By Noxolo Kabane

There has been a lot of disquiet and debates over the delay in the delivery of low cost housing. This delay has been attributed to a number of reasons, which include the availability of land, funding, contractors and the Environmental Impact Assessment process, to name a few. Before we can fully understand the way in which an Environmental Impact Assessment affects housing delivery, we need to define and understand the process.

An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) delves into the possible impact, whether positive or negative, a proposed project may have on the environment. It attempts to comprehensively look into the natural, social and economic aspects of the proposed project. EIAs are used to identify the likely environmental and social effects of a project at an early stage (Glasson et al, 2005). The results are used to help find ways to minimise any adverse impact and to inform decision making. In this way, they help in the adjustment of projects to local environments and provide information and options to those involved, including the public (Glasson et al, 2005).

EIAs have been part of the South African environmental law since the endorsement of the EIA Regulations under the Environmental Conservation Act in 1998 (ECA). There have been numerous amendments since the new EIA Regulations were introduced in 2006 under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA). NEMA states that before certain listed development activities can be undertaken, an EIA must be undertaken and Environmental Authorisation obtained. The environmental departments of the various provincial governments are responsible for evaluating applications that have been submitted in terms of the EIA regulations. The National Department of Water and Environmental Affairs is responsible for evaluating projects of national importance, particularly projects that cross provincial or national boundaries (www.msflaw.co.za).

According to Glasson (2005) key national policy documents state that the environmental quality of human settlements should be improved and housing environments should, inter alia, be healthy. The principles of the National Housing Act (107 of 1997) demonstrate some consistency with those of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA 107 of 1998) and the environmental rights enshrined in the Constitution (108 of 1998) that amongst other things, the issue of healthy living conditions is emphasised. In 1998, the Department of Housing established the environmentally sound low cost housing Task Team to develop national policy on environmentally efficient low cost housing and to encourage environmentally sound practices in the housing sector. This was to be done in line with the recommendations of the Environmental Implementation Plan (EIP) of the department.

The first edition EIP of the Department of Housing was approved in October 2000, and gazetted in accordance with the prescripts of NEMA in terms of meeting commitments for cooperative environmental management. This in itself is a significant achievement, as it represents the first coherent and formal attempt to harmonise policies and programmes between a range of sectoral departments in the interest of sustainable development. The EIP also notes the major environmental impacts of unplanned informal settlements, which are often located on marginal land (such as steep slopes and flood plains) and tend to impact heavily on sensitive ecosystems, such as estuaries (Glasson et al, 2005).

With the red tape involved in the process of an EIA most municipalities and developers find themselves spending a lot of money and time on this process, which results in undue delays in the development of houses. For instance, the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality acknowledges that it previously fell short of its target, and this was due to delays in projects approval, EIAs, and performance challenges of contractors (www.sacities.net).

Government departments, under pressure to deliver economic growth, have launched a broadside against environmental legislation, saying it is holding up development and should be scrapped. New regulations streamlining EIAs have been stalled for more than a year, partly because of high-level power-mongering.

Environmental consultants are worried that the regulations, which mitigate harmful ecological practices and ensure public participation, may never see the light of day if the process would be scrapped and no longer be practiced. An article that appeared in the Mail & Guardian revealed that a consultant with close links to the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism said there were strong views in the "economic cluster" of ministries that EIAs should be totally scrapped. "EIAs are extremely contentious, because there is a perception that they hold up development." The then Minister of housing, Lindiwe Sisulu was also quoted in the same article undertaking to the construction industry that housing delivery would no longer be delayed by EIAs. Minister Sisulu drew a colourful picture on what she thought of the whole process, "We cannot forever be held hostage by butterfly eggs that have been laid, because environmentalists would care about those things that are important for the preservation of the environment, while we sit around and wait for them to conclude the environmental studies."

In China the Environmental Impact Assessment Law (EIA Law) requires an environmental impact assessment to be completed prior to project implementation. However, if a developer completely ignores this requirement and builds a project without submitting an environmental impact statement, the only penalty is that the environmental protection bureau (EPB) may require the developer to do a make-up environmental assessment. If the developer does not complete this make-up assessment within the designated time, only then is the EPB authorized to fine the developer. Even so, the possible fine is capped at a maximum of about US$25,000, a fraction of the overall cost of most major projects.

The lack of stringent enforcement mechanisms has resulted in a significant percentage of projects not completing legally required EIAs prior to construction (Wang, 2007). This approach of developing an environmental protection bureau can be considered as an option or a way forward to this problem that we are currently faced with when it comes to the EIA process.

However, strict laws would have to be put in place in the policies of our country. One would have to apply for exceptions to be authorised on projects that are borderline cases, for example a project that ill provide housing for a community that has squatter settlements located in high risk zones, or when it has been proven that the environmental impacts are minimal.

Another option that should be investigated by the environmentally sound low cost housing Task Team is that if a party prepares a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and it is found that impacts on the environment are minimal; the party should be exempted from doing an EIA and proceeds with the development.

It seems that the best way to streamline the EIA process is to have a combination of strategic tools, norms and standards for the process and also to look at options of improving governance, which can also be a barrier to the efficiency of EIA.

• Fiona Macleod, Mail and Guardian March 29, 2006

• Glasson, J; Therivel, R; Chadwick A, Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment, (2005) Routledge, London

• Gu, Lin (2005). China Improves Enforcement of Environmental Laws.

• http://www.fishingowl.co.za/Environscary.html

• http://www.msflaw.co.za/News/DisplayNewsItem.aspx?niid=2075

• http://www.sacities.net/2009/feb27_municipality.stm

• Wang, Alex (2007). "Environmental protection in China: the role of law". http://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/745-Environmental-protection-in-China-the-role-of-law.