PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF THE WESTERN CAPE ......Paul Hardcastle - DEA&DP Percy Langa - DEA&DP Hennis...

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF THE WESTERN CAPE: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS

AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING

GUIDELINE FOR THE REVIEW OF SPECIALIST INPUT INTO THE EIA PROCESS

DRAFT FOR COMMENT, 15 APRIL 2005

EDITION 1

Prepared by: Kagiso Keatimilwe and Pete Ashton

CSIR Environmentek PO Box 320

Stellenbosch 7599 South Africa

Email: [email protected]

Co-ordinated by: CSIR Environmentek

PO Box 320 Stellenbosch 7599

South Africa

CSIR REPORT NO. ENV-S-C 2005-053 B

GUIDELINE FOR THE REVIEW OF SPECIALIST INPUT INTO THE EIA PROCESS Edition 1

Issued by: Provincial Government of the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning Utilitas Building, 1 Dorp Street Private Bag X9086 Cape Town 8000

South Africa

Prepared by: Kagiso Keatimilwe and Pete Ashton CSIR Environmentek P O Box 320 Stellenbosch 7599South Africa Email: [email protected]

Co-ordinated by: CSIR Environmentek P O Box 320 Stellenbosch 7599South Africa

Contact person: Frauke Münster Tel: +27 21 888-2538 ([email protected])

Copyright reserved

COPYRIGHT © Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning 2005. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

This document is copyright under the Berne Convention. Apart from the purpose of private study, research or teaching, in terms of the Copyright Act (Act No. 98 of 1978) no part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning. Likewise, it may not be lent, resold, hired out or otherwise disposed of by way of trade in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published.

This guideline should be cited as:

Keatimilwe, K. and Ashton, P.J. 2005. Guideline for the Review of Specialist Input into the EIA Process: Edition 1. CSIR Report No ENV-S-C 2005 053 B. Republic of South Africa, Provincial Government of the Western Cape, Department of Environmental Affairs & Development Planning, Cape Town.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

DEA&DP GUIDELINE FOR THE REVIEW OF SPECIALIST INPUT INTO THE EIA PROCESS DRAFT FOR COMMENT, 15 April 2005

page ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSSteering committee: Paul Hardcastle - DEA&DP Ayub Mohammed - DEA&DP Keith Wiseman - City of Cape Town Susie Brownlie - de Villiers Brownlie Associates Paul Lochner - CSIR Environmentek Mike Burns - CSIR Environmentek Pete Ashton - CSIR Environmentek

Focus group participants: Paul Hardcastle - DEA&DP Percy Langa - DEA&DP Hennis Germishuys - Department of Agriculture, Western Cape Mike Luger - Ninham Shand Robin Carter - Independent Consultant Susie Brownlie - de Villiers Brownlie Associates Bryony Walmsley - Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment Pete Ashton - CSIR Environmentek Paul Lochner - CSIR Environmentek Frauke Münster - CSIR Environmentek

Internal review: Mike Burns - CSIR Environmentek Percy Langa - DEA&DP Susie Brownlie - de Villiers Brownlie Associates

Stakeholders engaged in the guideline development process: These guidelines were developed through a consultative process and have benefited from the inputs and comments provided by a wide range of individuals and organizations actively working to improve EIA practice. Thank-you to all of you who took the time to engage in the guideline development process.

Other organisations whose work informed the guideline: These guidelines have been primarily informed by the following documents: Review Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment in the Cape Metropolitan Area (as

modified by DEA&DP for use throughout the Western Cape Province). SAIEA Review Checklist (appendix to DEAT Information Series 13: Review in EIA) DEAT Integrated Environmental Management Information Series 13: Review in EIA

Finalisation of report figures and formatting: Magdel van der Merwe and Elna Logie, DTP Solutions

PREFACE


page iii

PREFACEFor Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) processes to retain their role and usefulness in supporting decision-making, the involvement of specialists in EIA needs to be improved in order to: Add value to project planning and design; Accurately predict and assess potential project benefits and negative impacts; Provide practical recommendations for enhancing benefits and for avoiding or adequately

managing negative impacts; and Supply adequate and appropriate information that addresses key issues and concerns to

effectively inform decision-making in support of sustainable development.

The purpose of this series of guidelines is to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and quality of specialist involvement in EIA processes. They aim to improve the capacity of roleplayers to anticipate, request, plan, review and discuss specialist involvement in EIA processes. Specifically, they aim to improve the capacity of EIA practitioners to draft appropriate terms of reference for specialist input and assist all roleplayers in evaluating whether or not specialist input to the EIA process was appropriate for the type of development and environmental context.

The guidelines draw on best practice in EIA in general, and within specialist fields of expertise in particular, to address the following issues related to the timing, scope and quality of specialist input. Although the guidelines have been developed with specific reference to the Western Cape Province of South Africa, their core elements are more widely applicable.

ISSUESTIMING When should specialists be involved in the EIA process; i.e. at what stage in the EIA

process should specialists be involved (if at all) and what triggers the need for their input?

SCOPE Which aspects must be addressed through specialist involvement; i.e. what is the purpose and scope of specialist involvement?

What are appropriate approaches that specialists can employ? What qualifications, skills and experience are required?

QUALITY What triggers the review of specialist studies by different roleplayers? What are the review criteria against which specialist inputs can be evaluated to ensure

that they meet minimum requirements, are reasonable, objective and professionally sound?

The following guidelines form part of this series:

Guideline for determining the scope of specialist involvement in EIA processes Guideline for the review of specialist input into the EIA process Guideline for involving biodiversity specialists in EIA processes

PREFACE


page iv

Guideline for involving hydrogeologists in EIA processes Guideline for involving visual and aesthetic specialists in EIA processes Guideline for involving heritage specialists in EIA processes Guideline for involving economists in EIA processes

The Guideline for determining the scope of specialist involvement and the Guideline for the review of specialist input provide generic guidance applicable to any specialist input to the EIA process and clarify the roles and responsibilities of the different roleplayers involved in the scoping and review of specialist input. It is recommended that these two guidelines are read first to introduce the generic concepts underpinning the guidelines which are focussed on specific specialist disciplines.

It is widely recognized that no amount of theoretical information on how best to plan and co-ordinate specialist inputs as an EIA practitioner, or to provide or review specialist input, can replace the value of practical experience of co-ordinating, being responsible for and/or reviewing specialist studies. Only with such experience can the EIA practitioner and specialist develop sound judgment on such issues as the level of detail needed or expected in specialist input to inform decision-makers adequately. For this reason, the guidelines should not be viewed as prescriptive and inflexible documents; their intention is to provide best practice guidance only.

Who is the target audience for these guidelines?

The guidelines are directed at authorities, EIA practitioners, specialists, proponents, financing institutions and other interested and affected parties involved in EIA processes.

What type of environmental assessment processes and developments are these guidelines applicable to?

The guidelines have been developed to support project-level EIA processes regardless of whether this is undertaken during the early project planning phase to inform planning and design decisions (i.e. during pre-application planning and/or screening) or as part of a legally defined EIA process to obtain statutory approval for a proposed project (i.e. during screening, scoping and/or impact assessment). The guidelines promote early, focussed and appropriate involvement of specialists in EIA processes in order to encourage proactive consideration of potentially significant impacts, so that they may be avoided through due consideration of alternatives and changes to the project.

The guidelines aim to be applicable to a range of types and scales of development, as well as different biophysical, social, economic and governance contexts.

PREFACE


page v

What will these guidelines not do?

