PART E: STEERING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) PROCESS
|
In this Part of the guidance
document, you will find the following sections: |
|
| E.1 |
Where decisions are made in a typical EIA process |
| E.2 |
EIA process and project life cycle stages |
| E.3 | Guidance on applications and screening |
| E.4 | Guidance on scoping |
| E.5 | Guidance on Environmental Impact Assessments |
| E.6 | Guidance on Environmental Management Plans |
| E.7 | Guidance on writing letters of authorisation and conditions |
| E.8 | Checking implementation and compliance with letters of authorisation or Records of Decision |
|
E.1 Where decisions are made in a typical EIA process |
Figure E-1 shows where decision making occurs in a typical EIA process.
Note: some SADC countries may have more or fewer decision making points in the process
Figure E-1: Decision points in the EIA process
|
E.2 EIA process and project life cycle stages |
Figure E-2 links the EIA process with stages in a typical project life cycle.
Figure E-2: Links between the EIA process and a typical project life cycle
Important to note: impact assessment process must stay in sync with the project life cycle
It is extremely important to ensure that the level of impact assessment is synchronised with the project life cycle. Many developers try and speed up the EIA process by commissioning an EIA while the project is still at pre-feasibility level. This means that there is a disconnect between the level of assessment (detailed) and the level of project planning and design (conceptual). It is meaningless to do a detailed assessment of a concept plan, or, conversely, to do a scoping report for a project which is already at final design.
|
E.3 Guidance on applications and screening |
E.3.1 Aims and objectives of applications and screening
Screening is used to determine which proposals should be subject to EIA, to exclude those unlikely to have harmful environmental impacts and to indicate the level of assessment required (Box E-1)
The screening process should coincide with the project concept stage (Figure E-2).
Interesting to note: Findings of the Situation Assessment, Southern Africa[96]
o Inadequate guidance from the environmental authority at the outset of the impact assessment with regard to their requirements of that impact assessment (e.g. Terms of Reference, specific answers needed from the impact assessment) often led to poor environmental reporting, inappropriate studies, and indecision on the part of that authority. There are also high levels of frustration by both consultants and proponents when the authorities repeatedly request more information after having approved the initial scope of work for each study component.
o Involvement of the authority from proposal inception, and at regular intervals in the planning and impact assessment process seemed to add considerable value to that process, build trust, and to contribute to sound decision making.
E.3.2 Decision-making framework
In southern Africa, most countries have lists of activities which require different levels of assessment, e.g. just an initial assessment/scoping study or a full EIA (refer to Box 1 in the Introduction for the list of equivalent terms used in the region). Many of the SADC countries also have lists of sensitive environments which would trigger an EIA.
If in doubt, the decision maker should request a full EIA if any of the sensitive environments listed in Box E-1 are likely to be affected directly or indirectly by an activity.
Box E-1: Typical triggers for an EIA
Decision makers should ask for scoping to be undertaken and, after scoping, a full EIA if appropriate, where the proposed activity appears not to be consistent or compliant with the hierarchy of conventions, protocols, laws, policies, plans and strategies referred to in Box C-2, and/or if it would affect one or more of the following:
o A protected area.
o A threatened ecosystem located outside a protected area.
o Areas identified as being important for key ecological and evolutionary processes, including areas with a high level of endemism (such as regional or local ecological corridors, important habitat for threatened, protected or commercially valuable species, highly dynamic or unstable systems, or the need to maintain key processes which ‘drive’ ecosystems).
o Habitat for threatened, protected or local endemic species.
o Habitats that provide important ecosystem services (e.g. reserves of harvestable goods, wetlands or reefs which regulate water supply and protect or buffer coasts, natural or living landscapes or species having heritage or other cultural value, and unique opportunities offered by biodiversity to enhance development (e.g. ecotourism). etc).
o Areas traditionally used by local communities for natural goods or services.
o Downstream ecosystems (e.g. water storage or dam).
o The integrity of ecosystems (e.g. introduction or removal of species, harvest or extraction of indigenous species, pollution of air or water or soils).
