Environmental Impact Assessment

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

EIA follow-up and risk assessment

As noted in section 1.3.3.1 above, risk assessment can fit well into EIA follow-up as a risk screening tool to identify default and impact risks. However, there is also some indication that risk assessment and follow-up share additional common ground. Follow-up is sometimes regarded as the ideal link between project planning and implementation (Bailey 1997; Arts & Morrison-Saunders 2004) as it provides a transition between planning and doing. Eduljee (1999) has made the same comment about risk assessment. As he puts it, risk assessment has “…the potential to establish a seamless link from project conception/design through to operation/implementation and beyond; [which helps to provide] continuity between the planning process and the regulatory control of facility/project operations” (Eduljee 1999:374). Follow-up and risk assessment are therefore both useful linkage processes, particularly in that they provide feedback that can help deal with risks (Arts & Morrison-Saunders 2004).

The underlying paradigm of the research

In the previous chapter (section 1.3.2.6), it was proposed that the methodological approach for this study be pragmatic and simple, yet based on sound scientific principles. This section examines the relative merits of a scientific versus a more pragmatic paradigm and motivates why a more practical approach was chosen. It is important to define the paradigmatic approach taken for a study as paradigms guide not only the methodology of a study, but also significantly influence the results and value of such a study (Serafin et al 1992). Within the environmental management field, two paradigmatic perspectives are readily apparent.

Specification of terms

Terminology in the environmental impact assessment field is not standardized which can lead to confusion about the meanings attached to certain terms (Tomlinson & Atkinson 1987a). This section thus provides an alphabetical definition of terms as used in this study that have not already been defined elsewhere. Activities refers to the activities listed in terms of the 1997 EIA regulations as potentially having a significantly detrimental effect on the environment and therefore requiring authorization. The complete list of activities (as set out in the EIA regulations) is specified in Appendix 1. For convenience sake a condensed list of activities – and the abbreviations used for them in this thesis – are specified here.

Aspects of environmental importance focused on during the follow-up process

Logistically, follow-up cannot cover every conceivable issue that might be of environmental importance. Follow-up therefore needs to be focused on those environmental aspects that will add the most value to the follow-up process and those which are feasible to measure (Arts & Meijer 2004). This focusing of the follow-up process is particularly important for countries in transition – like South Africa – where newly created agencies with few staff and ill-defined areas of competency require the focusing of resources in order for an appreciable difference to be made (George 2000c). The aspects of environmental importance that this study focused on were firstly, the degree of compliance with the conditions of authorization and secondly, the overall environmental impact of a development project.

The spatial extent of follow-up

The spatial extent of the study area for this research is as indicated in Figure 2-1 below. The study area is situated within the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. In this Province, applications for provincial EIA authorization are submitted to the environmental authority (the Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs or DEDEA) via one of five regional offices, depending on the location of the development project. This study focuses on the EIA applications submitted to one of these regional offices. This regulatory authority office, which is based in Queenstown, covered the district municipal areas of Ukhahlamba and Chris Hani (Figure 2-1).

The role-players involved in the follow-up process

The clear assignment of roles and responsibilities has been identified as key to successful follow-up (McCallum 1987; US EPA 1992; Marshall et al 2005; MorrisonSaunders et al 2004; Ahammed & Nixon 2006). There are generally three main roleplayers involved in the follow-up process: the applicant, the regulatory authority, and interested and affected parties (Morrison-Saunders et al 2003).

TABLE OF CONTENTS :

