South Africa

From SEA.unu.edu/wiki

Catherine Laurence

Oxford Brookes University, May 2009. Updated Sept 2009.

Contents 1 Introduction 2 Pre-1994 context 3 The current system: legislative and policy framework 4 SEA guiding principles and procedural stages 5 Application of SEA 6 Types of SEA 7 Critical evaluation of SEA in South Africa 8 Case Study 9 Bibliography

Introduction

South Africa has a well established strategic environmental assessment (SEA) system, placing it as one of the leading countries in SEA practice, particularly among developing countries (Ahmed and Fiadjoe 2006). Its system is largely voluntary, but is placed within a supportive legislative and policy context, and its principles and recommended key steps are detailed in central government guidance (DEAT and CSIR 2000; DEAT 2004). This country analysis provides an analysis of the SEA system in South Africa, including its policy and legislative context, guiding principles and procedural stages, application in practice, strengths and weaknesses and a brief case study. Links are provided to government and policy documents where available online, and a full bibliography is set out at the end, providing resources for further reading.

Pre-1994 context

This report describes and critiques the current SEA system in South Africa, and does not examine its history in any detail. However, the pre-1994 environmental policy context provides relevant background for the evolution of the current system, and is briefly described for this purpose.

South Africa developed a system of project Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in the 1970s, and has continued this since that time (Wood 2003). In 1992, the Department for Environmental Affairs established guidelines for Integrated Environmental Management (IEM), providing ‘the overarching framework for the integration of environmental assessment and management principles into environmental decision-making’ (DEAT 2004, p.1).

IEM was intended to be applied at both the strategic planning and project level (Wiseman 2000). In practice however, the system was not implemented at the strategic level, as it was ‘seen by many planners as an unnecessary duplication of planning and decision making procedures’ (Wiseman 2000, p.157). This context did however set the stage for post-1994 developments which established the system for SEA in South Africa as it exists today.

The current system: legislative and policy framework

Figure 1 presents a chronology of policy and legislative steps that played an important part in the development of SEA since South Africa’s transition to democracy in 1994.

Figure 1: Key steps in the evolution of SEA post-1994 (Sources: Primary documents, as referenced; DeVilliers 2004; Roussouw and Retief 2005)

1996	SEA Primer (CSIR 1996)	Report highlighting the need for SEA as distinct from project-EIA, and identifying means for developing it into a tool for environmental planning in South Africa.
1997	White Paper on Environmental Management Policy for South Africa (DEAT and CSIR 1997)	Set out the government’s strategic goals for environmental management and policy approaches for achieving these. SEA is among the proposed measures to facilitate informed decision-making at the strategic level.
1998	National Environmental Management Act (RSA 1998a)	Framework legislation establishing principles for decision-making on matters affecting the environment, led by principles of sustainable development. Chapter 5 provides for environmental assessment of activities requiring legal authorisation, and contains enabling provisions for subordinate legislation on environmental assessment.
2000	Guideline document on SEA in South Africa (DEAT and CSIR 2000)	The guidelines promote SEA as ‘a process of integrating the concept of sustainability into strategic decision-making’ (p.9). They provide a set of principles and process elements for SEA. They remain the current main government guidance document on SEA, although DEAT have also produced a further document in 2004, referred to below.
2000	Municipal Systems Act (RSA 2000)	Provides for the preparation of Integrated Development Plans (IDPs) and Spatial Development Frameworks (SDFs) for each province and municipality.
2004	Strategic Environmental Assessment, Information Series 10, Integrated Environmental Management Information Series, Book 5 (DEAT 2004)	This document provides an overview of SEA in South Africa. Designed for a wide readership, it summarises and updates the guidelines published in 2000.
2007	Strategic Environmental Assessment Guideline, Integrated Environmental Guideline Series 4 (DEAT 2007)	Aims to enhance the practice of SEA in South Africa by providing additional practical guidance, drawn from experience to date from practitioners, authorities and published literature. Its focus is to provide detailed guidance on key elements of SEA, without setting out a prescriptive step-by-step process. Cross-refers to its previous guidance of 2000 and 2004.

The first key steps consisted of the work by the Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) (CSIR 1996 and 1997), which pioneered SEA in South Africa, highlighting the value of strategic level assessment and explaining the different roles and functions of SEA and EIA (CSIR 2006; Dalal-Clayton and Sadler 2005). This triggered a number of early SEAs, commissioned on a voluntary basis, across a range of sectors at the regional and local scales (Rossouw et al 2000).

