|
Written by Enviroadmin
|
|
Monday, 24 May 2010 21:23 |
Here is the link to legal documents and legislation on DWAF's site: http://www.dwaf.gov.za/wfw/Legal/
Read 0 Comments... >> |
|
Written by EnviroPolice
|
|
Monday, 24 May 2010 21:23 |
Illegal Industrial Activity is terrorising Citizens in Residential Area.
An Open Letter to the Mayor of Pretoria and her Subordinates ...
( This Notice may be freely published and redistributed as is, by any Newspaper or (environmental / environmental health) website. )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Executive Mayor, Dr Gwen Ramokgopa.
As all of my past tries to get your and your various departments' attention focused on gross negligence by your departments, I see no other way possible than to finally GO PUBLIC, just like I have promised it in at least 3 of my past letters and/or emails for which I never even received an answer.
Well here is the first attempt of the new route this is going to take:
======================================================================
NOISE POLLUTION / NOISE NUISANCE /// Illegal Industrial Activity is terrorising Citizens in Residential Area.
(And this for over 8 years)
- I suspect a high degree of DISINTEREST, INABILITY or even CORRUPTION to be the main problem here, to name the child by its correct name.
As nobody can be so stupid and not understand my letters intentions and means. But things can be just put off until they are dying....
The Pretoria City Council and their Police Force (Metro Police) are unable or unwilling to act according to the rules (your rules - afterall!) and by-laws of their Town, as is laid down!
They are thus helping/promoting reckless business people to misuse/misrepresent the law and terrorise residents with illegal industrial noise in a residential areas on an ongoing basis.
If this is their intention relevant people must be replaced with those who are interested in their job and can do it.
Other Cities, especially overseas, are clamping down even on road noises arising from the surface of the tarmac, assisting researchers in the process.
Pretoria City Council cannot even enforce their laws on the business people opening shop in residential areas - after rezoning into business stands.
I have been complaining for over 8 years now and will continue doing so - by all means possible until this matter is finally resolved.
This is my LEGAL RIGHT as a citizen of Pretoria and of South Africa, as it is the LEGAL RIGHT for any other citizen that would like to join in with me (or not), to have a peaceful and quiet living space that is safe, as is laid down by the laws of this country.
But as things currently are standing nobody wants to "get involved". Everybody is too busy.
Please note the List of PRIORITIES of Pretoria, from the city's website:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.tshwane.gov.za/citypriorities.cfm
City Priorities
Managing and developing our infrastructure.
Developing our economy.
Ensuring community safety.
Building and sustaining our communities.
Developing and enhancing our natural resources.
Building our institution and governing well.
Enhancing our image as the capital city.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is very nice and handy, to have the information online (as given below) - even on the main page, but I do not see any action taken when calling ANY of these numbers when the specific condition applies - and that is already a chronic phase for more than the last 8 years running:
http://www.tshwane.gov.za/
Noise control Contact the Metro Police on 012 358 7095/6 or the SAPS on 10111
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this PUBLIC NOTICE does not get the correct attention from the Pretoria City Council, more specific details will be made available to for PUBLIC VIEW, as this matter is for the interest of the whole of Pretoria (North) and South Africa - and even to the rest of the World out there.
I expect (every citizen in fact deserves this) that a solution to the above mentioned problems is found and is attended to shortly.
Yours truly
EnviroPolice
Read 4 Comments... >> |
|
Last Updated on Monday, 24 May 2010 21:23 |
|
Written by EnviroPolice
|
|
Monday, 24 May 2010 21:19 |
The EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment), which was done concerning the Wonderboom Airport, was side-stepped by the Pretoria City Council, as the main share holder/owner!
- Was there CORRUPTION, too ???
The extension of the runway was turned down in an official meeting held at the airport over 2 years ago.
The reason being that there is too much noise for the residents close by as it is - never mind the larger aircrafts landing and starting when the runway is extended.
Satellite Picture/Map of the airport and the runway:
http://wikimapia.org/#lat=-25.658471&lon=28.2240486&z=15&l=0&m=a&v=2
More info on the officiel website:
http://www.wonderboomairport.co.za
Read 1 Comments... >> |
|
Last Updated on Monday, 24 May 2010 21:22 |
|
Written by Cobus
|
|
Monday, 24 May 2010 21:17 |
|
Hi
I could most probably get the info I need from web searches, but I'm a bit pressed for time, so I beg your understanding.
