SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (SEIAS) FOR … · Discharge Permits (CWDP), renewal applications as well as the respective application fees. Importantly, the proposal is

SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (SEIAS)

FOR THE PROPOSED COASTAL WATERS DISCHARGE PERMIT REGULATIONS IN

TERMS OF SECTION 69: INTEGRATED COASTAL MANAGEMENT ACT

FINAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE (PHASE 2)

2

Final impact assessment: Draft Coastal Waters Discharge Permit Regulations

The final impact assessment provides a more detailed assessment of the ultimately legislative proposal. In

addition, it identifies (a) mechanisms for monitoring, evaluation and modification as required; and (b) a system for

managing appeals that could emerge around the implementation process.

1 Problem statement/Theory of change

1. Summarise the proposal, identifying the problem to be addressed and the roots (causes) of the

problem that will be addressed by the new rule.

In 2008, Section 69 of the National Environmental Management: Integrated Coastal Management Act (Act 24 of

2008) (ICMA) mandated the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) to manage the disposal/discharges of

effluent emanating from the land-based sources into the coastal waters, via, either a coastal waters discharge

permit or a general discharge authorisation. The sources of effluent include wastewater from municipal

wastewater treatment works, industrial operations, aquaculture, mining activities, fish processing, food

processing, desalination plants, wash wastewater, cooling waters, and hydrostatic pressure testing activities.

The ICMA places a responsibility on the Department to manage the discharge of coastal waters in a manner that

ensures that beneficial users of coastal water are not adversely affected upon and that the environmental

integrity of the coast is not compromised.

The discharge of effluent into the coastal waters was previously administered by the Department of Water and

Sanitation (DWS) in terms of Section 21 of the National Water Act (NWA), 1998 (Act 36 of 1998). In 2004, the

DWS developed an operational policy (Operational Policy For The Disposal Of Land-Derived Water Containing

Waste To The Marine Environment Of South Africa) that provided a management framework for evaluation of

effluent disposal into the coastal waters. This operational policy was updated by the DEA in 2014 (published as

the National Guideline For The Discharge Of Effluent From Land-Based Sources Into The Coastal Environment)

to provide guidance to operators discharging into the coastal waters of South Africa, in absentia of a regulation to

guide the implementation of Section 69 of the ICMA. In fact, the ICMA does not provide the clarity that many

operators seek, to date.

With existing discharges continuing to discharge and new applications for proposed (new) discharges, there was

a need to regulate the permitting (administrative) process. Additionally, the Department needed to develop an

enabling regulation framework to enhance the above-mentioned National Guidelines and legally support the

coastal permitting process in order to fulfil the provisions of Section 69(1) of the ICMA.

The proposal (draft regulations) provides the much needed guidance sought by operators and stipulates the time

frames, required information and processes for the Minister to make an informed decision on Coastal Effluent

Discharge Permits (CWDP), renewal applications as well as the respective application fees.

Importantly, the proposal is based on an approach to protect the natural receiving environment while still allowing

for land-based effluent discharge. A mixing zone will be prescribed so that operators will be confined to a set

zone of impact. This has direct benefits for the Aquaculture Lab and the Tourism Lab, for example, under the

Operation Phakisa Programme, where the ocean space can be used by these growing sectors without being

impeded on by land-based effluent discharge. This proposal is part of the suite of tools that will be used to assist

in the protection and governance of our ocean resources.

3

Summary of the proposal (Summary Background of the proposed policy/ bill/regulations):

Problem Root Causes Proposal

The probability of increasing illegal, uncontrolled discharges into coastal waters causing pollution and health impacts

As of 2008, Section 69 of the ICMA mandates the DEA to manage the discharge of effluent emanating from the land-based sources into the coastal waters, via either a Coastal Waters Discharge Permit (CWDP) or a General Discharge Authorisation (GDA). To date, there is no prescription means to impose any obligation on the administrative process for applying and assessing a CWDP application from the various sectors, in order to make an informed decision on the possible impacts of the effluent being discharged Applicants send inadequate or insufficient information and the DEA cannot make an informed decision on the information submitted. This results in many correspondences requesting for additional information, which is often ignored. Hence existing discharges discharge illegally and this is becoming a huge administrative burden for the DEA and its compliance unit. Lack of enabling framework to regulate the coastal waters discharge permitting process, with requirements for information, strict timelines and processes for making an informed decision.

There are clear minimum and technical information requirements in order for the DEA to make an informed decision on the likely impact of the effluent. The Draft Regulations makes provision for the administration of applications that is fair and consistent towards all who apply for a CWDP (timeframes are prescribed). The regulations also provides details on how decisions will be made on new and existing discharges. There are binding timelines for requests for information, compulsory site inspections and imposes monitoring and planning requirements on the operators that ensures effluent discharge managed and controlled. The proposal is based on an approach to protect the natural receiving environment while still allowing for land-based effluent discharge. This has direct benefits for the Aquaculture Lab, for example, under the Operation Phakisa Programme, where the ocean space can be used by this growing sector without being impeded on by land-based effluent discharge. This proposal is part of the suite of tools that will be used to assist in the protection and governance of our ocean resources.

2. Describe the intended outcomes of the proposal.

The proposed draft regulations are developed to regulate the administrative procedure and information

requirements in order for the DEA to make an informed decision (including contingency planning). There are time

frames prescribed for acknowledging the applications, conducting site visits (for verification of information) and

for the Minister to make a final decision. It intended that applicants and the DEA will be guided by these

prescribed procedures and timeframes in implementing Section 69 of the ICMA. The applicant is made aware of

the administrative costs (fees) and the process for renewing a permit in this proposal.

