PAN-GAEA ENVIRONMENTAL WATCHTOWER
ENVIRONMENT
IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN CONTEXT
by
Bronwen Griffiths
Welcome to my environmental column! I thought I would start this article with a quick overview of why I am contributing to Penton as the new ‘Environmental Columnist’.
In terms of my background, I am a trained ecologist, have worked for both provincial and local environmental authorities, have operated as an environmental consultant dealing mainly with Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and Environmental Management Planning (EMP) since 1999, and was privileged enough to recently co-author the draft guideline document for the National Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) relating to the implementation of the new EIA Regulations. Thus, your esteemed Editor, Damon, gently bent my arm and asked nicely … so here we go!
So where to start? The field of environmental issues is very wide ranging and thus my first challenge was to choose a starting point. I have chosen to present an overview of the legal framework as it has developed and its current status including the ongoing challenges, and then to conclude with the rights and responsibilities of the involved parties in some of the environmental processes. That is, I hope that this article will give you a framework of the legislative controls in our country.
Legislative framework: ‘The law, the process, and the challenges’
The obvious point of departure is the Constitution [1]. This landmark document controls all other legislation in South Africa, so if any conflicts arise with another piece of legislation, the Constitution will always be considered the ‘supreme law’[2]. To highlight the importance of environmental rights, Section 24 of the Bill of Rights [3] clearly states that all citizens of South Africa have “the right (a) to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and (b) to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that – (i) prevent pollution and ecological degradation, (ii) promote conservation, and (iii) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.”
A point to note, the needs and rights of the environment are strongly contextualised within the ‘developing country’ rather than ‘developed country’ mind-set. That is, development and growth beyond the current point are expected, rather than stating that the goal should be improving the status of what we already have. Although this may not appear to be a significant difference, it effectively sets the country up to always compromise the environment to a greater or lesser extent thus maximising human rights and requirements in the short to medium term. You may well disagree with this view, but it is a point that is often raised within the environmental professional community.
Linked to this is the fact that there is an increasing distaste to using the term ‘Sustainable Development’ (SD), with the concept and term of ‘Integrated Environmental Management’ (IEM) being preferred. For one, there is no one agreed upon definition for SD, I believe there are well over a 100 definitions in use, so the first question will always be ‘what do you mean by SD?’ And further, the inclusion of the term ‘development’. Ask yourself, ‘is development ever really sustainable?’
Some definitions to let you think further on this issue yourself: “IEM provides a holistic framework that can be embraced by all sectors of society for the assessment and management of environmental impacts and aspects associated with an activity for each stage of the activity life cycle (policy, plan, programme, project), taking into consideration a broad definition of the environment (the surroundings in which humans and other organisms exist, used in its broadest sense, to consist of biophysical, social and economic components and the connections within and between these components) and with the overall aim of promoting sustainable development.” [4]
The most common definition used for Sustainable Development was given by the Brundtland Commission as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. [5]
Back to the legislation … Taking the over-arching requirements of the Constitution into account, tools to deal specifically with environmental issues were and continue to be developed. In this article I will be dealing specifically with what you could term ‘pure’ environmental tools, but it should be remembered that legislation controlling water, mining, townplanning, air pollution, hazardous substances, conservation / biodiversity, heritage, etc, are also relevant to the protection of the environment as a whole. Voluntary mechanisms to protect the environment include tools such as conservancies. I shall revisit some of these controls and their own host of issues, problems, implications and responsibilities in future articles.
The first major piece of environmental legislation in South Africa was the Environment Conservation Act [6](ECA) of 1989. Until 1997, when the first Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations [7] were released, ECA was limited in its use to specified Environmental Control Zones (e.g. coastal belts) and Waste Management.
This is not to say that prior to the formal advent of the EIA Regulations, environmental issues were not considered in South Africa. In fact, the concept of IEM was slowly working its way into standard business practice and remains to date as part of the ‘triple bottom line’ (i.e. environmental, social and economic factors) used to judge a company’s performance. From 1989-97 voluntary EIAs were used as planning tools by a number of larger corporations when investigating new developments. Arguably, these remain the best “EIAs” carried out to date due to their meaningful consideration of how to develop environmentally sustainable manner. That is, with minimal negative impacts balanced with maximised positive impacts on environment as a whole (i.e. biophysical, social and economic).
