclusion of the IEM proposals in the environmental policy of the African National Congress, as well as in policy statements of various government departments and NGOs is indicative of widespread support of the approach. This can be attributed to the extensive consultation program followed in the latter years of developing and refining the IEM procedure.


The authors thank the Department of Environment Affairs for financial assistance provided to research this article. We acknowledge the contributions of the Council for the Environment, Department of Environment Affairs, Dr. R. Stauth, Ms. S. Grindley, Ms. N. Robins, Mr. R. Short, and other members of the Environmental Evaluation Unit of the University of Cape Town in the development of integrated environmental management. A special thanks to Ms. H. Kent and Ms. L. Greeff for their meticulous typing and editing.

References

African National Congress. 1992. Policy guidelines for a democratic South Africa. As adopted at the National Conference, May 28-3 1, 1992.

Beaumont, D. 1984. Environmental impact studies-What are they? Paper presented at the conference: Engineering Planning in the Coastal Zone, Strand, July 16-20, 1984. Organized by the Ocean Engineering Research Group, University of Stellenbosch.

Blight, G.E. 1980. Shaping our environment. The Civil Engineer in South Africa 22: 135-136.

Boden, R. 1980. An introduction to environmental impact assessment. South African Journal of Science 761252-254.

Boulle, L.T. 1990. Limiting state power: opportunities for greater public participation in policy decisions. In Critical Choices for South Africa: An Agenda for the 199Os, R.A. Schrire (ed). Cape Town: Oxford University Press.

Brown, A.L. 1990. Environmental impact assessment in a development context. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 37: 135-143.

Cock, J., and Koch, E. 1991. Going Green: People, Politics and the Environment in South Africa. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.

Cock, J. 199 1. The politics of ecology. In Restoring the Land: Environment and Change in Post-Apartheid South Ajkica, M. Ramphele (ed). London: The Panos Institute.

Committee for Coastal and Marine Systems. 1986. ‘n Prosedure vir die hantering van aansoeke vir ontwikkeling/grondgebruik-verandering in die kussone. Draft Report. Council for the Environment, South Africa.

Council for the Environment. 1976. Bepaling en evaluering van invloed van Ontwikkeling- sprojekte op die Omgewing. Internal Report. Pretoria.

Council for the Environment. 1986. Towards a national policy for environmental impact assessment in South Africa. Midmar Workshop Proceedings, September 1985. EEU Report, 118615. Environmental Evaluation Unit, University of Cape Town.

Council for the Environment. 1988. Integrated environmental management in South Africa. Pretoria: Joan Liitter.

Council for the Environment. 1989. Integrated environmental management in South Africa. Pretoria: Joan Liitter.

Council for the Habitat. 1977. Summary of the resolutions at the 1977 Annual General Meeting. II/ 1 l/77. Arcadia.


Cowen, D.V. 1980. Are fears of a compulsory environmental impact assessment procedure in South Africa justified? Planning and Building Development July/August:73-83.

De Kock, F.J. 1991. Integrated environmental management (IEM): during the implementation stage of water project development. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. Pretoria: South Africa.

Department of Environment Affairs. 1992. The Integrated Environmental Management Procedure. Documents l-6. Pretoria: DEA.

Departement van Waterwese. 1990. Handleiding in die proses van Integreerde Omgewingsbestuur soos toegepas deur die Departement van Waterwese. Konsep Dokument. Pretoria.

Duming, A.B. 1990. Apartheid’s other injustices. World Watch May/June: 1 l-17.

Environmental Planning Professions Inter-Disciplinary Committee (EPPIC). 1980. Environmental impact control: A guide for the planning professions. Johannesburg.

Fuggle, R.F. 1979. Methods for preliminary analysis of environmental impact in South Africa. School of Environmental Studies, University of Cape Town, South Africa.

Fuggle, R.F. 1980. Regulating environmental change in South Africa. The Civil Engineer in South Africa 22:77-83.

Fuggle, R.F. 1983. Methods suitable for use in South Africa. In Environmental Concerns in South Africa, R.F. Fuggle and M.A. Rabie (eds). Cape Town: Juta.

Fuggle, R.F. 1989. Integrated environmental management: an appropriate approach to environmental concerns in developing countries. Impact Assessment Bulletin 8:3 l-46.

Fuggle, R.F., and Rabie, M.A. 1983. Environmental Concerns in South Africa: Technical and Legal Perspectives. Cape Town: Juta.

Fuggle, R.F., and Rabie M.A. 1992. Environmental Management in South Africa. Cape Town: Juta.

Glavovic, P.D. 1984. The need for legislative adoption of a conservation ethic. Comparative International Law Journal of Southern Africa 17:144-152.

Hall, E.J., Cowen, D.V., Watson, J., Fulton, J., and Clarke, J. 1980. Environmental protection: a practical procedure. The Civil Engineer in South Africa 22: 129-134.

Hey, D. 1977. The history and status of nature conservation in South Africa. In A History of ScientiJic Endeavour in South Africa, A.C. Brown (ed). Centennial volume. Royal Society of South Africa.