In order to retain their relevance in the context of changing legislation, the guidelines promote the principles of EIA best practice without being tied to specific legislated national or provincial EIA requirements. They therefore do not clarify the specific administrative, procedural or reporting requirements and timeframes for applications to obtain statutory approval. They should, therefore, be read in conjunction with the applicable legislation, regulations and procedural guidelines to ensure that mandatory requirements are met.

The guidelines do not intend to create experts out of non-specialists. Although the guidelines outline broad approaches that are available to the specialist discipline (e.g. field survey, desktop review, consultation, modelling), specific methods (e.g. the type of model or sampling technique to be used) cannot be prescribed. The guidelines should therefore not be used indiscriminately without due consideration of the particular context and circumstances within which an EIA is undertaken as this influences both the approach and the methods available and used by specialists.

SUMMARY


page vi

SUMMARYThe purpose of this guideline is to improve the quality of specialist contributions to EIA by strengthening the rigour of the review of those contributions. The specific objectives of this guideline are to:

i) Identify stages or points in the EIA process where review should take place; ii) Identify who should undertake the review; and iii) Present specific criteria that support the review process in determining whether or not the

specialist assessment meets the minimum requirements for specialist assessments, and is reasonable, objective and professionally defensible.

Several types of problems have been linked to the provision of specialist inputs during an EIA and these often result in inadequate reports. Typical problems include: poor Terms of Reference, over-emphasis on baseline descriptions with inadequate impact assessment, analysis or evaluation of information; use of inappropriate methods, approaches and techniques; use or provision of unreliable data; provision of insufficient information for decision-making, and unclear presentation of information.

In the absence of clear guidance to indicate when the review should be undertaken, who should undertake the review, and how the review should be conducted, reviews of specialist studies have varied in their thoroughness and quality, and have perpetuated inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the quality of final reports.

With regard to the first objective, the guideline suggests that reviews of specialist inputs could occur at several points, namely: during pre-application planning, screening, scoping and impact assessment. Best practice suggests that specialist review should take place at the impact assessment stage, at minimum, and at the scoping and pre-application stages when appropriate. An independent review of inputs received from specialists should be triggered by one or more of a number of factors, specifically: the need to apply best practice, particularly where the project is complex, controversial or unprecedented, concerns expressed about the quality of studies, and legal requirements.

Regarding the second objective, several key parties can play important roles during the review process. These include the EIA practitioner; the project proponent; financing institutions; the lead authority; other permitting authorities; independent specialists; interested and affected parties; as well as the independent EIA reviewer.

The criteria for review of specialist inputs are discussed in the context of the third objective, and address: ethics; the adequacy and clarity of information provided; the assessment of project alternatives; the description of the project and the affected environment; the description and analysis of the implications of legislation, policies and plans; the due consideration of all the key issues identified during scoping, assessment and evaluation of impacts; as well as mitigation, enhancement, management and monitoring proposals. These criteria represent minimum requirements that will ensure that the specialist contributions are reasonable, objective and professionally defensible.

SYNOPSIS


page vii

SYNOPSISMay be included in final guideline

CONTENTS


page viii

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................................. ii PREFACE..................................................................................................................................................... iii SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................vi SYNOPSIS .................................................................................................................................................. vii CONTENTS................................................................................................................................................ viii

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDELINE 2

3. PRINCIPLES UNDERPINNING THE REVIEW OF SPECIALIST INPUTS INTOTHEN EIA PROCESS 3

3.1 PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 33.2 PRINCIPLES FOR ETHICS AND QUALITY 4

4. TRIGGERS FOR THE REVIEW OF SPECIALIST INPUT 44.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SPECIALIST REVIEWERS 44.2 WHAT TRIGGERS THE NEED FOR REVIEW OF A SPECIALIST STUDY 64.3 OUTCOME OF A SPECIALIST REVIEW 14

5. QUALIFICATIONS, SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE REQUIRED TO REVIEW A SPECIALIST STUDY 17

5.1 REVIEW OF STRUCTURE AND CLARITY 175.2 REVIEW OF ACCURACY AND QUALITY 17

6. INFORMATION REQUIRED TO REVIEW A SPECIALIST STUDY 186.1 RELEVANT PROJECT INFORMATION 186.2 INFORMATION DESCRIBING THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 186.3 THE LEGAL, POLICY AND PLANNING CONTEXT 186.4 SPECIALIST TERMS OF REFERENCE 19

7. REVIEW CRITERIA 207.1 OVERALL QUALITY ASSURANCE 207.2 KEY COMPONENTS OF THE SPECIALIST STUDY 22

8. CONCLUSIONS 25

9. REFERENCES 26

CONTENTS


page ix

AppendicesAppendix A: Definitions and Acronyms ...................................................................................................... 28Appendix B: Model Terms of Reference for Specialist Input...................................................................... 30Appendix C: Review Checklist for Specialist Input..................................................................................... 31

List of tables Table 1: Review during pre-application planning or screening .................................................................... 8Table 2: Review of the Scoping Report...................................................................................................... 10Table 3: Review of specialist studies ......................................................................................................... 12Table 4: Review of Specialist Information in the Environmental Impact Report ........................................ 13Table 5: Outcome of Review of specialist input during pre-application planning or screening.................. 14Table 6: Outcome of Review of specialist input during Scoping ................................................................ 15Table 7: Outcome of Review of specialist studies...................................................................................... 15Table 8: Outcome of Review of specialists’ findings in the Environmental Impact Report ........................ 16

List of boxes Box 1: Definition of Sustainable Development ............................................................................................. 3Box 2: Contents of a typical Screening Report submitted with an application ............................................. 7

SPECIALIST REVIEW GUIDELINE


page 1


1. INTRODUCTION Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is a process of identifying, predicting and assessing the potential positive and negative social, economic and biophysical impacts of any proposed project. EIA also includes an evaluation of reasonable alternatives, as well as recommendations on appropriate mitigation measures for minimising or avoiding negative impacts, measures for enhancing the positive aspects of the proposal, and specific arrangements or recommendations for environmental management and monitoring. The objective of EIA is to provide decision-makers with relevant and objective environmental information in a form that will allow a decision-maker to determine whether or not a proposed project will support sustainable development.

Project-level environmental assessment typically consists of four distinct stages: pre-application planning, screening, scoping and impact assessment during the formal application phase. Specialists are required to provide a range of inputs during each of these phases. Their input could consist of opinions, baseline information, field studies and detailed modelling. Severalproblems can diminish the quality and reliability of specialist inputs during EIA, and these in turn could adversely affect the quality of reports. These problems include:

Poor, or non-existent Terms of Reference. Over-emphasis on baseline descriptions with inadequate attention given to impact

assessment, analysis or evaluation. The use of inappropriate or outdated approaches and techniques. The unreliability or inadequacy of data upon which an analysis may be based. Provision of insufficient information. Unclear presentation of information.

In the absence of clear guidance to indicate when the review should be undertaken, who should undertake the review, and how the review should be conducted, reviews of specialist studies have varied widely in their thoroughness and quality, and have perpetuated inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the quality of final reports.

For these reasons, the Western Cape Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEA&DP) has embarked on the process of developing guidelines for EIA specialist studies, including the review of such assessments, with the ultimate aim of improving the professionalism and reliability of EIA studies.

