Efficacy of SA’s Environmental

Impact Assessment (EIA)

Regime

Portfolio Committee Parliamentary Hearing

30 July 2013

1

Background • EIAs became a statutory requirement in September 1997

through Regulations 1182 and 1183 (sec 21 of Environment Conservation Act 73 of 1989 (ECA)) – Regulation 1182 identifies activities that would henceforth

require "environmental assessments“

– Regulation 1183 codified the conduct and the contents of environmental assessments.

• EIA requirement was reflected in Chapter 5 in The National Environmental Management Act 107, 1998 (NEMA) and repealed from the ECA

• In 2006 the Department initiated a study to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the EIA tool

• Findings presented at the "10 years of EIA" Conference in Somerset West in November 2008

• The report concluded that the effectiveness of EIAs was marginal and made several recommendations as follows:

2

Issues raised in the report Issues raised in the 2008 Efficiency and Effectiveness Report • No “one size fits all” approach – e.g. housing vs nuclear power station

• EIA does not address social issues

• Not all aspects considered e.g. nuclear plant input – mining of uranium

• EIA more about procedure and administration not about sustainability

• Process flawed as EAPs are paid by applicant

• EAPs should be appointed & paid by Govt – fund to which applicants contribute

• Site specific assessment cannot address cumulative impacts – Need to use other tools – standards, EMFs, SEAs, risk assessment etc.

• Time Delays in decision making and added cost

• Capacity to review assessment documents

• Many small activities assessed – not the whole development strategic

• Public participation is not meaningful

• Excessive public participation – I&APs have all the power

• Affordability – Need to support applicants without means to comply with the EIA requirement

3

Issues raised report • Urgent requirements – e.g. industry limited due to need for storage

• Does not consider positive aspects – e.g. activity reduce climate change

• List of activities includes maintenance aspects & assessed as green

fields projects e.g. road maintenance – major cost for no reward

• Trivial reasons for appeals

• Listed activities do not consider projects within the sea

• Need to delist based on approved EMFs

• Minimal cooperation & regulatory alignment between departments

• EAPs lack technical expertise – industry use own staff & peer review

• Alternatives proposed are not realistic

• Alternatives need not be considered as applicant knows what they want

• Process just considers mitigation – “no development “ is not an option

• The advertising process should get into the digital space

• Review of projects not consistent

4

Issues raised report • Relevance of conditions & contradict other permits – beyond

mandate

• Interpretation of listed activities not consistent

• Reviewing Department not fully engaged early– late requests for additional information

• Lack of compliance monitoring

• Abuse of section 24G – development proceeds without authorisation and pay the fine

• Need a system to track authorisations & know who is dealing it

• Should be able to collect the information made available in specialist reports to create new data

• Reduce timeframes for State Departments to comment – if comments not received on time - proceed

• Need good GIS data

• Applicants should be able to access GIS data on line

• Need integrated permitting between & within Departments

5

Recommendations from the report • Requirement to ensure sustainable development

– stronger emphasis on indirect & cumulative impacts

– within strategic context – through strategic instruments e.g EMF’s, SEA’s, policies, etc.

• Strategic approach – Categorise activities ito strategic importance eg, infrastructure

needs

– through identification of geographical areas ito NEMA sec 24(2)(a) & (b)

– specific approaches for specific circumstances (e.g. tailor- made Basic Assessment pro-forma reports where activity does not require unnecessary information or assessment)

• Package of instruments – The effectiveness and efficiency can improve if they are

assessed within a context.

– The use of wide range of instruments (eg SEA) to create the required context should be explored

6

• A better screening mechanism – to provide an early “check” of sites for sensitive elements as screening by

specialists before assessments are done

• A holistic approach – Despite responsibilities allocated to the different spheres of government –

– need a holistic approach to EIM (strategic & policy & project levels) in a manner that is sensible to the strategic needs of South Africa

• Enhance the role of SEA in the development of SDFs – With better SEAs or EMFs underpinning SDFs these spatial planning

instruments can avoid unnecessary impacts at especially local level

• Compliance monitoring and enforcement – Area where current EIA is not effective or efficient.

• Delegation of decision-making – Where there are EMFs or other guidelines in place - delegation of the

authorisation of smaller activities to middle management is possible

• Human resource development – create a sustainable flow of environmental managers in a way that creates

capacity at all levels and also ensure career paths for employees

Recommendations from the report

7

2008 Conference – 10 years of EIA

• 2008 Conference resolution –

recommendations of the report would be

considered by stakeholders through a

formal process –

• Process would recommend a strategy for

IEM to government for consideration

8

Current activities being

undertaken to deal with concerns

raised

Environmental Implementation Assessment and Management

Strategy

9

Environmental Impact Assessment

and Management Strategy

• Following on from the “10 years of EIA” conference the Environmental Impact Assessment and Management Strategy has been initiated

• Process has been stakeholder driven

• Strategy also considering issues not identified in the Effectiveness and Efficiency report – e.g. independence

• Has taken 3 years to produce the findings which are expected in March 2014

10

• The EIAMS is a participatory process to compile a strategy

– provides overall context for IEM in SA within the context

of sustainable development

• The strategy will identify the desired future state for the

EIAM system and plan to achieve it.

