This study represents a review of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
system in South Africa based on case studies. It takes the form of two
separate but interrelated components.
Component A sets out the rationale for the research, the approach and
objectives, a conceptual framework and a statement of methodology. These
aspects are supported by a detailed literature review. It is stated as the broad
rationale of the research to determine whether the current EIA system can be
improved. This is approached through an update on EIA reviews. It is not
only the intention of the review to fill an existing gap in literature on the
subject, but also to provide findings and recommendations on procedure that
may positively contribute to the system and by implication, the process of EIA
in South Africa. Certain objectives are realised in the literature review. An
understanding of the review process in the context of EIA in South Africa is
provided in sections on relevant terminology, the history and status quo of
environmental assessment in South Africa as well as local and international
experiences. Finally a framework is proposed for purposes of review. In order
to ensure international relevance this framework uses as its basis the
international best practice review criteria of Glasson, Therivel and Chadwick
(1999) and Fuller (1999). This basis is amalgamated and extended with local
review criteria contained in the White Paper on Environmental Management
Policy, July 1997, the Guideline Document on EIA RegUlations, April 1998
and the Integrated Environmental Management Information Series (20022004).
The following review categories are used:
Description of the environment; screening, scoping, consultation and
impact identification; prediction and evaluation of impacts; mitigation
and monitoring; non-technical summary; organisation and interpretation
of information and the appropriateness of institutional controls.
Ratings are allocated according to five different responses (non-compliance,
low compliance, moderate compliance, high compliance and full compliance).
3
Ratings of non-compliance and low compliance also serve as an indication of
key improvement areas.
The review framework that is proposed in Component A is used in
Component B to conduct an in-depth analysis of two cases studies
representing different environmental authorisation applications in the South
African medical incineration sector. The case studies are reviewed by
allocating numeric values to respective criteria and comparing ratings
allocated to the respective case studies. All review categories, with the
exception of the category dealing with institutional controls, are allocated
ratings of low compliance. Both case studies are allocated similar ratings with
regard to all review categories.These results suggest low overall quality and
ample room for improvement on most aspects of EIA in South Africa. The
results are discussed by relating it to possible explanations and corresponding
recommendations found in relevant literature. It is suggested that the
realisation of these recommendations may lead to the improvement of quality
in EIA in South Africa.
It is the purpose of the study to review environmental impact assessment,
thus the broad scope for review criteria. Due to practical constraints two case
studies were used. The number of case studies does not allow for provincial
comparisons as was initially envisaged. The significance of this study is found
in the introduction and piloting of a comprehensive review framework. The
application of the review framework on a provincially representative selection
of case studies could, therefore, become the focus of subsequent research. / Thesis (M.Env.Dev.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 2006.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:ukzn/oai:http://researchspace.ukzn.ac.za:10413/3452 |
| Date | January 2006 |
| Creators | Linde, Cappie. |
| Contributors | Fincham, Robert J. |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
Page generated in 0.001 seconds