Horberry, J. 1984. Status and application of environmental impact assessment for development. Paper prepared for the Bundesministerium fur Wirschafliche Zusamme- narbeit. Federal Republic of Germany. Conservation for Development Center, IUCN. Gland Switzerland.

Hudspeth, T.R. 1986. Citizen participation in environmental and natural resources planning, decision-making, and policy formulation. In Current Issues In Environmental Education and Environmental Studies Volume III. ERIC, Ohio State University and Educational Resources Information Center of the National Institute of Education.

Huntley, B., Siegfried, R., and Sunter, C. 1989. South African Environments into the 21st Century. Cape Town: Human & Rosseau and Tafelberg.


Khan, F. 1990. Contemporary South African environmental response: an historical and socio-political evaluation, with particular reference to blacks. Master’s Thesis, Department of Environmental and Geographical Science, University of Cape Town, South Africa.

Kennedy, W.V. 1988. Environmental impact assessment and bilateral development aid: an overview. In Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice, P. Wathem (ed). London: Unwin Hyman Publishers.

Owen-Smith, G. 1987. Wildlife conservation in Africa: There is another way! Quagga 17:18-23.

Patricios, N.N., and Fuggle, R.F. 1975. Environmental impact assessment: a proposed method for South Africa. Department of Town and Regional Planning, University of Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.

Porter, R.N., and Brownlie, S.F. 1990. Integrated environmental management: a planning strategy for nature conservation developments. South Aj?ican Journal of Wildlife Research 20(2): 8 l-86.

Porter, R.N., and Van der Vegte, J.H. 1987. Guidelines for environmental evaluation of proposed developments. Draft Document. Environmental Advisory Committee, Natal Provincial Administration, Pitermaritzburg.

Posnik, S., Muller, M.J., and Landby, P. 1991. Practical and policy issues relating to the procedure of integrated environmental management. Paper presented at the Southern Africa International Conference on Environmental Management, Somerset West, South Africa, October 199 1.

President’s Council. 20984. Report of the Planning Committee of the President’s Council on Nature Conservation in South Africa. Cape Town: Government Printer.

President’s Council. Yl984. Report of the Planning Committee of the President’s Council on Priorities between Conservation and Development. Cape Town: Govemmeht printer.

Preston, G.R., Fuggle, R.F., and Siegfried, W.R. 1989. Attitudes of business leaders and professional ecologists to environmental evaluations in South Africa. South African Journal of Science 85:430-434.

Rabie, A. 1976. Disclosure and evaluation of potential environmental impact of proposed governmental administrative action. Tydskrifvir Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg 39:40-65.

Rabie, A. 1986. Strategies for the implementation of environmental impact assessment in South Africa. SA Public Law 1( l/2): 18-33.

Rabie, A. 1990. A new deal for environmental conservation: aspects of the Environment Conservation Act 73 of 1989. Tydskrif vir Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg 53(1):2-27.

Ramphele, M. (ed). 199 1. Restoring the Land: Environment and Change in Post-Apartheid South Africa. London: The Panos Institute.

Retief, G. De F., and Bosman, D.E. 1984. Engineering in the coastal zone. Paper presented at a conference entitled Engineering Planning in the Coastal Zone, Strand, July 16-20, 1984. Organized by Ocean Engineering Research Group, University of Stellenbosch.


Schweizer, C.D. 1985. Working document for the development of a national policy on environmental impact assessment in South Africa. Cape Town: Council for the Environment.

Sorensen, J., and West, N. 1990. Impact assessment and coastal management. Working Draft 6/6/90. International Coastal Resources Management Project, Coastal Resources Center, The University of Rhode Island.

Sowman, M.R. 1987. Manual for environmental evaluation of township and resort development proposals in the Cape Coastal Zone. Research Report 7/87/20. Environmental Evaluation Unit, University of Cape Town, South Africa.

Sowman, M., Gawith, M., and Robins, N. 1992. The involvement of disadvantaged communities in environmental planning and decision-making in South Africa. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Meeting of the IAIA, Washington, D.C., August 1992.

Stauth, R.B. 1983. Environmental evaluation manual: a methodology for conducting an evaluation of resource allocation plans affecting South African Estuaries. School of Environmental Studies, University of Cape Town.

Stauth, R.B. 1989. An environmental evaluation methodology for improving resource allocation decisions: a treatise with selected South African studies. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Environmental and Geographical Science, University of Cape Town, South Africa.

Strelitz, J. 1991. Policy-makers should support informal settlers struggle. Housing in Southern Africa. January:27-28.

Van der Westhuysen, O.A. 1984. Procedures for evaluating environmental impacts. Memorandum prepared for the Working Committee for the Coastal Zone, Council for the Environment.

Van der Westhuysen, O.A., and Little, A.M. 1985. Comment on “Proposed Procedures for Environmental Impact Assessment in the South African Coastal Zone.” Memorandum prepared for the Working Committee for the Coastal Zone, Council for the Environment.

Wathem, P. 1988. Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice. London: Unwin Hyman.

West, M.E. 1959. The San and Khoi People. In Perspectives on the Southern African Past, Centre for African Studies, University of Cape Town Occasional Papers No 2/1979.

Zakrewski, M.S. 1984. The case for mandatory EIAs. S.A.Construction World April:93-95.