Following the international trend begun by the United States in the 1970s, South Africa chose to formalise EIA usage in 1997 with the gazetting of the EIA Regulations (i.t.o. ECA). It therefore became a legal requirement for all developments that included so-called ‘listed activities’ to follow a process of public participation, specialist investigations, consideration of alternatives and cumulative impacts, with the designated environmental authorities considering the information and granting environmental authorisation at their discretion. Note that with the exception of projects with impacts across provincial boundaries or international boundaries, or developments with implications in terms of international protocols, most EIAs are considered by the then newly formed nine provincial environmental departments.
Listed activities are simply ‘development actions that are likely to result in significant environmental impacts …’. [8]The aim of the EIA Regulations is thus to try and control detrimental activities that would compromise the environment for both current and future generations. Obviously some potentially detrimental activities were left out, and equally obviously, a lot of people spent hours looking for loopholes and ways to circumvent the need to get environmental authorisation. For this reason, a few batches of amendments were carried out that looked at tightening definitions and thresholds of listed activities.
In 1998, the ECA was to a large extent superseded by the National Environmental Management Act [9](NEMA). NEMA was brought into play to (a) be more tightly linked to the Constitution, and (b) to consider the so-called ‘fourth pillar of sustainability’, that is, governance. Specifically, the aim of NEMA is “to provide for cooperative environmental governance by establishing principles for decision making on matters affecting the environment, institutions that will promote cooperative governance and procedures for coordinating environmental functions exercised by organs of state; to provide for the prohibition, restriction and control of activities which are likely to have a detrimental effect on the environment; and to provide for matters connected therewith.”
The EIA Regulations i.t.o. NEMA were finally gazetted in April 2006, but almost immediately it became clear that certain listed activities, and the thresholds at which the different authorisation processes were triggered (Basic Assessment vs. full Environmental Impact Assessment), were totally inappropriate and in some cases led to the need for environmental authorisation for projects that should have been outside of the legal requirements.
Take the following scenario – a 2 hectare (20,000m2) site, urban development on more than 50% of its boundaries, within the defined urban edge so densification is supported, with the intention to develop residential units at an approved density in terms of townplanning requirements, and finally, no sensitive environments on or in close proximity to the site. So far, all ok. That is, until you consider that the internal road for the average townhouse development is either more than 6m wide including its servitude, or is more than 30m long. Now just for the road, environmental authorisation is required, specifically a Basic Assessment Process. That was never the intention! And thus the first round of amendments are being carried a year after the regulations were gazetted. To add to this, the current rumours say that the amendments will be finalised by early next year, and, oh, totally new EIA regulations will be developed shortly thereafter … The implications purely in terms of the cost of training (i.e. time and money) the authorities and other professionals on each successive set of amendments is horrendous.
Returning once again to the stated aim of NEMA.
On the negative side, what is interesting is the underlying theme that implies that the various authorities across all levels of government did not, and sadly still do not, cooperate at all. In fact, in many cases authorities have gone out of their way to derail each others processes, while others have happily poached on each others territories without permission or even notice.
On the positive side, an important item is the inclusion of the term ‘prohibition’. That is, for the first time it is very clear that environmental authorisation is NOT automatically guaranteed. Mitigation measures applied to the nth degree do not mean that a development proposal will be allowed. Rather developments that just shouldn’t be allowed on a specific site will be denied, with no negotiation allowed.
An example of government working at cross purposes is the highly controversial Development Facilitation Act [10](DFA) of 1995 was never repealed or amended to fit within the context of environmental law, the Constitution or the fact that it was developed for use in mainly the ‘homelands’ … err, which no longer even exist! The issue? Simply that the DFA sets in place a mechanism that allows for development without necessarily having any environmental authorisation or extensive public participation (i.e. DFA has allowance for 1 public hearing and very limited review period). The aim of the DFA alone is enough to scare the living daylights out of most right thinking citizens, especially when the fact that the DFA has been used to allow, for instance, high cost ‘elite’ residential developments. Specifically, the DFA aims ‘to introduce extraordinary measures to facilitate and speed up the implementation of reconstruction and development programmes and projects in relation to land; and in so doing to lay down general principles governing land development throughout the Republic; to provide for the establishment of a Development and Planning Commission for the purpose of advising the government on policy and laws concerning land development at national and provincial levels; to provide for the establishment in the provinces of development tribunals which have the power to make decisions and resolve conflicts in respect of land development projects; to facilitate the formulation and implementation of land development objectives by reference to which the performance of local government bodies in achieving such objectives may be measured; to provide for nationally uniform procedures for the subdivision and development of land in urban and rural areas so as to promote the speedy provision and development of land for residential, small-scale farming or other needs and uses; to promote security of tenure while ensuring that end-user finance in the form of subsidies and loans becomes available as early as possible during the land development process; and to provide for matters connected therewith.’ If used correctly, the DFA would be a brilliant tool, but as it stands it most often is used as a short-cut to circumvent the need to consider environmental and social issues in detail by bypassing both the town and regional planning and EIA processes.
