One of the biggest criticisms to come to light was the bureaucratic romp-slomp in processing EIAs. In some cases, it can take up to four years to get a record of decision from the government. But environmental lobbyists say that the long process is needed to ensure that the process is thorough.
Now the government has gazetted new EIA regulations that will cut down on the time taken to process the environmental reports of developers. Crispian Olver, director general of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), says the new regulations will enhance government’s environmental impact management service delivery through the streamlining and fine-tuning of the EIA process.
‘We are planning to unclog the system, which has virtually ground to a halt,” he says. ‘Some developers wait years for their plans to be approved.”
The problem is especially severe at provincial level where the department is under-resourced and overworked. Bottlenecks often occur at the provincial level, because of the time and attention needed to review applications properly.
Under the new regulations, certain smaller projects — such as the erection of cellphone towers, for instance — may be excluded from doing EIAs, to allow officials more time to deal with larger projects, such as tollroads and golf estate developments.
The new regulations set thresholds for the size and impact of projects by which to determine whether an EIA should be undertaken or not, or how comprehensively these should be done. Project size is divided into five schedules which determine the process they must be subjected to.
The DEAT has estimated the new regulations should reduce the number of applications by 20 to 30 percent, and would therefore simplify the process for small developers in particular.
‘This is so that small, non-destructive projects will be fast-tracked and big projects will get the attention they need,” says Joanne Yawitch, deputy director-general of environmental quality and protection.
Olver says the original EIA processes introduced in 1997 had been groundbreaking and had made green history. But he says the trademark of a good Act is that it keeps evolving.
‘The old process was a massive innovation for South Africa when it was introduced seven years ago, but now it needs some fine-tuning to function better in future.”
The new regulations emphasise the provision of adequate information by the applicant to reduce delays and lessen the administrative burden. When sufficient information is provided, it also lessens the interaction between the applicant and the authorities.
Another big change is that the regulations bring mines into the EIA process, says Yawitch. Previously, mining was monitored under a different set of rules. The new regulations will give DEAT a bigger say in the monitoring of the EIAs of proposed new mines before these are allowed to begin operations. At the moment, the Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) handles EIAs for start-up mines.
‘It will be interesting to see how the mining community reacts,” Yawitch remarks. Now, consultation between DME and DEAT must take place, as DME is also bound by the new legislation. She adds that DME and DEAT cannot run two parallel EIAs, but she believes her department should be allowed to make decisions about something as potentially destructive as mining.
Conservation organisations such as the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa (Wessa) have already expressed doubts about the new regulations, stating that they will give unscrupulous developers the opportunity to cut corners and to put dodgy developments through without a thorough inspection of their EIAs.
Olver says his department is aware that environmental lobbyists fear the new regulations may create loopholes in the process that developers will exploit. Lobbyists believe DEAT should employ more staff to process EIAs rather than making the process shorter.
‘There appears to be a fear that the streamlined EIA process may reduce the intensity of attention given to new developments and allow new loopholes for developments having significant impacts to go unassessed,” Olver says.
DEAT could not afford to turn the EIA process into a huge bureaucracy employing hundreds of ‘paper-pushers”, which would do little to protect the environment, he warns.
‘We must ensure efficient and effective environmental governance and this can be achieved by using the best tools for the job,” he says. ‘Government will not be serving the people of South Africa by investing the same amount of resources in the assessment of, for example, a farm diesel tank, as it does for a hazardous waste plant.”
He points out that the regulations are an exercise in improving service delivery. ‘The quality of our assessments will not be reduced. On the contrary, the concentration of government’s efforts on applications with significant rather than trivial impacts will enhance the quality of environmental impact management across the country,” he concludes.
The government has initiated a lengthy public participation process before the new regulations are finally promulgated to allow all stakeholders to make input. This process closes at the end of August.
The main changes
The number of steps or interactions between applicants and the authorities will be reduced to the provision of information and key interventions
Officials will need to make fewer formal decisions
Authorities will have to ensure that applicants supply sufficient and adequate information prior to decisions are made
The regulations allow flexibility regarding the entry point in the EIA process and length of the process to ensure that officials are able to request only such information as may be required for decision-making to minimise unnecessary steps or processes
Because fewer EIAs will be processed, the potential for delays is reduced, as is the administrative burden on the authorities
The regulations provide for sound decision-making through the provision of adequate information
The five new schedules
Schedule One: where developments take place in declared protected areas, environmental authorisation is required before any project may be undertaken.
In Schedule Two, developers need both environmental authorisation and environmental impact assessment. These include big industrial developments, airports, dams, mining operations, harbours and golf courses.
Schedule Three requires environmental authorisation and, at the least, an initial assessment to determine whether the likely impact will be significant or not. An EIA may be required if the environmental authority decides so. Developments in this schedule include golf driving ranges, hotels on more than one hectare which will accommodate over 20 guests, animal storage facilities, minor industrial developments, sport facilities, agri-industrial developments of more than 1 000 square metres, and outdoor advertising.
In Schedule Four, development may not be undertaken in areas identified by the Ministers or an MEC, as specified in the National Environmental Management Act, prior to the issuing of an environmental authorisation. These developments must also have an initial assessment. If the authority decides that an EIA is unnecessary, the development may proceed. This category includes small lodges, off-road driving areas, inland marinas, cellphone towers and the extension of farmland.
Schedule Five focuses specifically on air quality in terms of the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention Act, and all developments that have the potential towards air pollution must do an EIA or initial assessment.
Do you think the new regulations will have a positive or negative impact? Please send your views on the issue to Earthyear, PO Box 91667, Auckland Park, 2006 or email [email protected]