Thesis (MPA)--Stellenbosch University, 2001. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Despite calls for greater public participation in all aspects of environmental
planning, impact assessment and decision making, opportunities for participation in the
planning, legal and administrative systems governing these activities, are limited. Public
participation has often been reduced to a procedural exercise instead of a substantive
process to include the public in environmental decision making. Thus, it is relevant to
examine public participation in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), providing ways
to improve its effectiveness.
The emphasis of this thesis is therefore, to compare the role of public
participation in the environmental assessment process in the United Kingdom, South
Africa and the United States. It begins by defining the principles of Environmental Impact
Assessment and the concept of public participation and explores how the rationales of
public participation may be integrated into the environmental planning process.
Features of each of the three existing EIA systems are examined since components such
as the appropriate legislative framework, the institutional framework, the public, and
formal and informal public participation opportunities in the EIA process are the factors
contributing towards effective public participation in Environmental Impact Assessment.
The author argues that public participation deserves attention because the degree
of participation affects the quality of the Environmental Impact Assessment, which, in
turn, affects the quality of a decision about a project. Broader participation creates more
information and alternatives to be presented to decision makers, enhancing the
opportunity to mesh public values and government policy. Although public participation
may slow down the EIA process, the real goal of EIA theory is to ensure sustainable
development, no matter how long the EIA process takes.
Apparently, the three EIA laws discussed in the comparative analysis, are
consistent with sustainable development since these laws operate to force considerations
of environmental impacts into the decision making process. Moreover, properly drafted EIA laws are based on a strict standard of procedural compliance to ensure that the
responsible decision makers are fully apprised of the environmental consequences which
they review.
Involving the public is a safeguard against bad or politically motivated decisions,
and a mechanism to increase public awareness of the delicate balance between economic
and environmental trade offs. If conducted openly, it may ultimately increase public
confidence in the decision making process. Public participation has the potential to
enhance the maintenance of accountability in public and private sectors. The public
should realise that they, individually or through interest groups, can participate in public
matters that affect them, with a view to persuading decision makers and shaping
environmental policies.
The thesis further reviews the different roles the public can play during the various
stages of an Environmental Impact Assessment process, whereby formal and informal
public participation opportunities are explored according to the country-specific context.
The comparative analytical framework in the thesis reveals significant variations
within and between the three countries. Apparently, the three EIA systems seem to
possess more or less mature, well-defined and formal Environmental Impact Assessment
systems. For the UK and South Africa, examples could be taken from the United States,
which has developed more adequate public participation provisions than those of the
European Directive and of the South African EIA Regulations, particularly as far as the
level and degree of public participation and techniques are concerned. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Ten spyte van beroepe op groter openbare deelname in alle aspekte van
omgewingsbeplanning, inpakbeoordeling en besluitneming, is geleenthede vir deelname
in die beplannings-, administratiewe en wetlike sisteme wat hierdie aktiwiteite beheer,
beperk. Openbare deelname word dikwels gereduseer tot 'n proseduriële oefening in
plaas van 'n substantiewe proses te wees om die publiek in omgewingsbesluitneming te
betrek. Dit is derhalwe relevant dat openbare deelname in Omgewingsimpakbeoordeling
(algemeen in Engels na verwys as EIA) ondersoek word tot einde wyses vir
effektiwiteitsverbetering daar te stel.
Die aksent van hierdie tesis is dus 'n vergelyking van openbare deelname in
omgewingsbeoordeling in die Verenigde Koninkryk, Suid-Afrika en die Verenigde State
van Amerika onderskeidelik. Daar word begin met definiëring van die beginsels van EIA
en die konsep "openbare deelname" en 'n ondersoek na integrering van die rationales vir
openbare deelname in die omgewingsbeplanningsproses. Kenmerke van elk van die drie
bestaande EIA -stelsels word ondersoek aangesien komponente soos die geskikte
wetgewende raamwerk, die institusionele raamwerk, die publiek, asook formele en
informele openbare deelname-geleenthede in die EIA -proses, die bydraende faktore is tot
effektiewe openbare deelname in EIA.
Die navorser argumenteer dat openbare deelname aandag verdien omdat die
graad van deelname die kwaliteit van die EIA affekteer met voortspruitende effek vir die
kwaliteit van besluitneming rakende 'n projek. Breër deelname skep meer inligting en
alternatiewe vir voorlegging aan die besluitnemers ter verbetering van die geleentheid
vir die ineenskakeling van openbare waardes en regeringsbeleid. Hoewel openbare
deelname die EIA-proses mag vertraag, is die werklike doel van EIA-teorie die
bewerkstelliging van volhoubare ontwikkeling, ongeag van hoe lank die proses ook mag
duur. Die drie EIA-wette bespreek in die vergelykende analise is oënskynlik konsekwent
in terme van volhoubare ontwikkeling aangesien hierdie wette gerig is op die
inkorporering van omgewingsimpak oorwegings in die besluitnemingsproses. Verder is
behoorlik geformuleerde EIA-wette gebaseer op 'n streng standaard van proseduriële
onderworpenheid ten einde te verseker dat die verantwoordelike besluitnemers ten volle
ingelig is oor die omgewingsgevolge onder hersiening.
Die insluiting van die publiek is 'n voorsorg teen swak of polities gemotiveerde
besluite en 'n meganisme om openbare bewustheid ten opsigte van die delikate balans
tussen ekonomiese en omgewings komprimieë. As dit openlik gedoen word, behoort dit op
die lange duur die publiek se vertoue in die besluitnemingsproses te verhoog. Openbare
deelname kan tot die behoud van, deur hul betrokkenheid aanspreeklikheid in die
openbare en private sektore bydra. Die publiek moet besef dat hulle deur hulle
betrokkenheid, individueel of deur middel van belangegroepe, in openbare
aangeleenthede wat hulle raak, beluitnemers kan oorreed en omgewingsbeleid help vorm.
Die tesis beskou ook die verskillende rolle wat die publiek gedurende die
verskillende fases van 'n Omgewingsimpakbeoordelingsproses kan speel, en verken
geleenthede vir formele en informele openbare deelname binne elke land se spefieke
konteks.
Die vergelykende analitiese raamwerk in die tesis bring betekenisvolle variasies
binne en tussen die drie lande aan die lig. Oënskynlik verteenwoordig die drie EIA
stelsels min of meer volwasse, goed definieërde en formele
Omgewingsimpakbeoordelingstelsels. Die VK en Suid Afrika kan leer uit die voorbeeld
van die VSA wat meer voldoende voorsienning vir openbare deelname bied as die van die
Europese Direktief en van Suid Afrika se EIA Regulasies, in besonder sover dit die vlak
en graad van openbare deelname en tegnieke betref
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:sun/oai:scholar.sun.ac.za:10019.1/52424 |
| Date | 12 1900 |
| Creators | Decadt, Leen |
| Contributors | Miiller, J. J., Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Economic & Management Sciences . Dept. of Sustainable Development Planning & Management |
| Publisher | Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | en_ZA |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | 1 v. (various pagings) |
| Rights | Stellenbosch University |
Page generated in 0.0035 seconds