This guideline addresses the review of EIA specialist studies, and is presented in eight sections. The first section introduces the context and rationale for the guideline. Section 2 describes the



page 2

specific purpose of the guideline, together with its benefits and guidance on how it should be applied. Section 3 deals with the principles that inform the review of specialist studies, while Section 4 explains where in the EA process specialist review should take place. The qualifications, experience and skills required of an independent reviewer are outlined in Section 5. This is followed by advice on the types of information that are required to undertake a specialist review (Section 6) and the criteria for review (Section 7). The conclusions are presented in Section 8, which also highlights important issues.

2. PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDELINE The purpose of this guideline is to improve the quality of specialist contributions to EIA by improving the thoroughness of all reviews of these contributions. This includes the review of any and all contributions made by specialists during pre-application planning, screening, scoping and impact assessment phases of EIA. The objectives of the guideline are to:

i) Identify stages or key points where review should take place. ii) Identify who should undertake the review. iii) Present specific criteria that support the review process in determining whether or not the

specialist assessment meets the minimum requirements for such assessments and is reasonable, objective and professionally defensible.

The guideline will promote consistency in the review of EIA specialist studies and improve the clarity, credibility and effectiveness of EIA by:

i) Adding value to project planning and design decisions; ii) Identifying potential impacts at the earliest possible stage and ensuring that these are

avoided or adequately managed, thereby reducing costs and delays; iii) Supplying adequate information to address key issues and concerns; and iv) Providing decision-makers with reliable information to support sustainable development

decisions.

The guideline aims to be applicable in a range of different types and scales of development, and can be applied at any stage of the EIA process where specialist input is provided.

Independent peer review is an extremely important part of quality assurance in EIA, allowing a specific piece of work to be considered by individuals who are knowledgeable in that particular field, and providing an effective system of quality control (Scholes, 2003). Review also helps to assure that work is accurate, comprehensive and clearly presented (DEAT 2004). In the context of EIA, review can result in better informed decisions and can reduce the cost of projects to proponents by providing early information on whether or not to proceed with the project.



page 3

3. PRINCIPLES UNDERPINNING THE REVIEW OF SPECIALIST INPUTS INTO THEN EIA PROCESS

Most of the information used in EIA is provided by specialists in response to expressed information needs and the issues provided or raised by the proponent, authorities, interested and affected parties and other stakeholders.

3.1 PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The overall objective of review in the context of an EIA process is to ensure that the information is sufficiently reliable to enable decision-making for sustainable development. Box 1 shows the definition of sustainable development used in South African legislation.

Box 1: Definition of Sustainable Development The National Environmental Management Act (Act No.107 of 1998) defines sustainable development as: “the integration of social, economic and environmental factors into planning, implementation and decision-making so as to ensure that development serves present and future generations”. Sustainable development has also been defined in several other policy-level documents (WCED1987; IUCN 1991; SADC 1995). The common attributes of these definitions include concern for the welfare of future generations, the improvement of the quality of life and the maintenance of essential ecological processes, as well as the adoption of decision-making processes that integrate ecological, social, and economic systems.

Several key principles contained in the National Environmental Management Act (Act No. 107 of 1998), Agenda 21 (United Nations 1992) and the Report of the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (United Nations 2002), provide a general framework within which environmental management must be carried out and decisions taken to protect the environment and to support sustainable development. Key aspects of these principles are summarised below, and relate to the biophysical, social and economic components of sustainable development.

Biophysical Aspects Adoption of the precautionary principle when there is insufficient information to determine

with confidence the consequences of an action. Maintenance of ecological integrity so that natural capital is maintained. Respect for carrying capacity. Sustainable use and equitable sharing of benefits of natural resources.

Social Aspects Equitable access to resources and to the benefits of development (including access by

neighbouring states and future generations).



page 4

Social justice to ensure that adverse impacts do not unfairly impact any individual or group, and that the costs of impacts are borne by the project proponents.

Participation of all interested and affected parties, including women and youth. Transparent and fair decision-making processes.

Economic Aspects Transformation of livelihoods through the provision of economic benefits. No one should be worse off as a result of development.

Reviewers must consider the extent to which the specialist study or specialist opinions address these aspects of sustainability. However, it is important to note that not all of these aspects will be relevant to every specialist study.

3.2 PRINCIPLES FOR ETHICS AND QUALITY

In addition to considering the consistency of specialist input with the principles of sustainable development, all reviews must also be guided by other principles which are presented below:

Professional rigour. This includes an evaluation as to whether or not the methods used are appropriate; the conclusions are supported by the information presented; the report responds to and addresses all of the tasks identified in the terms of reference.

Clear and easily understood reporting. Specialist inputs should be easily understood, clearly laid out, an accepted documentation style should be used; and all the tables, figures and illustrations should be appropriate and necessary.

Consistency with national, regional and local legislation, policies and plans, as well as with international commitments and obligations.

Impartiality, objectivity and independence of the specialist (the specialist should not have any financial or other interest in doing the work except to provide information as required).

The qualifications, experience and competence of the specialist should be commensurate with the complexity of the specialist study required.

4. TRIGGERS FOR THE REVIEW OF SPECIALIST INPUT

4.1 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF SPECIALIST REVIEWERS

Various parties review the available information during the pre-application planning stage, followed by the screening, scoping and impact assessment phases of EIA. These parties include: Specialists within the organisation where the specialist is employed, who carry out internal

peer review as a professional quality control mechanism. The EIA practitioner. The project proponent.



page 5

Financing bodies or institutions. Lead authority (including the Minister in the case of an appeal). Other authorities who may be required to provide appropriate permits (e.g. for water to be

used). Independent specialists who carry out peer review. Interested and affected parties. Independent EIA reviewer.

Large organisations or institutions may use internal specialists to peer review another specialist’s work before making it more widely available. This internal review acts as a quality check, and upholds the reputation of that organisation or institution.

The EIA practitioner reviews all of the specialist studies to ensure that they are rigorous and that they fully address the Terms of Reference. The EIA practitioner also needs to ensure that there are no conflicts or inconsistencies between specialists’ recommendations, so that the EIR presents a consistent picture.

It is desirable that the project proponent reviews the pre-application planning report, screening report, scoping report, specialist study and the environmental impact report (EIR); at the very least the proponent should review the screening, scoping and EIR. Here, the proponent is interested in ensuring that the proposed project is described accurately, that all assumptions are valid, that alternatives addressed are reasonable and acceptable, and that mitigation measures would be practicable.

The financing agencies need to assure themselves that the information provided is accurate and that there are no risks (or acceptable levels of risk) linked to funding the proposed project. They need to consider whether or not the alternatives, mitigation and/or enhancement measures proposed are practicable or acceptable, and to take cognisance of associated time and cost implications. Also, they need to ensure that internal requirements or procedures have been met in the EIA process (e.g. World Bank protocols).

The overall review role of the lead authority is to ensure that all of the key issues are appropriately addressed or investigated by the specialists, and that the specialists’ findings adequately inform the EIR.

Other authorities undertake review primarily to verify the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the information provided from the viewpoint of their specific mandates and areas of responsibility.

The role of the independent specialist peer reviewer is to evaluate the Terms of Reference for the specialist study, the appropriateness of time and space boundaries for the study, the accuracy of information used, the adequacy of identification and/or assessment and evaluation (both preliminary evaluation during scoping, and detailed evaluation during the impact assessment) of key impacts in the specialist area, the appropriateness of the approach and



page 6

methodology/ies used, the adequacy of addressing alternatives, the adequacy of identification of mitigation or enhancement measures, and due consideration of the strategic context of issues and impacts. The independent peer reviewer also needs to evaluate the consistency of the conclusions with the information, and to identify any ethical issues that may need specific attention.

