IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/jeapmx/v11y2009i01ns1464333209003257.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Cost Of Environmental Impact Assessment (Eia) In South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • FRANCOIS RETIEF

    (School of Environmental Sciences and Development, North West University (Potchefstroom Campus), Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom, 2520, South Africa)

  • BENNETT CHABALALA

    (Centre for Environmental Management, North West University (Potchefstroom Campus), Private Bag X6001, Potchefstroom, 2520, South Africa)

Abstract

The wide adoption of EIA internationally is implicitly or explicitly based on the assumption that the benefits of EIA outweigh the costs. However, there has been surprisingly little empirical research conducted on the "cost" of EIA. The latter has been mostly because of the difficult methodological challenges it presents, which include the difficulties associated with clarifying terminology and disentangling what is meant by "cost". South Africa has been a leading developing country in terms of the introduction of EIA. However, almost a decade of mandatory EIA practice has raised serious questions about unjustified and unnecessary time delays and monetary costs and a desperate need for improved efficiency and effectiveness. In light of the latter the urgent need to gain a better understanding of the "cost" of EIA is evident. This paper presents preliminary results of an empirical study on the "direct EIA cost" in relation to "overall project cost" in South Africa. The data was obtained from a detailed survey of 148 EIAs conducted in the Free State, North West and the Northern Cape Provinces. The research suggests that the average direct cost of EIA within this region of South Africa is particularly low compared to international EIA systems. However, as a percentage of total project cost, EIA in South Africa compares with the higher spectrum of international practice. The latter suggests that within the South African context a large number of EIAs are being conducted for relatively small scale projects and that the main cost burden is placed on small and medium economic enterprise. In conclusion the overall profile of EIA cost in the South African context is described in relation to four broad project categories. To take the debate forward and to allow for regional comparative analysis, it is proposed that the research be expanded to include other provinces.

Suggested Citation

  • Francois Retief & Bennett Chabalala, 2009. "The Cost Of Environmental Impact Assessment (Eia) In South Africa," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 11(01), pages 51-68.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:jeapmx:v:11:y:2009:i:01:n:s1464333209003257
    DOI: 10.1142/S1464333209003257
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S1464333209003257
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S1464333209003257?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pizer, William A. & Kopp, Raymond, 2005. "Calculating the Costs of Environmental Regulation," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 25, pages 1307-1351, Elsevier.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pizer, William A. & Burtraw, Dallas & Harrington, Winston & Newell, Richard G. & Sanchirico, James N., 2005. "Modeling Economywide versus Sectoral Climate Policies Using Combined Aggregate-Sectoral Models," Discussion Papers 10502, Resources for the Future.
    2. Barbara Annicchiarico & Fabio Di Dio, 2014. "Ramsey Monetary Policy and GHG Emission Control," CEIS Research Paper 330, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 24 Sep 2014.
    3. David Maradan & Anatoli Vassiliev, 2005. "Marginal Costs of Carbon Dioxide Abatement: Empirical Evidence from Cross-Country Analysis," Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics (SJES), Swiss Society of Economics and Statistics (SSES), vol. 141(III), pages 377-410, September.
    4. Annicchiarico, Barbara & Di Dio, Fabio, 2015. "Environmental policy and macroeconomic dynamics in a new Keynesian model," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1-21.
    5. Chih-Ching Yang, 2013. "A Dea-Based Approach For Evaluating The Opportunity Cost Of Environmental Regulations," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 30(02), pages 1-17.
    6. Parry, Ian W.H., 2003. "On the implications of technological innovation for environmental policy," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 57-76, February.
    7. Shimshack, Jay P. & Ward, Michael B., 2022. "Costly sanctions and the treatment of frequent violators in regulatory settings," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    8. Isabelle Piot-Lepetit & Monique Moing, 2007. "Productivity and environmental regulation: the effect of the nitrates directive in the French pig sector," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 38(4), pages 433-446, December.
    9. Allen Blackman & Francisco Alpízar & Fredrik Carlsson & Marisol Rivera Planter, 2018. "A Contingent Valuation Approach to Estimating Regulatory Costs: Mexico’s Day without Driving Program," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 5(3), pages 607-641.
    10. Jared Woollacott, 2018. "The Economic Costs And Co-Benefits Of Carbon Taxation: A General Equilibrium Assessment," Climate Change Economics (CCE), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 9(01), pages 1-22, February.
    11. Alix-Garcia, Jennifer M. & Sims, Katharine R.E. & Phaneuf, Daniel J., 2019. "Using referenda to improve targeting and decrease costs of conditional cash transfers," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 179-194.
    12. Parry, Ian W.H., 2002. "Adjusting Carbon Cost Analyses to Account for Prior Tax Distortions," Discussion Papers 10481, Resources for the Future.
    13. Ajay Gambhir & Tamaryn Napp & Adam Hawkes & Lena Höglund-Isaksson & Wilfried Winiwarter & Pallav Purohit & Fabian Wagner & Dan Bernie & Jason Lowe, 2017. "The Contribution of Non-CO 2 Greenhouse Gas Mitigation to Achieving Long-Term Temperature Goals," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-23, May.
    14. Wallander, Steven & Maguire, Kelly B., 2020. "The Costs of Environmental Regulation of the U.S. Agricultural Sector," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304400, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Lioui, Abraham & Sharma, Zenu, 2012. "Environmental corporate social responsibility and financial performance: Disentangling direct and indirect effects," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 100-111.
    16. Carl F. Cranor & Adam M. Finkel, 2018. "Toward the usable recognition of individual benefits and costs in regulatory analysis and governance," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 131-149, March.
    17. Rahman, Shaikh M. & Kirkman, Grant A., 2015. "Costs of certified emission reductions under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 129-141.
    18. Anwesha Banerjee & Stefano Barbieri & Kai A. Konrad, 2022. "Climate Policy, Irreversibilities and Global Economic Shocks," Working Papers tax-mpg-rps-2022-11, Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wsi:jeapmx:v:11:y:2009:i:01:n:s1464333209003257. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/jeapm/jeapm.shtml .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.