• 1 Chapter 1: Research problem
  • 1.1 Introduction
  • 1.2 Rationale and aims
  • 1.2.1 Establishing a compliance and effects EIA follow-up process
    • 1.2.2 Developing a risk screening process
  • 1.3 Context and scope of the study
    • 1.3.1 Environmental Impact Assessment
      • 1.3.1.1 The EIA process
      • 1.3.1.2 The EIA process as implemented in South Africa
      • 1.3.1.3 Legislative context for EIA in South Africa
    • 1.3.2 EIA follow-up
    • 1.3.3 Risk screening and assessment
    • 1.3.3.1 Screening for follow-up
    • 1.3.3.2 Risk assessment
    • 1.3.3.3 The risk assessment process
    • 1.3.4 Integrating EIA, EIA follow-up and risk screening
    • 1.3.4.1 EIA and risk assessment
    • 1.3.4.2 EIA follow-up and risk assessment
    • 1.3.4.3 A proposed framework for the integration of EIA, EIA follow-up and risk screening
• 2 Chapter 2: Methodology
  • 2.1 The underlying paradigm of the research
  • 2.2 Specification of terms
  • 2.3 The follow-up phase of the research
    • 2.3.1 Planning for the follow-up process
    • 2.3.1.1 Aspects of environmental importance focused on during the followup process
    • 2.3.1.2 The spatial extent of follow-up
    • 2.3.1.3 The most effective time to undertake follow-up
    • 2.3.1.4 The role-players involved in the follow-up process
    • 2.3.2 Collection of follow-up data
    • 2.3.2.1 Selecting projects for follow-up
    • 2.3.2.2 Data collection methods utilized by the study
    • 2.3.2.3 Challenges in assessing default and impact
    • 2.3.3 The use of expert judgment in the collection of data
    • 2.3.3.1 The collection of default data
    • 2.3.3.2 The collection of overall impact data
    • 2.3.3.3 Capture of collected data
    • 2.3.4 Analysis of the follow-up data
    • 2.3.4.1 Analysis of data relating to default
    • 2.3.4.2 Analysis of data relating to impact
    • 2.3.4.3 Analysis of data relating to a combination of default and impact
  • 2.4 The risk screening phase of the research
• 3 Chapter 3: Results and interpretation
  • 3.1 The influence of the project life cycle
  • 3.2 Results from the follow-up phase of the research
  • 3.2.1 Default
    • 3.2.1.1 The overall distribution of default scores
    • 3.2.1.2 The consent conditions most often defaulted on
    • 3.2.1.3 The consent conditions most often complied with
    • 3.2.1.4 Activity types with the most default
    • 3.2.1.5 The relationship between the number of consent conditions set and the percentage default recorded
  • 3.2.2 Impact
  • 3.2.3 Default and impact combined
  • 3.2.3.1 The relationship between default and impact
  • 3.2.3.2 Average default and impact trends over time
  • 3.2.3.3 Identifying occurrences of high default and/or high impact
  • 3.3 Results from the risk screening phase of the research
    • 3.3.1 Testing the accuracy of the risk screening tool
    • 3.3.1.1 Comparing predicted and actual default with box-and-whisker plots
    • 3.3.1.2 Comparing predicted and actual impact with box-and-whisker plots
    • 3.3.1.3 Testing the significance of predicted-actual matches with Wilcoxon matched-pairs tests
  • 3.3.2 Overall effectiveness of the risk screening tool in screening out projects that require follow-up
• 4 Chapter 4: Conclusions
  • 4.1 Conclusions relating to the planning of a follow-up process
    • 4.1.1 Suitability of a simple and pragmatic approach to follow-up
    • 4.1.2 Compliance and effects monitoring
    • 4.1.3 Obtaining buy-in for follow-up
    • 4.1.4 The need for clear roles and responsibilities
    • 4.1.5 Site visit planning
  • 4.2 Conclusions relating to monitoring projects
    • 4.2.1 Expect the unexpected
    • 4.2.2 The tools used in the collection of follow-up data
    • 4.2.3 The influence of the project life cycle on monitoring
    • 4.2.4 The value of post-monitoring reports
  • 4.3 Conclusions relating to default
    • 4.3.1 Overall distribution of default scores
    • 4.3.2 Consent conditions and default
  • 4.4 Conclusions relating to impact
  • 4.5 Conclusions relating to a combination of default and impact
  • 4.6 Conclusions relating to the risk screening phase of the research
  • 4.7 Conclusions regarding implementing a follow-up and risk screening process
• 5 Chapter 5: Recommendations

GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
ASSESSING AND MANAGING THE POTENTIAL FOR COMPLIANCE DEFAULT OF APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED IN TERMS OF SOUTH AFRICA’S ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS