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