1 / 20

National Environment Laws Amendment Bill [B66-2008]

National Environment Laws Amendment Bill [B66-2008]. Submission by BUSA August 2008. BUSA. Confederation of business associations Need for Environmental law recognised Need to continuously update laws appreciated. BUSA (2). Concern that very short public comment period was allowed

erica
Download Presentation

National Environment Laws Amendment Bill [B66-2008]

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. National Environment Laws Amendment Bill [B66-2008] Submission by BUSA August 2008

  2. BUSA • Confederation of business associations • Need for Environmental law recognised • Need to continuously update laws appreciated

  3. BUSA (2) • Concern that very short public comment period was allowed • Request for extension was refused • Almost immediately in parliament • Ongoing efforts to maintain constructive engagement with department

  4. Amendments • Lack of opportunity to engage with department • Not clear why some of the amendments are required

  5. Section 1 and 2 • Provisions for penalties not opposed • Alignment proposed • NEMA: R10 million == 10 years imprisonment • Bill: R5 million ==5 years imprisonment ?

  6. Section 6 • NEAF disbanded • BUSA agrees did not work as anticipated • No reason to disband • Lack of internal coherence in implementation of environmental legislation • Proposal: • Withdraw section • Undertake investigation into reasons for non performance

  7. Section 6 (2) • Address problems • Discretionary provision provides no guarantee to stakeholders on establishment • Experience in other legislation • Eg Occupational Health and Safety

  8. Section 12 • Welcome the deletion from the Bill of the provision of future behaviour to be an offence • If to be reintroduced, consultation imperative • 12 (b) and 12(c)

  9. Section 12 (b) • “anticipatory costs” must be defined • Absence of definition may lead to disputes • Claims for damages must be reasonable and based on evidence that costs will be reasonably incurred • “reasonable expenses to be incurred for purposes of reasonable measures under section 28(7)

  10. Section 12 (b) (2) • Section 28(7) requires DG to act reasonably • Cannot recover costs before acting in terms of (7) • Claims from successors in title?

  11. Section 12 (c) • Criminal offences: unlawful intentional acts or omissions • Must lead to significant pollution or degradation of the environment • Criminal provisions and offence must be aligned i.e failure in duty of care • Certain tests required for criminal sanction

  12. Section 12 (c) (2) • Review approach to ensure constitutionality • Align criminal sanction with significant pollution • Non compliances can also be managed through directives • Alignment with section 28: • Insert significant and • Delete (b)

  13. Section 13 • Failure to comply with section 30 of NEMA criminal offence • May not always be appropriate • Examples: road transport incidents • R100 000 ==10 years?

  14. Section 30 (3) Reporting (4) Remedy effects of incident (5) Reporting (6) Directive from authority

  15. Section 14 • Deletion supported • Promotion of Access to Information Act in force • Assume compliance intended

  16. Section 15 • Not onerous for Environmental Management Inspector to carry the notice issued to him to outline scope of duties • Proposal in draft Bill to delete provision is opposed

  17. Section 19 • BUSA does not support amendment that undermines consistent approach to access to information held by the state • Extra powers of inspectors sufficient for access to information • Challenge is that information requirements go beyond provisions in legislation

  18. Section 20 (b) • Court orders for remedial measures not opposed in principle • Provision must be made for relevant information essential to making of a reasonable order to be provided • Section must be aligned with Criminal Procedure Act

  19. Section 22 • Creation of new offences under existing statutes unfair and unreasonable in absence of the full context of the relevant statute

  20. Conclusion • BUSA remains committed to promoting compliance with environmental legislation • Cost to business of provisions must be taken into account • Trusts concerns can be addressed before finalisation

More Related