SUBMISSION BY SUSIE BROWNLIE: NEMA AMENDMENT BILL
Dear Albertina
As an independent environmental consultant with over 25 years of experience in
the field of environmental assessment, being a certified environmental
assessment practitioner and professionally registered member with SACNASP, I
wish to register my grave concerns about the proposed amendments to NEMA.
1. The proposed amendments to section 24(4), which limits the minimum
requirements for the investigation, assessment and communication of potential
impacts of activities on the environment, will severely undermine the very
purpose of impact assessment, namely to inform and guide decision-making for
sustainable development. For many years, bodies such as the Interim
Certification Board for Environmental Assessment Practitioners of South Africa
and the IAIAsa have raised the issue of the spread of
capacity in the field of environmental impact assessment, noting that much of
the available capacity lies in the private sector, rather than in the public
sector. The proposed amendments to the NEMA effectively erode the strong and
defensible position of this Act with regard to championing sustainable
development in South Africa, by giving discretion to officials within the
competent authorities with regard to the scope and content of environmental
assessments. This discretion is inappropriate: many of our competent
authorities' officials have neither the qualification nor the experience to
make such discretionary judgments. In addition, many of these discretionary
judgments will, in all probability, run the risk of being inconsistent with the
National Environmental Management principles contained in s2 of the Act.
2. The proposed amendments will effectively make the need to assess and
evaluate alternatives discretionary (i.e. at the discretion of the competent
authority). The assessment and evaluation of alternatives is the very
cornerstone of sound environmental assessment practice. By removing it, impact
assessment will not be able to guide decision- makers as to the 'best
practicable environmental option' to meet objectives of development. The latter
is one of the NEMA principles contained in s2 of the NEMA.
3. Likewise, the proposed amendments make the the
need explicitly to identify, assess and evaluate gaps in information, uncertainties, assumptions and the adequacy of predictive
methods discretionary. These changes are inconsistent with the NEMA principles
that require a risk-averse and cautious approach (s2).
4. Similarly, the proposed amendments make the need to address management,
monitoring and auditing of the success of management, at the discretion of the
competent authority. Without strong and appropriate safeguards to check
implementation of development and the effectiveness of environmental management,
the goal of sustainable development cannot be achieved.
I request that you please take the above comments into account.
Regards,
Susie Brownlie
deVilliers Brownlie
Associates