Interested and affected parties ensure that the issues that they have previously raised are properly addressed by the specialist, and that the information provided is balanced and intelligible, and has been reflected accurately in the EIR.

The independent EIA reviewer’s overall task is to verify that the EIR adequately reflects specialist inputs and the contributions made by I&APs, to check that there are no conflicts or inconsistencies between these inputs, and to confirm that the correct technical process has been followed in undertaking the EIA.

4.2 WHAT TRIGGERS THE NEED FOR REVIEW OF A SPECIALIST STUDY

The project and related decision-making needs to benefit from the review of specialist input at the different stages of the EIA process. The most common triggers for the review of the pre-application planning report, screening study, scoping study, the specialist study and the EIR are: confirmation of best practice, the complexity, likely controversy, unprecedented nature of, or high levels of risk associated with the proposed project, legal requirements, and/or concerns expressed about the quality of reports or competence of specialists.

4.2.1 Triggers for review during the pre-application planning and screening phases

The purpose of pre-application planning, followed by a screening phase, is to enable the proponent to respond progressively as fully and as early as possible to the potential environmental implications of a development proposal, as the development proposal is refined (DEAT 2002). The process allows the proponent to take environmental considerations into account as early as possible during the planning stages (i.e. during the pre-feasibility and feasibility stages of the project). Pre-application planning can inform the nature, scale and location of the proposal, shape the consideration of alternatives, influence project design, identify any fatal flaws or potentially significant impacts, and help the proponent to determine at an early stage whether or not to proceed with detailed design. Pre-application planning that is undertaken outside (before) the formal EIA process, at the discretion of the applicant, and prior to submission of proposal for formal screening, represents best practice. If pre-application planning is competently carried out, it will also provide most of the information needed for a formal screening phase and thereby reduce the duration and costs of such screening studies.

The screening phase allows a project proponent to compare and evaluate different development or process options, and determine which mix of options would best match the environmental setting and meet the proponent’s development objectives. Typically, the screening phase allows the project proponent and the lead authority to reach broad agreement that the proposed development is aligned with national and regional planning frameworks, and the extent and level of detail that would be required for the competent authority to decide whether or not to



page 7

approve the proposed development. In this way, considerable time and money is saved since the screening process prevents inappropriate development proposals from entering a potentially costly and time-consuming scoping and impact assessment phase.

The pre-application planning report or the screening report may be reviewed either internally or, in some instances where the proposed project is particularly complex or controversial, or requires external funding, externally by peers and/or the financing agency. The project proponent would also review the pre-application planning report.

Internal Peer Review

If the project proponent undertakes a voluntary pre-application planning process or a formal screening phase, an independent environmental consultant (EIA Practitioner) may be [i.e. not always!] appointed to co-ordinate this process, and – finally – to produce the pre-application planning report and/or screening report. Box 2 outlines the main contents of a typical pre-application report or a screening report.

Box 2: Contents of a typical Pre-application Planning Report or a Screening Report that would be submitted with an application

The project description. The need for the proposed development. The types of processes that might be used. The sources and quantities of raw material and supplies required. The types and quantities of typical waste products that would be produced. A summary of investigations and studies previously undertaken. Possible new infrastructure needed (e.g. Power facilities, social services, water supplies). The implications of relevant policies, laws and guidelines. The expected life of the project and possible plans for decommissioning after the project. A brief baseline description of the receiving environment, including the biophysical, social and

economic components). An initial indication of the proposal’s potential environmental impacts (e.g. Waste generation, possible

human health impacts, atmospheric and noise emissions, economic opportunities). An indication of any feasible alternatives to the proposal (e.g. alternative sites, alternative

technologies, alternatives modes of operation).

Source: Adapted from (DEAT 2002)

Internal peer review of the pre-application planning report and the screening report would simply provide a quality control check.

Independent Peer Review A pre-application planning report or a screening report could (i.e. not always) be submitted for independent specialist peer review by the EIA practitioner if: the project being proposed is complex or controversial; there are high levels of uncertainty and risk; there are no precedents



page 8

to draw on (e.g. if new technologies are used) or the pre-application planning report contains contradictory information provided by different specialists.

The independent peer reviewer would evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the specialist input and confirm that the conclusions drawn are supported by the information provided.

Review by proponent and/or financing agency The proponent or financing agency should review the pre-application planning report or the screening report in order to decide whether or not to proceed with the project. The proponent or financing agency should satisfy themselves that the information is complete and accurate.

Table 1 provides a summary of the review of triggers and the purpose of review during pre-application planning process or during a screening phase.

Table 1: Review during pre-application planning or screening phases

Reviewer Trigger for Review Purpose of Review


Receipt of pre-application planning report or screening report from the EIA practitioner.

To ensure that the specialist inputs are accurate [see above comment].

Independent Peer Reviewer

[see above comments] project is complex or risky.

To ensure accuracy and reliability of information and consistency of conclusions with the information provided

Proponent or Financing Agency

Receipt of pre-application planning report or screening report from the EIA practitioner.

To make a decision on whether or not to proceed with (i.e. fund) the project. See above comments

4.2.2 Triggers for review during scoping

If the environmental authority decides that a scoping process should be initiated following the review of a pre-application planning report or a screening report for a proposed project, specialist opinions and/or input may be required.

Internal Peer Review Good practice requires the Scoping Report to be reviewed internally where possible before being made available for review by other stakeholders. However, the individual specialist input into a scoping report would normally only be reviewed in the case of a highly complex or contentious development proposal. Internal review can help to identify and correct any errors and to ensure that the specialist contribution is complete.



page 9

Review by Proponent and/or Financing Agency Following the internal review of the Scoping Report, it is good practice to make it available to the proponent to ensure that the information contained regarding the proposed project is accurate, complete and has been correctly presented. Specialist input would be reviewed as part of this process.

Review by the Lead Authority The Lead Authority reviews the Scoping Report after its submission by the EIA practitioner on behalf of the proponent. The Scoping Report, including any specialist input, is reviewed to ensure that all of the key issues raised by stakeholders have been included, appropriate alternatives to the project have been considered, any environmental issues that are of concern and require further investigation have been clearly identified, and the Terms of Reference for any proposed specialist studies adequately address the issues that have been identified.

Review by other Authorities Other authorities review the Scoping Report during the period of public comment to verify the accuracy of specialist information pertaining to their mandates, and in the context of any permitting or licensing processes that may affect them.

Interested and Affected PartiesExternal stakeholders should have the opportunity to raise issues of concern during the scoping process and also to comment on the draft Scoping Report during the period of public comment. (See section on the role and focus of I&AP review). Occasionally, external stakeholders may consider a development proposal to be highly controversial, extremely complex in nature, or proposed for an extremely sensitive area, and they may wish to call for an independent specialist review of the proposal and the scoping report. This would allow them to confirm that the scoping process has been conducted professionally and that inputs from the different specialists can be relied upon.

In normal professional practice, the EIA practitioner would review the different inputs made by specialists to check that their work had met the Terms of Reference set for them and that there were no obvious inconsistencies. Typically, the EIA practitioner would conduct this internal review before the specialist reports or other forms of input are distributed for independent external review or scrutiny by stakeholders.

Table 2 provides a summary of the review triggers and the purpose of review by the different parties during the scoping phase.



page 10

Table 2: Review of the Scoping Report


Internal Peer Review (usually by EIA practitioner)

Completion of Scoping Report.