If a proposed activity is inconsistent with international or national conventions, policies or laws, the decision maker should advise the proponent not to pursue their proposal in its current form, together with the reasons why. It is important that the developer should NOT be given the option of proceeding at their own risk, because as the level of the developer’s investment increases, so does the pressure on the authority to approve the project.
 |
Sensitive environments such as tropical islands must receive special
consideration in development planning. In addition to supporting diverse and
sometimes unique
biodiversity, these environments are often extremely sensitive
to disturbance.
© P.Tarr |
|
E.4 Guidance on scoping |
E.4.1 Aims and Objectives of Scoping
Scoping is the process of determining the spatial and temporal boundaries and key issues to be addressed in an impact assessment. The main objectives of the scoping phase are:
§ To focus the impact assessment on a manageable number of important questions on which decision-making is expected to focus;
§ To ensure that only key issues and reasonable alternatives are examined;
§ To inform the interested and affected parties and other key stakeholders about the project and to obtain their issues and concerns;
§ To identify fatal flaws in the proposed project;
§ To provide input to the project pre-feasibility study to assist the project proponent in his decision making; and
§ To determine the appropriate methodology for the EIA if one is required.
The outcome of the scoping process is a Scoping Report which should include issues raised during the scoping process, appropriate responses, an evaluation of alternatives, the identification of fatal flaws and, where required, terms of reference for further specialist studies and the EIA.
The scoping phase should inform, and be informed by, the project pre-feasibility study (Figure E-2).
E.4.2 How to guide the scoping study
It is important at the outset that the environmental authority should consult with other relevant government departments, biodiversity agencies and line ministries (refer to Box C-3 in Part C) in order to determine/specify the scope of the scoping study with particular reference to:
§ Appropriate boundaries for the study (time and space);
§ Reasonable alternatives;
§ A positive planning approach (opportunities and constraints);
§ Relevant planning frameworks (protocols, laws, policies, standards, targets, etc); and
§ Key stakeholders to involve in the process.
In some SADC countries, the authorities actively guide the scoping process by setting the terms of reference. In other countries, the scoping study cannot proceed until the proposed scope of work has been approved first by the authorities. Box E-2 contains a list of things that you should ask for in a proposed scoping process and make sure have been addressed in scoping documentation.
|
Box E-2: Ask for, or check the following in a scoping proposal and report |
|
o Need and motivation for the project; o Identification of constraints and key negative issues and how they may be avoided/controlled/reduced through project design, siting or routing alternatives; o Identification of any potential opportunities to contribute to the conservation of biodiversity or ecosystem services (e.g. restoring degraded habitat, clearing of alien invasive organisms, wise management of ecosystems, etc.) o Consistence/compliance with laws, policies, other thresholds; o Identification of likely effects of project alternatives on biodiversity pattern and process; o Identification of likely effects of project alternatives on ecosystem services; o Identification of opportunity costs associated with any impacts on biodiversity or ecosystem services; o Statement of confidence in findings; o Explicit statements regarding gaps in information, uncertainties, risks; o Qualitative assessment of the likelihood of significant indirect and/or cumulative effects relating to project alternatives; o Clear statement of likely irreversible or irreplaceable impacts on biodiversity and/or ecosystem services, if known; o Clear statement of any advantages for, or benefits to, biodiversity or ecosystem services; o Feasibility and effectiveness of any mitigation measures. |
Interesting to note: Findings of the Situation Assessment, Southern Africa[97]
Problem areas regarding the scope of EIAs include:
o Lack of consideration of the ‘bigger context’, namely international, national or regional value or importance of affected biodiversity;
o The inability of project-specific EIAs to address cumulative effects on biodiversity;
o Lack of consideration of ecosystem services and function, and lack of explicit linkage of those ecosystem services to social and economic systems.