This proposal is part of the suite of tools that will be used to assist in the protection and governance of our ocean

resources so that other key and growing sectors can harness the potential of our oceans and its resources. The

ocean is a shared space and all beneficial users must have access to good water quality for their benefit. Better

environmental protection (controlled and legal discharges) means better goods and services from our coastal

4

environment, including tourism (such as in the case of more blue flag beaches). This is the desired outcome of

this Draft Regulations.

3. Describe the groups that will benefit from the proposal, and the groups that will face a cost. These

groups could be described by their role in the economy or in society. As a minimum, consider if

there will be specific benefits or costs for the poorest households (earning R7000 a month or less);

for black people, youth or women; for small and emerging enterprise; and/or for rural development.

Add more lines if necessary.

Groups that will benefit How will they benefit?

Aquaculture (sea based and land-based)

The ocean is a share space with many beneficial uses and beneficiaries. The Act places a responsibility on the Department to manage the use of coastal waters in a manner that ensures that beneficial users of coastal water are not adversely affected and that the environmental integrity of the coast itself is not compromised. There is a direct link here to the Aquaculture sector and the receiving water quality that is needed by the sector in order to grow. This sector relies on good quality water being abstracted from the ocean for the growing animals. The Draft Regulations will assist in managing effluent from surrounding discharges so that negative economic impact on this sector as well a health impacts (consumption of contaminated food) is minimised. This sector provided food and supports our GDP when good quality products are exported.

Industrial users (seawater abstracted for desalination, mining, hydrostatic pressure testing, cooling waters)

These users also rely on good quality water being abstracted from the ocean for industrial use. The Draft Regulations will assist in managing effluent from surrounding discharges so that negative impact on this sector is minimised when water is abstracted for use.

Recreational users In South Africa, there are many surf zone discharges and they range from low risk – high risk discharges. The Draft Regulations will assist in managing effluent from all discharges that has the potential to negatively impact on beach goers and recreational users. Better water quality means safer beaches to bathe, swim, fish, ski, etc. This greatly benefits our Tourism sector as many flock to our South African beaches for its beauty, tranquillity, climate and safe water quality.

Tourism and economic (aquaculture) sector

Essentially, coastal effluent discharges will be managed to prevent negative impact on other uses of the coastal environment. For example, under the Operation Phakisa Programme, the sector will benefit from DEA instituting governance and control over land-based discharges that may potentially impact on the growth/ sustenance of this (aquaculture/ tourism) sector. There will be benefits for the Tourism industry and Economic benefits from beaches that are well managed (recreational spots) that are not being impacted on by pollution from coastal discharges (linked to a deliverable under Operation Phakisa Programme).

Researchers, scientific institutions and consultants

The additional monitoring requirements imposed by the proposal (for making an informed decision and minimising impact from effluent) will benefit the scientific researchers (institutions) and individual small businesses (consultants) who undertake marine and environmental impact assessments /sampling. This also generates more information on environmental impact and indicators for the public to access and feel they can socially exist with other

5

Groups that will benefit How will they benefit?

users instead of competing for resources. Specialist scientific information for SA will be generated.

Communities and Civil society Socially, communities can co-exist with various users of the ocean space and feel inclusion in decisions being made by government.

DEA Better administrative process, consistency in requirements provides more faith in the Department. The scientific information generated by the requirements in the Draft Regulations will assist the DEA in engaging on international platforms with specialist scientific information. SA can set an example for the whole of Africa.

Groups that will bear the cost How will they bear the cost?

All applicants/operators/ dischargers that include, but not limited to, Municipalities, industries, mining sector, food and fish processing plants.

The proposed draft regulations will impose the responsibility, on the applicant/discharger/operator, to bear the cost to undertake a series of technical investigations (which may include the services of independent specialists), compliance and systems (effectiveness of the management strategies) monitoring as well as reporting, contingency planning, infrastructure maintenance and integrity checks.

There is a non-refundable, compulsory administrative application fee that is applicable to all applicants. This is currently being determined by the DEA and will take into account the cost of the DEA resources put into the assessment of each application.

The monitoring requirements may specify self-monitoring undertaken by the pipeline operator and audit monitoring undertaken by an independent service provider (external audits) as per permit conditions.

Where the water quality guidelines for the receiving environment must be met prior to any discharge, there may be additional cost to improve the quality of effluent. The cost may also include dispersion studies, alternative site assessment for pipeline placement so that optimal dispersion is achieved and the cost of constructing pipelines further offshore, if necessary.

It must be noted that there are 62 existing discharges (59% of current total operators) that were previously subjected to a licensing application, monitoring and reporting process when authorised by the DWS (prior to the Promulgation of the ICM Act). These are not new requirements for more than half the targeted group.

4. Describe the behaviour that must be changed, and the main mechanisms to achieve the necessary

changes. These mechanisms may include modifications in decision-making systems; changes in

procedures; educational work; sanctions; and/or incentives.

Currently many operators discharge effluent that they perceive to be clean, into the coastal environment without

having knowledge about the receiving coastal waters and its impacts on other beneficial users (recreation,

aquaculture, etc.). The draft regulations will provide clarity on who should be applying for a CWDP and how to go

about doing it. The ICMA already imposes penalties for non-compliance while the draft regulations detail how

and when decisions will be made. Where an existing and lawful discharge is causing any adverse effects, the

Department will have the discretion to alter the permit conditions and impose further restriction and provisions for

6

additional monitoring and reporting. The regulations also envisage to obligate the operator to undertake

performance systems monitoring so as to ascertain and cater for continual improvements and recycling/ reuse

options that may lead to better quality effluent/less wastage of freshwater resources.

