Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Planning

With regard to decisions issued by his Department during the month of September 2020 following applications for listed activities under the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998):

1. How many applications were received?

My Department received 13 Basic Assessment applications, 4 Scoping/EIA applications and 8 Amendment applications during September 2020.

2. how many decisions were issued?

The following decisions were issued in terms of the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended): 6 Basic Assessment decisions.

In addition, one Basic Assessment project was withdrawn by the applicant, and one Scoping/EIA application lapsed because the applicant was not able to fulfil their legal obligations within the timeframes provided in the NEMA EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended).

3. of those, how many decisions were essentially the granting of all the rights that were applied for,

All the decisions that were taken, considered different alternatives for the proposed developments. These alternatives were generated during the application processes and were influenced by the environmental opportunities and constraints of the respective sites, input from the various specialists involved in the application processes, as well as comments received from the public and the relevant authorities during the public participation processes followed. As a result, the most appropriate alternatives under the specific circumstances were put forward as the preferred alternative. The preferred alternative was approved in all 6 of the decisions taken during September 2020.

4.  what was the average period that lapsed between the receipt of the application or the final submission of outstanding evidence or paperwork, where applicable, to the date on which the decision was issued?

Due to the national state of emergency declared in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the resultant national lockdown period, EIA processes were suspended by the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (“DEFF”), in order to adhere to the regulations issued by the National Cabinet. On 5 June 2020, DEFF issued national directions that enabled the resumption of EIA processes that were underway prior to the national lockdown period. It also became possible from that date, to submit new EIA applications. In order to allow for additional precautionary measures to be implemented, especially during the public participation process, additional time was provided for the completion of EIA processes. In terms of the 5 June 2020 DEFF directions, an additional timeframe of 21 days was made available for all applications that were already in-process at that time, while an additional 30 days were provided for in the case of new applications.

In this light, the average time for decision-making after receipt of the final information for the 6 Basic Assessment decisions that were taken, was 150 days. This includes the 71-day duration of the national lockdown. If that period, as well as the additional 21 days enabled by the 5 June 2020 DEFF directions is removed from the equation, the average time for decision-making in these 6 cases was 88 days.

The average time for decision-making after receipt of the original application, taking into consideration the suspended timeframe as a result of the national lockdown, as well as the extension of timeframes flowing from the 5 June 2020 DEFF directions, in these 6 cases was 195 days.

5. how has the backlog in the consideration of said applications been affected by the regulations related to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and

As explained before, the national regulations related to the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in EIA processes being suspended. No information was therefore submitted to my Department during this time. However, my Department’s staff continued to administer applications during this time, but only issued responses to pending applications when that became possible after the 5 June 2020 DEFF directions. Once EIA processes were resumed, comments on documents could be issued, outstanding information could be submitted by applicants, and application processes could be finalised.

6. what are the plans to achieve shorter turnaround times?

EIA timeframes for both the applicant and the authorities are prescribed in legislation. My Department always strives to process applications within the required timeframes. In addition, my Department prioritises certain applications, such as those for municipal infrastructure and housing applications, applications in the public interest, etc. The quality of reports submitted by the applicant determines to a large extent what the possible turnaround time for final evaluation is. As examples: one of the applications processed by my Department was for a type of project where the same applicant had undergone 3 similar applications previously. As a result, both the applicant and their Environmental Impact Assessment Practitioner (“EAP”) had a good understanding of their own project, as well as the EIA Regulations, 2014 (as amended). Based on this experience, reports of high quality, addressing all the pertinent issues, were submitted and my Department was able to assess this and issue a decision in less than 20 days.

In another of the 6 decisions taken during September 2020, the EAP and a specialist on the project team neglected to provide a report to a key authority for their comment, despite my Department reminding them more than once to do so during the preceding stages of the application process. This comment was crucial to my Department’s decision. The EAP submitted the final documentation eight days before the deadline for final decision-making. Because my Department had already evaluated the available information at that time, it was still possible to issue the final decision prior to the deadline for decision-making.

I use these examples to illustrate the point made previously, namely that the quality of the EIA process and reporting has a significant influence on the turnaround time for decision-making. My Department conducts various ongoing capacity building initiatives with other authorities such as municipalities and EAPs to improve the quality of EIAs in order to streamline EIA processes.

It should therefore be noted that obtaining an EIA authorisation is an iterative process that includes inter alia the gathering, investigation, evaluation, assessment and administration of information, all of which is subject to a legally required public participation process. The duration of an EIA process is therefore not only influenced by the aforementioned but also by a combination of the nature and complexity of an application, the receiving environment as well as the adequacy and quality of information provided.