E.4.3 Decision making framework for assessing a Scoping Report
When you receive a scoping report, you have to consider a range of factors, including the biophysical, social, economic and cultural impacts of the proposed project. Figure E-3 provides a framework for making decisions about biodiversity issues. Reference should be made to Box C-1 in Part C for guidance on criteria and desired outcomes of decision making.
Figure E-3: Decision making framework for Scoping Report
|
E.5 Guidance on Environmental Impact Assessments |
E.5.1 Aims and Objectives of the EIA
The EIA is the detailed study of the significant issues raised during the scoping phase. The main objectives of the EIA report are:
§ To provide the decision maker with sufficient, quality information to enable him/her to make an informed decision;
§ To ensure that the key issues and concerns raised by the interested and affected parties have been properly and meaningfully addressed;
§ To continue providing information about the project to the interested and affected parties and other key stakeholders and to obtain their comments on alternatives and proposed mitigation; and
§ To provide input to the project feasibility study to assist the project proponent in his decision making (Figure E-2).
|
|
The EIA study must be preceded by careful planning and scoping, so that subsequent specialist studies and impact analysis focus on the key issues. © P.Tarr |
The outcome of the EIA phase is an EIA Report or Statement, which should include issues raised during the entire impact assessment process, demonstrated responses, a detailed project description, a detailed evaluation of project alternatives, specialist studies, an integrated synthesis of the specialist reports and a clear and concise summary of the impacts of the project on the receiving environment. The EIA reports also provide suggested mitigation measures, and impacts are rated on the basis of their significance before and after the recommended mitigation is applied.
Important to note: Beware of the mitigation myth!
There is a growing trend in EIAs to place unwarranted faith in the ability of the contractor and developer to apply all the proposed mitigation measures successfully, all of the time. Even with the best will in the world, this is highly unlikely. Under this improbable scenario, impacts are reduced from High to Low, without any real critical analysis of what is being suggested. The decision maker then makes a decision on the project on the basis of its supposed ‘low’ impact significance. However, it would make more sense to evaluate the EIA report on the basis that not all mitigation will be 100% effective all of the time, and that a more realistic assessment would be to consider the impact rating before mitigation is applied.
E.5.2 How to guide the EIA
It is important that the environmental authority should consult with other relevant government departments and line ministries (refer to Box C-3 in Part C) throughout the EIA process in order to determine/specify the scope of the EIA with particular reference to:
§ Appropriate boundaries for the study (time and space);
§ Reasonable alternatives;
§ A positive planning approach (opportunities and constraints);
§ Relevant planning frameworks (protocols, laws, policies, standards, targets, strategic development frameworks, zoning plans, etc); and
§ Key stakeholders to involve in the process.
In some SADC countries, the authorities actively guide the EIA by setting the terms of reference. In other countries, the EIA study cannot proceed until the proposed scope of work has been approved first by the authorities. Box E-3 contains a list of things that you should ask for or check in a proposed EIA process, and make sure are explicitly addressed in the EIA documentation.
|
Box E-3: Ask for, or check the following in an EIA proposal and report |
|
o Consistence/compliance with laws, policies, other thresholds; o Assessment and evaluation of effects of project alternatives on biodiversity pattern and process; o Assessment and evaluation of the effects of project alternatives on ecosystem services; o Determination of the costs of compensating for impacts on ecosystem services; o Quantification of the opportunity costs associated with any impacts on biodiversity or ecosystem services; o Statement of confidence in findings; o Explicit statements regarding gaps in information, uncertainties, risks; o Probability of significant indirect and/or cumulative effects; o Clear statement of likely irreversible or irreplaceable impacts on biodiversity and/or ecosystem services; o Assessment and evaluation of effects on human livelihoods, access to and/or dependence on ecosystem services, and changes in resilience, health or vulnerability of affected communities. These effects may need to be addressed by specialists across disciplines (e.g. biodiversity, social, economic, health etc.) and the various findings must be integrated with each other and synthesized in the main EIA report. o Clear statement of any advantages for, or benefits to, biodiversity or ecosystem services; o Significance of impacts relative to thresholds, before and after planned, realistic mitigation; o Feasibility and effectiveness of, and commitment to any mitigation measures.
|
Interesting to note: Findings of the Situation Assessment, Southern Africa[98]
Problems highlighted in EIAs included:
o Poor Terms of Reference for specialist studies that did not specify that the process or functional aspects of biodiversity must be considered to ensure that indirect and cumulative effects are addressed effectively.
o Little consideration of the distributional effects on human wellbeing of impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services.
o Unreliable and meaningless significance ratings, since they were not explicitly linked to relevant criteria such as targets, thresholds, standards, threatened status, etc.
o The use of a ‘recipe’ or ‘checklist’ approach to impact assessment by consultants who superficially complied with legal requirements but failed to address biodiversity and ecosystem service issues adequately.
Where alternatives were adequately addressed, where biodiversity and ecosystem services were considered proactively as key informants to shaping a proposal, and the proposal was sensitive and responsive both to input from stakeholders and the strategic context, the outcome of the impact assessment was generally positive and resulted in a Record of Decision that was acceptable and not challenged.
E.5.3 Decision making framework for assessing an EIA
When you receive an EIA report, you have to consider a range of factors, including the biophysical, social, economic and cultural impacts of the proposed project. Figure E-4 provides a framework for making decisions about biodiversity issues in an EIA. Reference should be made to Box C-1 in Part C for guidance on criteria and desired outcomes of decision making.
|
|
Because most new EA legislation gives Interested and Affected Parties the right
to appeal against the decision of the authorities, project authorization/denial
must be very carefully considered in order to avoid unnecessary conflicts and
costly time delays. This places government departments and local authorities
under increasing pressure.
© P.Tarr |
Figure E-4: Decision making framework for EIA Report
|
E.6 Guidance on Environmental Management Plans |
E.6.1 Aims and Objectives of EMPs
While it is important to identify environmental issues (scoping), and then to analyse and quantify them in detail (EIA), this effort is of little value unless the management and mitigation measures are implemented on the ground through a well formulated Environmental Management Plan (EMP). An EMP can follow a decision based on scoping or after a full EIA.
The aims and objectives of the EMP are:
§ To provide a detailed action plan for the implementation of the recommendations made in the impact assessment report;
§ To provide goals and targets for environmental control that are measurable and auditable;
§ To provide a basis on which the prospective contractor can accurately price for environmental management in his tender document;
§ To specify particular roles, responsibilities and time scales;
§ To provide a basis for monitoring compliance; and
§ To provide a site management tool.
A meaningful EMP cannot be developed until the design and layout of the project have been finalised. The specified actions within the EMP must relate to definite project activities and not concepts or vaguely stated alternatives. In other words, both the impact assessment and project stages must be aligned at the same level of detail (Figure E-2).
It is essential to include the signed off and approved EMP in the invitations to tender for construction, otherwise it is both difficult and expensive to get the contractor to implement any of the required environmental management measures retrospectively.
|
Important to note: An EMP is NOT: o A vehicle for doing further studies; o A vague set of broadly stated intentions by the consultant on behalf of the developer. |
 |
 |
These
before and after pictures of a small mine show that rehabilitation after use is
possible. © B.Walmsley |
E.6.2 How to guide the formulation of EMPs
The EMP is perhaps the least developed aspect of the impact assessment process in southern Africa, which may explain why it is also the activity which usually falls far short of its desired aims and objectives.
The EMP should adopt an holistic approach to environmental management and should cover all components of the environment: biophysical, social, cultural and economic.