These initial developments were taken forward with the introduction of policy and legislation emphasising the integration of sustainability principles into strategic level planning across all sectors. The 1998 NEMA (RSA 1998a) was and remains a key piece of environmental framework legislation in South Africa (Rossouw and Wiseman 2004). The Act gave the system of IEM a legislative basis, including provision for the development of subordinate legislation on environmental assessment (RSA 1998a, Chapter 5). However, to date, no SEA Regulations have been promulgated under the Act (Roussouw and Retief 2005).

The 2000 guidelines on SEA produced by DEAT in collaboration with the CSIR drew on NEMA when setting out the legislative and policy context for the guidance, stating that the Act ‘indicates a need, within legislation, for the use of SEA’ (DEAT and CSIR 2000, p.10). The 2000 document went on to set out guiding principles and procedural stages for SEA, which are elaborated on further in section 4 below.

The next vital set of policy and legislative developments occurred in the early 2000s, when South Africa’s new spatial planning system was put in place, heralding a significant change from the previous land-use philosophy, which under apartheid had related solely to separation of functions and protection of private property rights (Roussouw and Retief 2005). Its new emphasis included provision of environmentally and economically sustainable community services and ensuring a clean and healthy environment (Roussouw and Retief 2005). The system was implemented by way of the Municipal Systems Act (RSA 2000), Municipal Planning and Performance Management Regulations (RSA 2001a) and the White Paper on Spatial Planning and Land-Use Management (RSA 2001b) (Roussouw and Retief 2005; DeVilliers 2004). The Regulations provide for mandatory SEA of Spatial Development Frameworks (SDFs), the sole area where SEA is legally mandated.

In response to the growing uptake of SEA, guidance was produced in 2000 by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) in collaboration with the Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), which sought to ‘promote a common understanding of SEA in South Africa and assist in the development of best practice in SEA’ (DEAT and CSIR 2000, p.5). Figures 2 and 3 below set out the principles and process elements that the guidance promulgates. The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry followed this with guidance on SEAs for water catchment management planning (DWAF 2002). The recent DEAT updated guideline document (2007) draws on previous guidance and experience to date to provide further detail on how to apply SEA in different circumstances, including a section that goes through each of the possible steps in the process. However, it maintains a non-prescriptive stance, which considers the range of alternative approaches to SEA and their respective merits without stipulating a preferred or required process.

There is therefore a range of direct and indirect backing for SEA in South Africa, in the form of policy, legislation and guidance. There is however no codified SEA legislation or prescribed process. The result of these policy developments has therefore been the establishment of a system of largely voluntary SEA, which takes a range of different forms.

It should be noted that SEA in South Africa is not applied at the national policy level (DEAT and CSIR 2000; Fischer 2007). However, it is applied to policies plans and programmes across the spectrum of environmental and development sectors, at all sub-national scales of government (Retief 2008; DEAT and CSIR 2004). These are referred to subsequently as PPPs, on the understanding that this does not include national policy.

The process, operation and application of SEA in South Africa in practice are described and analysed in the sections that follow.

SEA guiding principles and procedural stages

As noted above, South Africa does not have a legally prescribed process for SEA. However, the DEAT and CSIR guidance (2000 and 2004) sets out a number of central underlying principles and process elements to guide the conduct of SEA in South Africa, which are reproduced in Fig.2 and 3 below. The guidance emphasises however that they are designed to be applied flexibly, rather than dictating a particular approach. Provided none of the a principles is breached, SEAs can apply them selectively as appropriate to the circumstances, rather than being require to ‘tick all the boxes’. The guidance also makes it clear that specific elements can either be integrated into existing plan and programme formulation, or can operate as a ‘stand-alone’ process, as applicable to circumstances (DEAT and CSIR 2000, p.14). The application of these principles in practice is turned to in the next section.

Figure 2: SEA principles (DEAT 2004 p.7, based on DEAT and CSIR 2000)

* SEA is driven by the concept of sustainability;
* SEA identifies the opportunities and constraints which the environment places on the development of plans and programmes;
* SEA sets the levels of environmental quality or limits of acceptable change;
* SEA is a flexible process which is adaptable to the planning and sectoral development cycle;
* SEA is a strategic process, which begins with the conceptualisation of the plan or programme;
* SEA is part of a tiered approach to environmental assessment and management;
* The scope of an SEA is defined within the wider context of environmental processes;
* SEA is a participative process;
* SEA is set within the context of alternative scenarios;
* SEA includes the concepts of precaution and continuous improvement.

