| Summary: | M.Sc. (Geography) === Over the last three years, a number of environmental impact assessment reports (EIARs) pertaining to renewable energy (RE) projects have been submitted for environmental authorisation in South Africa. However, the quality of EIARs have been criticised internationally as well as in South Africa. Poor quality EIARs has the potential to negatively impact environmental decision-making processes and therefore it is vital to provide baseline data regarding the appraisal of such EIARs in South Africa. The present study has evaluated the quality of basic assessment reports (BARs) dealing with RE projects in South Africa. This is crucial in providing key insights to environmental management practice, especially if we are to determine whether or not RE projects have the potential to achieve sustainable development goals linked to clean development mechanisms (CDMs). Apart from assessing quality aspects, the goal of the study was also to analyse the strengths and weaknesses inherent in the EIARs involved. To address the research problem adequately, the Lee-Colley Review Package was utilised with minor adaptations where feasible. Based on the analyses derived from the review package selected, the overall quality of EIARs was found to be 70% satisfactory whilst 80% of the overall scores were borderline quality grades. The review areas pertaining to the description of the development and environment, together with the identification and evaluation of impacts, were better performed than the review areas concerning alternatives, mitigation measures and communication aspects of the EIARs. The strengths of the EIA processes related to the description of the project (purpose, objectives and nature) and site descriptions. Weaknesses of EIARs pertaining to RE projects were identified as insufficient non-technical summaries and poor summaries of the main issues. The review categories pertaining to waste management, mitigation measures and emphasis were not graded as weaknesses of the EIARs. Nevertheless, low numbers of satisfactory quality scores were documented for these review categories, which are particularly concerning. The fairly marginal quality of EIARs pertaining to RE projects may be attributed to lack of sufficient (human resources) capacity and transparency throughout the EIA process in South Africa. These aspects became evident through vague descriptions of impact prediction methods, insufficient elucidation of mitigation measures, a high degree of subjectivity and generally poor communication of EIA results to stakeholders involved. Apart from these findings, the study also made some recommendations for further studies such as the need to examine the following EIA aspects, namely, (1) the characterisation and reduction of elements of subjectivity within existing reports, (2) an assessment of the effectiveness of screening processes in South Africa and (3) the identification of obstacles and barriers hindering effective communication in the presentation of EIA results.
|
|---|