To identify and correct any errors and to ensure that the specialist contribution to the scoping document is complete.

To ensure that the information and approach presented is consistent with the policies and procedures of the proponents / agency.


Completion of Scoping. Report.

To ensure that the information contained in the Scoping Report regarding the proposed project is accurate, complete and correctly presented.

Lead Authority Completion of Scoping Report.

To ensure that the key issues raised by stakeholders have been addressed, appropriate alternatives to the project have been considered, any environmental issues that are of concern and require further investigation have been identified, and the Terms of Reference for the specialist studies adequately address the issues identified.

Other Authorities Submission of Scoping Report.

To verify the accuracy of information pertaining to their mandates and in the context of permitting or licensing processes that may affect them.

Interested and Affected Parties

Initiation of scoping phase.

Period of public comment.

To confirm that all issues of concern have been correctly documented.

To ensure that all the issues and concerns have been addressed in the Scoping Report.

4.2.3 Triggers for review during EIA (i.e. the impact assessment phase)

During the impact assessment phase, specialist review may be required, and is good practice, for each of the specialist studies and the environmental impact report (EIR) which incorporates information derived or extracted from specialist reports.

Internal Peer Review Internal peer review of both the specialist studies and the EIR before they are made available to other stakeholders represents good practice and may be conducted as part of good quality control processes to ensure that the specialist reports and the EIR meet internal standards of quality, consistency and presentation (see Section 4.1).



page 11

Review by the EIA Practitioner The first review of the specialist reports is done by the EIA practitioner following the submission of these reports (see Section 4.1).

Independent Specialist Peer Review There are several situations that could make the EIA practitioner commission an independent specialist peer reviewer. These include cases where the project is complex or controversial; where the credibility, competence and ethics of the specialist has been questioned; situations where there are likely to be high levels of uncertainty and risk; circumstances where there are no precedents to draw on (e.g. if new technologies are used); conclusions drawn are not consistent with the findings of the specialist study, there are low levels of confidence in the findings of the report, the information provided is incomplete or inaccurate; the stakeholders (including the proponent) question some or all of the findings of the original specialist study; or the specialist study contains internally contradictory information, or contradicts information contained in another specialist study (see Section 4.1).

It is preferable to involve the independent specialist peer reviewer in developing the specialist terms of reference so that s/he can verify that the scope of the study is appropriate, and can provide early input and identify / avoid possible inconsistencies.

Proponent or Financing Agency During the impact assessment phase, the proponent or funding agency reviews both the specialist reports and the draft EIR as soon as these documents have been released for review. Importantly, the proponent or funding agency must understand the time and cost implications for the project that could arise from possible mitigatory management actions proposed by the specialist (see Section 4.1).

Interested and affected parties Once the draft environmental impact report (EIR) has been released and made available for scrutiny, stakeholders would examine the documents during the agreed period that has been allowed for such review (see Section 4.1).

Review by Lead Authority The lead authority will review the draft EIR (together with all the specialist studies as appendices) as soon as the document has been released (see Section 4.1).

Review by other authorities Depending on the specific project, other public authorities such as departments responsible for planning, housing, health, labour, land use and other environmental resources, would review specific specialist studies and the draft environmental impact report as soon as these are made available (see Section 4.1).



page 12

Independent EIA Reviewer The independent EIA reviewer will review the EIR and its supporting specialist reports as soon as these are made available for scrutiny. The EIA reviewer may request an independent review of a specialist study if he or she is not satisfied with any aspects of the EIR that may be based on materials or information taken from the specialist studies (see Section 4.1).

The review triggers and the purpose of review by the different parties during the review of specialist studies are summarised in Table 3.

Table 3: Review of specialist studies



Completion of specialist study Represents good practice and may be conducted as part of quality control processes to ensure that the quality of the specialist study meets professional standards of quality.

EIAPractitioner

Submission of the specialist study. Quality control and assurance that the terms of reference have been met.

Interested and Affected Parties

Completion and submission of the specialist study

To confirm that the specialist study has adequately addressed the specific issues that had been raised.

To confirm that the results of the study have been communicated in a clear and intelligible format.


Completion of specialist study. To ensure that the specialist study is based on the correct project information and assumptions, and to understand any time and cost implications for the project that may arise from the management actions proposed by the specialist.

Independent Specialist Peer Reviewer

The Independent Specialist Peer Reviewer is involved in the development of ToR, but also involved after completion of specialist study if: The project is complex. The project is controversial. The credibility, competence and

ethics of the EIA practitioner, the specialist and/or the proponent are questioned.

There are high levels of uncertainty and risk.

There are no precedents to draw on (e.g. use of new technologies)

There is incomplete or inaccurate information.

To verify that: Key issues have been identified

through the scoping process. Specialist terms of reference are

appropriate to address the key issues. The quality of the technical, substantive

content of the specialist study is adequate.

The methodology, assumptions and information used are appropriate.

The correct project information and assumptions have been used by the specialist.

The correct process has been followed. All tasks listed in the terms of reference



page 13


The stakeholders question some or all of the findings of the specialist study.

The study contains contradictory information, or contradicts information contained in another specialist study.

have been carried out.

Lead Authority Submission of the specialist study. Ensure that: The terms of reference have been met

and all key issues addressed. The correct process has been followed. The scope of study is appropriate. Appropriate and accurate information

has been provided to inform decision-making and the record of decision.

OtherAuthorities

Submission of specialist study, if it has permitting or licensing implications, or if potential impacts are of high significance to elements of the environment under the management of the various authorities.

To ensure that appropriate and accurate information has been provided to inform specific permitting or licensing processes, and to verify accuracy of information pertaining specifically to their mandate.

The review triggers and purpose of the different reviews of the environmental impact report are summarised in Table 4.

Table 4: Review of Specialist Information in the Environmental Impact Report


Internal Peer Reviewer

Receipt of draft EIR from EIA practitioner.

To ensure that the EIR meets internal standards of quality and presentation.

Proponent or funding Agency


To ensure that the issues from the scoping report and the specialist studies have been adequately presented.

Interested and affected parties

Invitation to comment on draft EIR by lead authority.

To ensure that the specialist study clearly communicates findings to non-specialists, has followed a good process, incorporates local knowledge and understanding, is accurate and has adequately addressed the issues raised during scoping.

Independent EIA Reviewer

EIA reviewer questions specialist components in Environmental Impact Report and requests review of specialist study.

To verify that the contents of the EIR accurately reflect the content of the specialist studies.



page 14

Review by lead authority


To ensure that the terms of reference have been met and key issues are addressed; the scope and methodologies of the specialist studies are appropriate; and appropriate and accurate information has been provided to inform decision-making and the record of decision.

4.3 OUTCOME OF A SPECIALIST REVIEW

There are several possible outcomes of the review of the screening report, scoping report, specialist studies and the environmental impact report. These possible outcomes are presented below for each of these reports.

Possible outcomes of review during pre-application planning The possible outcomes of review of the pre-application report or the screening report submitted during formal application phase by the Internal Peer Reviewer, Independent Peer Reviewer and the proponent or financing agency are shown in table 5:

Table 5: Outcome of Review of specialist input during pre-application or screening

Reviewer Outcome of Review

Internal Peer Reviewer Revision and completion of screening report. Independent Peer Reviewer see my earlier comments

Revision if inaccuracies or inconsistencies are noted. Commissioning of new specialist if information inadequate

Project Proponent and / or Financing Agency

Ask for additional specialist information or input if appropriate Finalise screening report if specialist input accepted Revise specialist input if based on unrealistic assumptions Acceptance of report detailing specialist input. Decision to redesign and submit application if potentially significant

environmental impacts can be avoided or mitigated through changing the proposal.