There is an incentive that compliant discharges will obtain a renewal permit without undertaking some extensive

and costly monitoring and application requirements.

5. Identify the groups inside and outside of government whose behaviour will have to change to

implement the proposal (add more lines if required).

The main sources of discharges of effluent derived from land-based sources include industries and

municipalities.

Groups inside and outside government whose behaviour will have to change

behaviour that must be changed Main mechanisms to achieve the necessary changes.

Municipalities, industrial and aquaculture and mining sectors/ applicable dischargers

Continuous illegal discharges, non-compliant with standards, poor reporting of monitoring initiatives and successes.

Apathy of dischargers to comply and institute changes that will improve effluent quality and quantity.

Tick box approach to applying / incomplete applications/ non-committal to site inspections

The Regulations states that site specific discharge standards will be set together with the receiving environment quality standards in the permit together with levels of monitoring, duration of reporting and penalties for non-compliance. Advancement into exploring various option for treatment and disposal will begin as per CWDP regulations requirements. Incomplete applications (including non-committal to sit visits) will not be authorised according to the draft regulations.

NGO’s Academia, Civil society, research intuitions

Lack of confidence in Government in not issuing compliance notices/ holding polluters accountable, no transparency and sharing of data

Rigorous and monitoring and reporting regime, data will be available for public to access, more academia and research institutions will be involved in the technical aspects of implementing the regulations if they are outsourced by the operator.

Government (DEA) Tick box approach to assessing environmental impacts/compliance without applying one’s mind;

requesting onerous, irrelevant and unnecessary information from discharges/ public;

no committed response within a specified timeframe;

One authorisation process for estuarine discharges

Officials will have to apply their mind and expert skills in assessing applications and drafting individual permits that are fair, reasonable and effective and purposeful.

The Draft Regulations are clear in its requirements for the CWDP. The information needed to make informed decisions is listed in the draft regulations.

Time frames are stipulated in the draft regulations, which must be complied with by the Minister.

Estuarine discharges will require consultation with the DWS and only in strict circumstances will new discharges be allowed in estuaries. This is covered in the Regulations.

7

6. Report on consultations on the proposal with the affected government agencies, business and

other groupings. What do they see as the main benefits, costs and risks? Do they support or

oppose the proposal? What amendments do they propose, and have these amendments been

incorporated in your proposal?

The findings of a recent project on the approach to set standards and assess applications for effluent discharge

(Assessment Framework Project) was subjected to public participation at the workshops held in Cape Town,

Durban, East London and George. It was also peer reviewed by experts in the field. The receiving environmental

quality approach was well favoured at it will not dictate the levels of treatment or mechanisms that may be too

costly or ineffective by some sectors. The draft Regulations adopted this approach based on the outcomes of the

workshops.

Affected stakeholders

What do they see as main benefits, costs and risks

Do they support or oppose the proposal

What amendments do they propose

Have these amendments been incorporated in your proposal

1. Municipalities that operate Wastewater treatment facilities and desalination plants, industries, private entities and state owned/ parastatals that discharge of effluent

Benefit: Having a legal framework that provides guidance in relation to: - effluent discharges into

the coastal environment - Application processes - Technical requirements

needed to make informed decisions

- Instances where estuarine discharges are allowed/not allowed

- Environmental monitoring is precautionary and a management approach to ensuring coastal integrity is maintained

- Can co-exist with other discharges and beneficial users without having to feel prejudiced

Cost: Additional cost to improve the quality of effluent for existing discharges if necessary (such as increased monitoring, reporting, treatment on land, construction and investigation costs); Application fee costs Risk: Non-compliance by existing discharges who do not see the value in

Support. Some have opposed the proposal due to high costs of building longer pipelines. Many have agreed to institute the necessary changes to comply if it is the law.

The discharge limits be relaxed for salinity and new discharges into the Surf Zone be allowed for small to medium desalination plants and new aquaculture/ low risk effluent with reasonable mixing zones be prescribed. Discharge limits be relaxed / lenient for the physical constituencies. New Surf Zone discharges be allowed for power generation and aquaculture operations. New estuarine discharges be allowed in exceptional circumstances.

Yes – Regulations 5 and 7 (7) have been amended accordingly to include for a reasonable mixing zone being prescribed for discharges (including surf zone and estuaries) in individual permits. Provision was then made for discharge into estuaries under exceptional circumstances.

8






improving discharges. Municipalities that cannot access funds to upgrade their level of treatment/ build longer pipelines. The Regulations may indirectly affect the pricing (higher consumer costs) of water should desalination plants have to make an investment to discharge further into the ocean (nearshore) as opposed to surfzone (due to higher costs of building and maintaining pipelines further offshore IF they cannot meet the Natural Environment standards outside their mixing zone as per permit).

2. Aquaculture/ tourism/ emerging sector dependent on good water quality/ coastal environment

Benefit: Having a legal framework that provides guidance in relation to effluent discharges into the coastal environment assists in the management /prevention of land-based pollution. Pollution can be detrimental to affect aquaculture and tourism. Moreover, the sector becomes more aware of the operators around their plants and are able to provide useful information to the DEA on nearby sources. It is in this sector’s best interest that effluent discharge impacts in the vicinity are localised.

Cost: The regulations places costs on monitoring and applying for a CWDP.

Support More lenient requirements for low impact discharges that may be covered under a GDA.

