Appraising the value of independent EIA follow-up verifiers

Independent Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) follow-up verifiers such as monitoring agencies, checkers, supervisors and control officers are active on various construction sites across the world. There are, however, differing views on the value that these verifiers add and very limited learning in EIA has been drawn from independent verifiers. This paper aims to appraise how and to what extent independent EIA follow-up verifiers add value in major construction projects in the developing country context of South Africa. A framework for appraising the role of independent verifiers was established and four South African case studies were examined through a mixture of site visits, project document analysis, and interviews. Appraisal results were documented in the performance areas of: planning, doing, checking, acting, public participating and integration with other programs. The results indicate that independent verifiers add most value to major construction projects when involved with screening EIA requirements of new projects, allocation of financial and human resources, checking legal compliance, influencing implementation, reporting conformance results, community and stakeholder engagement, integration with self-responsibility programs such as environmental management systems (EMS), and controlling records. It was apparent that verifiers could be more creatively utilized in pre-construction preparation, providing feedback of knowledge into assessment of new projects, giving input to the planning and design phase of projects, and performance evaluation. The study confirms the benefits of proponent and regulator follow-up, specifically in having independent verifiers that disclose information, facilitate discussion among stakeholders, are adaptable and proactive, aid in the integration of EIA with other programs, and instill trust in EIA enforcement by conformance evaluation. Overall, the study provides insight on how to harness the learning opportunities arising from EIA follow-up through the appointment of independent verifiers.

[1]  A. Onwuegbuzie,et al.  Toward a Definition of Mixed Methods Research , 2007 .

[2]  Paul D Jeanne Ellis Ormrod Leedy,et al.  Practical Research: Planning and Design , 1974 .

[3]  E. Arts,et al.  EIA-follow up: on the role of ex post evaluation in environmental impact assessment , 1998 .

[4]  Angus Morrison-Saunders,et al.  Defining the role of the independent environmental control officer (ECO) in compliance monitoring and enforcement , 2012 .

[5]  D. Silverman Interpreting Qualitative Data , 1993 .

[6]  M. Miles,et al.  The Qualitative Researcher's Companion , 2002 .

[7]  Christopher Wood,et al.  Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review , 1995 .

[8]  R. Marshall,et al.  Environmental impact assessment follow-up and its benefits for industry , 2005 .

[9]  Jan Glazewski Environmental Compliance and Enforcement in South Africa: Legal Perspectives , 2011 .

[10]  Carole Sutton,et al.  Social Research: An Introduction , 2011 .

[11]  Johnson,et al.  THE SEARCH FOR SUSTAINABLE LEGITIMACY : ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND BUREAUCRACY IN CHINA , 2013 .

[12]  R. Diab,et al.  EIA FOLLOW-UP IN SOUTH AFRICA: CURRENT STATUS AND RECOMMENDATIONS , 2002 .

[13]  Jos Arts,et al.  New Governance Approaches For Sustainable Project Delivery , 2012 .

[14]  Jan-Albert Wessels,et al.  How to Use Voluntary, Self-Regulatory and Alternative Environmental Compliance Tools: Some Lessons Learned , 2010 .

[15]  C. Robson,et al.  Real World Research: A Resource for Social Scientists and Practitioner-Researchers , 1993 .

[16]  F. Retief EFFECTIVENESS OF STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA) IN SOUTH AFRICA , 2007 .

[17]  Jan-Albert Wessels Factors that influence the independence of EIA follow-up verifiers: a developing country perspective , 2013 .

[18]  E. Au,et al.  Learning by Doing: EIA Follow-up in Hong Kong , 2012 .

[19]  Christine Nadel,et al.  Case Study Research Design And Methods , 2016 .

[20]  W. Ross The Independent Environmental Watchdog: A Canadian Experiment in EIA Follow-up , 2012 .

[21]  P. André,et al.  KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT IN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AGENCIES: A STUDY IN QUÉBEC, CANADA , 2013 .

[22]  Cib Construction,et al.  Agenda 21 for sustainable construction in developing countries: a discussion document , 2002 .

[23]  C. S. Holling Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management , 2005 .

[24]  Angus Morrison-Saunders,et al.  International principles for best practice EIA follow-up , 2005 .

[25]  Angus Morrison-Saunders,et al.  EIA follow-up - linking impact assessment with implementation , 2003 .

[26]  Lisa Palframan EIA-EMS Link from the Oil and Gas Industry , 2012 .

[27]  Kedar Uttam,et al.  Seeking sustainability in the construction sector: opportunities within impact assessment and sustainable public procurement , 2014 .

[28]  Angus Morrison-Saunders,et al.  Environmental impact assessment follow-up: good practice and future directions — findings from a workshop at the IAIA 2000 conference , 2001 .

[29]  Anastássios Perdicoúlis,et al.  Furthering Environmental Impact Assessment: Towards a Seamless Connection Between EIA and EMS , 2012 .

[30]  Luis Enrique Sánchez,et al.  Information and Knowledge Management , 2012 .

[31]  A Practical Framework for EIA Follow-up , 2012 .

[32]  รศ.ดร.ธีรศักดิ์ อุ่นอารมย์เลิศ,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Method Approaches , 2016 .

[33]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2010 .

[34]  Francois Retief,et al.  A performance evaluation of strategic environmental assessment (SEA) processes within the South African context , 2007 .