A Critical Evaluation of the South African Air Quality Offsets Guideline

There is wide recognition in South Africa to the link between the quality of life and quality of the air we breathe. The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) attempts to improve air quality through two key regulatory tools; emission limits, which regulate the maximum concentration of certain pollutants permissible within certain, ‘listed’ industrial stacks or vents, and ambient air quality standards.

Despite this, there are still areas in South Africa with poor air quality. To mitigate poor air quality, the DEA has drafted an additional regulatory tool entitled Air Quality Offsets Guideline[1], which implies that operators of listed processes undertake air quality offset programmes in areas that experience, or are suspected to experience, poor air quality.

The offsets guideline stipulates that operators are permitted to release emissions to some degree, and in so doing, have an obligation to reduce air emissions elsewhere within the same region. Hence, the legislation provides a mechanism for counterbalancing the effects of poor ambient air quality within a particular airshed. The end-goal of the offsets guideline is to encourage predominately privately owned enterprises to take action to improve ambient air quality within a particular geographical area, even if they are not directly the cause.

The Guideline is clearly motivated by the ‘right reasons’; the notional end-goal is to potentially mitigate poor air quality and improve community health. The Guideline also presents scope for social benefit as it allows for the incorporation of community-based offset projects to reduce air emissions from local communities. Notwithstanding these positives, there are inevitable challenges that are inherent within the Guideline.

For example, the Guideline does not indicate how, or for how long, to measure the effectiveness of an offset programme or whether the Government or operators will implement ambient air quality monitoring studies to monitor offset effectiveness. Furthermore, the Guideline states that an offset project should help maintain long-term air quality improvements but does not indicate time-frames that operators should consider before implementation. Hence, the expected duration of an offset programme needs to be defined.

It is also stated that offsetting will be integrated into the Atmospheric Emissions Licencing (AEL) application system. There are various scenarios whereby a facility will be compelled to undertake offsets. For instance, if a facility operates or wishes to operate in an area where there are currently exceedances of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the facility is required to undertake offset programmes in order to improve the ambient air quality. However, the definition, designation or geographical domain of an airshed is not clear. Table 18 of the National Framework for Air Quality Management in the Republic of South Africa document (December 2012)[2], lists metropolitan and district municipalities that experience poor air quality. However, the Guideline does not state whether this list is of significance or not.

One particular concern with the above-mentioned point is that a facility will need to abide by the emission limits for their own facility, while still being required to help improve the ambient air quality within its ‘airshed’. This would require additional resources and capital. A challenge faced by operators is that they may be required to address pollutants that are not generated by their own facility even when their own direct emissions are of little or no concern in that airshed.

A contextualised example is a facility that is responsible for combustion emissions which generates oxides of nitrogen in full compliance with all legal requirements may now need to mitigate ambient benzene concentrations even though the facility has no impact on regional benzene concentrations.

The extent and scale of offset programmes still need to be clarified. The Guideline does not elaborate on the scale of direct emissions that need to be offset in the ambient environment. It might be assumed that a facility that emits 1 kg of carbon monoxide would have to offset 1 kg of nitrogen dioxide emissions in an environment where nitrogen dioxide is of concern. However, this might be an over-estimation considering that the short-term National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for carbon monoxide is approximately 150 times less stringent than the short-term NAAQS for nitrogen dioxide. That is to say, it would be beneficial for the guideline to stipulate criteria and possibly reach a middle-ground for determining the scale or magnitude of emissions that should be reduced with the implementation of an offset programme.

The Guideline appears to be applicable to all facilities of varying size and sectors. For example, a small facility could be required to implement offset programmes to resolve emissions that emanate from a large power station if the facilities are situated in an area with poor air quality. It appears to be untenable that an external party unfamiliar with power production could have the leverage to control emissions from a third party facility owned and operated by others.

The Guideline also requires that an offset programme receives the approval from the general public before implementation. This could lead to various consequences, as the public and operators could have contrasting opinions on the viability or desirability of an offset programme. Such an instance may arise if the offset programme has the potential to impact on a particular community. For instance, an initiative to pave a dirt road to reduce dust emissions may not hold well with the public as they could object to the impacts of construction activities or could be of the belief that the money used for such an enterprise ought to be vested in a project that would be of greater benefit from a community perspective.

In conclusion, the offset guideline is correctly motivated in attempting to mitigate poor ambient air quality by involving the private sector to contribute to the goal of clean air. However, in reality implementing the Guideline in its current form appears to be beset with challenges that may have been avoided by contemplating a ‘polluting emissions tax’ fund where revenue generated by polluters could be more effectively directed to the most critical programmes that bring about the greatest improvements to air quality and the welfare of affected South African communities.

If you want to comment on this article visit the LinkedIn post here or for more information please contact airquality@wkcgroup.com

[1] Draft air quality offsets guideline, Section 24J(a) of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act 107 of 1998)

[2] http://www.saaqis.org.za/Downloads.aspx?type=AQ “National Framework for Air Quality Management in RSA_2012”

Below are some useful articles and a free open-source tool:

Air Quality Self Help Guide

Atmospheric Emission License (AEL): Air Quality Self-Help Guide (Part 1)
SAAELIP, SNAEL and NAEIS Reporting in South Africa: Air Quality Self-Help Guide (Part 2)
BA, EIA, AEL and AQIA in the South African Context: Air Quality Self-Help Guide (Part 3)
AQA Section 30 Atmospheric Impact Report Air Quality Self-Help Guide (Part 4)

Atmospheric Emission License (AEL)

Do I need an Atmospheric Emission Licence (AEL)?

Please visit our South African website.