Box E-4 contains a list of things that you should specifically ask for, or check in an EMP.
|
Box E-4: Ask for, or check the following in an EMP |
|
|||||
|
General o Preamble setting out: · The structure of the document · Useful contacts · A summary of applicable legislation and permits · Table showing applicable quality standards, guidelines and limits of acceptable change · Glossary of terms · List of abbreviations · Background information on the project and affected environment o Relevant environmental policy of the proponent and contractor o Specification of roles and responsibilities o Reporting structure (organogram) and frequency o A statement as to whether the EMP forms part of a larger management system, e.g. ISO 14001 |
|
|||||
|
Layout For each impact identified in the impact assessment report, the EMP must provide the following: o A management objective o The management action to achieve the objective o The target, standard, guideline to be achieved o The person responsible for carrying out the action o The frequency of the action (if repeated) or the date for completion of the action.
Separate sections must be devoted to each stage of project execution: o Construction o Commissioning o Operations o Decommissioning o Closure
Within each major project phase, the EMP actions should be grouped by administrative area e.g. workshops, concrete batch plant, camp, etc., so that the person responsible for that area knows exactly what must be done with regards to environmental management and can be held directly responsible for any non-compliance.
DO NOT accept actions grouped by environmental component e.g. water, air, waste etc because then each area manager has to look through pages of the EMP to try and find out where their actions are. This makes the document less than useful. It also becomes impossible to audit when the actions relating to one workshop are scattered throughout the document. |
|
|||||
|
Content The EMP should include: o Code of conduct, induction and environmental awareness training programmes o Specified EMP compliance auditing programme, including checklists o Specified programme for EMP review and update o Document distribution and control methodology o Schedule of incentives and penalties that will be applied o Procedures to be followed for corrective actions, complaints and environmental incidents o Specific plans to control a range of environmental issues by area of activity (see Box E-5 for checklists) o Resettlement plan (if required) o Compensation plan (if required) o HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention plan o Health and safety awareness programme for the local community o Emergency procedures for a range of identified risks o Public communication and disclosure plan |
|
|||||
|
Monitoring Programme For each element to be monitored (Box E-5) e.g. water quality, the EMP should specify:
The EMP should provide monitoring/sampling protocols, chains of custody and the accredited laboratories that will be used for specific analyses. The EMP should include an outline of the monitoring report formats to be used. |
|
|||||
|
Box E-5: Checklist of biodiversity and project aspects to include in an EMP and monitoring programme |
||||||
|
Checklist of biodiversity-related issues which may require management* |
|
Checklist of project actions which may affect biodiversity for which environmental management actions may be required* |
|
Checklist of aspects which may affect biodiversity and which require monitoring* |
|
|
|
Indigenous vegetation clearance and protection |
|
Site establishment |
|
Soil |
|
|
|
Invasive plant species removal and control |
|
Fencing and security |
|
Surface water |
|
|
|
Topsoil removal, handling and storage |
|
Contractor’s camp |
|
Groundwater |
|
|
|
Spoil removal, transport and disposal |
|
Lay down areas |
|
Dust |
|
|
|
Erosion control and slope stabilisation |
|
Temporary and permanent access roads and bridges |
|
Gas |
|
|
|
Rehabilitation of disturbed areas |
|
Fuel depots |
|
Erosion |
|
|
|
Animal removal and protection |
|
Concrete batch plants |
|
Noise |
|
|
|
Invasive/rodent and scavenger control |
|
Civil works (earthworks, foundations, piling, concrete works etc) |
|
Vegetation |
|
|
|
Noise management |
|
Workshops and wash bays |
|
Animal indicator species |
|
|
|
Air quality, particularly dust and gas |
|
Spray booths |
|
Problem animals |
|
|
|
Surface water runoff and quality |
|
Chemical and raw material storage areas |
|
Aquatic biota (marine and freshwater) |
|
|
|
Groundwater runoff and quality |
|
Hydrocarbon storage areas |
|
Radiation |
|
|
|
Storm water runoff and control |
|
Waste disposal sites for hazardous and non-hazardous material (permanent and temporary) |
|
Rehabilitation work |
|
|
|
Effluent management |
|
Temporary and permanent water supply systems |
|
|
|
|
|
Hazardous waste management (transportation, storage, handling and disposal) |
|
Temporary and permanent electricity supply structures |
|
|
|
|
|
Non-hazardous solid waste management (transportation, storage, handling and disposal) |
|
Sewerage systems and sewage treatment plants (permanent and temporary) |
|
|
|
|
|
Land management |
|
Tailings and slimes dams |
|
|
|
|
|
Traffic management |
|
Waste rock dumps |
|
|
|
|
|
Off road driving management, temporary access roads and tracks |
|
Effluent evaporation ponds and other containment and treatment facilities for liquid effluent |
|
|
|
|
|
Vibration and blasting management |
|
Borrow pits and quarries for construction materials |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Worker transportation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Factory area |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Receiving and Dispatch areas |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Air emission sources e.g. chimneys, stacks |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scrap yard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dredging and construction of berms, caissons, fill embankments, etc., in marine and freshwater environments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
River crossings |
|
|
|
|
* Please note that these lists are not inclusive of all issues, but merely serve as a guide to the more common aspects to be included in an EMP
E.6.3 Decision making framework for assessing EMPs
When you receive an EMP, you have to consider whether the measures and plans specified will actually eliminate, minimise or control the impacts identified in the impact assessment. A framework for making decisions about biodiversity issues in EMPs is provided in Figure E-5.
Figure E-5: Decision making framework for EMPs
|
E.7 Guidance on writing Letters of Authorisation or RoDs and conditions |
Interesting to note: Findings of the Situation Assessment, Southern Africa[99]
o In a number of instances, the conditions of authorization deal with the mitigation and management of potentially significant or irreversible effects that have not been adequately addressed in the impact assessment.
o In one instance the RoD included as a condition of authorization the need to carry out an EIA on a crucial component of the proposed activity. The findings of this EIA should have informed decision making in the first instance.
o Critical measures to safeguard biodiversity were at times not explored prior to decision making, but included as either conditions or ‘recommendations’ with no legal standing. There is thus no assurance that such mitigation could or would take place.
o Letters of authorization or RoDs are vulnerable to appeal due to vague, inaccurate and/or inappropriate conditions of authorization, and/or ultra vires allocation of responsibility for their implementation.
E.7.1 Aims and Objectives of the Letter of Authorisation
Letters of authorisation or Records of Decision usually have three major objectives:
E.7.2 How to write robust and explicit conditions
In order to avoid any confusion, the letter of authorisation must specify clearly:
§ The name and contact details of the applicant;
§ A precise description of the activity that is being authorised, preferably with the aid of a large-scale map. This is particularly important for multiple-phase developments, so that future phases cannot be ‘included’ under the current decision;
§ The location and coordinates of the proposed activity;
§ The criteria used in making the decision. This could include public comments, international obligations, legal instruments, regulations, policy objectives, spatial planning frameworks and any other biodiversity planning documents, lists, maps, etc.;
§ The reasons for arriving at the decision;
§ The dates for which the authorisation is valid;
§ The lines of communication that must be followed including inter alia, the submission of reports;
§ The transfer of rights and obligations if there is a change of ownership of the project or property; and
§ Specific conditions to protect the environment, including biodiversity and ecosystem services (see Box E-6).
