1. © SE Solutions 2010 WHY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) FAILS Sean O’Beirne Sustainable Environmental Solutions (Pty) Ltd

2. © SE Solutions 2010 WHERE ARE WE?  Over 40 years of EIA - enactment of the U.S. National Environment Policy Act (NEPA) in 1970;  Environmental Conservation Act 1989;  1997 Regulations 1182 and 1183 – EIA formalised;  National Environmental Management Act 1998;  NEMA Regulations 2006;  Amended in 2010;  15 years of formalised EIA in South Africa (and at least 20 years of unregulated EIA before that);  What has happened – what has that achieved ?

3. © SE Solutions 2010 WHERE ARE WE? (cont.) Population density (PD), population growth rate (PGR), governance quality (GOV), Gross National Income (GNI), natural forest loss (NFL), natural habitat conversion (HBC), marine captures (MC), fertilizer use (FER), water pollution (WTP), threatened species (THR), and carbon emissions (CO 2 ). (Bradshaw CJA, Giam X, Sodhi NS (2010) Evaluating the Relative Environmental Impact of Countries. PLoS ONE 5(5): e10440. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0010440).

4. © SE Solutions 2010 Descriptors  Population density (PD) rank;  Population growth rate (PGR) rank;  Governance quality (GOV) rank;  Gross National Income (GNI) rank;  Natural forest loss (NFL) rank;  Natural habitat conversion (HBC) rank;  Marine captures (MC) rank;  Fertilizer use (FER) rank;  Water pollution (WTP) rank;  Threatened species (THR) rank; and,  Carbon emissions (CO 2 ) rank.

5. © SE Solutions 2010 WHY DOES EIA FAIL?  Principles - is EIA a business or a service to society?;  Competence – how much do we really know?;  Tools – are we able to make the correct predictions?;  Identity – are EIAs really there to make people happy – they certainly think so ?;  Bureaucracy – have EIAs become the fly reports of environmental protection ?;  Role - do EIAs assess or justify developments?;  Stature – is EIA really the mechanism to address our failing (flailing) environment ?; and,  What of sustainable development in all of this?  General.

6. © SE Solutions 2010 PRINCIPLES  Why do practitioners do EIAs?  To make a living - EIA is a business.  Difficult things to tell clients:  Your project is fatally flawed;  Your royalty payments are too low;  The economic merits of your project are questionable;  There is no rationale for your project;  Your technology is defunct;  Your project will use too much water;  The property you purchased is in the wrong place;  You must employ more people; and,  You are dishonest and unethical.

7. © SE Solutions 2010 PRINCIPLES (cont.)  But surely there are checks and balances?  Yes – we have requirements for independence;  Why the independence requirements are futile:  He who pays the piper......  Independence does not guarantee an unbiased assessment in the same way that a lack of independence does not guarantee bias;  Technically as an EAP I cannot have any kind of investment – not even a pension - because the argument can always be made that the project for which I did an EIA improved the financial performance of say Anglo or BHP Billiton or some such.

8. © SE Solutions 2010 COMPETENCE - PRACTITIONERS  Everyone can do EIA regardless of training – and believe me everyone does;  Generalists masquerade as specialists – Frylinck court ruling;  Being a specialist does not mean that you can effectively assess a particular impact;  Practitioners compelled to define mitigation – may not be the best people to do so;  Major disagreements even amongst good specialists – e.g. how best to effect rehabilitation;  Description versus assessment – Wordsworth versus Einstein; and,  General paucity of good environmental information.

9. © SE Solutions 2010 COMPETENCE - AUTHORITIES  Expected to know everything about everything – why I plan to make my teenage sons authorities;  Many are junior and inexperienced but must review and cast judgement on multiple diverse projects;  Many authorities later become practitioners but not many practitioners become authorities;  Some frightening examples of incompetence and particular problems with RoDs; and,  ‘Overworked’ and limited performance management – meeting timings for decisions in regulations.

10. © SE Solutions 2010 COMPETENCE – DEVELOPERS  EIA typically perceived as a frustrating, valueless and time-wasting side-show;  Question how many would get done if not regulated;  Seldom respect EIA and its purported purpose;  Always know better – maybe this is where my kids should be;  Typically drive for simply meeting regulatory requirements – don’t see EIA as a strategic exercise;  Almost always think that it should cost less and take less time; and,  Don’t always relate well to the need for specialists.