• Desired state includes

– IEM supported by environmentally informed spatial

instruments, sector strategies and policies

– Optimizing of the regulatory system through the

introduction of a number of assessment tools - EIA being

used where it is the appropriate tool

– Integration of government processes e.g.

IDP/SDF/EMF/SEA/Zoning plans

– Capacitated sector

Purpose of the EIAMS

11

Proposed main elements for the EIAMS • All IEM processes are guided by a sustainability vision and intent

• Effective integration between spheres & govt depts – could include • Integrated permitting and authorizations

• Strategic development plans and frameworks are aligned in content timing and scale (EMF/SEA to inform SDFs)

• Mandate to Local authority - to implement national standards

• Technical tools effectively contribute to enacting of NEMA principles • Hierarchy of Environmental plans

• Tools for all management phases – increased focus on checking & acting phases

• Ability to choose the most appropriate tool

• Spatial tools to identify activities to be excluded from Environmental Authorization

• Up-to-date and readily available environmental information

• Sustainability targets identified and reported on

• Quality assurance through peer review 12

Proposed main elements for the EIAMS

• Adaptive management is informed by monitoring and evaluation of systems and processes

• Establish a professional and transformed environmental sector

• Environmental information and management system that are up to date, available and accessible to role-players

• All role-players are capacitated in terms of environmental awareness and environmental management instruments

• Understanding role of public participation and an appropriate Public participation process

13

Interim – Actions taken While the EIAMS strategy is unfolding - need for certain actions to be taken

• Restructuring of EIA function within DEA undertaken – separate EIA review from NEMA authorisation system

• Development of NEAS & public portal – tracks the progress of EIAs

• Improving statistics of assessment undertaken within timeframe

• Capacitation of provinces – implementation OSD, hardware/software provided, administration staff provided to capture data on the NEAS system

• GIS intranet and internet – spatial data to Case Officers and Applicants

• Screening tool developed to do pre-screening of issues to assist Case Officers

• Standards – Dangerous goods standards being developed, providing support to Provincial Standards – Ostrich farming, trout and abalone aquaculture

• EIA timeframe amendments & integration of permits – timeframes for submission of documents by applicant being legislated

• Integration of waste and EIA authorisations

• Drafting regulations to adopt spatial tools

• SEAs being developed to support Strategic Integrated Projects (SIPs)

14

Restructuring of Environmental

Impact Management function • The Department restructured to ensure efficiency.

The EIM Chief Directorate was split into two – Integrated Environmental Management and Integrated Environmental Assessment

• IEMS considers systems, tools and an enabling legislative system to support IEM, provides support to the 10 Competent Authorities including DEA

• IEA concentrates on improving the efficiency and review timeframes for EIAs

15

EIA review performance and

access to statistics

• National Environmental Assessment

System & Public Portal

• The system has been developed and work

is underway with the various Competent

Authorities to report accurately – to be

achieved within the 2013-3014 financial

year

16

EIAs received and reviewed / Competent

Authority from 2006

Competent

Authority

Total No. of

applications

received

No. of

applications

finalised

No. of

applications

pending

No. of

applications

pending in

time frames

Authorities) to

respond)

No. of

applications

pending out of

time frames

(Authorities) to

respond)

No. of

applications

pending within

time frames

(Awaiting

information

from the

EAP/Applicant)

No. of

applications

pending out of

time frames

(Awaiting

information

from the

EAP/Applicant)

DEA 2552 1912 640 95 14 451 80

EC 2165 1959 206 30 7 153 16

FS 637 545 92 9 0 81 2

GP 4528 4522 6 3 2 1 0

KZN 3229 2770 459 134 2 204 119

LP 2539 2321 218 40 8 127 43

MP 1958 1733 225 46 4 157 18

NC* 238 132 106 10 0 96 0

NW 1973 1845 128 16 0 101 11

WC 4017 3553 464 102 10 332 20

TOTALS 23836 21292 2544 485 47 1703 309

17

Comparison of Manual & NEAS Stats on Applications Dealt with in terms of the EIA Regs of 2010 until June 2013

Manual Stats 2010 NEAS 2010

Competent Authority Received Pending Finalised Received Pending Finalised

DEA* 1586 916 670

Eastern Cape 550 206 344 653 271 382

Free State* 280 96 184

Gauteng* 972 812 160

Kwa-Zulu Natal* 1090 1107 689 418

Limpopo* 453 211 242

Mpumalanga* 631 345 286

North West 354 140 214 344 148 196

Northern Cape 238 106 132 228 172 56

Western Cape 1276 448 828 1273 462 811

* Manual breakdown figures not provided

18

DEA applications received per quarter since April 2012 – 499/17 = 30a/a

19

DEA applications pending outside time frame per quarter since April 2012

20

EIA integrated with the WUL and

Mining right

EIA alignment, revised timeframes

and documentation

21

DMR decides upon Mining right within 50 days (10 days MLA, 10 days RM, 10 days RLC, 20 days

National Licensing ). If MR is not approved EA and WUL also not approved. If approved DWA

notified to approve as recommended). DWA sits on RLC. EA Decision made together with granting

/ Refusal of right.

Final reports received

30

0 D

AY

S

22

Proposed Process: Amendments to Regulations: BAR Process

Draft Basic Assessment

7 days : Acknowledge 40 days public participation

40

da

ys

AB

SOLU

TE M

INIM

UM

97

DA

YS

(No

n-

sub

stan

tive

)

Application

GAP

Final BAR, including Final EMPr

AB

SOLU

TE M

INIM

UM

14

7 D

AY

S (S

ub

stan

tive

)

Pre-application (Optional)

No substantive changes to Draft

Substantive changes to Draft

7 days Acknowledge Additional 50 days for PP if substantially Different from Draft 30 days Accept or Reject 20 days for decision

57

da

ys

DECISION

1

07

da

ys

Review Committee

Application for Prospecting Right

????? Mining Sustainability

Programme

Draft EMPr

23

GIS data supporting spatial applications – SEAs/EMFs

•GIS data for screening of applications on the DEA intranet,

•will become available on DEA internet within the next two months –

•applicants can determine sensitivity of a site by locating the development site and then identifying sensitivity related to different layers which can be switched on or off

24

GIS

SCREENING

TOOL

• APPLICANT

• COMPETENT

AUTHORITY

• ENVIRONMENTAL

PRACTITIONER

SPECIALIST REPORTS

Specialist reports

Spatial data

25

• Screening tool – Example of selected farm, buffer, threatened ecosystems …

GIS & Screening (cont.)

26

Set the context for EIAs through EMFs and SEAs using the

Infrastructural Development Plan as a case study

SEA process will facilitate coordination between departments, assess the cumulative effects of

developments, will consider the ecological infrastructure, reduce the numbers and

complexity of authorisations

27

Background • Government has identified that

after 18 years of democracy, poverty, unemployment and inequality is still a challenge

• The New Growth Path – sets a goal of 5 million new jobs by

2020

– Identified that poor coordination and weak integration limits the development impact of infrastructure

– identified structural problems in the economy to be overcome

– Identified opportunities in specific sectors and markets or “jobs drivers”

– the first jobs driver is infrastructure development 28

Overview of needs analysis

SIPs were selected to address the spatial imbalances of the past by addressing the needs of the poorer provinces and enabling socio-economic development.

Needs analysis done –

Indicated possible bulk

infrastructure requirements

• Electricity

• Water

• Transport

• Town planning

• Ports etc.

29

Waterberg Development Steelpoort

Development

Export Logistics

Mpumalanga Bottleneck Reduction

Moloto Corridor

Road

Electricity Generation

Transmission

Distribution

Coal to liquid

Water

Rail

Mining

Rail

Road

Water

Road

Rail

Road

Water

Rail

Regional clustering of projects linked with major corridor projects

• SIP 1: Unlocking the northern

mineral belt

Shifting from rail to road in Mpumulanga

30

Scale of projects – PV facility Brandenburg Germany

31

Authorisations response to SIPs

• Grouping of SIPS – Corridor developments –

pipelines, transmission lines – Large development projects –

ports, IDZ’s – Nodal projects and recurring

components – transport nodes – Coal based projects with

climate change and air emissions impacts – coal based industries

– Mining related projects – new mines

– Projects not requiring authorisation

• Proposed an authorisation approach using new IEM tools for each grouping

Group SIPs into similar authorisation components

32

Proposed authorisation approach

• SIP 8 – example of approach Adopting a strategic and innovative approach offered by SEA

– Identify geographical areas most suitable for the rollout of renewable energy projects

• Methodology – positive and negative mapping

– Positively map wind and solar radiation resources

– Negatively map environmental sensitivity

– Scenario analysis – trade offs – Identify site specific issues for

consideration

• Aim – Cabinet approval of corridors/zones

– all Departments buy into process – Exclude energy activities (including

the grid expansion) in the corridors/zones identified – subject to conformance to site specific protocol and EMP

– Allow opportunity to explore cooperation between authorising Departments to identify streamlined approaches

33

SEA to identify preferred development areas for specific activities – wind projects

34

Way forward

• Use SIPs process as a case study to inform the streamlining of authorisations

• Feed into learning's into the EIAMS

• Undertake the law reform process required to provide the legal provisions for the streamlined process where they do not exist

• Address all the issues raised relating to the efficiency and effectiveness of the current EIA process by ammending current legislation and developing and implementing new tools

35