|
Box E-6: Guidelines for writing conditions |
|
The conditions must be: o Clearly and explicitly stated, indicating what is required, who is responsible, when it should happen, where it applies, why it is required and how it must be carried out (if known); e.g. don’t say ‘initiate an investigation into…’ when what is meant is to ‘implement the findings’ of such investigation. |
|
o Consistent with each other and not conflicting; |
|
o Practical e.g. don’t say “no work shall be done in the rainy season”. This is impractical. Rather give explicit instructions to deal with the issues around working in the rainy season such as: “construct stormwater cut-off trenches to accommodate the 1:100 year flood”, or “provide catch dams to contain runoff and settle out the sediment load”; |
|
o Measurable e.g. don’t say “keep disturbance to a minimum”. This is a commonly encountered condition. It cannot be measured because there is no quantifiable target. Rather say: “demarcate the construction zone as per plan and do not allow any disturbance of the environment beyond this zone”. Any disturbance outside the demarcated area can then be measured and reported on. |
|
o Auditable e.g. don’t say “there will be no erosion”. With the best will in the world, erosion will happen and as a result the auditor will always find this a non-compliant issue. Rather set quantitative targets e.g. “erosion channels with a mean depth of 20cm shall not cover more than 10% of [specified] area”. Or use a more outcomes-based approach and state that “suspended sediment at the sampling site immediately downstream of the site will not exceed 20mg/l”. |
|
o Based on specific targets and goals. The targets and goals must be consistent with published national standards e.g. water quality or air quality standards, or must comply with biodiversity targets set by the conservation authorities or must be consistent with stated goals in the EIA, e.g. x% of the area will be set aside for conservation. |
|
E.8 Checking implementation and compliance with Letters of Authorisation |
|
|
Interesting to note: Findings of the Situation Assessment, Southern Africa[100]
There is no clear picture from either authorities or key stakeholders on the existence or effectiveness of checks on implementation after decision making, although most participants in the study were of the opinion that checks were inadequate.
E.8.1 Aims and Objectives of compliance monitoring
This section examines the role of the authorities in compliance monitoring. The main aims of compliance monitoring by the authorities are to:
§ Evaluate the adherence by the contractors and developer to the conditions attached to the letter of authorisation;
§ To check compliance with the Environmental Management Plan (EMP) and any other legal requirements referred to in the letter of authorisation;
§ To assess the contractor’s and applicant’s effectiveness in implementing the conditions of authorisation and the EMP; and
§ To recommend how and where improvements could be made to ensure compliance, enhance environmental performance and promote sustainability of the development.
E.8.2 Departmental/Ministry site audits and inspections
Most SADC countries make provision for post-EIA audits or inspections by the authorities. In some countries, post-EIA auditing or inspection can result in criminal prosecutions being made for non-compliance.
Four different aspects of auditing are addressed below, namely: composition of the audit team, the audit process, the audit report, and the frequency of audits or inspections.
Audit team
The audit team should comprise a lead auditor with additional auditors commensurate with the size of the operation being audited. A filling station construction site could be done by one person, whereas a large mine and smelter site may need a team of 3-4 auditors. The lead auditor should preferably be certified as an environmental auditor, but at the very least should have at least 5 years of applicable experience in environmental management relating to the subject being audited.
The auditors’ names should be clearly stated on the audit report.
Audit process
It is good practice to develop an audit protocol prior to the audit, using
specific questions regarding compliance which can be answered with a judgment
rating, such as “compliant”, “partially compliant”, “not compliant”, “not
applicable”. The audit may just be of the conditions contained in the letter of
authorisation or the latter may make specific reference to compliance with an
approved EMP. The audit protocol therefore needs to be directed at exactly what
is to be audited. The audit protocol should be in the form of a table with
headings provided in
Box E-7:
|
Box E-7: Suggested layout of an audit protocol |
|
o Item reference number (cross-reference to the conditions contained in the letter of authorisation and/or EMP) |
|
o Environmental conditions as listed in the letter of authorisation, and/or the EMP requirement, posed as an auditable statement or question e.g. “Are drip trays being used where necessary in the [name] workshop?” |
|
o Audit judgment e.g. “Partial compliance” |
|
o Audit finding e.g. “Drip trays are present under all drum outlets, but from direct inspection of the ground (ref photo) and work practices observed by AN Person during the audit, it would appear that drip trays are not being used during vehicle servicing. This finding is corroborated by the presence of [BTEX, light petroleum products etc] in the last [number] groundwater monitoring results in Borehole X.” |
|
o Corrective action required e.g. “While the concentrations of [state determinants] are not yet over the stated standards, the trend is rising and corrective measures need to be taken as a matter of priority. These include: training of personnel in the workshop; excavation and removal of contaminated soil to [state place]; purchase of additional drip trays; etc” |
|
o Priority ranking (very high, high, medium, low) e.g. High |
|
o Responsible person e.g. Safety Health and Environment Manager; Workshop Foreman, Contractor |
|
o Date for completion e.g. within one month from [date]. |
The audit should commence with an opening meeting with the developer and/or contractors to outline the audit programme and to establish the audit scope (geographical, legal and administrative). The audit team should then commence the audit covering work areas, documentation, roles and responsibilities. The principal audit methods include:
§ Observation;
§ Document checks;
§ Interviews;
§ Photographs;
§ Verification and cross-checking; and
§ Measurement and sampling, if serious doubts arise.