Yes – there is no distinction made between sectors in the Draft Regulations but rather based on the risk of each effluent in the different receiving environments (case by case assessment and via individual; permits as in Regulations 7 (7). Monitoring and non-compliance action is critical. This has been included in the Draft Regulations (Regulation 8 (5). A Decision was taken by the drafters and technical team that all low risk discharges will be covered under a

9






Risk: Non-compliance by existing discharges may affect the growth/ sustenance of these sector and the South African Economy, as a whole. The aquaculture sector, for instance, may have to treat abstracted seawater before it can be used. This places a burden of costs on the sector that should have otherwise been prevented if the received water was of good quality for use by the sector. Tourism (including health and government sectors) sector will also have to put more resources and costs to deal with beach closures, polluted beaches, sick humans/users.

GDA and the onus is on each operator to determine their effluent risk and which authorisation is applicable. The GDA requirements are being drafted in parallel to the draft Regulations.

3. Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS)

Benefits: Collaboration and streamline efforts made to address estuarine discharges. This will be less onerous on the applicants to apply for 1 authorisation instead of two. In the event that both authorisation are required, the consultation between the 2 departments will be effective and concurrence can be achieved timeously. Costs: internal consultative costs of travelling to meetings/ consultations with each other. Risks: Reserve determinations cannot be made in time to support the discharge into an

Support None. They were concerned about the time frame in which concurrence needs to be achieved and have committed to assisting the Department in meeting the time frames stipulated in the Draft Regulations.

Yes – authorisations will only be granted where the DWS has been consulted and the concurrence for the discharge is obtained (required by section 69 (2) of the ICMA). A reserve determination is critical and DWS needs to do it before any concurrence is made. The DEA has requested a reserve determination for a list of priority estuaries. The DWS has agreed to

10






estuary. No decision/ concurrence from the DWS. Unavailability of officials to consult with. No concurrence can be made on a CWDP application if and when DWS is unavailable. Capital and all costs incurred by the applicant is wasteful. Can lead to an appeal and related legal costs

conduct desktop reserve studies to fast track this process and provide concurrence where needed. An interdepartmental decision was made that an estuarine authorisations task team/ committee will be created to address permitting and compliance matters to achieve the objectives of the draft regulations (not necessarily written as a regulation but is an administrative action that will follow from the implementation of the Regulations).

4. Scientific and coastal engineers, researchers, academia, consultants/ service providers

Benefits: The CWDP Regulations has now paved the way for new research and an inventory of all discharges and their impacts to be assessed. The draft regulations will benefit this sector as the dispersion and dilution and marine impact studies requires the expertise of this group. Coastal engineering, monitoring and research fields (scarce skills) will grow in the country. Costs: costs associated with the specialist studies can be onerous and exorbitant. The service providers can grow their sector and share scarce

Supported Redress the aspects of mixing zones and the distance and buffer zones relating to it. Develop clear and unambiguous monitoring requirements.

Yes. The specific information relating to the technical details wrt effluent and environmental monitoring has been revised and will form specific requirements in individual permits (regulations 7 (7), 4 (1) and 6), depending on the risk the effluent poses and where the discharge point is located.

11






skills relating to coastal engineering, monitoring and research. Risks If there are no specified terms of references/ minimum monitoring requirements, different consultants will focus on different scientific models and methods of analyses. This makes it difficult to ensure a consistent quality of technical reports. The service providers may not undertake/ provide the quality of work expected by the DEA and the application may be turned down on the grounds of insufficient or inadequate information. Incompetent service providers. Services provided may results in a delayed time period for a decision to be made.

5. DEA (Oceans and Coasts)

Benefits: The draft Regulations will constitute a consistent set of requirements for applicants and DEA to comply with which will guide both parties in ensuring a fair process. The approach to receiving water quality is favourable and will assist in the achievement of the purpose of the ICMA. This is new legislation in the country and other African countries often emulate / follow in SA’s approach. Costs: The DEA will have to allocate resources for internal staff (specialist

Supported Technical workshops be held; greater awareness raising on the implications of these requirements, identification of the training needs of the DEA; time frame delivery be looked at (if it is realistic noting that we are facing a backlog currently).

Timeframe was relooked at and amended from 260 days to 180 days (Regulation 7(5)). The technical aspects are outside the ambit of the administrative regulations and will be addressed in an internal session.

12






training (marine impact, dispersion modelling and dilution study assessments), time, information management, capacity and personnel) for the administration of the regulations, the implementation and compliance thereof. Risks: The requirements may be seen as too onerous and not favoured, especially by those who were licensed by the DWS previously. The requirements for effluent discharge was not as thorough as it is now. Non-compliance to the regulations will have huge compliance monitoring and enforcement implications for the DEA.

7. Describe possible disputes arising out of the proposal, and the system for settling and appealing

them. How onerous will it likely be for members of the public to lodge a complaint and how

burdensome and expeditious is the proposed dispute-settlement procedure?

There were no highly contentious matters arising from the proposed regulations as many sectors have already

applied for an authorisation in some shape or form, to the DWS under the NWA or WA. The ICMA has been

explicit about the requirement for an authorisation to discharges effluent into the coastal waters and many

sectors are willing to comply and see the value in complying and compliance monitoring. There were technical

details that were not favoured as it was onerous and very strict. These matters were discussed and rectified in

the draft proposal. Consideration was given to all comments and request for change.

The amendment process is regarded less tedious as it is handled at the Directorate level in consultation with the

decision making authority. Whereas the appeal process resides with the Minister. The ICMA details the appeals

process to be followed.

13

2 Impact assessment

1. Describe the costs and benefits of implementing the proposal to the groups identified in point 6

above, using the following chart. Add more lines if required.

Group Implementation

costs

Cost of changing

behaviour

Costs/benefits from

achieving desired

outcome

Comments

All effluent

discharges

(various

sectors and

activities)

Technical and

operational staff to

implement the

regulations and

comply with individual

permits; equipment

needed for monitoring

and analyses,

Infrastructure

(pipeline, diffusers)

Operational costs

(including application,

fees, annual discharge

costs, Marine Impact

assessments, effluent

monitoring, dispersion

modelling, dilution

studies, pipeline integrity

and diffuser surveys,

etc.).

Cost: The implementation

costs will assist in

achieving compliance

during eth permit validity.

This is then translated

into an incentive when

applying for a renewal of

the permit (incentive-

based approach).

Regulations 8(8)

empowers the Minister to

relax monitoring

requirements when a

renewal application is

made depending on the

level of compliance.

Benefit: Good compliance

with permit conditions

facilitates good coastal

water quality that is fit for

all users in the area and

reduce conflict amongst

the users.

There is a social benefit

when operators are co-

existing with others users

and are seen as

operating in an

environmental

responsible manner.

NB: 59% of

exiting

operators have

already been

subjected to

these

requirements

previously and

are currently

running with

costs

associated with

compliance

(i.e. it is

already built

into their

operations).

14


costs

Cost of changing

behaviour

Costs/benefits from

achieving desired

outcome

Comments

Scientific and

coastal

engineers,

researchers,

academia,

consultants/

service

providers

Equipment and

samplers are huge

start-up cost.

Costs associated with

the specialist studies can

be onerous and

exorbitant

The service providers can

grow their sector and

share scarce skills

relating to coastal

engineering, monitoring

and research. The

information is then

disseminated to the

public to better

understand the

environmental impact of

discharges. More

transparency and

acceptance of individual

coastal users.

There is an

economic

benefit to this

group once

monitoring of

effluent

discharges are

pursued.

DEA Employ 2 more

skilled staff to assess

applications

Specialist and technical

training is needed for

existing and new staff

Incorporate the

requirements of the

regulation into the

Department’s

Awareness Raising and

communication

programmes/ strategy.

More skilled staff and

more confidence and

capacity in reviewing

specialist and technical

reports.

More stakeholders and

operators are aware of

the requirements of the

Draft Regulations and the

awareness raising will

facilitate improved

understanding,

Communication and

compliance which has a

spin off to good coastal

water quality

management

A skills

transfer/

retention

programme

must be

facilitated by

the DEA.

Awareness

raising and

communication

strategy must

be consistent

and inclusive

of key

stakeholders,

including

outlying and

remote areas

15


costs

Cost of changing

behaviour

Costs/benefits from

achieving desired

outcome

Comments

Government

(DEA and

DWS)

None – as existing

staff nominated to be

on the

Interdepartmental

estuarine

authorisation

committee.

Customised training and

skills transfer from the

DWS who have dealt

with coastal discharges

previously. Lobby for

skills transfer and

sharing of experiences.

Inter-department

authorisation committee

for estuarine discharges,

administration and

compliance monitoring

costs.

Expert skills and training

in assessing complex

specialist reports.

The estuarine

environment is sensitive

and the 2 departments

are of the same

understanding. The

interdepartmental

authorising committee will

deliver 1 message, re-

instil stakeholder faith in

the departments,

streamline the

authorisation process and

reduce conflict.

Estuarine

discharges will

require

consultation

with the DWS

and only in

strict

circumstances

will new

discharges be

allowed in

estuaries.

2. Describe the changes required in budgets and staffing in government in order to implement the

proposal. Identify where additional resources would be required for implementation. It is assumed

that existing staff are fully employed and cannot simply absorb extra work without relinquishing

other tasks.

Changes: Employ at least 2 other full time, skilled staff members to assist with the following:

- Staff needed to assess applications, set standards, conduct compliance monitoring, undertake

verification dispersion modelling, detailed scientific assessment and review.

- Fees structure and procedure for paying/collecting fees.

- Site visits, preliminary assessments, administration (including database and information management).

- Joint permitting wrt Estuaries require more consultation with DWS and joint inspections (compliance

monitoring).

Additional resources:

- Information management and services, dispersion modes (verification)and tool for setting standard and

reasonable mixing zones

Additional specialist training for existing staff:

- Interpretation of marine impact assessment studies (meiofauna and/or macrofauna); dispersion

modelling results interpretation, dilution model interpretation and use.

- Marine impact assessment (meiofauna and/or macrofauna analyses in sediments); interpreting and

setting up dispersions and dilution models, verifying dispersion models and dilution models,

understanding oceanographic processes.

16

3. Describe how the proposal minimises implementation and compliance costs.

This proposal is aimed at improving the implementation of the ICMA since its promulgation to ensure coastal

water quality that is fit for use by all sectors. Although the Compliance costs and implementation costs will

increase in the short term. The greater benefit is the resultant increase in tourism, economic development

(industrial used of coastal water) and public users who do not get ill from poor quality coastal water. Over the

medium to long term, visibility of compliance and enforcement will encourage good compliance and these

costs (compliance and implementation) will reduce.

The application fees are set to recover administrative costs involved in assessing permit applications. The

annual discharge fees (paid by operators) are envisaged to be reallocated to the Department to assist in

compliance costs during the permit validity period. These discharge fees will still have to be determined by

the Department in the near future.

There is also self-monitoring of the effluent emission limits and audit monitoring (imposed by individual

permits) on the operator instead of on the Department – saves the Department from carry the burden of

compliance monitoring and sampling costs (the polluter pays principle).

The draft Regulations will add value to the current process being followed by the DEA and the DWS as it is

clear and bound by time requirements. In the two departments working together, the compliance and

implementation costs can be shared and minimised.

4. Describe the main risks to the achievement of the desired ends of the legislation and/or to national

aims that could arise from adoption of the proposal. Add more lines if required.

a. The technical information required for some applicants may be too expensive to conduct and

information may not be submitted for consideration. Alternatively, service providers may provide

inadequate information (due to lack of experience/ monitoring equipment). This results in a decision

not being made and could lead to an illegal discharge if there is a basic service need (such as in

the case of effluent discharge from waste water treatment plants/municipalities) or operators

closing down.

b. Certain discharges (existing discharges into estuaries and surf zone) must comply with the water

quality guidelines for the receiving environment prior to it reaching the coastal waters. This may

require land-based treatments or other management interventions that may be too expensive in the

short-term. This may result in short term non-compliance unless provision is made to accommodate

for this.

c. The DWS have their own requirements wrt estuarine discharges (such as a reserve determination)

and this may hamper the concurrence requirement from the DWS if their process is lengthy and

does not fit within the timeframes of the DEA in issuing an authorisation.

d. Public concerns for allowing discharges may be an obstacle/challenge in processing applications.

e. Time frame of 180 days may be too short for some complex applications. There is no flexibility ito

this timeframe in the regulations. There could be unrealistic expectations on how fast the DEA

should process applications.

f. There will be an expectation that the CWDP requirements will solve coastal pollution as a whole

and grow the tourism sector. This is unrealistic in the short term.

g. There may be bottlenecks at management level or while consulting the DEA research units on

complex CWDP applications. Concurrence with the DWS could also lead to delays and bottlenecks.

17

3 Managing risk

1. Describe the measures taken to manage the identified risks.

Identified risk Mitigation measures

a. The technical information

required for some applicants may

be too expensive to

conduct/generate. This may result

in the applicant not submitting this

information at all.

Alternatively, service providers may

provide inadequate information (due

to lack of experience/ monitoring

equipment).

This results in a decision not being

made and could lead to an illegal

discharge OR it could lead to an

operator closing down (loss of jobs

and livelihoods)

The proposal makes provision for a process and time frame within which

to request for additional information. Where a permit is not granted

based on inadequate information, a new application has to be made with

the application costs (it creates a disincentive not to provide all required

information due to additional costs of reapplying).

The draft regulation make provision for a request for outstanding

information. Operators will be given an opportunity to relook at their

application, collate the outstanding information and submit within a

prescribed time frame.

A compulsory site inspection and consultation with operators will be

undertaken to ensure the implementation of the draft regulations. High

risk effluent discharges will require more technical information than a

discharge with a medium risk effluent. Therefore, in fairness, operators

who discharge a lower risk effluent, a case by case assessment will be

conducted to determine what information is needed by each applicant as

stated in the draft regulations.

The offences and penalties in the ICMA will dis-incentivise non-

compliance/ illegal discharges. Cooperative agreements and action plan

will be used to provide municipalities with the support they require, within

reason. There will be consultation with applicants to advise them of

outstanding information and deadlines to accommodate for lack of /

inappropriate/ insufficient information.

b. Certain discharges

(existing discharges into estuaries

and surf zone) must comply with

the water quality guidelines for the

receiving environment prior to it

reaching the coastal waters. This

may require land-based treatments

or other management interventions

that may be too expensive in the

short-term. This may result in short

term non-compliance unless

provision is made to accommodate

for this.

Individual permits may address these in terms of the standards that can

be achieved in the short term prior to the land-based management

options taking effect. A phased-in approach for high levels of treatment/

stricter standards will be imposed in individual permits. The Draft

regulations makes provisions for the Minister to institute requirements in

individual permits where it is not covered explicitly in the drafts

regulations.

c. The DWS has their own

requirements wrt estuarine (such

as a reserve determination)

A streamlined approach will have to be sought (perhaps an integrated

permitting system). Modified estuaries that support commercial harbours

and post will require a different process to allow for low impact

18

2. Describe the mechanisms included in the proposal (draft regulations) for monitoring

implementation, evaluating the outcomes, and modifying the implementation process if required.

Estimate the minimum amount of time it would take from the start of the implementation process to

identify a major problem and remedy it.

discharges and this may hamper

the concurrence requirement from

the DWS if their process is lengthy

and does not fit within the

timeframes of the DEA in issuing

an authorisation.

discharges in ports and harbours. Regular, transparent consultation and

engagement with an MOU or a Standard Operating Procedure to avoid

confusion and conflicts between the DEA and the DWS. It may also be a

possibility to amend the legislation so that only 1 Department has the

sole function. The DEA and the DWS will convene an estuarine

authorisations committee to implement these actions.

d. Public concerns for

allowing discharges may be an

obstacle/challenge in processing

applications.

The draft regulation currently does not subject the CWDP applications to

a public participation process, although an Environmental Impact

Assessment Process (under the NEMA) may subject the activity to

public scrutiny. The gazetting of the draft regulations for public comment

will allow for the DEA to understand the general concerns around

effluent discharge into coastal waters. Media statements, responding to

individual concerns and knowledge sessions will be undertaken to assist

the public in understanding that the draft regulations are aimed at

protecting the receiving environment and that discharges will be

controlled and managed, if and when necessary.

e. Time frame of 180 days

may be too short for some complex

applications. There is no flexibility

ito this timeframe in the

regulations. There could be

unrealistic expectations on how

fast the DEA should process

applications.

Complex applications would warrant more staff to be involved in

assisting in setting standards and monitoring requirements. Stricter

internal time frames will have to be set and these applications must be

prioritised. Managers who staff are involved on perusing these

applications must be alerted.

f. There will be an

expectation that the CWDP

requirements will solve coastal

pollution as a whole and grow the

tourism sector. This is unrealistic in

the short term.