I have been made aware of a Background Information Document (BID)that calls for the registration of interested and affected parties (I&EP) for an EIA to be done for the erection of a factory near my workplace that will handle poisonous and carcinogenic chemicals.
I find the information given to the public rather slim. They have automatically registered some parties, but these apart from the necessary authorities, are only limited to immediate neighbors within 100m of the plot boundaries. As I said I'm a bit pressed for time as the registration closes on 25 February 2008.
So what I want to know is the following:
1. We as a business have been registered, but may I as a worker in the area also register separately as an I&EP, due to my concern for my own health? I would most probably be involved in an official capacity as Environmental Management Representative for my company.
2. The enviro consultant that will do the EIA stresses that they only need to personally notify companies within 100m of the proposed development. What act and section regulates who should be notified in person?
3 The public notification was done by a local newspaper add, a copy of the BID at the local municipal offices and an A3 size "election type" poster fitted with cable ties to a telephone pole on the property. The wind has turned this poster and it is now partly obscured by vegetation and of such small print that one has to be within 1-1.5m of it to be able to read it. The last method of notification mentioned in the BID is on the consultants web page. This page did existed in the past as Google still cache the link, but return a "page does not exist" if clicked. Although the BID state the specific nature of the plant, the public notices only mention the broad industrial branch of the process and any mention of possible harmful substances are omitted. It would thus not trigger the publics attention. Now my question is, what acts/regulations govern notification and how is the term sufficient notification interpreted by the law? I cannot believe that the notification given in this case can be deemed sufficient.
4. The BID state that an EIA must be done because 2 items of NEMA regulation 386 were triggered. One is the above ground storage of dangerous goods including petrol, diesel, liquid petroleum gas or paraffin and the other bulk transportation of water and sewage in pipes bigger than 0.36m diameter or more than 120 liters per sec. Where can I find regulation 386 (and also 385)on the web? I cannot believe that handling poisonous/carcinogenic chemicals in a windy area within 500m of 3 human food plants, a dog/cat kennel and a penguin rehab site will not be a trigger for an EIA.
5. Any other pointers would be welcome.
Thanks
---------------
Cobus
ED NOTE: Complete and updated list of all legislation regarding EIA's can be accessed here.
Read 5 Comments... >> |
|
Last Updated on Tuesday, 27 July 2010 18:54 |
|
Written by Enviroadmin
|
|
Monday, 24 May 2010 21:16 |
LIST OF ACTIVITIES AND COMPETENT AUTHORITIES IDENTIFIED IN
TERMS OF SECTIONS 24 AND 24D OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT, 1998
NO 386 - 21 April 2006
Document can be accessed here.
NO 387 - 21 April 2006
Document can be accessed here.
Read 0 Comments... >> |
|
Written by Enviroadmin
|
|
Monday, 24 May 2010 21:15 |
This document can be accessed here.
REGULATIONS IN TERMS OF CHAPTER 5 OF THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ACT, 1998 No 385 of 21 April 2006
Read 2 Comments... >> |
|
Written by Enviroadmin
|
|
Monday, 24 May 2010 21:08 |
NOISE is not only a NUISANCE, but can really HEALTH THREATNING.
Research has shown that not only HEARING PROBLEMS/LOSS and even DEAFNESS, but also HEART ATTACKS are quite common - especially in elder people.
In South Africa not much is done against NOISE!
(I have just been battling - and still am - to curb INDUSTRIAL NOISE in a RESIDENTIAL AREA. However the City Council seems to turn a blind eye and is not interested to sort out the problems. Yes, they have even rezoned the stand (which has business rights). The owners think they can just do what they want. They have even told me so.
Where is the LAW?
Where are the people to control the LAW?
In all the years, I have never even seen an inspector.
Now the time is up! I have told the City Council that I will go ahead FLAT OUT now making every aspects PUBLIC and take the matter to the Department for Environmental Affairs and Tourism as well as report them to the Public Protector.
