Analysing the factors that influence the procedural efficiency of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Process in the Western Cape Province

Abstract

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process have been criticised for being costly and time-delaying to the development of countries and service provisions. Internationally, various authors have researched how the efficiency of the process can be improved by refining and streamlining the process. To improve the procedural efficiency of the EIA process, knowledge needs to be gained on what factors challenge the efficiency of the process. This research aims to critically analyse the influencing factors and to determine the efficiency of the EIA process in the Western Cape, South Africa. To achieve the aim, three research objective were set: determining the efficiency of EIA processes in the Western Cape with respect to whether applications submitted where finalised within the timeframes stipulated in the NEMA, 2010 in comparison to the NEMA, 2014 regulations; identifying the factors which may influence the procedural efficiency of the EIA process, either positively or negatively; and identifying means for improving the EIA procedural efficiency. To achieve the research objectives, EIA applications submitted in the Western Cape were compared to the timeframes in the regulations. Thereafter, Environmental Assessment Practitioners and government officials were interviewed and the interviews were analysed to identify themes. This research indicated that 1285 applications were submitted from 2010 to 2014, in terms of the NEMA, 2010 Regulations. Of the approved applications, 31.1% were classed as efficient, 39.7% were mostly efficient and the remaining 29.2% were classed as inefficient. When comparing the applications submitted under the NEMA, 2014 Regulations, it is evident that stipulated timeframes for consultants, and not just for the competent authority as with the 2010 regulations, led to significant improvement in terms of finalising the applications within the stipulated timeframes. The results showed that 98% of the approved applications were efficient, 0% was mostly efficient and the remaining 2% were inefficient. During the interviews with government officials and consultants, communication and cooperation between all parties involved, experience and knowledge of consultants and case officers, stipulated timeframes and the flexibility thereof as well as updated, published interpretations of regulations lead to procedural inefficiencies. Possible improvements by interviewees emphasised combined pre-application meetings with involved authorities, updated guidelines, improved communication between authorities and the integration of application processes. Finally, the outcome of the research is summarised in relation to the three main factors for success, also known as the Efficiency Triangle. The findings are discussed by indicating how the shortcomings influence the different factors and the efficiency of the process, and how it can be improved.