5 MOST FRUSTRATING THINGS TO FIND IN AN EIA REPORT

STUFF IN AN EIA REPORT THAT MAKE YOU GO BONKERS !

Photo by Sander Sammy on Unsplash

I’m not making this up.

These are the five worst things I have come across while reviewing Environmental Impact Assessment Reports.

So, this is for real.

#1: LISTED ACTIVITIES - AN ODE TO ONE-LINERS

I have seen Environmental Assessment Practitioners (EAPs) bravely stipulate in their reports, the various listed activities¹ which the developer is applying for…

and then leaving it hanging !

And then as you scroll through the rest of the EIA report, you get the feeling that there is no real intention on the part of the EAP or the developer, to unpack these listed activities.

There is no detailed description of the listed activity and how it fits into the development as a whole. There is no environmental assessment of the impact of this listed activity on the receiving environment.

It somehow seems like these listed activities are merely there for the taking.

It gets even more scary when the Competent Authority decides to approve the development, despite there being no description nor assessment of the listed activity- which was the main reason why the EIA was conducted in the first place.

A one-line reference to the listed activity does not cut it.

An EAP who engages in this type of behaviour is most likely attempting to mislead the reviewer or the Competent Authority.

#2: ALTERNATIVES: WHAT’S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE

The other most frustrating aspect in an EIA Report is the poor description and assessment of alternatives.

Usually the EAP will go to some length describing an alternative development option and then conclude that the alternative option was not feasible and would therefore not be investigated any further.

It is clear from section 24O of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA) that only feasible and reasonable alternatives to the activity should be assessed.

Identification and assessment of alternatives which are not feasible nor reasonable, fails to meet the legislative requirements nor the requirements of Integrated Environmental Management (IEM).

The other frustrating shortcoming related to alternatives, is when the EAP fails to conduct a non-biased comparative assessment of the feasible alternatives.

#3: WHEN MITIGATION GOES MISSING IN ACTION:

Have you ever read an Environmental Impact Report which either fails to effectively deal with mitigation or proposes no feasible and practical mitigation ?

The basic principle governing impact assessment is that once an adverse impact has been identified, it is the responsibility of the EAP to describe appropriate mitigation following the mitigation hierarchy.

It is not possible nor permissible for an EAP to state that there are no known mitigation measures for an identified environmental impact - and to then go on to recommend that the development be authorised.

The same applies to stating mitigation measures which may not be capable of implementation.

Mitigation must be practical and capable of implementation.

An EIA Report should not only describe the potential adverse impacts associated with a development project, but must provide an accurate and detailed description of the mitigation measures.

#4: PAYING LIP SERVICE TO SPECIALIST RECOMMENDATIONS :

Specialist studies are crucial in EIA. These are focussed studies by specialists in an identified field which provide detailed information on the potential impacts associated with a proposed development.

Specialist studies and reports must comply with the regulatory requirements. Most importantly, a specialist is required to render an opinion or provide recommendations on whether the proposed project should be authorised or not.

It is indeed quite frustrating for a reviewer and particularly the Competent Authority if a specialist report is silent on the final outcomes of a specialist study.

It is equally important for an EAP to summarise the findings of a specialist study in the EIA Report and to render an opinion or statement on whether the proposed project may be authorised.

This statement or opinion must be tied to the outcomes of the Environmental Impact Assessment.

An EAP may or may not agree with the findings of a Specialist Study, but in order for the Competent Authority to meaningfully consider the EAP’s alternative recommendation, the EAP has an ethical and legal duty to provide a reasoned opinion.

In other words, where the EAP differs from the opinion or recommendation of a specialist, he or she must set out the grounds and reasons for his or her dissenting opinion or recommendation.

Failing to provide reasons for the dissenting opinion, as well as failing to highlight the specialist’s specific recommendations, could be seen as attempting to mislead the Competent Authority.

#5: MAPS: WHEN YOU CAN’T SEE THE FOREST FOR THE TREES:

Poor quality maps, diagrams and other spatial information in an EIA can do a great injustice to the EIA process, and in particular the Public Participation Process.

If maps are able to clearly and accurately represent the interaction of the proposed development with the existing or receiving environment, they can add much more credibility and value to the EIA process by aiding in the following:

1. facilitating public, stakeholder and authority input

2. facilitating accurate and quicker review of environmental reports by authorities, the public and other stakeholders (interested and affected parties).

Maps and other spatial information in EIA, helps to simplify and explain the proposed development and its impacts on the receiving environment to a much wider audience.

However, a less than adequate spatial representation of the factual and scientific information will more than likely make the reviewer more suspicious of the independence, integrity and capability of the EAP.

Hopefully, by highlighting these problem areas, EAPs will continue to improve the quality of EIA reporting and thus the level of trust between EAPs and Interested and Affected Parties and Stakeholders.

1. Listed Activities are those activities listed in the Environmental Regulations which require EIA and prior authorisation before they can commence.