Figure 3: South African SEA process (DEAT and CSIR 2000, p.18)

File:SEA process.jpg

Application of SEA

Notwithstanding that there is no codified legislation enshrining South Africa’s SEA system in law, its uptake and application has been extensive in the years since the first CSIR documents were published in 1996 and 1997. Retief et al (2007) found that a total of 50 studies specifically entitled ‘strategic environmental assessment’ had been carried out between 1996 and 2003. These covered a range of specific sectors (economic, mining, energy, port planning, conservation, transport, water and industrial), as well as comprehensive SEAs covering more than one sector. It was found that ‘an exceptional diversity in application of SEA had arisen across many different sectors’ (Retief 2008), reflecting the emphasis that the guidance places on flexibility in SEA, as well as the lack of formalised legal requirements for its application.

Types of SEA

Retief et al’s research (2007) found that South African SEAs fall into two main categories:

(1) SEAs of plans, policies and programmes (PPPs). These ‘conventional’ SEAs focusing on a particular PPP comprised 64% of the SEAs. The majority of these were for plans.

(2) ‘Proactive’ or ‘stand-alone’ SEAs, not directly linked to a specific PPP. Retief et al (2007) describe these as providing a strategic basis for project level decisions where there is a ‘void’ between the policy and project level. These comprised the remainder of the SEAs in the study.

The appearance of this second category is consistent with the emphasis on SEA being a tool for determining the opportunities and constraints placed on development by the environment and the limits of acceptable change (see SEA guiding principles 2 and 3 in Fig. 2 above; also as detailed in CSIR 1996). An example is the Mhlathuze catchment SEA undertaken in the 1990s, which was ‘not integrated or linked to any specific strategic decision-making process, rather aimed to function as a stand alone information tool for various levels of decision-making, from project level water licensing to strategic level CMSs [Catchment Management Strategies]’ (Retief 2007a, p.158).

In addition to the categories of SEA identified in the study by Retief et al (2007), there have been a number of assessment exercises describing themselves as SEAs, which evaluate the sustainability implications of large scale projects in order to feed in to detailed decisions about how to proceed with such projects, by providing information on the constraints and opportunities presented by environmental and socio-economic considerations. In this sense, such SEAs are more akin to project-EIAs. Dalal-Clayton and Sadler (2005) give the examples of the Coega Harbour Industrial Development Zone and the Cape Town Olympic bid, which were both post-hoc assessments that took place after the principle of the development had been established, and were closer to EIA exercises because their role to was to identify detailed measures which would make the developments acceptable.

Critical evaluation of SEA in South Africa

It is possible to identify numerous features of SEA in South Africa for analysis. For the purposes of this evaluation, two main aspects are discussed, which have been chosen because both are elements which have been characterised as both strengths and weaknesses of South Africa’s SEA system.

• The ‘proactive SEA’ approach

The DEAT guidance of 2000 and 2004 envisages that SEA can be used as a powerful tool, applied in a positive and proactive manner with the objective of achieving continuous improvement in environmental standards. As seen above, a category of stand-alone ‘proactive’ assessments has emerged, which seek to use SEA to establish environmental limits in order to inform subsequent policy and decision-making (Retief 2007a).

This ‘proactiveness’ could theoretically be a key strength. However, research by Retief which undertook a macro and micro level evaluation of the performance of SEA in South Africa (Retief 2008) found that this is not translating into reality, due to a lack of actual influence on the PPP’s contents or subsequent decision making. Retief attributes this both to a lack of public sector capacity to take account of SEAs’ findings, and a lack of linkage with the PPP / decision-making processes during the conduct of the SEA, which is a particular risk with the ‘stand-alone’ category of SEA.

As with other countries’ SEA systems, it seems that without a legislative requirement to act upon the findings of SEA, its effectiveness and ultimate impact can be severely undermined.

• Flexibility

As seen above, flexibility is strongly emphasised in the DEAT and CSIR guidance documents. This has been welcomed as one of the core attributes of South Africa’s SEA system: ‘The strength of the SEA approach (i.e. flexible and context specific) has meant that SEA applications have not been “straitjacketed” into a formalized, linear procedure’ (Rossouw 2003, p.60).

However, rather than making the process sensitive to its context and hence more effective as intended, this has been found to result in a lack of focus. In particular, Retief (2007a and 2008) and Govender et al (2006) note that often too many issues are covered, leading to an unmanageable number of objectives and indicators. Retief (2008) also identified a lack of formalised scoping being carried out, which is a likely contributory factor to this problem.

This may suggest that the flexible application of the process elements in the DEAT guidance has been a disadvantage, and a more formalised procedure would be beneficial. However, returning to the point made above, this in itself would not produce better outcomes unless the findings were fed into the formulation of the PPP.

