A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Science, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science. Johannesburg, 2017. / An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is an instrument used to limit unexpected and
negative effects of proposed developments on the environment. Much experience has been gained
internationally but the lack of follow-up after the EIA is prepared is one of the major weak spots of the assessments. It is therefore very important to follow up on development projects and observe
their effects on the environment after the go-ahead has been given, so that the EIA quality may be improved. There is often a significant difference between predicted impacts and actual impacts.
Sometimes the predicted impacts do not occur, or new impacts which were not predicted in the
Environmental Impacts Assessment Reports (EIRs) arise. The aim of this study was to assess the
accuracy of the impacts predicted in the EIRs compiled for three large-scale Eskom projects currently
under execution situated in the Mpumalanga, Limpopo and KwaZulu-Natal provinces by comparing
them to the actual impacts that occurred on site. The EIA follow-up process was used to assess the
influence that the EIA may have on large-scale projects and ultimately assess the effectiveness of the
EIA process as a whole. A procedure developed by Wilson (1998) was used to follow up on the
selected projects because the method allowed for comparisons between the actual and predicted
impacts to be made and for discrepancies in the EIRs to be identified. Recent audit reports, aerial
photographs and interviews were all used to identify actual impact occurrence. Of the impacts which
actually occurred, 91% occurred as predicted (OP) and 9% occurred but were not predicted (ONP).
The majority of impacts omitted from the reports were hydrological (27%) and air quality impacts
(25%). These unexpected impacts were most probably overlooked because they are site-specific,
temporary in nature and would not cause any significant environmental damage. Of all the impacts
predicted in the reports, 85% were accurately predicted and 15% were not. The impacts inaccurately
predicted were hydrological impacts (27%), flora and fauna impacts (7%) and 30% other impacts
which included soil pollution, fires and loss of agricultural potential. The inaccuracies could be a
result of Environmental Impact Assessment Practitioners (EAPs) predicting a large number of
impacts with the hopes of lowering the risk of omitting impacts. However, sometimes the impacts
predicted do not occur in reality. Overall it can be concluded that the impact prediction accuracy of
the three EIRs compiled for Eskom exceeds previous studies conducted nationally. Eskom EIRs are
highly accurate with regards to impact prediction with minor discrepancies which can easily be
rectified.
Key words: Environmental Impacts Assessment (EIA) Environmental Impacts Assessment Reports
(EIRs), Environmental Impact Assessment Practitioners (EAPs), EIA follow-up, discrepancies. / LG2017
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:wits/oai:wiredspace.wits.ac.za:10539/23570 |
| Date | January 2017 |
| Creators | Molefe, Noella Madalo |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | Online resource (72 leaves), application/pdf, application/pdf |
Page generated in 0.0025 seconds