Decision to cancel project if the negative environmental impacts exceed defined limits of acceptable change, or mitigatory actions are likely to be too expensive, or legislation does not allow the project to be undertaken on the proposed site.

Possible outcomes of review during scoping There are several possible outcomes of review by any of the parties involved during scoping. Table 6 presents the possible outcomes of review during scoping.



page 15

Table 6: Outcome of Review of specialist input during Scoping

Reviewer Outcome of review

Internal Peer Reviewer Revision and completion of Scoping Report. Proponent or Financing Agency

Ask for additional specialist information or input if appropriate Ask for specialist peer review where specialist evaluation of issues

is contentious or appears contradictory Finalise scoping report if specialist input accepted Request specialist to revise input in light of review comments Reject specialist input with clear justification Acceptance of Scoping Report, or Provisional acceptance subject to the incorporation of review

comments, or Rejection of Scoping Report with clear justification. See above note

about scope of this guideline – I feel that these are decision-making outcomes, not review outcomes, and go beyond specialist review…

Lead Authority Following review of Scoping Report, a decision can be taken as to issue a Record of Decision to (i) authorise proposal, (ii) reject it or (iii) require that a full EIA be undertaken.

Other Authorities Confirmation that specific information included in the Scoping Report is accurate.

The submission of conditions of acceptance to the lead authority. External Stakeholders Comments on draft Scoping Report that require additional

clarification or verification.

Possible outcomes of review during impact assessment Table 7 presents the possible outcomes of the review of specialist studies by the internal peer reviewer, EIA practitioner, proponent or financing agency, independent specialist peer reviewer, lead authority and other authorities.

Table 7: Outcome of Review of specialist studies



Revision and completion of the specialist studies.

EIA practitioner Acceptance of the specialist study and findings incorporated into the environmental impact report, or

Provisional acceptance subject to the incorporation of review comments, or Submission of the specialist study for independent peer review, or Rejection of the specialist study with clear justification followed by the

appointment of a new specialist. Proponent or Financing Agency

Acceptance of specialist studies, or Provisional acceptance subject to the incorporation of review comments, or



page 16


Submit specialist study for independent peer review, or Reject specialist study with clear justification and requests that EIA

practitioner appoint a new specialist. Interested and affected parties

Revise specialist study based on comments. Submit specialist study for peer review where competence of specialist is

questioned, or findings challenged. Independent Specialist Peer Reviewer

Acceptance of study in its entirety, or Acceptance subject to certain recommendations being incorporated, or Rejection of study with clear justification.

Lead Authority Acceptance of specialist study, or Provisional acceptance subject to the incorporation of review comments, or Submission for independent peer review, or Rejection of specialist study with clear justification and recommendation that

a new specialist should be appointed. Other Authorities Confirmation that specific information/findings included in the specialist

study are accurate or in agreement with available information, or Recommendation (with justification) to commission additional studies and

investigations if required, or The submission of conditions of acceptance to the lead authority for

incorporation in the final Record of Decision (RoD).

Table 8 presents the outcomes of the review of the environmental impact report.

Table 8: Outcome of Review of specialists’ findings in the Environmental Impact Report



Amend EIR to reflect accurately specialist findings, or Confirm that specialist findings have been accurately and appropriately

incorporated in the EIR. Interested and affected parties

Request revision of sections of the EIR based on specialist input, based on comments.

Submission of comments to EIA practitioner (or public participation practitioner) for consideration by the EIA practitioner, the specialist, the proponent and the lead authority.

Independent EIA Reviewer

Request revision of sections of the EIR based on specialist input, based on comments received / provided, or

Recommend acceptance of the specialist report, or Recommend that specific aspects of a specialist study, or the entire

specialist report, should be submitted for independent peer review.



page 17

5. QUALIFICATIONS, SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE REQUIRED TO REVIEW A SPECIALIST STUDY

5.1 REVIEW OF STRUCTURE AND CLARITY

The specialist reviewer has an important role in ensuring that the structure and clarity of the specialist study meets accepted professional standards. In order to competently review the overall structure and clarity of the specialist study, the reviewer should have the following experience, qualifications and skills:

Report writing skills that can be verified through an examination of samples of the reviewer’s written work.

Proven written communication skills. Experience in reviewing specialist studies. At least a first degree in an area related to the specialist study, together with an appropriate

length of recent professional experience in the specific field of specialist study.

5.2 REVIEW OF ACCURACY AND QUALITY

In order to competently review the accuracy and quality of content of the specialist assessment, the reviewer should have relevant experience, qualifications and skills. S/he should:

Be recognised by peers as being competent in the subject of the specialist study. Such a level of recognition could be attained through membership of the relevant professional body and authoring peer-reviewed publications in the relevant field.

Show evidence of being abreast of recent developments in the specialist field being reviewed.

Be certified by the relevant professional body/ies such as SACNASP. Have appropriate (recognised) professional experience in the subject being reviewed. The

amount of experience will need to be commensurate with the complexity of the proposed project and likely effects within the specialist field. So, for a large, highly controversial, complex or unprecedented project, the best available reviewer with many years of experience, highly respected by peers, should be chosen; for relatively small projects which are unlikely to be controversial or particularly complex, reviewers with relatively less experience could be chosen.

Have at least a first degree in the subject being reviewed. Be able to distil out the key shortcomings of a study, and differentiate between those

deficiencies which make the study inadequate and unacceptable, and those which are relatively minor and would be acceptable after revision.

The overall requirement is that the reviewer should have at least the same professional and academic standing as the specialist so that his or her professional standing or competence as a



page 18

reviewer is not questioned. A recent CV of the reviewer should be kept on file by the EIA practitioner.

6. INFORMATION REQUIRED TO REVIEW A SPECIALIST STUDY

The following sections summarise the key information that reviewers may require in order to evaluate specialist input to the EIA or to provide technical inputs throughout the EIA process. The level of detail provided will vary between the different stages.

6.1 RELEVANT PROJECT INFORMATION

The project information that will assist in the review of specialist studies includes: The purpose of the project and the need for it. This should include a statement on the

rationale, motivation and objectives for the project. The description of the project. This may include a description of the design, location,

duration and phasing, inputs of raw materials, labour, on-site processes and outputs such as noise, emissions, residues and waste over the entire life cycle.

Clear and appropriate project alternatives, the scope of which would differ depending on whether the proponent was a public or private body [see notes in review checklist in appendix].

6.2 INFORMATION DESCRIBING THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The information on the affected environment should include:

A map, and possibly photographs, of the area to illustrate its spatial context in relation to the proposed development.

Description of baseline conditions. This should include appropriate details of the social, economic and bio-physical aspects.

o Social aspects should identify the main affected communities, as well as their sources of livelihoods and demographic patterns.

o Economic aspects should include income levels, income distribution. o Biophysical aspects should include protected or threatened areas or ecosystems,

sensitive, dynamic or vulnerable areas, important ecosystem service areas, and the current level of degradation.

6.3 THE LEGAL, POLICY AND PLANNING CONTEXT

South Africa is party to several international and regional conventions and treaties, and has also enacted legislation that regulates development activities and the use of resources. The recommendations contained in specialist studies should be consistent with South Africa’s



page 19

obligations and commitments arising from national and international law as well as the provisions of national legislation.

