When administered effectively, EIAs help avoid or mitigate adverse impacts, enhance project sustainability, build public trust, and support informed decision-making, thereby aligning renewable energy growth with broader goals of environmental protection and sustainable development. However, when poorly managed, EIAs may be perceived by developers and investors as costly and time-consuming, creating delays and uncertainties that affect project bankability all of which slows progress towards national energy transition goals. These challenges have prompted reforms aimed at achieving greater efficiency and predictability within the EIA process while maintaining necessary safeguards.

This alert examines the EIA process in both South Africa and Kenya, illustrating how both jurisdictions are seeking to streamline their EIA frameworks to better support renewable energy expansion.

South Africa

South Africa’s transition to a low-carbon economy has gained momentum, driven by both the urgency of the energy crisis and the imperative to meet climate commitments. Central to this shift is the reform of environmental legislation, particularly the streamlining of EIA processes for renewable energy projects.

Since 2019, South Africa has introduced several legislative innovations to accelerate project approvals while maintaining environmental integrity, as previously discussed in detail here. These streamlining innovations include the use of generic and pre-approved environmental management programmes, the Environmental Screening Tool, and the designation of renewable energy development zones (REDZs) and strategic transmission corridors. The decision-making timeframe that the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) must adhere to on applications for environmental authorisation for the development of renewable energy projects within REDZs and strategic transmission corridors have been significantly reduced to as little as 57 days (compared to 106 days previously) for proposed projects that fall outside of these designated zones and corridors. The same 57-day decision-making timeframe applies to renewable energy projects, which have been designated as Strategic Infrastructure Projects (SIPs) under the Infrastructure Development Act 23 of 2014.

The publication of enabling legislation is not enough to ensure the streamlining of EIA approvals, it also requires commitment from Government, especially the DFFE. The Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment highlighted the progress made by the department between June 2024 and March 2025 as it processed 220 EIA applications for independent power producers, achieving a 99% efficiency rate within the 57-day target for REDZ and SIPs. This marks a dramatic improvement from the 83% efficiency achieved in the previous year and reflects the department’s growing capacity to balance environmental oversight with energy security.

The streamlining of the EIA process, along with the significant effort by the DFFE to adhere thereto, not only provides developers with planning certainty, but also showcase South Africa’s commitment to its Just Energy Transition.

While the streamlining of environmental authorisations for renewable energy projects is a welcome development for developers and investors, South Africa continues to face regulatory challenges in electricity distribution and trading. Grid capacity constraints, particularly in high-renewable potential provinces such as the Northern Cape, Western Cape and Eastern Cape, are restricting the connection of all the renewable energy projects which have been approved by the DFFE within these provinces and delaying the further integration of urgently needed clean energy into the national system. At the same time, new electricity traders must navigate an evolving regulatory framework with complex compliance requirements in a liberalised multi-market environment, creating uncertainty around licensing, market rules, and co-ordination with the transmission system operator as previously discussed here.

Kenya

In Kenya, EIAs are principally governed by the Environmental Management and Coordination Act, 1999, and the Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003. In recent years, Kenya has taken steps to refine its EIA framework and has introduced risk-based screening. This new form of assessment, introduced in 2019, requires that projects are categorised as either low risk, medium risk or high risk, with a simplified assessment process for low-risk projects.

All projects must submit their applications through the National Environment Management Authority’s (NEMA) electronic portal. Low-risk projects are required to only submit summary project reports which are processed within five days. Low-risk projects typically include small-scale commercial and residential developments, minor infrastructure upgrades, and limited renewable energy installations such as rooftop solar systems that are unlikely to generate significant environmental or social impacts.

Medium and high-risk projects must undergo a full EIA study. NEMA is required to acknowledge receipt of a complete EIA application within seven days, followed by issuing a decision within 45 days for medium-risk projects and 90 days for high-risk projects. Medium-risk projects include larger developments with potentially moderate impacts that require more detailed analysis such as hydropower developments not exceeding 10 MW, cogeneration of power, solar power farms, biofuel processing plants and composting plants. High-risk projects include thermal and hydropower developments exceeding 10 MW, geothermal developments, hydropower dams and major infrastructure works.

Once an EIA study is approved, NEMA issues the EIA licence, authorising the project subject to compliance with specified environmental management and monitoring plans. The licence attracts a fee set at 0.1% of the total project cost, subject to a minimum of KES 10,000. In addition, developers are required to undertake periodic environmental audits to demonstrate ongoing compliance during construction and operation.

By considering the project’s type, size and potential impact, the EIA framework avoids overburdening developers for small, low-impact activities while maintaining the necessary rigor and oversight for larger-scale ones. However institutional barriers remain a challenge. NEMA highlights that it reviews around 1,600 EIA reports annually, and often grapples with limited funding and workforce capacity, which weakens its ability to monitor and audit projects, especially those in remote areas leading to longer approval timelines.

In early 2025, Kenya attempted to strengthen its environmental governance framework through the introduction of Strategic and Integrated Environmental Assessment Regulations, first issued as Legal Notice 52 of 2025 and later replaced by Legal Notice 71 of 2025 on 2 April 2025. These regulations sought to institutionalise the use of strategic integrated environmental assessments as tools for evaluating the cumulative, cross-sectoral, and long-term impacts of policies, plans, and programmes, beyond the project-level EIA process and would have had an impact on energy sector policies, plans, and strategies. However, following parliamentary scrutiny and stakeholder concerns on the need for more robust public participation and harmonisation with existing policy and legislative frameworks to prevent potential overlaps with the existing environmental assessment procedures, the regulations were withdrawn in July 2025, leaving the country’s environmental governance framework unchanged.

Conclusion

South Africa and Kenya’s experiences underscore both the opportunities and complexities of aligning environmental governance with the urgent demand for renewable energy. Both jurisdictions recognise that EIAs remain an essential safeguard in balancing development with environmental and social protection.

In South Africa, the combination of legislative streamlining, REDZ designations, and improved administrative efficiency by the DFFE has begun to demonstrate that accelerated approvals can be achieved without lowering standards. Kenya’s risk-based assessment framework aims to enhance efficiency by aligning the depth of environmental review with the scale of potential impacts, thereby reducing administrative burdens for low-risk projects while safeguarding against adverse effects of larger projects. However, institutional challenges such as limited funding, technical capacity and workforce constraints at NEMA undermine its effective implementation.

Ultimately, the ability of African jurisdictions to refine their EIA frameworks will directly influence the pace of their energy transitions. A balanced approach, anchored in environmental integrity but responsive to the urgent need for clean energy, will be decisive in unlocking investment, accelerating deployment, and realising the continent’s significant renewable energy assets and ambitions.