Who is ruling this lovely COUNTRY???
The corrupt Town Officials and business people, or do the people living in the area also have a say to how much noise is too much for their ears/homes?
Even CC's forwarded to the Mayor did bring NO RESULT or REPLY, for that matter. It is falling on deaf ears and gets the same result as speaking to a wall! Or conducting a monologue (with oneself).
In Europe special studies are conducted to even reduce ROAD NOISE from the ROAD SURFACE up to TIRES and so on.
Here no one can care less and the roads are resurfaced with a sprinkling of stones on the top. This may give a better grip, but also much higher noise levels.
The worst in a silent suburb is the NOISE from noisy motorbikes and tow-cars racing to accident scenes (especially between 22h00 - 06h00).
- But nobody seems to care less ...
One more point I would like to raise is about the MOBILE DISCOS.
Yes, you read it correctly - these are the cars and taxis with massive sound systems in stalled. you can hear the drumming and thumping noises, even long before you can see the car. When the car then passes you/your own car rocks and jumps. How can one riding in such a car concentrate on driving it, when you get sick in the stomach when it is just passing you ...
- Dear Minister of Transport, "I cannot stomach this any longer!"
... so much for now ...
I hope to continue with more Infos.
P.S.:
Read 3 Comments... >> |
|
Written by Stan
|
|
Monday, 24 May 2010 21:08 |
What legislation protects a community from a person opening a quad track at one of Kumbas mines bordering a residential area of Henley on Klip. The quad track is on a area set aside for divers to dive in a old quarry which is on Glen Douglas mine, the area has been used for diving for many years.Its claimed to be rezoned to sports and Rrecreation, but we have yet to see proof of this. They claim that as they have run a diving operation there they do not need to get further permission to operate a off road motorbike track there.
The nearest house and school on one side is a streets width away from the track, the residents are generally sub-economic.
The area they use is in fact in a registered conservancy.
The person running this establishment is the chairperson of the local ratepayers association. So we have a serous conflict of interest over the matter.
The original story was that you can only rent a quad there, then you could bring your own quad, we now at the situation where we have full competition quad and motor-cross bikes using the venue.
The excuse given is that they charge a high price to keep out riff raff, as if you don’t get rich riff raff. Missing the point that noise is noise whether its generated by rich or poor riff raff, its remains noise.Our weekends are disturbed by the wonderful sound of quad bikes, even though we are a kilometer away.As for dust control, there is close to none.
My question is what environmental or any other legislation protects one from such operators.
When you look into your eyes as you brush your teeth, what do you see?
Read 15 Comments... >> |
|
Written by Enviroadmin
|
|
Monday, 24 May 2010 21:07 |
Fiona Macleod - Mail and Guardian - 12 September 2005 03:00
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=250619&area=/insight/insight__national/
Large developers are bulldozing through laws and processes set up to ensure development is sustainable, and government officials and judges appear powerless to stop them.
Faced by what they call “a national crisis” caused by dodgy developers of townhouse complexes and golf estates, sustainable development activists are calling on Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Marthinus van Schalkwyk to appoint a ministerial commission of inquiry.
Dr Nick King, CEO of the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT), says checks and balances built into the legislative framework to ensure development is sustainable are not working, and government officials and the judiciary are not sorting out the problems. “The judges and officials appear to favour the economic interests of the developers, even where the law is being ignored and there may be irreparable damage to the environment,” he says.
Environmental NGOs and concerned neighbouring residents have launched legal action against developers who started building, even though prescribed procedures and regulations have not been adhered to.
In two decisions involving golf estates in August -- in Mpumalanga and Gauteng -- the complainants wasted their time and money as judges dismissed their applications for urgent relief, which were aimed at stopping development until the court had an opportunity to hear their main objections.
King adds that, although the law insists government officials consider refusing development under certain circumstances, this “no-go option” is rarely, if ever, applied. The general attitude was summed up by the words of the Mpumalanga minister of agriculture and land administration, Madala Masuku, who replied on August 19 to an appeal by the EWT against a large golf resort in Belfast: “The ‘no-go option’ could not be adopted as the developer will lose the opportunity for economic investment and the resulted [sic] gain.”
