![Sample our Geography journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5937/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Geography.jpg"})
Abstract
Environmental management frameworks (EMFs) were developed in South Africa as strategic environmental management instruments to map environmental sensitivity in order to aid the screening out of undesired developments and to minimise unnecessary project level environmental impact assessment (EIA) in preferred development areas. This article reports on the quality performance of a sample of seven EMFs conducted in South Africa, in terms of document and procedural quality. To this end, 13 measures (sub-criteria) were developed and classified into five thematic areas (review criteria), against which the EMF documents were appraised using a six-level rating. The review criteria were developed around the validity of sensitivity mapping methodology; the extent to which potential developments were identified as either desired or unfavourable; the effectiveness of EMF outcomes in relation to the broader decision making context; integration of stakeholder engagement inputs into EMF outcomes and the sufficiency of provisions spelling out the implementation of EMF outcomes. Public participation emerged as the weakest component of EMF practice, while certain aspects of sensitivity analysis also performed weaker than other review areas. More focus is required on aligning scales and resolutions of map inputs, mapping methods and general integration of spatial data. The practice of conducting EMF is well established, and can make a valuable contribution to inform strategic planning and to improve the effectiveness of EIA screening in South Africa, provided that appropriate improvements in quality are made, along with proper implementation of the instrument by the authorities, including their formal adoption.
Notes
†Current address: Department of Geography & Environmental Studies, University of Limpopo, Sovenga 0727, South Africa.
1.Integrated Development Plans and Spatial Development Frameworks are required in terms of the Municipal Systems Act (Act 32 of 2000).
2.Heritage Impact Assessments are required in South Africa by virtue of the Heritage Resources Act (Act 25 of 1999).
3.C-Plans are legislated in Gauteng and Western Cape provinces. These plans contain wide prescriptions on suitable uses and developments, management provisions and prerequisites before development may be considered. Generally, they guide the developer and environmental practitioner as to what legal and environmental requirements (specialist studies, buffer zones, etc.) need to be applied.
4.Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) appear to be becoming a popular approach for mining areas, conservancies and other privately owned and managed conservation areas. To a large extent, these are SEMPs developed specifically with biodiversity conservation and management objectives for the specific areas for which they apply to. The SEMPs of BAPs therefore differ from SEA SEMPs in that the former are conservation management plans for a specific land use (usually conservation – or mining or limited eco-tourism in combination with conservation) – while the latter provides general environmental management provisions for specific policies/programmes/plans under assessment.
5.Environmental Implementation Plans (EIPs) are environmental management tools prepared by state departments (every province and some national departments) to ensure that co-operative environmental governance takes place between them. EIPs are prepared in terms of Chapter 3 of the National Environmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) and must show how factors affecting the environment are managed and what mechanisms exist for co-ordinating environmental functions exercised by organs of state.
6. An Open Space Development Framework is a decision support tool and a spatial planning tool aimed at establishing an open space network for a city and promoting the sustainable management of that space.