The purpose of an environmental impact assessment (EIA) is to establish the possible effects of a development, both positive and negative, and its impact on the environment so that an informed decision can be taken as to whether the development, taking all aspects into account, should be approved or not. Usually, approval is granted, subject to conditions intended to mitigate the negative impacts.
One of the most important principles of environmental law and policy is the precautionary principle. This principle requires that, if we are not sure of the possible negative or detrimental impacts from a proposed development, we should err on the side of caution. In other words, the development should rather not be approved if we the decision makers are not sure of the impact it may have on the environment.
Personally, as an environmentalist (regarded by some even as an eco-fascist), I am highly dubious of the way in which the EIA is applied in practice and the likelihood of its ensuring sustainable development.
I understand that, until quite recently, in KwaZulu-Natal not a single development was required to go through a comprehensive EIA. The most that was required was the conduct of the scoping, which should merely be the very first step in an EIA process, intended to show whether there are real concerns about the proposed development that should be investigated and be subject to a public participation process.
More frighteningly, not a single development application was turned down! In the Western Cape, less than 0,1% of development applications were not approved. If this is the state of the matter, what is the point of wasting money and time on the expensive EIA process?
Take a current real development proposal and process – the proposed Pondoland N2 tollroad. The record of decision approving this road was issued late in 2003 by the national Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (Deat). Those in favour, and this includes the supposedly independent EIA, argue that the development of this road is urgently necessary to improve transportation along the south-east coast between Durban and Umtata and East London.
Those opposed argue that there is a section of this road, the so-called ‘greenfields” section of about 85km, that will cause irremediable damage to a section of the Wild Coast still deserving of that name. Not only will the wilderness atmosphere be very negatively affected, the biodiversity of this ‘centre of endemism” will be seriously compromised.
In addition, it is argued that there are a number of community-based ecotourism ventures that will be severely affected, even destroyed, should the road go ahead. Not to mention the fact that the new road will ring the death knell for villages along the route of the existing road.
So, while the construction and operation of the new road will create jobs and livelihoods, it will, at the same time, have a negative impact on the environment – natural, social and economic. How did Deat, in deciding to approve the road, apply the cautionary principle?
Appeals against the record of decision have been noted by some 100 organisations. Minister Valli Moosa was unable to conclude consideration of the appeals before he left office and we now have to see how his successor, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, is going to deal with this prickly pear. Will the new minister simply rely on his senior officials (who are familiar with the project and the process and have already given their decision that the road should be approved), or will he be truly activist and investigate the information already gathered afresh to come to a different conclusion?
The N2 controversy is a prime example of the ongoing debates around sustainability versus development. Is it possible to have development that is sustainable? How do we petty humans, who look at things from so close by and in such a limited time scale, truly assess the impact (not to mention the cumulative impact) of our actions within the context of a system that we still understand but in a small part?
We appear usually only to realise the impact of our actions long after we started doing things, and then have either no idea of how to turn around the negative impacts, or insufficient will to do so.
Louis de Villiers is an environmental lawyer based in Observatory with an active interest and involvement in environmental conservation and law.