Helen Duigan, chairperson of the Rhenosterspruit Conservancy near Lanseria airport and a member of the National Association of Conservancies, says the conservancy movement has to radically reinvent itself in response to threats from developers.
“In the past, the focus was on being a voluntary association of landowners who had a life quality they wanted to preserve,” she says. “The new front is promoting community-responsible development and conservation in the face of unscrupulous exploitation of rural areas vulnerable to urban encroachment.
“The only weapon in our hands is the legal process -- environmental legislation which is largely new, untested and possibly not well known by the authorities who have to implement it.”
‘Legislating for sustainability” was the theme of the annual conference of the South African affiliate of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIAsa) last week. Cape High Court Judge Dennis Davis, delivering the keynote address, underlined some of the misunderstandings in the judiciary about environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and sustainable development.
He pointed out that the rights of property owners and developers must be subject to the Constitution’s vision of sustainable development, which balances environmental, economic and social aspects in light of what is sustainable in the long term.
IAIAsa, along with the EWT and nine other prominent South African environmental NGOs, is tackling Van Schalkwyk about revisions to the EIA regulations that are expected to become law this month. The NGOs say they have not been given the opportunity to comment properly on the new regulations, which will effectively streamline procedures.
“The focus of the regulations strongly displays the government’s desire to improve administrative efficiency and reduce development delays ... The focus is biased towards a prescriptive process of information provision by consultants,” the NGOs wrote in a letter to the minister in April.
A request by the NGOs for a meeting with the minister before the draft regulations became law was rejected in July.
In response to questions from the Mail & Guardian, Van Schalkwyk said he believed the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism had sufficiently consulted affected parties in drawing up the regulations.
“The implementation of the new regulations should be monitored closely for at least a year before the need for an inquiry into alleged abuse is considered,” he said. “Aggrieved participants have not to date exhausted the avenues available to them to address the alleged abuse of the process.”
The minister added he was “not aware of any training on EIA legislation solely aimed at the judiciary”, though prosecutors were recently given training in the enforcement of EIA regulations.
Greenies are getting teed off
When President Thabo Mbeki criticised golfing and polo estates for being elitist empires, he probably had no idea quite how difficult it is to stop them rolling on. In recent court cases, objections from neighbours and environmental NGOs have landed dead in the bunker:
n A Pretoria High Court judge last week rejected an urgent application by the Endangered Wildlife Trust to stop bulldozing at the Highland Gate Golf and Trout Estate in Dullstroom, Mpumalanga. Construction activities began in mid-August despite the fact that the developers had allegedly not been given permission by the national Department of Agriculture to sub-divide the agricultural land on which the development will be situated.
n An urgent interdict attempting to stop Wraypex developers from construction work on a golf course and boutique hotel estate called Blair Atholl bordering the Cradle of Humankind World Heritage Site was thrown out of court in early August.
Members of the neighbouring Rhenosterspruit Conservancy who have appealed against the development have received threatening letters from Wraypex’s lawyers. The conservancy’s secretary received a summons for more than R35-million after he allegedly disseminated “false information” about Wraypex, causing construction delays.
-- Fiona Macleod
Mail and Guardian
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=250619&area=/insight/insight__national/
Brought to you by www.environment.co.za
Read 0 Comments... >> |
|
Written by Enviroadmin
|
|
Monday, 24 May 2010 21:06 |
Document http://archive.mg.co.za/nxt/gateway.dll/PrintEdition/MGP2004/3lv000...
The thin green line
Date: 13 Jul 2004
Development and the environment have always been reluctant friends and natural enemies. In the past development often trumped environment, and fauna and flora were thrown on the dump, together with the building waste. Environmental consciousness was the exception and not the rule.
But with the “new South Africa” in the 1990s came new rules, including legislation that forced developers to consider the environment more carefully in designing a project. The new constitution required an environmental impact assessment (EIA) to be done before any development could be approved.
In 1998 the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism published an application procedure companies had to follow when conducting an EIA.
The procedure has become a thorn in the side of many developers. EIAs are expensive and the independent consultants required to do the environmental impact report do not come cheap. The EIA processes, such as public participation, also require capital and companies can run up quite a bill.
