Experts question if EIAs work in Namibia
Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) aim to ensure that any development project in Namibia is socially just and environmentally sustainable.
However, this process often faces criticism, with experts arguing that it has become little more than a box-ticking exercise that benefits a few at the expense of the majority of Namibians and the environment.
This is the view of John Pallett and Ndelimona Iipinge from the Namibian Environment and Wildlife Society (NEWS).
In an article published in Conservation Namibia, Pallett and Iipinge explain why they believe the EIA process does not work in Namibia.
Their assessment is based on evidence from the EIA Tracker, which has recorded all EIAs in Namibia from May 2023 to July 2024.
The platform logs every EIA registered with the Office of the Environmental Commissioner and makes all relevant information about these assessments publicly available online.
“The EIA Tracker provides information about each project applying for environmental clearance, based on the Background Information Document (BID),” they note.
Using the BID, each project is classified as high, medium or low risk.
Simpler processes
High-risk projects are those with significant environmental and social impacts, such as large mines and dams. These require a thorough EIA, often involving specialist studies on aspects like water, biodiversity, social issues and archaeological impacts.
Medium-risk projects pose slightly lower risks to the environment and communities, such as potential pollution or threats to water sources, which can be managed through appropriate mitigation measures. These more common projects include geological exploration, small-scale mining, and power lines.
Low-risk projects, on the other hand, generally have minimal impacts on people and the environment. Examples include rezoning in urban areas, fuel stations, small earth dams, most lodges and solar farms located outside sensitive areas.
“Of the 1 189 EIAs registered over the 15-month period, 52% were low-risk projects. These relatively insignificant EIAs consume a large portion of the Department of Environmental Affairs' time and effort, with each taking around three months from submission to the issuance of the Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC).
“In our opinion, this is wasted effort. A simplified checklist could handle these cases more efficiently, speeding up the process and freeing time for more critical cases requiring thorough assessments,” argue Pallett and Iipinge.
Concerns expressed
One example cited by Pallett and Iipinge, where they believe greater scrutiny was needed, involves an exploration license (EPL) issued in a tourism area near Khorixas.
“The BID highlighted the presence of rhinos in the area, prompting the Save the Rhino Trust and local lodge owners to raise concerns about the project.”
The matter eventually went to the High Court.
Pallett and Iipinge argue that this is just one of many examples reinforcing their belief that the EIA process cannot be trusted. They contend that it is merely an administrative procedure, checked off a list.
“Or, in the worst case, it is a growing concern about corruption.”
‘Get your act together’
Pallett and Iipinge believe that a democratic and transparent EIA process is essential for improving overall environmental management.
“When the public is fully involved in development projects, those projects are more likely to result in sustainable and socially acceptable outcomes. This is the ultimate goal of environmental management law.”
They say the EIA Tracker has shown that many aspects of the EIA process "are currently failing in Namibia. Our message to the Office of the Environmental Commissioner, based on the strong facts revealed by the EIA Tracker, is loud and clear: Get your act together!”
Professional body
The EIA Tracker team met with the environmental commissioner and his senior staff to discuss these issues and made several recommendations, including the need to establish a professional body for practitioners, similar to those for geosciences, medical, and engineering professions.
Such an organisation – the Environmental Assessment Practitioners Association of Namibia (EAPAN) – has existed for a decade as a voluntary association, but it receives little recognition and no support from relevant government bodies.
At present, only half (48) of Namibia's 93 environmental study practitioners are registered with EAPAN, and only one-third (337 out of 1 189) of the EIAs registered in the past 15 months were conducted by EAPAN-registered practitioners.
“The environmental commissioner has promised to prioritise a professional body for practitioners, but so far, nothing has been done.”
However, this process often faces criticism, with experts arguing that it has become little more than a box-ticking exercise that benefits a few at the expense of the majority of Namibians and the environment.
This is the view of John Pallett and Ndelimona Iipinge from the Namibian Environment and Wildlife Society (NEWS).
In an article published in Conservation Namibia, Pallett and Iipinge explain why they believe the EIA process does not work in Namibia.
Their assessment is based on evidence from the EIA Tracker, which has recorded all EIAs in Namibia from May 2023 to July 2024.
The platform logs every EIA registered with the Office of the Environmental Commissioner and makes all relevant information about these assessments publicly available online.
“The EIA Tracker provides information about each project applying for environmental clearance, based on the Background Information Document (BID),” they note.
Using the BID, each project is classified as high, medium or low risk.
Simpler processes
High-risk projects are those with significant environmental and social impacts, such as large mines and dams. These require a thorough EIA, often involving specialist studies on aspects like water, biodiversity, social issues and archaeological impacts.
Medium-risk projects pose slightly lower risks to the environment and communities, such as potential pollution or threats to water sources, which can be managed through appropriate mitigation measures. These more common projects include geological exploration, small-scale mining, and power lines.
Low-risk projects, on the other hand, generally have minimal impacts on people and the environment. Examples include rezoning in urban areas, fuel stations, small earth dams, most lodges and solar farms located outside sensitive areas.
“Of the 1 189 EIAs registered over the 15-month period, 52% were low-risk projects. These relatively insignificant EIAs consume a large portion of the Department of Environmental Affairs' time and effort, with each taking around three months from submission to the issuance of the Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC).
“In our opinion, this is wasted effort. A simplified checklist could handle these cases more efficiently, speeding up the process and freeing time for more critical cases requiring thorough assessments,” argue Pallett and Iipinge.
Concerns expressed
One example cited by Pallett and Iipinge, where they believe greater scrutiny was needed, involves an exploration license (EPL) issued in a tourism area near Khorixas.
“The BID highlighted the presence of rhinos in the area, prompting the Save the Rhino Trust and local lodge owners to raise concerns about the project.”
The matter eventually went to the High Court.
Pallett and Iipinge argue that this is just one of many examples reinforcing their belief that the EIA process cannot be trusted. They contend that it is merely an administrative procedure, checked off a list.
“Or, in the worst case, it is a growing concern about corruption.”
‘Get your act together’
Pallett and Iipinge believe that a democratic and transparent EIA process is essential for improving overall environmental management.
“When the public is fully involved in development projects, those projects are more likely to result in sustainable and socially acceptable outcomes. This is the ultimate goal of environmental management law.”
They say the EIA Tracker has shown that many aspects of the EIA process "are currently failing in Namibia. Our message to the Office of the Environmental Commissioner, based on the strong facts revealed by the EIA Tracker, is loud and clear: Get your act together!”
Professional body
The EIA Tracker team met with the environmental commissioner and his senior staff to discuss these issues and made several recommendations, including the need to establish a professional body for practitioners, similar to those for geosciences, medical, and engineering professions.
Such an organisation – the Environmental Assessment Practitioners Association of Namibia (EAPAN) – has existed for a decade as a voluntary association, but it receives little recognition and no support from relevant government bodies.
At present, only half (48) of Namibia's 93 environmental study practitioners are registered with EAPAN, and only one-third (337 out of 1 189) of the EIAs registered in the past 15 months were conducted by EAPAN-registered practitioners.
“The environmental commissioner has promised to prioritise a professional body for practitioners, but so far, nothing has been done.”
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article