More will have to be done around awareness raising. Media statements,

responding to individual concerns and knowledge sessions will be

undertaken to assist the public in understanding that the draft regulations

are aimed at protecting the receiving environment and that discharges

will be controlled and managed, if and when necessary. The Link to the

socio-economic benefits of the draft regulations is vital and must be

made via any awareness raising programme in this regard.

g. There may be bottlenecks

at management level or while

consulting the DEA research units

on complex CWDP applications.

Concurrence with the DWS could

also lead to delays and bottlenecks

It is imperative that managers are aware of the implication of the draft

regulations and that priority be given to the complex applications. There

must be more vigorous efforts towards a streamlined and effective

means of addressing the concurrence function between the DWS and

DEA and the Estuarine authorisations committee will assist in this

regard.

19

Monitoring in the execution of the proposed regulations will focus on the operational and strategic levels as

follows:

Operational level: Monitoring at this level will be aimed at tracking systems performance to observe compliance

with limits/standards prescribed in the permit conditions, i.e. discharge volume limit and quality or composition

(compliance monitoring). The environmental monitoring focuses on the changes in the receiving environment

relating to the ecological functioning of the natural environment. The operational monitoring programmes are

designed and implemented at the cost of the permit holder. At this level, a problem can only be identified in the

marine impact assessment study (done once within a 5 year period) as per permit conditions, where applicable.

Some low risk discharges may be exempted from this study as it is unlikely that their low risk effluent may cause

a major problem. Otherwise, effluent discharges are monitored daily and problems can be identified almost

immediately and rectified immediately/ in the short term.

Strategic level: Monitoring at the strategic level will be undertaken through the national environmental

programme with the Department reporting on the state of the coastal environment. The reporting will reflect on

the performance of the permitting systems in achieving the required water quality management goals.

In both instances above, a clear monitoring structure already occurs and is inherent in the Chief Directorate’s /

Branch’s Business Plan. Issuing and implementing the CWDP regime is annually assigned a target and key

performance indicators, for which the Directorate: Coastal Pollution Management monitors its performance

against (number of applications issues, implementation of assessment framework in assessing applications,

compliance monitoring, etc.).

The State of the Oceans and Coasts reports will take in consideration all monitoring initiatives to assess the state

of the oceans and coast. Land-based effluent impact will be assessed, the status of illegal discharges and legal /

permitted discharges will be determined. This will assess if eth problem (Identified in Question 1 of the SEIAS)

has been answered.

4 Summary

1. Summarise the impact of the proposal on the main national priorities.

Priority Impact

Social cohesion

Not applicable

Security (Safety, Financial,

Food, Energy and etc.)

The draft regulations optimises the oceans space for multiple and different users

(recreational, industrial, natural and aquaculture) of the coastal environment can

benefit without impacting on each other. Good water quality aids in food and

financial security, especially for the aquaculture and industrial sector (mining,

cooling towers, hydrostatic testing, desalination) who utilises sea water for their

core businesses.

Economic growth and Effluent management in the coastal environment is critical to sustain the integrity of

20

Priority Impact

investment

our aesthetic coastline for recreational and tourism purposes. Foreign investors

invest in our coastline for its biological diversity, beauty and recreational uses.

There is a vested interest in preserving this. The Regulations assist in formalising a

process and considerations that must be taken into account that may affect the

integrity of our coastal waters/ environment and it diverse biodiversity and

recreational uses. Where contamination and pollution occurs, recreational users

and investors may be negatively impacted upon and this could damage the

country’s economy (sick days, loss in credibility in government to manage pollution,

burden on the country’s health system, etc.).

Setting site specific limits and allowing for reasonable mixing zones ensures that

industrial and economic businesses can continue in a managed and responsible

manner so that other beneficial users can also grow and contribute to the economy

of the country. Aquaculture (land-and sea-based), for example, has boomed in the

past 10 years and requires good seawater quality in order for the sector to thrive

and continue growing (huge export market for abalone, shellfish and finfish).

Foreign investors often invest in long-term operations relating to the aquaculture

and Industrial development zones in the country, which is becoming increasingly

popular.

With a water shortage in the country, desalination plants are also becoming

increasingly popular along the coastlines. This sector also requires good quality

seawater to reduce land-based treatment costs of the abstracted seawater. The

additional treatment costs of cleaning seawater may have a direct negative impact

on the cost of freshwater to users (municipalities and public). Therefore it is

imperative that seawater used for industrial and aquaculture use are managed (via

regulating individual operators who discharge effluent into coastal waters). This is

directly related to harnessing the potential of the Blue Economy (Operation

Phakisa initiative for the Aquaculture and Tourism sectors) in SA.

Economic inclusion

(employment creation and

equity)

The industrial sector employs local people, attract foreign investments and rely on

good management practices, laws and regulations to succeed. The regulations

cater for reasonable mechanism within which effluent discharge is allowed. It is

hoped that the implementation of the regulations will provide equitable access to

the use of coastal waters for various purposes/ benefits without infringing on

anyone’s’ rights. In supporting the Blue Economy (Operation Phakisa initiative for

the Aquaculture and Tourism sectors) in SA, more jobs in these sectors can be

created (water quality monitoring, compliance, aquaculture businesses, etc.).

Failure to authorise the existing or new industrial discharges or consult and set

reasonable and fair standards, monitoring requirements and mixing zones may

lead to industrial closure and job loss. Failure to implement the regulations may

lead to pollution and favouring only a few to discharge into coastal waters.