The second and third examples, considered for now together, are the National Heritage Resources Act [11] and the Mining and Petroleum Resources Act [12] which both effectively have their own stand-alone Impact Assessment processes. Add to that that the town and regional planning process is totally separate. It agreed that both of these acts cover very specific concerns and issues, but by creating full formal authorisation processes that more than slightly overlap with the EIA process, for some projects you could potentially need 4 authorisations, let alone specific permits that may also be required (e.g. hazardous storage permit), and none of the processes allow for one document that addresses all requirements. So the concept of cooperative governance is out of the window before we even begin.
In terms of the other legislation relating to development / planning and its interaction with environmental legislation, the reality is that environmental requirements are seen by most parties as ‘pesky add-ons’, that merely delay the entire development process. Instead the aim of EIAs and related environmental tools was always to serve as a very useful tool that can actually combine input from the entire development team EARLY in the process and thus lead to a truly sustainable end-result. But due to the combined pressure of (a) increasing bureaucracy and thus a lack of flexibility to consider emerging new best practice solutions, (b) significant capacity constraints in the authorities which often lead to significant additional information being required (e.g. specialist studies) as the environmental officer doesn’t really understand the development, and thus unacceptable rising costs of the EIA process, (c) the emergence of ‘development consultants’ as opposed to ‘environmental consultants’, (d) lack of professional standing of all environmental related professionals in all sectors as no legislative tool to link a certifying body to which has led to an increasing level of distrust between members within a development team, (e) inappropriate or insufficient public participation or in some cases hijacking of the process by parties involved for their own agendas, (f) increasing uncertainty due to the more regular amendment of the legislation, etc. Having just come back from a regional conference on Impact Assessment (IAIAsa Regional Conference 2007, Cape Town) I could wax very lyrical about the problems encountered but then you would all be reading for a good while longer than my initial intention.
So where are we going with all this legislation then? The answer, not where we wanted to go. The ideal remains that for any one development a ‘one-stop-shop’ option should be developed. At the very least the town and regional planning, heritage impact assessment and EIA processes should be integrated with the various parties on the development team putting in their ‘chapters’ or ‘sub-documents’ into one combined document that is then submitted to all authorities to be considered, with a single permit / authorisation being given out at the end of the process. This would be for instance allow advertising and public interactions to be combined legally – at the moment this is not actually an allowed option although most public meetings do try addressing both EIA and townplanning issues in the same meeting. And dare we say it, but integrating the mining ‘Environmental Management Programme EIA’ (for mining) with the ‘EIA’ (for environment) would make so much sense. Yes, the combined document would be rather hefty, but hey at least it would all be in one place. The implications on monitoring and acting against those who do not abide by their authorisations would also be much simpler in such a situation as an inspector would be looking at the total picture – certainly in some cases a specific specialist would need to go on the visit, but that is most certainly not an insurmountable obstacle.
In summary, the intent is there in most of the legislation, but basically we are in the middle of a ‘turf war’ of who (which department) controls the process of development as a whole and what is paramount (i.e. environment or economic and social development). So high level negotiations continue and it can be hoped that eventually a holistic control system that addresses real ‘sustainable development’ may be developed.
Oh, and yes, mining is still not a listed activity because the authorities can’t decide who should be the competent authority for reviewing such documents …
All in all, South Africa does have a legislatively strong and forward thinking environmental law regime. And contrary to what most think, environmental considerations are not limited to EIAs only. The intent of the last set of NEMA amendments linked to the Regulations of 2006, was to allow for different tools to consider specific projects (e.g. risk assessment) based on the specific nature of the activity under consideration, and higher level planning (e.g. Environmental Management Frameworks) that consider environmental issues across a wider spatial area and determine where certain development types may be considered and others not along with what specialist information should be submitted to increase the knowledge of that specific area and thus improve future iterations of the EMF process.
