EIA Efficacy Hearing Portfolio Committee for Water and Environmental Affairs, Parliament, Cape Town Mike Mangnall 31 July 2013

Strengths EIA process is clear, structured and robust Involves a thorough, inclusive and transparent process Ensures I&APs are informed of potential projects and have adequate opportunity to voice concerns or support Allows for information to be shared at understandable level Clearly regulated timeframes allow for proper planning process Not always adhered to by DEA (see below) Dynamic nature of EMP development allows for new information to be incorporated Does not constrain project to unrealistic expectations Wind farm in Europe

Weaknesses DEA has enormous EIA workload >600 wind and solar applications = approx MWs Approx. 20% might reach construction Number are speculative but long lead EIA timeframes force early application Numerous other consents to be Bid compliant Process too prescriptive and, in many cases, too onerous Unnecessary delays and frustrations Reviews inconsistent and often exceed stipulated timeframes Ease with which stakeholders can lodge appeals is concerning No costs involved; could be done to extract compensation/ delay process No participation in EIA required; interested but not affected Appeal timelines are regulated but in practice are completely open-ended 90-day resolution timeframe can be reset by requesting further information/ clarification

Weaknesses cont. Environmental Authorisations (EAs) are inter alia conditional on further compliance with other legislation, e.g. NWA and SALA Other departments (e.g. DWA and DAFF) often impose restrictions that conflict with EA, resulting in Amendments which further stretch DEA Quality of reporting by EAPs and specialists varies dramatically In particular, mitigation measures for birds and bats are often based on misunderstanding of wind farms and related technology Current process and EAs allow for little flexibility in development design Not practical to specify every detail during EIA, hence >projects have to apply for Amendments for minor changes, e.g. altering turbine hub height or micro-siting turbine positions EA should approve specific on-site “areas for development” versus “co- ordinates” to allow for flexibility when turbines are only selected a few months prior to bidding Continue to approve range of, or maximum, turbine heights

Recommendations Additional resources should be employed within DEA to deal specifically with wind (and solar) farm applications A body of suitably-qualified expertise, or advisory capacity, should be created within DEA that is capable of scrutinising technical content of EIAs, in particular specialists’ impact mitigation recommendations Should limit unworkable recommendations and EA conditions, and reduce need for subsequent clarification and amendments Greater effort should be made to integrate various permitting processes and other government departments should be involved at an early stage by DEA in terms of providing inputs into EIA process More streamlined process Avoid unnecessary or conflicting comments between various departments Reduce amendment applications post-authorization

Recommendations cont. More emphasis should be placed on Scoping Phase Scoping responses are very standardized, despite differences in receiving environment and projects Scope/ screen out areas of high impact earlier Should result in improved and more streamlined EIA EAP reporting and DEA reviews should be more consistent and of better quality Efforts could be focused on more-sensitive sites/ projects Would save significant resources and time for all parties Where project impacts are likely to be low, instead of requiring full EIA or Basic Assessment process, implementation of EMP and appointment of ECO should only be requested Where a non-substantive amendment is required, direct application by developer should be allowed

Recommendations cont. Extreme caution should be taken if Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) to select Renewable Energy Development Zones (REDZ) continues Industry well-advanced (detailed studies since 2008); do not need maps to guide (N.Cape not included) Validity of assumptions used, accuracy of data, appropriateness of major exclusion criteria Runs risk of impeding consenting process for applicants outside Preferred Zones and penalising them unduly Wind farm site selection is complicated process which requires appropriate expertise and assessment, and it will not be straightforward to delist activities in zones, which is likely to increase workload of DEA rather than reduce it

Way forward Increased collaboration should be facilitated between SAWEA, DEA, environmental specialists and EAPs with regards to understanding and promoting environmentally responsible and sustainable wind energy development in South Africa Improved integration of permitting should be facilitated by DEA with other departments to ensure more efficient, consistent and effective decision- making Agreement on “rules of engagement” Clear platform allowing for follow-up on progress of EIAs and appeals within DEA should be established Could be run online, include official access rights, waiting lists, list of missing documents, automatic progress updates, standard checklists for both applicant and case officer, for example Will ultimately lead to a more efficient, interactive and clearly-scheduled process

Thank you Wind farm in Europe