Order! Hon members, can I just remind you that it is unparliamentary for any member to take a nap in this House or even to sleep. I may be bound to name some names if I catch you doing that. [Interjections.]
Me E PRINS (Wes-Kaap): Dankie, Voorsitter. Ek is bewus van die besorgdhede wat geopper is deur die verskillende rolspelers met betrekking tot die Wysigingswetsontwerp op Nasionale Omgewingsbestuur. Ek glo nogtans dat hierdie wet 'n goeie raamwerk voorsien om ons gemeenskappe se grondwetlike regte, let wel, in die volgende opsigte, te beskerm: die reg tot 'n omgewing wat nie ons gesondheid en lewe bedreig nie; die reg dat ons omgewing deur redelike wetgewing en ander relevante maatstawwe beskerm word in soverre dit besoedeling en ekologiese verval betref; die reg dat omgewingsbewaring bevorder moet word en dat daar seker gemaak word dat volhoubare ekologiese ontwikkeling geskied; die reg dat natuurlike hulpbronne so benut word dat dit in lyn is met regverdigbare ekonomiese en maatskaplike ontwikkeling.
Die volgende punte het betrekking: die wet rasionaliseer die gebruik van "Environmental Impact Assessments" - omgewingsimpakstudies - deur meer buigbaarheid te skep in die aansoek van EIA prosesse. Baie rolspelers beskou die uitbreiding van diskresionre magte van owerhede as die afwatering van omgewingsbestuurbeginsels. Dit word erken dat diskresionre besluitneming 'n hor vlak van verantwoordlikheid vereis, maar ek glo dit is haalbaar.
In 'n ontwikkelende land het ons meer verfynde EIA prosesse nodig. Die wysigingswetsontwerp poog om hierdie buigbaarheid te voorsien, veral in die manier waarop daar met die minimum vereistes in artikel 24(4) gehandel word, en in die uitbou van 'n vrystellingsbepaling in artikel 24M.
Die daarstelling van gentegreerde bepalings om samewerking te verseker, soos vervat in artikel 24K, en samespanning van besluitneming soos vervat in artikel 24L, word gesteun. Deur die voorsiening van 'n bepaling wat ander regulerende prosesse erken, kan duplisering van regulering in sekere gevalle aangespreek word. Dit word nogtans erken dat die praktiese implementering van hierdie bepalings op 'n verantwoordelike manier gedoen moet word, met die beskerming van die omgewing as die eerste prioriteit.
Die daarstelling van gentigreerde omgewingsgoedkeurings is 'n positiewe stap. Hierdeur word verseker dat omgewingsgoedkeurings nie uitgereik word wat slegs op EIAs gebaseer is nie, maar ook in oorleg met lisensiringsprosesse voortspruitend uit enige van die omgewingsbestuurwette, byvoorbeeld, die wet op biodiversiteit, die National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act.
Dit verseker ook gentegreerde goedkeuringsprosesse met ander regeringsregulerende prosesse soos beplanning, water, erfenis-verwante permitte, ens.
Dit word weereens vereis dat die praktiese implementering van hierdie bepaling op 'n verantwoordelike manier gedoen word.
Die wysigingswetsontwerp bevat steeds sekere maatstawwe wat noodsaaklik is vir 'n effektiewe en genoegsame impakbeheerstelsel. Dit sluit in die minimum vereistes vir omgewingsgoedkeurings, waardeur gekwalifiseer word dat enige diskresie wat die Minister of enige bevoegde owerheid mag h, aan streng kriteria onderhewig is.
Die invoeging van publieke deelname as 'n vereiste vir alle EIAs is van kardinale belang. Dit sal verseker dat alle rolspelers goed ingelig is oor omgewingsregte. (Translation of Afrikaans paragraphs follows.)
[Ms E PRINS (Western Cape): Thank you, Chairperson. I am aware of the concerns that were raised by the different role-players in respect of the National Environmental Management Amendment Bill. I, nevertheless, believe that this legislation provides a good framework to protect the constitutional rights of our communities, please note, in the following respects: the right to an environment which does not endanger our health and lives; the right to have our environment protected by reasonable legislation and other relevant measures insofar as pollution and ecological degradation are concerned; the right to promotion of conservation of the environment and to ensure that sustainable ecological development takes place; and the right to natural resources being utilised in such a way that it is in line with equitable economic and social development.
The following points refer: the Bill rationalises the use of environmental impact assessments by creating more flexibility in the application of EIA processes. Many role-players regard the expansion of discretionary powers of authorities as the dilution of environmental management principles. It is acknowledged that discretionary decision-making requires a higher level of responsibility, but I believe it is achievable.
In a developing country we need more refined EIA processes. The amending Bill attempts to provide this flexibility, especially in the manner in which the minimum requirements are dealt with in section 24(4), and in the development of an exemption provision in section 24M.
The creation of integrated provisions to ensure co-operation, as contained in section 24K, and co-operative decision-making as contained in section 24L, is supported. By way of the provision of a clause which acknowledges other processes, the duplication of regulation in certain cases can be addressed. It is, nevertheless, acknowledged that the practical implementation of these provisions must be done in a responsible manner, with the protection of the environment as the first priority.
The creation of integrated environmental authorisations is a positive step. This ensures that environmental authorisations which are based on EIAs only are not issued, but that consideration is also given to licensing processes arising from any of the environmental management Acts, for example, the Act dealing with biodiversity, the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act.
It also ensures integrated authorisation processes with other government regulatory processes like planning, water, heritage-related permits, etc.
It is once again required that the practical implementation of this provision takes place in a responsible manner.
The amending Bill still contains certain measures which are essential for an effective and adequate impact control system. These include the minimum requirements for environmental authorisations, whereby the qualification is made that any discretion which the Minister or any competent authority might have, be subject to strict criteria.
The inclusion of public participation as a requirement for all EIAs is of cardinal importance. This will ensure that all role-players are well informed about environmental rights.]
The introduction of tools other than EIAs for environmental management is a positive step. This will alleviate the unfortunate pressure that has been placed on the EIA tool to address all impacts in all instances. For example, we are looking forward to the use of norms and standards as an option to reduce the need for EIAs in instances where EIAs are overkill.
The stronger linkage that has been created between forward-planning tools and EIAs is another positive amendment. In the Western Cape we believe that effective land use and environmental planning and management, inclusive of EIAs, must be integrated to ensure effective promotion of sustainable development. This is emphasised by the fact that we have amalgamated environmental management and planning into a single department in the Western Cape.
One of the most significant aspects of the amending Bill, and probably the reason for the lengthy law reform process, is the inclusion of mining under the Nema umbrella. To me it makes perfect sense that mining, as one of the major industries responsible for physical land transformation, should be measured against the same standards as all other development activities. Challenges, however, will now be for the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and the Department of Minerals and Energy to consistently implement the amending Bill. Future challenges to ensure effective co-operation and alignment will be enormous and this law reform process is only the first step. Thank you.