Given that we cannot – unfortunately – solve all of these issues in this article, I would like to move onto the critical consideration of what are the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved in an EIA process. Note that these roles and responsibilities are echoed in other similar planning and development related processes.
Roles and Responsibilities of parties within the EIA process … and similar processes
I am now going to shamelessly borrow from the draft version of the detailed guide to implementation of EIA Regulations, 2006 [13], specifically Chapter 3 which I wrote with much input from my co-author Claudia, as well as Amanda Britz and Wynand Fourie of DEAT. Okay before you all fall over and moan ‘but I don’t want to read all of that …’, I have taken the text from the document and chopped out the important information for consideration. Anyone who would like to look at the complete draft document is welcome to contact me directly for a copy, which DEAT has given me permission to distribute on request.
In an EIA process there are 4 groups involved, namely, (a) the applicant and/or landowner, (b) the environmental assessment practitioner (EAP) (the ‘consultant’), (c) the interested and/or affected parties (I&APs) (i.e. the public, non-government organisations (NGOs) {e.g. WESSA, EWT}, community based organisations (CBOs) {e.g. residents’ associations}, relevant authorities that have concurrent jurisdiction over the proposed activity {e.g. local authorities, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF)}), and (d) the competent / authorising authority (CA).
Applicant and/or landowner
An applicant is “a person who has submitted or intends to submit an application”. That is, the applicant is a person who applies for an environmental authorisation to carry out a listed activity. If the applicant is not the landowner, permission has to be obtained from the landowner. Sadly this had to be included because (a) unscrupulous developers were getting authorisation without the landowner knowing, and, (b) in other cases the landowner letting the developer pay for all authorisation processes and then selling the site to other developers.
The applicant provides a detailed statement of the purpose and need for the proposed activity, as well as information to allow the EAP to determine the most suitable way to run the environmental assessment. The applicant should be involved in considering alternatives developed through the process, leading to an improved end product will be gained.
It is therefore critically important that the applicant appoint an EAP who will comply with the regulations by having suitable expertise and knowledge to run the process as a whole. The applicant should consider (a) the strategic planning and environmental context when planning the development prior to deciding on alternatives that should potentially be considered, and, (b) all feasible and reasonable alternatives, not only the preferred option.
The applicant is responsible for (a) all processes, information, plans and reports produced, (b) the appointment of the EAP, (c) all costs incurred in complying with the regulations, and, (d) the public participation process undertaken.
Environmental assessment practitioners
An environmental assessment practitioner (EAP) is “the individual responsible for the planning, management and coordination of environmental impact assessments, strategic environmental assessments, environmental management plans or any other appropriate environmental instruments introduced through regulations”. The EAP can be an individual or team leader, responsible for carrying out and managing the day-to-day procedures of the environmental impact assessment.
The EAP must be independent and objective, with expertise in conducting environmental impact assessments. This includes knowledge of all relevant legislation and of any guidelines that have relevance to the proposed activity.
The EAP must ensure (a) full disclosure of all relevant information in his/her possession, except where such information is protected by law, (b) ensure the I&APs disclose any direct business, financial, personal or other interest in the approval or refusal of the application, (c) submit all relevant documentation to the CA, regardless of its potential to unfavourably influence the decision taken or objectivity of all documentation, (d) comply with all relevant legislation, (e) ensure that the public participation process is undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the regulations, (f) take into account any pollution, environmental impacts or environmental degradation likely to be caused if the application is either approved or refused, and (g) take into account the impact of the activity, either by itself or cumulatively with other operations or activities.
An EAP must continuously aim for protecting the environment from harm as a result of the proposed activity, and, developing effective measures to prevent, control, abate or mitigate any pollution, environmental impacts or environmental degradation. An EAP needs to consider the applicant’s ability to implement mitigation measures and to comply with any conditions that may be part of the environmental authorisation (if granted) and if need be ensure that the applicant is capacitated to carry out these tasks.
An EAP must present and consider (a) any feasible and reasonable alternatives to the proposed activity, (b) modifications or changes to the proposed activity that may minimise harm to the environment, (c) any information in relation to guidelines and other reference material available such as Environmental Management Frameworks (EMFs), (d) all information submitted to the authorities in a comprehensive and appropriate manner, (e) any comments received from all I&APs including other government departments throughout the process, and (f) consider all relevant guidelines and determine information that must be gathered and form part of the impact assessment.
Interested and/or affected parties
An interested and/or affected party (I&AP) is defined as “(a) any person, group of persons or organisation interested in or affected by an activity, and, (b) any organ of state that may have jurisdiction over any aspect of the activity”.
An I&AP can be directly or indirectly impacted on by a proposed activity. An I&AP can be a resident in close proximity to the site, a member of the wider public, a worker or member of staff in a nearby business premise or residence, non-government organisations (NGOs) (e.g. environmental ‘watch-dog’ association (international or national)), community based organisations (CBOs) (e.g. residents, home-owner / residents associations, ward councillor), and/or organ of state (e.g. municipality, national or provincial government departments). If not directly affected, but rather an interested party, an I&AP can be almost any person, group of persons, or organisation. The only requirement is that the person, group of persons, or organisation is interested in OR affected by an activity.
The regulations distinguish between an ‘I&AP’ and a ‘registered I&AP’. A ‘registered I&AP’ is an I&AP who has formally registered for the project at hand. A registered I&AP is (a) a person who has submitted written comments or attended meeting/s with the applicant or EAP during the public participation process, (b) a person who after completion of the public participation process if they have requested, in writing, that the applicant or EAP place their name/s on the register, and (c) all organs of state which have jurisdiction in respect of the activity to which the application relates.
It is the responsibility of an I&AP to participate fully in the environmental assessment process by taking part in public meetings and responding to all written documents / submissions. This documentation may include applications, scoping reports, environmental impact reports, environmental management plans, applications for amendments of environmental authorisation/s, and applications for exemption.
The feedback from the I&APs must (a) be submitted within the timeframes as set or negotiate a reasonable extension in which to respond, (b) submit all comments directly to the competent authority and the EAP, and (c) disclose any direct business, financial, personal or other interest in the approval or refusal of the application.
If an I&AP believes that their input is being ignored, overlooked or misrepresented (in part or full) during the formal EIA process, they have the right to make representations, at any time in the process or as a result of this process, to the CA in this regard. This representation may be in the form of a formal appeal. It should be noted that an I&AP has the right to approach and make representations to the CA at any time with respect to any issue of environmental concern.
I&APs reflect a range of values that combined can provide useful information to improve the effectiveness of the environmental assessment process and thus add value to the environmental assessment process. The I&AP has the ability to directly affect an environmental assessment process by taking advantage of the fact that they must be given the opportunity to comment on documentation provided as part of the ongoing assessment.
Obviously not all I&APs are equally capacitated. An I&AP thus has the right to request help and support to fulfil their function from firstly the EAP and secondly from the authority. This may include (a) information concerning the environmental authorisation process being followed and why such a process was selected, (b) access to copies of all relevant information submitted to the authorities and relating specifically to the application, (c) access to supplemental information or an indication as to where such information may be obtained, (d) clarification on issues that are not understood, not elaborated sufficiently on, or that appear to be incorrect, (e) contact details of other registered I&APs for the project, (f) contact details of the relevant CA and the appropriate official to speak to, and, (g) contact details of organisations that may be able to help fund review or appeal processes lodged by the I&AP. Note that some of the information requested may need to follow a formal application in terms of PAIA (Promotion of Access to Information Act, Act No. 2 of 2000) being lodged prior to such information being released.
The I&AP should be aware that the public participation process is related to the specific project at hand and thus questions should be related specifically to the application or its knock-on impacts. Issues that fall outside of the ambit of the project may be dealt with by the EAP at their discretion by providing useful avenues to follow up for help.
Competent authority
A Competent Authority (CA) is defined as “the organ of state charged by this Act with evaluating the environmental impact of that activity and, where appropriate, with granting or refusing an environmental authorisation in respect of that activity.” That is, the CA fulfils the administrative function of registering, considering and approving (where applicable) all documentation related to the assessment.
In most cases the CA is the relevant provincial department including the environmental function. Within the department, the authority to grant an environmental authorisation is usually delegated to a specific official, most commonly the provincial Head of Department (HoD), but there may be another assigned official for specific activities.
In the following situations the CA is the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism when the activity (a) has implications for national environmental policy or international environmental commitments or relations, (b) takes place within an area where South Africa has international environmental obligations in terms of international conventions, except where such an area falls within the sea-shore, a conservancy, a protected natural environment, a proclaimed private nature reserve, a natural heritage site, or the buffer zone or transitional area of a biosphere reserve or a world heritage site, (c) affects an area that crosses either provincial or national boundaries, (d) is undertaken, or is to be undertaken, by – a national department, a provincial department responsible for environmental affairs, or, a statutory body, excluding any municipality, which has been delegated the authority from either a national or provincial department to be responsible for a specific activity or set of activities, (d) will take place within a national proclaimed protected area or other conservation area under control of a national authority.
The Minister or MEC has the right to delegate the authorising function to another designated organ of state. In such a case, relevant applications should be submitted to this designated organ of state.
The CA provides guidance in terms of the relevant legislation and associated information sources such as guidelines and policies (both national and provincial) that will enhance the environmental assessment process. The CA will have specific input in terms of the scope of the environmental assessment process and will request information from the EAP that will allow it to reach an informed decision. The CA must also carry out all other delegated functions in terms of the EIA regulations as a whole, with respect to reaching decisions and handling of applications that may be lodged.
It is the responsibility of the CA to (a) strive to meet all applicable timeframes as indicated in the regulations, (b) keep a register of all applications received, (c) keep records of all decisions in respect of environmental authorisations, (d) provide guidance and/or advice to the applicant or EAP on the application process, and, (e) ensure that basic issues of administrative justice (e.g. recording meeting minutes) in the day to day operation of the CA are met.
When a CA considers an application for potential environmental authorisation of an activity, the following criteria apply (a) compliance with NEMA and all other applicable legislation; (b) consider all relevant factors, including pollution, environmental impacts or environmental degradation likely to be caused if the application is approved or refused, cumulative or synergistic impacts, environmental protection measures, (c) the ability of the applicant to implement mitigation measures and to comply with any conditions in the environmental authorisation (if granted), (d) any feasible and reasonable alternatives and reasonable modifications or changes to the activity that may minimise harm to the environment, (e) any relevant information and maps such as approved Environmental Management Frameworks, (f) all information contained in documentation submitted as part of the EIA process, (g) any comments received from organs of state that have jurisdiction over any aspect of the activity, and, (h) any guidelines that are of relevance to the application.
The CA also serves the function of providing relevant guidelines and information to the applicant, the EAP or I&APs on request.
In the case of providing information to I&APs, but not limited to and including objectors to a specific application, the CA must provide reasonable assistance. Such circumstances may include where the I&AP is limited by illiteracy, disability or any other disadvantage. It must be noted that this information includes the provision of relevant guidelines and/or project or site specific advice.
Where an activity requires other authorisations as well as an environmental authorisation, the CA may enter into an agreement with the other authority as to how best to administer these processes to ensure minimisation of duplication of information submitted and processes carried out. This is only feasible where there are substantial similarities in the two processes or in terms of the actual information required.
Formal agreements may be developed over time under the auspices of DEAT to further the concept of co-operative governance, these should aim to ensure that duplication of effort does not occur.
Conclusion
South Africa has a good legislative concept in place, it is however the requirement for all parties involved in the environmental processes to take responsibility for their functions and should provide all relevant information timeously to ensure that the end product is the best possible solution. This includes giving information as early as possible in the process to minimise potential unnecessary expenditure.
I hope through this article I have given you an overview of the environmental framework in South Africa showing both the flaws and advantages thereof, as well as giving you an overview of the roleplayers in the procedure and how each party can maximise their input thus improving the overall process.
References:
1 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act No. 108 of 1996
2 Constitution, Chapter 1, Section 2
3 Constitution, Chapter 2
4 Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (2004), Integrated Environmental Management Information Series, Information Series 0: Overview of Integrated Environmental Management
5 Brundtland Commission of 'Sustainable Development': World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford
6 Environment Conservation Act, Act No. 73 of 1989
7 Regulations No. 1182 and 1183, 5th September 1997 i.t.o. Section 21 of the Environment Conservation Act
8 Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (1998), Guideline document: EIA Regulations: Implementation of Sections 21, 22 and 26 of the Environment Conservation Act
9 National Environmental Management Act, Act No. 107 of 1998 – as amended in 2002, 2004 and current amendment in Parliament for consideration
10 Development Facilitation Act, Act No. 67 of 1995
11 National Heritage Resources Act, Act No. 25 of 1999
12 Mining and Petroleum Resources Act, Act No. 28 of 2002
13 Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (2007), Guideline ?: Detailed guide to implementation of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2006, Integrated Environmental Management Guideline Series – co-authors: Bronwen Griffiths and Claudia Holgate (document still in draft format)
Contact Bronwen Griffiths
|
