GEORGEOCTOBER 29 2011 Comments on the EIA regime of South Africa Cape Town, 1 August, 2013Treasure Karoo Action Group.

GEORGE OCTOBER 29 2011

Comments on the EIA regime of South Africa

Cape Town, 1 August, 2013

Treasure Karoo Action Group

GEORGE OCTOBER 29 2011 Structure of presentation

• Focus on shale gas and considerations for EIA and decision-making

• General comments on EIA’s with some suggestions for possible improvement

Extent of current applications

Shale gas applications

• Scope and scale of ER applications: 18% of SA• Many unknowns regarding technology and

receiving environment persist (geology relatively well understood up to about 400 m deep)

• Need for individual EIA’s per drilling location due to varying geology and ecology as well as SEA for cumulative impacts (trucks, flaring, waste, pipelines, well pads and wells etc)

EIA considerations: shale gas

• Drilling not a listed activity (possible loophole)• Karoo geology (shale basin) risky and unique;

dolerite, natural faults and fracture systems• Soekor well incident 1967• Need for baseline testing (groundwater, water,

air as minimum)• Better protection for groundwater needed• Ecosystem services neglected to date;

especially of concern in agricultural societies

NEMA and MPRDA

• Controlled activity (hydraulic fracturing)• Uncertainty about implications of MPRD

Amendment Bill• Need for standardised licence procedures

between MPRDA and NEMA to avoid duplication (MPRDA requires EMP first; NEMA sees EMP as outcome)

• Need for smooth tie-in with WULA and waste licensing (prevent duplication of information)

Government policy, strategic minerals and Infrastructure

• Move to fast-track projects of developmental and social importance

• Infrastructure Bill: timeframes for project authorisations disregard timeframes for necessary environmental assessment and authorisations

• Fast-tracked development of “strategic minerals” – MPRDA

• Recent comment about government moving ahead with “contentious” projects

General: EIA’s

• Current EA process relies on integrated approach of specialist studies, risk assessment and public participation.

• Risk evaluation process and rating not standardised, various methods employed relying heavily on the discretion of the EAP.

• An accepted format for risk evaluation and rating would promote objectivity in the process.

General: EIA’s continued

• The option for submission and review in electronic format should be explored.

• EIA findings and mitigation measures implementation (EMP) rests on applicant

• Only if CA requires independent audit on EMP compliance (by independent ECO) is it regulated.

• Findings of independent audit should be reported to the CA and acted upon.

The role of the EAP in the EIA process

• Mostly EAPs are objective: Local municipalities perform in-house EIA- CoCT allowed by DEARD

• EAP being paid by applicant often places EAP in an uncomfortable position - payment withheld and lack of trust by I&AP’s

• EAP should be included in ALL interface between drilling companies and residents to prevent manipulation of information and to control the message given to landowners

Appeals & S24G

• Current process cumbersome and confusing (12 days for publication of EA; 20 days for NOI)

• Propose 30 days from issue of EA to appeal direct to CA (not to applicant as well – confrontation)

• EA granted i.t.o. S24G should not be based on abridged EIA/BA process- admin fee plus shortened EA process is not enough of a deterrent

Listings • Listings 1 & 3: certain activities fall under BA

because “substantial experience was gained and impacts of certain activities are well-known and predictable”

• the review of Listing 2 to move more activities from Listing 2 to Listing 1 or Listing 3 should be done on a regular basis as information grows.

• Numerous specialist studies completed in all study areas for EIA’s- after EA specialist studies “disappear” along with old documents- database to store this valuable information

Use of specialists

• Current perception amongst many practitioners: specialists are “very expensive” and seen to charge whatever they want for their services

• EAPs often use bare minimum specialist input to save costs for the client and stay within budget and time constraints

• Choice of specialist also very reliant on EAP

Use of specialists continued

• EAPs often develop relationships with specialists whose work they trust and deliver their report within required timeframe and budget (no peer review required)

• Suggestion: develop database of specialists from which EAPs can source specialist input.

• These specialists can be seen as providing reliable work, done with integrity and within time and cost constraints

Costs of EIA

• EAPs to ensure they deliver required service to applicant and charge at competitive rates

• Smaller firms often more affordable and outperform larger firms (smaller overheads)

• Room for discussion on standardised rates within certain price brackets for environmental consulting services for EIA’s

Thank you