WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS

The Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) submitted written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations published in August 2014. The CER argues that the proposed timeframes for assessments and decision-making are insufficient and potentially unconstitutional, and that the regulations fail to adequately address climate change impacts, the inefficiencies of the basic assessment process, and the need for clear guidance on biodiversity offsets to ensure 'no net loss' to the environment.

• The proposed timeframes for basic assessment reports, environmental impact assessment reports, and scoping reports are considered "woefully insufficientfor scientifically sound impact assessment" and are too rigid. The CER argues these limits may violate the right to administrative justice and the right to have the environment protected under sections 24 and 33 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
• Short timeframes for decision-makers—specifically 44 days for scoping reports and 107 days for basic assessment and environmental assessment reports—are deemed unreasonable given the limited capacity of competent authorities, such as the Department of Mineral Resources. This is expected to lead to poor decision-making and an increase in appeals and litigation.
• The Draft Regulations lack adequate climate change impact screening. The CER recommends that EIA requirements be expanded to explicitly include both mitigation (greenhouse gas emissions) and adaptation, incorporating direct and indirect cumulative effects and moving from a "fail-safe" to a "safe-fail" design approach, particularly for high-risk facilities like nuclear power plants and large dams.
• The basic assessment (BAR) process is criticized as an inefficient "fast track" that is essentially identical in scope to the environmental impact assessment report (EIR) but lacks the benefit of a focused scoping study. The CER suggests that a scoping-first approach would be more efficient, allowing decisions to be made based on scoping reports if no significant negative impacts are found.
• The Draft Regulations fail to provide specific guidance on "no net loss" initiatives, such as biodiversity offsets. The CER notes that the lack of legislative clarity leads to vague conditions and bad decision-making, and highlights that offset sites are often outside the authorized cadastral units, making implementation and monitoring difficult.

APA

Centre for Environmental Rights (2014). WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CER-comments-on-the-Draft-Environmental-Impact-Assessment-Regulations-Sept-2014.pdf?x21779

Chicago

Centre for Environmental Rights. WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS. 2014. https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CER-comments-on-the-Draft-Environmental-Impact-Assessment-Regulations-Sept-2014.pdf?x21779.

Wikipedia

{{cite press release |author=Centre for Environmental Rights |title=WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS |date=29 September 2014 |url=https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CER-comments-on-the-Draft-Environmental-Impact-Assessment-Regulations-Sept-2014.pdf?x21779 |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@misc{centreforenvironmentalrights2014written, author = {{Centre for Environmental Rights}}, title = {{WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS}}, publisher = {Centre for Environmental Rights}, year = {2014}, month = sep, url = {https://cer.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CER-comments-on-the-Draft-Environmental-Impact-Assessment-Regulations-Sept-2014.pdf?x21779}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }