Inadequate or insufficient information on which to base a decision which would ensure (as legally required) that the NEMA principles would be satisfied; Lack of evaluation against the strategic context for ‘bigger picture’ sustainable development; Uncertainties, unknowns, gaps in information; Risks of irreplaceable loss of or irreversible damage to - important/ valued – resources (either heritage or biophysical or ...), many of which may have no substitute; No consideration of distributional effects who benefits, who bears the costs, – in short or in long term; effects on vulnerable parties, (fairness, environmental justice/ equity); Poor capability and institutional capacity of government to check or enforce mitigation. We would thus appreciate it if you would please structure your response as far as possible in accordance with the above aspects.” The have been synthesized in Part B of this report while Part A aforesaid experts’ responses deals with the international perspective, the Constitutional dimension, the legislative context and the flawed decision-making process. Legislative context When considered in the context of South environmental legislative framework, the Africa’s draft EMP demonstrates significant non-compliance with the national environmental management principles for sustainable development set out in the National Environmental Management Act The NEMA principles have been embraced by the 1998 (‘NEMA’). Minerals and Petroleum Development Act 28 of 2002. In this regard, this Critical Review highlights the following concerns: It is questionable that the proposed activity represents the ‘best practicable environmental for the affected area, especially in the absence of comparison option’ with alternative land uses (including alternative energy generation options);
Inadequate or insufficient information on which to base a decision which would ensure (as legally required) that the NEMA principles would be satisfied; Lack of evaluation against the ‘bigger picture’ strategic context for sustainable development; Uncertainties, unknowns, gaps in information; Risks of irreplaceable loss of – or irreversible damage to - important/ valued resources (either heritage or biophysical or ...), many of which may have no substitute; No consideration of distributional effects – who benefits, who bears the costs, in short or in long term; effects on vulnerable parties, (fairness, environmental justice/ equity); Poor capability and institutional capacity of government to check or enforce mitigation. We would thus appreciate it if you would please structure your response as far as possible in accordance with the above aspects.” The aforesaid experts’ responses have been synthesized in Part B of this report while Part A deals with the international perspective, the Constitutional dimension, the legislative context and the flawed decision-making process. Legislative context When considered in the context of South Africa’s environmental legislative framework, the draft EMP demonstrates significant non-compliance with the national environmental management principles for sustainable development set out in the National Environmental Management Act 1998 (‘NEMA’). The NEMA principles have been embraced by the Minerals and Petroleum Development Act 28 of 2002. In this regard, this Critical Review highlights the following concerns: It is questionable that the proposed activity represents the ‘best practicable environmental option’ for the affected area, especially in the absence of comparison with alternative land uses (including alternative energy generation options);
Havemann-KarooPolicyObjection-5-April-0903-MS-Word.docx