Obligations and commitments arising from national and international law The specialist should identify relevant global conventions and protocols and the relevant national obligations in the context of the study, and explain how the study ensures compliance with them. For example, the Convention on Biological Diversity requires parties to ensure that the consequences of actions that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on biodiversity are taken into account.

Obligations relevant to the project arising from the membership of regional protocols and treaties As a member of SADC, South Africa is committed, for example, to ensuring that policies are consistent with the goals of regional coordination. Illustrative in this regard are the Revised Protocols on Shared Watercourses, Energy, and Wildlife Conservation and Law Enforcement, which advocate common and coordinated approaches as well as the consideration of the possible trans-boundary impacts of proposed development projects.

The specialist study should therefore identify all pertinent regional protocols and treaties and their relevant obligations in the context of the study and explain how the study ensures compliance with them. (For example, the Revised SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourses advocates the sustainable, equitable and reasonable utilisation of shared watercourses, as well as coordinated and integrated environmentally sound development and management of such shared watercourses).

Considerations relevant to the project arising from national legislation The specialist should identify national legislation (including any legislation that may be specific for a particular sector) that is relevant to the project. For example Section 4(l) of NEMA requires that there must be inter-governmental coordination and harmonisation of policies, legislation and actions relating to the environment.

Considerations relevant to the project arising from regional or local laws, policies, plans or strategiesThe specialist must take into consideration any implications (both positive and negative) that regional or local by-laws, policies and development plans and strategies may hold for the proposed project. These instruments provide a broad contextual framework within which the project will need to be situated.

6.4 SPECIALIST TERMS OF REFERENCE

Good Terms of Reference for specialists are of pivotal importance to the outcome of a specialist study (Weaver et al., 2000).



page 20

The Terms of Reference for any report should be appended to the relevant report to facilitate its review. The specialist should confirm that the terms of reference for his / her specialist study include all of the issues raised during the scoping process and were recorded in the Scoping Report. Models Terms of Reference for a specialist study are contained in Appendix B.

7. REVIEW CRITERIA The criteria for reviewing specialist studies fall under two broad themes, namely: overall quality assurance and key components of the specialist assessment.

7.1 OVERALL QUALITY ASSURANCE

The main aspects of quality assurance of a specialist study are ethics (the objectivity and impartiality of the evaluation), the adequacy of information, clarity of communication and the consideration of appropriate alternatives.

7.1.1 Ethics

The objective of this criterion is to ensure that the specialist study has been done in an objective, impartial and independent manner. Aspects of review in this regard are whether or not: The specialists used have the necessary expertise and experience to assess competently

the significant issues. There has been unethical behaviour in the way issues have been treated, or whether an

unethical relationship exists between the specialist and the proponent or funding agency. There is bias or inappropriate emphasis, unwarranted assumptions, and/or emotive,

irrational or unsubstantiated statements in the specialist’s work.

7.1.2 Adequacy of information

The specialist study should contain only the information that is required to inform decisions. That is, the level of detail of the study should be sufficient to answer the key questions asked by the study with a high level of confidence. Important aspects are whether or not the information provided is sufficient to justify the conclusions drawn, for impartial decision-making in terms of the level of detail and the reliability of findings, and whether or not the assumptions in the assessment, evaluation and mitigation are valid.

7.1.3 Clarity of report

The objective of this criterion for review is to determine whether or not the specialist findings have been clearly communicated. Good communication ensures that all stakeholders and decision-makers can access the report. It promotes transparency, removes ambiguity, and enables recommendations to be better considered. Aspects that improve the clarity of the report include:



page 21

The inclusion of a clearly written, non-technical summary, which is written in a way that assists a stakeholder or decision-maker to fully understand the findings of the report, and which enables a decision-maker to make an impartial decision.

Referencing of all sources of information used in the assessment. The inclusion of a summary impact assessment table, where relevant, using defined impact

assessment and significance rating criteria. (These criteria need to be agreed upon with the EIA practitioner and should conform to accepted standards of professional EIA practice).

Clear and unambiguous indication of the consequences of the predicted impacts. Clear, unambiguous and practical recommendations for appropriate mitigation and/or

compensation actions to reduce or minimize adverse impacts and enhance positive impacts. The provision of a statement of impact significance for each issue, which specifies whether

or not some specified level of acceptable (e.g. a threshold limit specified in law) change has been exceeded, and whether or not the impact presents a potential fatal flaw or not. This statement of significance should be provided for anticipated project impacts both before and after application of mitigatory actions.

Indication of whether or not impacts are wholly or partially irreversible, or result in an irreplaceable loss to the ecosystem and/or society.

Specification of the key risks and uncertainties that may influence the validity of the impact assessment findings, or which may reduce the degree of confidence that is placed on them.

Clear statement of the likely beneficiaries of the project, and those parties that would ‘lose’ from the project.

Clear specification of the degree of confidence in the impact assessment predictions. The provision of a summary of key management actions that fundamentally affect impact

significance. The identification of the best practical environmental option (with reasons given).

7.1.4 Alternatives

The alternatives considered in the EIA process can include location, routing or sitingalternatives, layout alternatives, process and/or design alternatives, scheduling alternatives, input alternatives or management alternatives. Any development proposal should include several possible alternatives from some or all of these categories of alternatives, based on these and other examples. The range of alternatives expected to be considered would depend on whether or not the proponent was from the private or public sector (refer to more detail given in Appendix with review checklist). Fundamental alternatives such as demand or activity alternatives (e.g. whether energy needs should be met by gas, coal or nuclear forms of energy) should be addressed at a strategic assessment, policy and planning level and are normally beyond the scope of consideration within a development specific EIA process for a particular project.

As a minimum, the specialist would be expected to address the range of alternatives provided by the proponent or EIA practitioner in his/her study. Where appropriate, the specialist should identify additional alternatives prompted by the study which would avoid or mitigate adverse



page 22

impacts and / or enhance benefits. These additional alternatives should be confirmed as reasonable by the proponent, EIA practitioner and/or funding agency through review.

7.2 KEY COMPONENTS OF THE SPECIALIST STUDY

The specialist study should provide: (i) a clear description of the project and the affected environment, (ii) a description of relevant legislation, policies and plans, (iii) an evaluation of all the key issues identified during scoping, to inform the impact assessment, (iv) assessment and evaluation of potentially significant positive and negative impacts and (v) mitigation options for negative impacts and enhancement options for positive impacts, as well as practical recommendations for management actions and monitoring proposals. The study should highlight risks, uncertainties, gaps in information, irreversible impacts or irreplaceable loss of resources, and should give the main beneficiaries and losers from the proposed project.

7.2.1 Description of the project and affected environment

The purpose of providing a description of the project and the affected environment is to ensure that any predicted impacts and recommendations are made within the appropriate/relevant context. The important aspects of review are to determine whether or not the following aspects have been provided or adequately described:

The purpose of the project and the need for it. The project and possible alternative options. Description of baseline conditions. A map, and possibly photographs, of the area in its spatial context.

7.2.2 Description of Legislation, policy and plans

The purpose of providing the legislative, policy and planning context in relation to the project is to ensure that the proposed activity is consistent with existing statutory provisions and policy commitments. The important aspects of review with regard to the identification of key issues are to determine whether or not:

The policy and planning context of the proposal is provided, and the project’s consistency with that context is appropriately considered.