Environmental

sustainability

The regulation of coastal discharges will ensure that an informed decision is made,

consistent requirements are prescribed for all operators and that the beneficial

users’ requirements are met while development of the coastal zone is

21

Priority Impact

accommodated.

2. Identify the social and economic groups that would benefit most and that would bear the most cost.

1. In conclusion, summarise what should be done to reduce the costs, maximise the benefits, and

mitigate the risks associated with the legislation. Note supplementary measures (such as

educational campaigns or provision of financing) as well as amendments to the draft itself, if

appropriate.

a. Cost reduction:

i. Consider utilising the services of academia and research institutions in order to subsidize some

of the costs wrt environmental monitoring, development of standards and updating water

quality guidelines.

ii. Streamline administrative processing in processing applications (priorities, complex

applications, host joint inspections (including with the DWS), share resources and staff wrt

database / information management, etc.)

iii. Customise the requirements (monitoring and reporting) for low, medium, high and very high

risk effluent (example, frequency of monitoring, reporting can be less intense for a medium risk

effluent as opposed to a high or very high risk effluent). This is based on a profiling tool used to

ascertain the nature and risk of the effluent. This tool is available in-house at DEA and is easy

to apply.

iv. Develop a guide on specification for environmental monitoring and modelling so that service

providers only provide what is needed per effluent risk categorisation

v. Annual discharge fees will depend on the risk categorisation and thus low risk discharges will

pay a lesser annual discharge fees as compared to a high risk effluent.

vi. Encourage compliance through education and awareness and regular consultations (incentive

for renewal with no additional costs for application and may result in lower monitoring costs).

These initiatives will also assist in dispelling myths and assist in public understanding the

policies better.

b. Maximise the benefits and mitigating risks:

i. Enhance efforts to conduct environmental monitoring especially in closed and semi-enclosed

bays so that aquaculture nodes are safe (water quality is acceptable) to operate in and do not

run at a risk of being impacted from land-based effluent sources

ii. Create designated nodal points for aquaculture development (enhance the Blue Economy) to

mitigate risks and maximise the benefit for the sector.

iii. Encourage compliance with Blue Flag and Recreational Water Quality Guidelines for

recreational use through awareness raising, regular consultations, fund municipalities to

Main beneficiaries Main cost bearers

Beneficial users of the sea water and

the public and communities that rely

on good quality coastal waters

Effluent Dischargers/Operators (various sectors including Municipalities,

private entities, parastatals, port) wrt to ensuring compliance

DEA (compliance monitoring)

22

conduct recreational monitoring, compliance monitoring and reporting (inclusive of the

Operation Phakisa Tourism benefactor).

iv. Encourage success stories in the media and sharing of lesson-learned by municipalities.

v. Consult with the DWS to manage river discharges upstream so that they do not impact on the

economic, social and environmental sustainability objectives of the estuaries.

vi. Encourage and support all role players to develop and implement Estuary Management Plans

effectively and efficiently.

vii. Encourage the development of more lenient standards for ports and harbours in modified

estuaries.

viii. Streamline estuarine permitting so that it is fair and less onerous for operators who currently

have to apply to both Department for an effluent discharge authorisation.

ix. The proposed regulations must be aligned with the Marine Spatial Planning Bill to strike a

balance between the competing and conflicting uses and users

x. Use the DEA profiling tool to determine the likely risk that each effluent will post to the

receiving environment (and beneficial users). The profiling tool takes into account several

factors, including the discharge environment, sensitivity, state of the receiving environment,

effluent risk profile, volume, structural integrity and legal compliance.

xi. For the new discharges, the risk based assessment process will be utilised, where risks are

identified, the likelihood and impact is categorised and suitable mitigations measures are

determined and implemented.

xii. Embark on an awareness raising initiative on these draft regulations, effluent discharges in

general, uses of our coastal environment, etc. to assist in the public understanding our

approach and work. This limits the challenges that the public often pose when myths are

debunked/ clarified.

2. Please identify areas where additional research would improve understanding of the costs,

benefits and/or risks of the legislation.

a. Currently, there is limited information and research initiatives on the natural coastal environment.

More research should be undertaken on the state of the natural environment, especially in semi-

enclosed bays, sensitive environment as such as the surf zones and estuaries. This will assist in

identifying no-go areas for effluent discharge. A National Pollution Laboratory project (one of the

Operation Phakisa initiatives) has been initiated by the DEA to begin work in this regard. There is a

direct link between these draft regulations and this initiative under Operation Phakisa.

b. The impact of the ingress of fresh water from land has not been determined and this is an area that

will inform the Delegated Authority on the impacts of land-based effluent which is freshwater in

nature.

c. The threshold for several indicators in the natural environment has to be determined in order for

meaningful and realistic standards to be set for all end users (This is work that will be embarked on

by the DEA in 2017/18)

d. The exploration of different software to assist with models and dilution studies will greatly assist in

how costs for the specialist studies can be reduced. The DEA is partnering with Academia to assist

with some research work in this regard.

23

For the purpose of building a SEIAS body of knowledge please complete the following:

Name of the Official: Nitasha Baijnath-Pillay Designation: Control Environmental Officer: Grade B Unit: Directorate: Coastal Pollution Management Contact Details: 021 – 819 2409 / 2450 or 082 211 0544 Email address: [email protected] 5.3 How long did it take the department to complete this template? 4 months (This SEIAS was based on the final draft of the Regulations).

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT SYSTEM (SEIAS) FOR … · Discharge Permits (CWDP), renewal applications as well as the respective application fees. Importantly, the proposal is