And when the final decision, known as the record of decision, is made by the regulatory environmental authority, the developer can end up with a set of conditions that can severely hamper the project.
But the EIA process has helped to block out unscrupulous developers with no regard for the environment and only an eye on hard cash. Environmentalists finally have a tool to keep developers in check and to make sure that development is sustainable.
Rubber stamp?
Cynics say an EIA is little more than a rubber stamp, or a last hurdle that a developer has to cross before he can start his development. Is this true?
Jenine Botha, environmental manager at the South Africa National Road Association (Sanral), says an EIA has to be taken very seriously. “And you have to be thorough and above board. Our projects are constantly monitored by environmental organisations and if you make one wrong decision, it can affect your project.”
Sanral is no stranger to balancing development and the environment. Its project to build a tollroad through Pondoland has come under a lot of fire, mainly because the road will cut through one of the most pristine areas in South Africa.
But the project will also bring much-needed development to one of the country’s poorest regions. An important part of the Pondoland EIA has been to balance the impact on the environment against those of development.
Botha says Sanral investigated all options during the EIA, and exhausted all alternatives. “In building this road we will not compromise on the environment in any way,” she says.
Though the Pondoland tollroad is the most public of Sanral’s projects, the roads agency deals with environmental impacts on a daily basis when planning new roads.
When the EIA for the N4 “platinum” highway was done, the appointed independent consultants found that the “near threatened” African bullfrog may be present in the Onderstepoort wetland, which would be traversed by the new section of the highway going to Rustenburg.
The consultants were concerned about the vulnerability of the bullfrog’s breeding habitat and behaviour. Because the entire breeding population emerges at the same time, and because they migrate to and fro from the breeding ground, “it was feared that having a road close to their breeding ground would put them at risk”, Botha explains.
The bullfrogs are shy and not many have been spotted in the area, but the possibility that the threatened frog species might be there compelled the developers to build a “frog fence” to restrict any migration of bullfrogs on to or across the road.
When developing a project, applicants have to show that they were flexible and considered all options. They have to show that they examined other sites and alternatives to find the best solution for the project.
Called mitigation, this important part of the EIA seeks to find better ways of doing things, to minimise or eliminate negative impacts, enhance project benefits and protect public and individual rights to compensation. Mitigation options include alternative ways of meeting the projected needs, changes in planning and design, improving monitoring and management, monetary compensation and the replacement of wetlands, for example, by constructing other wetlands.
Matter of authority
For normal projects the authority that approves the EIA and issues a record of decision is usually the provincial authority, which in turn can designate a local authority to rule on the EIA. Certain circumstances, however, compel the national Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (Deat) to make the final decision, Deat will issue a record of decision where the activity concerned has direct implications for South Africa’s national environmental policy or international commitments. It will also rule where the environment under threat is demarcated as an area of national or international importance. If the proposed activity has the potential to affect the environment across the borders of two or more provinces, Deat will also manage the record of decision.
The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and the relevant authority may also jointly decide that an application should be considered by the minister. Where a national government department is the applicant, Deat will have the final say on the project.
The relevant authority is consulted for submitting the plan of study for scoping; accepting the scoping report; considering the application on the information contained in the scoping report; accepting the plan of study for EIA; reviewing the compliance of the environmental impact report; and final consideration of application. Lastly, the
authority will issue a record of decision.
Forums for appeal
Botha says none of Sanral’s projects has ever been turned down. But that does not mean developers have carte blanche, even if their projects get the stamp of approval. “Your project is usually approved with a lengthy sets of conditions and recommendations that you have to adhere to.” The conditions of the authorisation, including measures to mitigate, control or manage environmental impacts or to rehabilitate the environment, are stipulated in the record of decision. It is very rare for a record of decision to be made without a set of conditions accompanying it.
Last year in June Deat approved the EIA of the planned pebble-bed modular reactor (PBMR) at the Koeberg nuclear plant. The record of decision has a list of conditions which includes that there must be a nuclear waste policy in place before the PBMR construction can begin, as well as a decommissioning plan and long-term management of high-level waste and spent fuel.
But the record of decision is not the end of the road for parties that oppose a project. Parties that are unhappy with the decision have a 30-day period in which to appeal against it.
They can also go to the High Court, as the NGO Earthlife has done in opposition to the PBMR plans. In September last year the NGO launched an application in the Cape Town High Court, seeking to review and set aside Deat’s record of decision on the PBMR.
Earthlife is challenging the EIA authorisation, because it believes the director general of Deat “made his decision in a procedurally unfair manner”.
Says Liz McDaid, spokesperson for Earthlife Africa (Cape Town): “ We have repeatedly tried to get to the department to listen to us over the past year, asserting that our consti- tutional right to be heard has been violated. Unfortunately, the department refused to listen and went ahead and granted the PBMR approval.”
Earthlife says in court papers its ability to participate in the EIA process was inhibited by the fact that it was refused access to information on the economic and technical feasibility of the project, and was denied access to a feasibility review conducted by a panel of international experts. It claims it was also refused access to critical information
dealing with the safety of “this untested nuclear technology”.
Blowing the whistle
The Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa (Wessa) is threatening court action if the N2 tollroad project in Pondoland goes ahead. The project was approved by Deat last December and interested parties are now waiting for the final record of decision from the new Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Marthinus van Schalkwyk,
after several appeals were lodged during the 30-day appeals period.
Wessa says a faulty environmental impact study on the secondary consequences for the environment between Port Edward and Lusikisiki was done. The organisation has also raised issues around the impartiality of consultants involved in the project.
The Pondoland road project came under fire when it emerged that one of the proposed developers in the controversial N2 toll road project was also a shareholder in the company which conducted the EIA. Rufus Maruma, the chairperson and founder of Bohlweki Environmental (the consulting firm appointed to do the EIA) sits on the
board of Stewart Scott International, one of the five companies that is tendering for the project.
Nazir Alli, director of Sanral, dismisses the allegation: “It is impossible to cheat the process. One individual cannot influence the outcome of an EIA. There are just too many experts that are required to do the EIA thoroughly. If you question the EIA report, you have to question every single expert that wrote an opinion in that report.”
In theory, the applicant seeking approval from Deat for a project has to appoint independent consultants that should not have financial or any other interests in the undertaking of the proposed project.
While working for an applicant, consultants may not work for any relevant authority in respect of the same application. The consultants must declare their independence in an official form that states they have no vested interests in the proposed project.
While a company like Bohlweki is contracted to do an EIA for Sanral, the consultants in turn appoint experts to handle the public participation process, botanical studies and other specialised studies such as ornithology. In the end the consultants compile a report out of the experts’ findings and views that they present to the relevant authority.
It is possible that independent consultants will write up a favourable report even when everything is not hunky dory, but it is difficult – and when it comes to big projects, with watchdogs like Wessa around, it is likely that the whistle will be blown.
Bribery and corruption
How easy is it to interfere in the record of decision made by the provincial or national department?
Former Western Cape provincial MEC for environmental affairs and planning, David Malatsi, illustrated that it might be easier than everyone thought. For a few thousand rand, it seemed you could easily get approval for a development in the Western Cape while he was at the helm.
Even Malatsi, however, was caught out. He is currently on trial, together with Peter Marais, the former premier of the Western Cape, on charges of corruption and fraud relating to a total of R400 000 paid to the New National Party (NNP) in 2002 by the developer of Plettenberg Bay’s Roodefontein golf estate, Italian count Riccardo Agusta.
Malatsi allegedly approved the EIA for the Roodefontein development after soliciting the bribe from Agusta. The count concluded a plea bargain this year with the Scorpions, in which he agreed to pay a R1-million fine for breaching the Corruption Act. He admitted that he made the donation to the NNP, but said he had hoped in this way to “promote” the province’s approval of the R500-million Roodefontein project. “I was unaware that this constituted bribery,” he said.
Agusta paid R300 000 on April 18 2002 into the NNP’s bank account and another R100 000 into a secret account later in the month. On April 19 2002, Malatsi approved the Roodefontein EIA. The province officially approved the whole project on May 6 of that year.