The specialist assessment satisfies the requirements of NEMA. Other legal requirements relevant to the specialist field, including those arising from

international agreements, national, provincial or local laws, are clearly considered or met. Any possible inconsistencies, contradictions or risks of non-compliance that may arise are

clearly identified and not simply ignored. Any opportunities to assist or expedite implementation of plans or programmes are clearly

identified and ways to enhance potential benefits are proposed.



page 23

7.2.3 Identification and response to key issues

In order to focus the EIA process, prevent wasting unnecessary time, and avoid the generation of excessive amounts of irrelevant information, “issues-focused scoping” is commonly used in South Africa to determine the scope of the EIA and focus the assessment on a manageable number of important issues. Issues are concerns related to the proposed development, generally phrased as questions, taking the form “what will the impact of some activity be on some element of the biophysical, social or economic environment?” (Weaver et al., 1999). Issues that cannot be addressed to the satisfaction of authorities and stakeholders during the scoping process are taken forward into the impact assessment phase and are addressed through the input of various specialists.

The important aspects of review with regard to the identification of key issues are:

Is the identification of potential impacts through scoping adequate? If not, has the specialist supplemented the issues and impacts which should be assessed?

Has scoping succeeded in bringing the key issues into focus? Has a preliminary evaluation of potential significance of issues and impacts been

undertaken? Have issues raised and alternatives suggested by IAPs during scoping, and in comment on

draft documents, been addressed competently and satisfactorily? Where there is clearly a need for additional public involvement to refine, or better define key

issues and impacts associated with the proposed project, has the specialist undertaken such involvement?

7.2.4 Assessment and evaluation of impacts

The important aspects of review relating to the evaluation and assessment of impacts are to determine whether or not:

The time and space boundaries within which the specialist assessment was completed are appropriate.

Plausible environmental and operating scenarios have been considered. The appropriate approach/es have been used by the specialist. Recognized methodologies have been used by the specialist. Alternatives have been adequately addressed. Linkages to other specialist assessments have been identified and taken into account. Clear, sufficient, explicit and consistent criteria, relevant in the specialist field, are used to

assess impacts. Adequate attention is given to indirect or cumulative effects on significant or sensitive

resources/receptors. Where there is a high potential for significant cumulative impacts that cannot be addressed at the project EIA level, have clear recommendations been made with regard to the need for more strategic level investigations?



page 24

Explicit and consistent criteria are used to evaluate the significance of impacts, taking into account the planned mitigation and environmental management measures.

Systematic, explicit and rational links have been identified, from identification of key issues, through assessment to evaluation of significance

Beneficiaries and losers from the proposed development are clearly identified. Risks, gaps in information, uncertainties are highlighted. Impacts of high significance, irreversible impacts and/or impacts resulting in irreplaceable

loss of resources, are highlighted. Levels of confidence in the specialist’s assessment of potential impacts are provided.

7.2.5 Mitigation, enhancement, management and monitoring

Important aspects of specialist review with regard to mitigation, enhancement, management and monitoring are to determine whether or not:

Options for mitigation and/or enhancement of potentially significant or high risk issues are systematically addressed.

Evidence is provided that mitigation or enhancement measures are appropriate, effective and practical.

Evidence is provided that proposed monitoring programmes are appropriate, sufficiently focused, and practical.

Potential impacts of mitigation or enhancement measures have been considered in sufficient detail by the specialist/s and the EIA practitioner.

The absence of appropriate monitoring can limit the effectiveness of specialist contributions in EIA by preventing or inhibiting consideration of the accuracy of impact prediction, and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures. This situation reduces the ability of EIA to improve project implementation through feedback and learning (Morrison-Saunders et al. 2003; Wood 1999; Sadler 1988) and to contribute more effectively to adaptive management and sustainable development.

Monitoring can be carried out during the construction, operational and/or decommissioning phases of a project. Specialist studies should contain practical recommendations for monitoring programmes, which include the specific questions to be answered by monitoring, the frequency of monitoring, and the responsibility for carrying out monitoring, indicators to be used in monitoring, as well as reporting and audit requirements.

For monitoring to be effective, it is essential that baseline information should be obtained at the start of the project. Changes linked to or associated with the project can then be evaluated against the baseline.



page 25

8. CONCLUSIONS This guideline has been developed to meet three objectives that would help to improve the rigour of specialist studies, namely to:

Identify triggers for review; Identify who should undertake the review; and Present specific criteria that support the review process in determining whether or not the

specialist assessment meets the minimum requirements of specialist studies, and is reasonable, objective and professionally defensible.

With regard to the first objective, this guideline concludes that review of specialist contributions could occur during the pre-application planning, screening, scoping and/or impact assessment phases of EIA, and should be triggered by a number of factors, most specifically: the need to apply best practice, the complexity, controversy or unprecedented nature of the proposal, concerns about the quality of reports or specialist competence, and specific legal requirements. Best practice suggests that specialist review should take place at the impact assessment stage, at minimum, and at the scoping and pre-application stages when appropriate.

Several key parties play an important role in review. These are internal reviewers, the EIA practitioner, the project proponent, financing agencies, the lead authority, other authorities, independent specialists, interested and affected parties, as well as the independent EIA reviewer.

The criteria for review include ethical considerations; the adequacy of information; the clarity of the report and the consideration of alternatives; as well as attention to the key components of the specialist study, namely: the description of the project and the affected environment; the description of legislation, policies and plans; the discussion of all the key issues identified during scoping, assessment and evaluation of impacts; as well as mitigation, enhancement, management and monitoring proposals. These represent minimum requirements that will ensure that the specialist contributions are reasonable, objective and professionally defensible, and can be used with confidence to support informed decision-making.



page 26

9. REFERENCES DEAT (2002). Screening. Information Series 1. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

DEAT (2004). Review in Environmental Impact Assessment, Integrated Environmental Management, Information Series 13. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

De Villiers Brownlie Associates (2000). Draft Review Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment in the Cape Metropolitan Area, Cape Town. (Unpublished).

IUCN (1980). The World Conservation Strategy, IUCN: Gland, Switzerland.

Morrison-Saunders, A., Baker, J., and Arts, J. (2003). Lessons from practice: towards successful follow-up. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 21 (1): 43-56.

Sadler, B. (1988). The evaluation of assessment: post-EIS research and process development. In: P. Wathern (Ed.), Environmental Impact Assessment: Theory and Practice. London, Unwin Hyman, pp 129-142.

Scholes, R.J. (ed) (2003). Good Research Guide. Office of the CSIR Fellows, CSIR, Pretoria.

Southern African development Community (SADC) (1995). Strategy for Environment and Sustainable Development. SADC-ELMS, Maseru.

Southern African Development Community (SADC) (1996). Protocol on Energy. Available at: http://www.sadc.int

Southern African Development Community (SADC) (2000). Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses. Available at: http://www.sadc.int

United Nations (2002). Report of the World Summit on Sustainable Development. United Nations General Assembly, New York.

Weaver, A.v.B., Kruger, F., Morant, P.D., and Ashton, P.J. (2000). Environmental Impact Assessment, in Roy Simpson (Ed).The Guide to Environmental Auditing in South Africa,Butterworths Business Publishing, Durban.

Weaver, A.v.B., Rossouw, N. & Grobler, D.G. 1999. Scoping and “Issues Focused” Environmental Impact Assessment in Sou

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF THE WESTERN CAPE ......Paul Hardcastle - DEA&DP Percy Langa - DEA&DP Hennis...

Documents

Transcript of PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF THE WESTERN CAPE ......Paul Hardcastle - DEA&DP Percy Langa - DEA&DP Hennis...