11. © SE Solutions 2010 TOOLS  Assessment tools are limited and there is too much reliance on personal (albeit scientifically defendable) opinion;  Atmospheric dispersion modelling one of few formalised assessment tools – not without problems;  Human health assessments limited to incremental disease risks, mostly inhalation (fixation);  No assessment of human welfare;  No real integration across disciplines;  Not clear how to deal with existing baseline condition;  Ascription of significance highly problematic and inconsistent;

12. © SE Solutions 2010 TOOLS (cont.)  Lots of process prescription but little attention to methods;  Too much latitude to do whatever seems appropriate as an assessment method;  Too much description not enough assessment – e.g. geological descriptions;  Failure to address the ‘so-what’ question;  How scientific are EIAs – are they real science or simply the application of principles that real science has uncovered?; and,  EIAs are in themselves predictive – by definition there will be some (possibly lots) of inaccuracy in that.

13. © SE Solutions 2010 Need Proposed development Activities AspectsReceiving environment Impacts

14. © SE Solutions 2010 ActivitiesAspects Receiving environment Impacts Air Power generation PM 10 CO 2 SO 2 Emissions Climate change Temperature change

15. © SE Solutions 2010 ActivitiesAspects Receiving environment Impacts Natural sources Air Carbon cycle Power generation PM 10 CO 2 SO 2 Emissions Climate change Temperature change Solar cycles Earth inclination

16. © SE Solutions 2010 ActivitiesAspects Receiving environment Impacts Natural sources Air Carbon cycle Power generation PM 10 CO 2 SO 2 Emissions Climate change Temperature change Solar cycles Earth inclination Precipitation change Sea temperature change Ocean circulation change 9 - 10 3 - 10

17. © SE Solutions 2010 ActivitiesAspects Receiving environment Impacts Decant Surface water flow Power generation Ecosystem structure/function Other users Basic human needs Effluent Surface water quality Groundwater flow Groundwater quality Riperian condition SB condition Sedimentation Rainfall Evaporation Geology Aquifer features Recharge Surface water biota Abstraction Land-use Water release Inundation Seepage

18. © SE Solutions 2010 IDENTITY  EIA does not seem to make anyone happy;  Huge difference between consultation and participation;  Gautrain judgement – judge ruled EIA not required to make everyone happy – just give everyone a chance to participate ???  People fundamentally object to a development – EIA typically one of few or even only avenue for objection;  In these circumstances will never like the findings regardless of objectivity, scientific merit etc.  People opposed to nuclear power, incineration etc. are never going to accept a finding that says ‘no problem here!’ ;

19. © SE Solutions 2010 IDENTITY (cont.)  Deep resentment towards EIA as a mechanism for deciding on proposed developments;  Expectation that EIA should find the ‘right way’ of doing things such as generating power, disposing of hazardous waste etc.  Naive expectations of developers motives – expect that developers should be directed in the ‘right way’ – fails to recognise that EIA an assessment of developments proposed by developers;  Multiple diverse expectations of EIA by multiple diverse stakeholders – can simply never satisfy them all.

20. © SE Solutions 2010 BUREAUCRACY  What are fly reports?  EIAs ostensibly provide for informed decision-makers;  Decision-making process highly questionable;  Political interference and motives;  Little or no authority over other government departments – DEA versus DMR or Housing;  No fixed strategic decision-making framework;  First come first served basis;  Very few negative decisions;  Process – ‘check box’ mentality – reject applications because they did not properly consider alternatives;  Authorities themselves fail to uphold the law – eg maintenance of the ecological reserve;

21. © SE Solutions 2010 BUREAUCRACY (cont.)  Progressive “dumbing down” of the regulations;  Force practitioners to make the decisions;  No provision for exemption;  Fundamental problem with ‘scheduled activity’ approach – tax law;  Progressively reducing the need for thinking in decision-making;  Bureaucracy  Time limits simply not respected;  Frightening regulations: (1)A competent authority must meet timeframes applicable to competent authorities in terms of these Regulations. (2)Where the applicable timeframes contemplated in regulations 24(1)(a), 25(1), 30(1), 34(2) or 35, as the case may be, are not met, those applicable timeframes are automatically extended by 60 days.

22. © SE Solutions 2010 BUREAUCRACY (cont.)  Compliance and enforcement of authorisation conditions (and the law for that matter) leaves a great deal to be desired;  Just seems to have lost all semblance of why EIA regulations were introduced in the first place;  A complete and dismal failure to properly regulate and control mining – political power of DMR versus DEA; and,  Seriously question the value of the decisions, the authorisations and the associated conditions that derive from the regulations.