So far it has come to light in the trial that provincial officials were not content to approve Roodefontein’s environmental impact report. Steve du Toit, the environmental officer from the provincial department of environment affairs and planning who handled the Roodefontein development application, said though he believed the independent consultants hired had tried their best to produce a correct environmental impact report, three independent reviewers showed that “the contents of the report they submitted were biased”.
Malatsi instructed Ingrid Coetzee, a senior official in his provincial administration, to approve Roodefontein after Agusta had paid up. But she refused the instruction, stating that she had serious misgivings about the report. After her refusal, Malatsi withdrew her delegated powers to approve reports with immediate effect.
Coetzee was worried about the project from the start. She corresponded with the developers in early 2002, informing them that they did not conform even to the minimum requirements. But despite her reservations, the project was approved.
Wessa was lurking around the corner. The organisation’s Western Cape regional manager, Andy Gubb, said he suspected all was not well with the project after suddenly hearing it had been approved.
“Wessa knew something was seriously wrong,” he told the Mail & Guardian newspaper at the time. “That permission could not possibly have been given in a legal manner. We had legitimate concerns about water.”
Wessa appealed Malatsi’s record of decision, but the MEC did not budge. Wessa had raised such a stink, though, that the NNP administration in Cape Town could not ignore the irregularities in Plettenberg Bay anymore.
Malatsi had by then moved on to a different ministry. His day of reckoning arrived at the end of 2002 when his successor, Johan Gelderblom, issued a statement that Malatsi had been suspended from his new position pending an investigation into his term as MEC for environmental affairs and planning. Gelderblom announced that the Roodefontein record of decision would be reviewed.
The investigation opened a can of worms that Wessa claimed was only the tip of the iceberg. Huge question marks now hang over other developments Malatsi approved.
In July last year, a controversial housing development on the banks of the Gouritz River, approved in 2002 by Malatsi, was temporarily stopped by a Cape High Court order. This development’s EIA process is also under investigation.
Independent consultants, appointed by the City of Cape Town, have also found the Big Bay development in Blaauwberg Strand approved by Malatsi to be suspect. The Argus newspaper reported “extreme pressure” was applied to officials to approve the Big Bay development, “despite the serious concerns of the provincial environmental
department”.
A touch of speed
Says Gubb: “Even though the whole [Roodefontein EIA] process has to start from the beginning again, it appears that the ‘thin green line’ we represent is getting thinner and thinner. Typically, watchdog bodies like Wessa work with volunteers and very limited resources.
“Developers have unlimited resources. The Roodefontein development alone is worth R750-million. No environmental NGO has the resources to take on a Roodefontein-type case on a frequent basis, and yet such cases abound.” One of Agusta’s defences was that he handed over the cash because the approval of the EIA took too long and he
was hoping to speed up the process with his “donation”. The EIA process can be complicated and lengthy, and requires a lot of bureaucratic input. Often at the provincial offices a bottleneck occurs, because of the time and attention needed to properly review the applications.
One of Sanral’s projects has taken four years to get a record of decision from the minister. With Van Schalkwyk only settling in to his new post, Sanral might have to wait another year for the N2 tollroad project to get the minister’s final decision. The minister has to consider appeals, and familiarise himself with the different projects, before he can
apply his mind properly.
Deat has recognised that these delays can be problematic, and the department is investigating new ways to speed up EIAs. New legislation up for approval during Van Schalkwyk’s term will probably address the slow process. Also the new minister will in future have a panel of experts to help him make his final decision. This panel is in the process of
being finalised.
A dummy's guide to EIAs
A. FIRST STEPS
1. Pre-application consultation
First a pre-application consultation between the relevant authority and the applicant takes place. The applicant tells the relevant authority what his plans are.
2. Submit application to relevant authority
The application is registered by the authority at this stage. This is to facilitate public access to information about the proposed project. In order to ensure that all interested parties are afforded an opportunity to comment on development, project applications must be publicly advertised.
B. SCOPING REPORT
1. Submission of plan for study scoping
After the application, the relevant authority may request a plan of study for scoping. This plan must include a description of activity and the proposed location on a map at an appropriate scale. A description of all tasks to be performed during scoping is also dealt with in this report. Possible alternatives for the project can also be included.
2. Authority review
The plan of study for scoping must be submitted to the relevant authority for review before the applicant is required to submit a scoping report. Authority review at this stage determines whether the procedure followed thus far is adequate to continue.
3. Do a scoping report
After the plan of study for scoping has been accepted by the relevant authority, the applicant and/or consultant will be requested to submit a scoping report.
A scoping report must contain: a brief project description; a brief description of how the environment may be affected; a description of environmental issues identified; a description of all alternatives identified; and a description of the public participation process.
4. Review of scoping report
The scoping report must be reviewed by the interested parties (the public), by specialists and all the relevant authorities.
Authority review in this regard should determine whether:
The procedure followed thus far has been adequate to continue.
The legal and procedural requirements have been complied with.
There has been sufficient consultation with interested and affected parties.
The information in the scoping report is accurate.
Unbiased, credible and adequate attention has been given to the reasonable range of alternatives.
Credible methods have been used in the identification of these.
5. Consideration of application
The relevant authority must accept the information and the scoping report before it decides to issue an authorization to undertake the activity with or without conditions. It can now also rule that the information contained in the scoping report should be supplemented by an environmental impact report. Lastly, it can decline the application.
In cases where the application has been authorised or refused, a record of decision must be issued. The applicant or an interested party may lodge an appeal against the decision.
C. THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)
In the EIR issues and alternatives requiring further investigation are examined.
1. Plan of study for EIR
If the relevant authority decides that the information contained in the scoping report should be supplemented by an EIR, the applicant must submit a plan of study for an environmental impact assessment (EIA). This should include a description of the environmental issues identified during scoping that may require further investigation and
assessment. A description of the feasible alternatives and the method of identifying impacts also have to be included in the plan.
2. Authority review of plan of study for the EIA
The plan of study for an EIA must be reviewed and accepted by the relevant authority before the applicant starts work on specialist studies, and before submission of an EIR.
Authority review may include review of the following aspects: compliance with the regulations; organisation of the information; public participation; and quality of the plan of study for the EIA.
3. The environmental impact report
After the relevant authority has accepted the plan of study for EIA, an environmental impact report is done with the help of an independent consultant.
An EIR must contain the following: a description of each feasible alternative; assessment of impacts; nature of the impact, its extent, duration, intensity and probability; determination of significance; mitigation (this to find better ways of doing things, minimise or eliminate negative impacts); addressing of key issues; and a comparative
assessment of the feasible alternatives.
4. Review of EIR
The purpose of review is to determine whether the EIR is an adequate assessment of the environmental impacts, and of sufficient relevance and quality for decision-making. The review also collects and collates a range of stakeholder opinions about the acceptability of the proposal and the quality of the EIA process undertaken, and ensures that the
EIR and process comply with the plan of study.
The applicant/consultant plays a leading role in preparing a systematic approach for reviewing the EIR. Legal
requirements, quality of scoping, assessments of alternatives, quality of mitigation proposed and the public participation process are all considered during the general procedural review.
Effectiveness, efficiency, equity, administrative implications, acceptability, cost implications and macro-economic impact may form the basis of reviewing the technical information.
D. FINAL STEPS
1. Consideration of application
When the review of the EIR is completed, the relevant authority will decide to either issue an authorisation with or without conditions, or reject the application. A record of decision will be issued by the authority. This will be made available to the interested parties on request.
2. Appeals
Appeals should be directed to the minister of the national Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism or to the MEC of the provincial department charged with the environment who was responsible for authorising or rejecting the proposed activity in terms of the Environment Conservation Act of 1989.
Any person who feels aggrieved by a decision made by the relevant authority in terms of these regulations may appeal.
An appeal must be done in writing within 30 days from the date on which the record of decision was issue. An appeal must set out all the facts as well as the grounds of appeal, and must be accompanied by relevant documentation.
In circumstances where the original decision is not upheld, a revised record of decision should be issued.
3. Record of decision
A final record of decision is issued by the relevant authority. After this decision is issued, disgruntled parties will have to go to the High Court to oppose the project. The record of decision is usually issued with a set of conditions.After the final record of decision, the applicant may undertake the activity.
Read 0 Comments... >> |
|
|
