South African polluters can no longer evade environmental watchdogs

SOUTH African companies -- especially heavy polluters -- have had it fairly easy because of poor enforcement of SA's environmental laws.

Environmental activist Ardiel Soeker says that while the 20th century brought many wonders and innovations, progress came with an increase in hazardous chemicals that found their way easily into the atmosphere.

SA has established chemicals, oil and gas industries. Inevitably, operations emit harmful substances.

But it seems some of the companies have taken advantage of legislative loopholes and shortcomings to allow excessive emissions from their operations. Even where transgressions have been noticed, the punitive measures the companies face seem negligible.

Last month, the eThekwini municipality threatened to take fuel and oil retailer Engen to court, saying sulphur dioxide emissions at the company's Durban oil refinery were "excessive".

The municipality said Engen's emissions exceeded World Health Organisation permissible levels 64 times in March and April, violating Engen's permit conditions, which set a ceiling of 35 times a year.

The municipality charged Engen using its by-laws, which provide for a maximum R1000 fine, small change for a multinational.

The municipality was forced to use the by-laws instead of the Environmental Management Air Quality Act because the environmental affairs and tourism department has not yet released regulations governing the act. These are expected next month and will set standards for permissible emissions and establish a reporting structure.

Companies are reluctant to comment ahead of the release of the regulations. Says Sasol spokesman Johann van Rheede: "We have to wait and see what regulations say."

Government has said repeatedly that it is aware of the shortcomings of the outdated Air Pollution Prevention Act, which the new act replaces in a bid to get companies to improve their compliance and looks set to tighten the noose on big companies that emit hazardous and harmful substances.

But there is little doubt that, if the act achieves its intended objective of introducing a compliance and regulatory regime, companies should prioritise the importance of environmental compliance.

The law replaces the old one and seeks to introduce "a more effective regulatory regime", says the environmental affairs and tourism department.

The new act was drafted on the premise that air pollution often carries high social, economic and environmental costs, which are seldom borne by the polluter.

One of the major features of the act is the "polluter pays" policy, which lays the ground for heavier fines to raise the cost of noncompliance. For advocacy groups in communities directly affected by harmful emissions, the regulations cannot come soon enough.

Environmental Affairs and Tourism Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk has been talking tough too. In June, he promised his department would identify the top 50 polluting firms and review their permit conditions. But all the efforts will come to naught if cash-flush operations escape prosecution.

Last month, 40 prosecutors attended a course on the prosecution of environmental crimes.

The course was organised by the department, the Environmental Management Protection Agency, the American Environmental Protection Agency and the US justice department of environmental crimes, the National Prosecuting Authority, the Environmental Management Protection Agency and the American Environmental Protection Agency.

The prosecutors learnt about environmental law, forensic evidence of pollution and endangered species, and the appropriate sentencing of environmental criminals.

Source: www.allafrica.com