The audit should end with a close-out meeting with site management to present the key findings and to highlight any serious liabilities which may need urgent attention.
The audit protocol should be arranged by work area, so that the foreman and/or SHE Officer in each area can be held directly responsible for the findings, e.g. each contractor’s work area, workshops, waste disposal site, etc.
Each finding should be substantiated with:
§ An actual result or reading, and/or
§ Monitoring trends, and/or
§ Attributed statements, and/or
§ Direct observation by the auditor, and/or
§ Photographs, and/or
§ Documentary evidence (receipts, agreements, permits etc).
In some cases it may be necessary to take spot samples, (e.g. pH readings) to verify data provided, if there is some doubt as to the veracity of the data, or to take measurements on the ground or on plans, e.g. to verify areas that have been rehabilitated.
Audit report
The final audit report should be submitted no more than 2 weeks after the audit has been completed. The report should clearly set out:
§ the audit team;
§ the scope of the audit;
§ any constraints or limitations placed on the auditors;
§ the aims of the audit;
§ the methods used;
§ a list of persons interviewed; and
§ a list of all the work areas visited.
The completed checklists (protocol) should form the body of the audit report and a quantitative analysis of the findings must be provided. If the same procedure is followed for each audit, it is then possible to monitor progress towards full compliance. The report should conclude with a clear set of recommendations for corrective action, ranked according to priority. Each action should have a responsible person assigned to it and a date by which it should be started/completed.
Audit frequency
This will be determined by the nature of the development, the length of the construction programme, its location, the degree of confidence that can be placed in the implementation of the EMP being carried out and the degree of compliance. Sites with good environmental management may not need to be audited as frequently as those with a more suspect track record.
Hot tips!
§ Make sure that the EIA process is in sync with the project life cycle.
§ Strong authority guidance results in a robust EIA process.
§ Use the decision making frameworks to ensure consistency in decision making.
§ Co-operate closely with other line ministries and authorities to ensure consistency.
§ Beware of the ‘Mitigation Myth’ and critically question the promises and intentions made to lower impact significance.
§ Use the decision criteria and desired outcomes (Box C-1) as a constant guide to determine the adequacy of biodiversity studies in the assessment reports.
§ The Scoping and EIA documents have little value unless the commitments are implemented on the ground! Check the adequacy of the EMP and conduct compliance audits.
§ It is worth writing tightly worded and comprehensive Records of Decision or Letters of Authorisation to avoid conflict, appeals and non-compliance later on.
[96] Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment (2006): Situation Assessment in the Integration of Biodiversity Issues in Impact Assessment and Decision Making in Southern Africa. Windhoek, Namibia
[97] Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment (2006). Situation Assessment on the Integration of Biodiversity Issues in Impact Assessment and Decision Making in Southern Africa. Windhoek, Namibia.
[98] Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment (2006). Situation Assessment on the Integration of Biodiversity Issues in Impact Assessment and Decision Making in Southern Africa. Windhoek, Namibia.
[99] Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment (2006). Situation Assessment on the Integration of Biodiversity Issues in Impact Assessment and Decision Making in Southern Africa. Windhoek, Namibia.
[100] Southern African Institute for Environmental Assessment (2006). Situation Assessment on the Integration of Biodiversity Issues in Impact Assessment and Decision Making in Southern Africa. Windhoek, Namibia.