Unfortunately the picture that emerges is that the theoretical benefits of both of these elements of SEA in South Africa are in practice, at least at present, serving to limit its effectiveness, revealing a gap between aspiration and reality.

Case Study

Greater Addo Elephant Park expansion (References: Retief 2006; Coastal and Environmental Services 2002)

• Context

The expansion of the Addo Elephant Park was an initiative of SANParks (South African National Parks) to reintegrate a number of smaller conservation areas with the existing Addo Elephant National Park in the Eastern Cape. The requirement for an SEA was ‘triggered’ as a condition of the grant it received under the Global Environment Facility, administered through the World Bank. However, it was carried out in line with the DEAT guidance (2000), and can therefore be seen as an example of South African SEA in practice (Retief 2006).

• Nature of the SEA

The SEA was carried out after the principle of the expansion scheme had been decided in order to inform subsequent decisions, and in some cases alongside EIAs for specific elements of the project (Retief 2006). It may therefore be seen as an example of a South African SEA that lies on the boundaries of EIA, as discussed above.

• Sustainability issues and assessment methodology

The planning of the expansion involved major strategic decisions involving determining the extent of the expanded park and provision for relocation and compensation of people living and working in the affected area (Retief 2006). The SEA involved evaluating ‘opportunities and constraints’ presented by sustainability issues in the categories of: - natural environment - socio-economic environment - cultural resources - tourism - institutional environment (Coastal and Environmental Services 2002) The assessments were based on a number of topic-specific studies, and input from an extensive public consultation exercise. The SEA did not however make use of indicators or targets (Retief 2006).

• Challenges faced

The process suffered from a number of significant setbacks, including being initiated late in the process (after the principle of the expansion had been decided and in parallel with ongoing land acquisition in some cases (Retief 2006)), inadequate funding and lack of open communication channels between the consultants and SANParks.

• Quality and effectiveness

Despite these challenges, significant results were achieved. The SEA led to a series of recommendations, which were adopted by SANParks (Coastal and Environmental Services 2002). In particular the SEA: - influenced SANParks to draft Resettlement and Land Acquisition Policies - influenced actual decisions relating to proposed land acquisitions - provided information to SANParks on biodiversity, social and economic aspects (which has subsequently been drawn upon for EIA purposes) - served as a warning that neglect of the social aspects of sustainable development could have jeopardised the entire project. It also ‘raised awareness by SANParks towards social issues related to conservation’ (Retief 2006, p 119) and highlighted the need to assign clear responsibility for integrating the Addo project with local authority decision-making.

It can be concluded that the SEA, despite the challenges that it faced, was able to make a valuable contribution to the planning of the Addo expansion, including tangible results and incidental benefits for awareness-raising. This suggests that there is potential for SEA to operate effectively, particularly if lessons are drawn from the obstacles encountered, whether through voluntary good practice or the development of new policy and/or legislation.

Bibliography

Ahmed, K and Fiadjoe, Y (2006) A Selective Review of SEA Legislation Results from a Nine-Country Review Environment Strategy Papers No. 13. Washington DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank

Brown, L; Therivel, R (2000) Effective methodologies: Principles to guide the development of strategic environmental assessment methodology Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, Vol. 18(3), pp. 183-189

CBEAPSA (Certification Board for Environmental Assessment Practitioners of South Africa). Draft Constitution of the Interim Certification Board

Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), 1997: A protocol for strategic environmental assessment in South Africa. Draft discussion document, August 1997.

Coastal and Environmental Services (2002). Strategic Environmental Assessment of the greater Addo Elephant National Park. Final Report. Grahamstown: Coastal and Environmental Services:

• Executive Summary
• Contents and Introduction

(Full report not available online)

Dalal-Clayton, D and Sadler, B (2005) Strategic environmental assessment: a sourcebook and reference guide to international experience. London: Earthscan

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) (1997) White Paper on Environmental Management Policy Pretoria: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) (1998) White Paper on Environmental Management Policy for South Africa Government Gazette No. 18894, 15 May 1998

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) (2004) Strategic Environmental Assessment, Information Series 10, Integrated Environmental Management Information Series, Book 5 Pretoria: DEAT

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) (2007) Strategic Environmental Assessment Guideline, Integrated Environmental Guideline Series 4 Pretoria: DEAT

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) (2009) Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations Regulations made under section 24(5) of the National Environmental Management Act 1998. Pretoria: DEAT

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) and Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) (2000). Strategic Environmental Assessment in South Africa: Guideline Document Pretoria: DEAT

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) (2002) Environmental Management Framework Pretoria: DWAF

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) website

DeVilliers Brownlie Associates (2004). Provision for SEA in South Africa’s Policies, Legislation and Programmes. CBBIA Workshop Oct 2004

Division of Water, Environment and Forest Technology and Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) (1996) Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), A Primer Stellenbosch: Division of Water, Environment and Forest Technology and CSIR]

Ecological and Environmental Consultants for North West Department of Agriculture, Conservation, Environment (NWDACE), Department of Developmental Local Government and Housing (NW DDLG&H) and The Finnish Environment Institute (2003):

• Rustenburg Strategic Environmental Assessment. Volume 1: Public Draft Status Quo Assessment
• Rustenburg Strategic Environmental Assessment. Volume 2: Vision, Strategies & Strategic Environmental Management Plan

Linden: Ecological and Environmental Consultants

Fischer, T (2007) Theory and practice of strategic environmental assessment: towards a more systematic approach. London: Earthscan

Govender K, Hounsome R and Weaver A (2006) Sustainability assessment: dressing up SEA-experiences from South Africa. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management Vol. 8, No. 3 (September 2006) pp. 321-340

North West Provincial Government (undated) North West Environmental Management Series 2: Rustenburg Strategic Environmental Assessment

Rossouw N, Davies S, Fortuin H, Rapholo B de Wit M (2003) South Africa Country Report in Tarr, P, Ed. (2003) Handbook on Environmental Impact Assessment in Southern Africa. Windhoek, SAIEA

Republic of South Africa (RSA) (1998a) National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) No 107 of 1998 Government Gazette No. 19519, 27 November 1998

Republic of South Africa (RSA) (1998b) National Water Act 1993: 36 of 1998 Pretoria: RSA

Republic of South Africa (RSA) (2000) Local Government Municipal Systems Act: No. 32 of 2000 Pretoria: RSA

Republic of South Africa (RSA) (2001a) Local Government: Municipal Planning and Performance Management Regulations Gazette 22605, Regulation Gazette No. 7146, 24 August 2001

Republic of South Africa (RSA) (2001b) White Paper on Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Pretoria: Ministry of Agriculture and Land Affairs

Republic of South Africa (RSA) (2001c) Land Use Management Bill: Draft. No. 22473 Government Gazette, 20 July 2001

Republic of South Africa (RSA) (2002) The National Commercial Ports Policy White Paper Government Gazette 23715, 8 August 2002

Retief F (2006) The quality and effectiveness of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) as a decision-aiding tool for national park expansion—the greater Addo Elephant National Park case study Koedoe 49(2): 103–122. Pretoria. ISSN 0075-6458

Retief F (2007a) Quality and effectiveness of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) as a tool for water management in South Africa Water SA

Retief F (2007b) ‘A performance evaluation of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) processes within the South African context’ Environ Impact Assess Rev 27 (2007), pp. 84–100

Retief F (2007c) ‘A Quality And Effectiveness Review Protocol For Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) In Developing Countries’. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management Vol. 9, No. 4 (December 2007) pp. 443–471

Retief F, Jones C and Jay S (2007) ‘The status and extent of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) practice in South Africa, 1996 – 2003’. South African Geographical Journal (2007) 89 (1) 44 – 54

Retief F, Jones C and Jay S (2008) ‘The emperor's new clothes: Reflections on strategic environmental assessment (SEA) practice in South Africa’. Environmental Impact Assessment Review Volume 28, Issue 7, October 2008, Pages 504-514

Rossouw N (2003) SEA in South Africa Presentation to the Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment Conference, Windhoek; 2003

Rossouw N and Wiseman K (2004). ‘Learning from the implementation of environmental public policy instruments after the first ten years of democracy in South Africa’. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, volume 22, number 2, June 2004, pages 131–140

Rossouw N, Audouin M, Lochner P, Heather-Clark S and Wiseman K (2000). ‘Development of strategic environmental assessment in South Africa’. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 18(3): 217-224

Rossouw N and Retief F (2005) Strategic environmental assessment and planning in South Africa. In: Jones C, Baker M, Carter J, Jay S, Short M and Wood C, editors (2005) Strategic environmental assessment and land use planning: an international evaluation. London: Earthscan

Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment (SAIEA) website

South African Government Information website

Sowman M, Fuggle, R and Preston G (1995) (Abstract). ‘A review of the evolution of environmental evaluation procedures in South Africa’. Environ Impact Asses Rev 1995;15:45–67

Tarr P (2003) SEA in southern Africa Paper presented at the Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment Conference, Windhoek; 2003

University of Cape Town Government Publications collection: South African EIAs

Wood C (2003) ‘Environmental impact assessment: a comparative review’ London: Pearson Education