23. © SE Solutions 2010 ROLE  What is the real role of an EIA – is it to assess or justify development?;  Provide a case study of a project in Russia – the Boguchanskaya Hydropower Project (BHPP) to examine this question;

24. © SE Solutions 2010 BHPP

25. © SE Solutions 2010  Lake Baikal is the oldest (25 million years) and deepest (1,700 m) lake in the world.  3.15-million-ha  Contains 20% of the world's total unfrozen freshwater reserve.  The 'Galapagos of Russia', contains one of the world's richest and most unusual freshwater faunas  Outstanding variety of endemic flora and fauna, which is of exceptional value to evolutionary science.  It is also surrounded by a system of protected areas that have high scenic and other natural values. LAKE BAIKAL

26. © SE Solutions 2010  Angara River, flows out of Lake Baikal and has a length of some 1 779 km;  The overall Angara basin area is 1,039,000 km²;  The biggest single source of flow is Lake Baikal, which accounts for about 45 % of the total annual flow, and up to 80% of the wintertime flow;  The annual flow of the Angara (average flow rate of 3, 380m 3 /s);  Three major hydropower dams; and,  BHPP is the fourth and a fifth is planned as well. THE ANGARA RIVER

27. © SE Solutions 2010 Irkutsk BHPP Bratsk Ust-Ilimsk

28. © SE Solutions 2010  Water surface area: 2,326 km 2 ;  Reservoir volume: 58.2 km 3 (average flow rate exceeds the reservoir volume by 1.9 times);  Catchment area: 831,000 km 2  Average discharge from the BHPP:107.7 km 3  Installed capacity – 3000 MW (9 turbines with a capacity of 333 MW each);  Average annual electricity output – 17.6 billion kW-h; and,  Approx. 4 000 people to be resettled. THE BHPP

29. © SE Solutions 2010

30.  Planning started in 1950s;  Construction started in 1980 stopped in 1990 due to lack of funding;  Resettlement process half completed;  Villages split in two;  Economic destitution; and,  State of communities/villages THE BHPP

31. © SE Solutions 2010  Shore line erosion (14%) and peat flotation;  Induced seismicity;  Loss of terrestrial ecosystems;  Microclimate change;  Greenhouse gas emissions;  Changes in hydrological, ice, and thermal conditions;  Changes in hydrochemistry and water quality – anthrax;  Changes in hydrobiology;  Social impacts on the recipient settlements;  Changes in quality of life and lifestyles, local community disruption and loss of cultural heritage. SOME IMPACTS

32. © SE Solutions 2010  How on earth is an EIA going to deal with all of that?;  Do we seriously think that someone is going to say no?;  What of the damage done by the 3 other HPPs?;  What of downstream impacts of the electricity users?;  How do we address the social consequences of the stopped resettlement process;  Who really benefits from the project going ahead?;  Олег Дерипаска - Deripaska's total wealth at $14 billion;  So where’s the planning? THE QUESTION(S) IS(ARE) ?

33. © SE Solutions 2010  EIA is not a planning tool – time we recognised that (unless you view drawing up a shopping list as planning);  At best an aid to implementation to reduce negative impacts and enhance positives;  At worst there to justify development;  Have to influence planning at a much more strategic level ;  May not be achieved through ‘assessment’  Have to identify the political and economic levers that bring about change and ‘play their game’. SO WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US ?

34. © SE Solutions 2010  EIA cannot improve the environment – at best slow the rate at which the environment is being degraded;  Cannot deal with policy issues such as energy mix, hazardous waste disposal, allocation of scarce resources, cross border impacts – repeatedly expected to?  Cannot deal with existing environmental problems – death by a thousand cuts;  Widely perceived as an obstacle to development – not EIA but bureaucracy that is the obstacle ;  Impotence of DEA to go up against development imperatives that face the country. STATURE

35. © SE Solutions 2010  Indeed what of it? Widely expected that EIA must somehow promote SD – smoking mushroom syndrome;  Only thing sustainable about sustainable development is development;  If EIA cannot improve the situation – cannot by definition promote SD;  EIA cannot modify development proposals to the extent needed to truly promote SD;  EIA is failed by principles, competence, tools, identity, bureaucracy, role and stature in promoting SD. WHAT OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT (SD)?

36. © SE Solutions 2010 Resource use Water resource protection Human heath Socio-economics Macro-economics Biodiversity and land potential THE SUSTAINABILITY CHALLENGE

37. © SE Solutions 2010 Natural environment Economy Society Economy Natural environment Society TWO RENDITIONS OF SD

38. © SE Solutions 2010  Burst into tears and think about changing careers ?;  All about finding the rightful place for EIA – entrenching principles, growing competence, expanding tools, establishing identity, reducing bureaucracy and finding other means of supplementing or otherwise overcoming the requirements that EIA simply cannot address;  All about SD – no doubt that EIA has a role to play, but limitations have to be recognized AND accepted;  Have to move away from making EIA the panacea to all environmental ills. SO WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US ?