The Efficacy of the SA EIA Regime - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

About This Presentation
Title:

The Efficacy of the SA EIA Regime

Description:

The Efficacy of the SA EIA Regime Time for Change Back to the future? Presentation by: Gideon (Kallie) Erasmus of Erasmus Attorneys Precondition for development ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:71
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 13
Provided by: GKal3
Category:
Tags: eia | efficacy | erasmus | regime

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: The Efficacy of the SA EIA Regime


1
The Efficacy of the SA EIA Regime
  • Time for Change
  • Back to the future?
  • Presentation by
  • Gideon (Kallie) Erasmus of Erasmus Attorneys

2
Precondition for development
  • Every generation puts its own scratches on the
    surface of this planet - this is called progress
    or development.
  • Otherwise we would have no electricity, no mining
    or manufacturing and would all still be doing our
    business behind the nearest bush.

3
Its all about balance!
  • To think that we can (or should) bubble-wrap the
    environment is a nonsense.
  • Sound environmental governance re-quires an
    appropriate balance between people and the
    environment.

4
So we have independent assessments, do we?
  • How many EIA Reports recommend that
    auth-orisation be denied?
  • How many applications are withdrawn because
    applicants become persuaded that the proposed
    activity is environmentally un-justifiable?
  • None!

5
So we have independent assessments, do we? (2).
  • WHY?
  • EAPs are paid to secure authorisations, not to
    undertake objective assessments.
  • It is absurd to anchor the veracity of an EIA in
    the independence of a paid service provider.

6
Different listings are a waste of time.
  • Since when is the listing of an activity more
    important than the impacts it is likely to have?
  • In this context there are only two types of
    activities
  • Those that will have significant impacts and
  • Those that wont.

7
Different listings are a waste of time (2).
  • It is scientifically impossible to anticipate the
    likely impacts of a type of activity.
  • Every proposed activity must be assessed on its
    contextually specific merits.
  • To think that some types warrant lesser
    assess-ment by definition is to betray the
    environ-ment and those who stand to be affected.

8
A Better Way
  • A single, suitably flexible regime is better than
    the present artificially differentiated system.
  • Every EIA must be appropriate to the im-pacts of
    a proposed activity and not its listing.

9
A Better Way (2)
  • Such a system would comprise (in every instance)
  • Application Scoping report
  • Notification for registration and comment on
    Scoping proposal
  • Revised Scoping if necessary
  • EIA phase
  • Decision and
  • Appeal.

10
Isnt this how it worked under the 1998
Regulations?
  • No. This is how it was supposed to work under
    the 1998 Regulations until some clever
    so-and-so perverted the concept of scoping.
  • Scoping in this context is a research pro-posal
    and, as such, devoid of substantive content.

11
Avoiding the 1998 pitfalls.
  • Conflate the application and scoping phases.
  • Prohibit authorisation without an EIA Report.
  • Make the applicant responsible for justifying the
    extent of the assessment to be under-taken.

12
Thank you so very much for this opportunity.
  • Gideon (Kallie) Erasmus
  • Erasmus
  • Environmental, Development and Property Law
    Attorneys
  • kallieerasmus_at_gmail.com
  • Tel 023 5411 900
  • Fax 0866 855 979
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com