OPINION - The recent letter by Ritchie Morris in the GH entitled, “Are EIAs Protecting the Garden Route” resonated with many of us concerned about the loss of biodiversity in the Garden Route and elsewhere in South Africa.
It does raise the question, is current legislation there to protect the environment from unsustainable developments or is the role of Environmental Consultants to facilitate developments, to seek loopholes in environmental legislation or highlight precedents to enable developments to take place?
I guess it is very similar to a good defence attorney who will do everything in her or his power to get their client off the hook, even if they are guilty of an offence. This is based on the tenet that everyone has the right to a fair trial.
The role of the defence attorney is to identify gaps or errors in the police investigation, and precedents and loopholes in law that may result in the offender being found not guilty. If the prosecutor is lax, or presents a weak case, or legislation pertaining to the offence is poor then there is a good chance that the defendant will walk free or be slapped with a reduced penalty.
It is also common knowledge that the best defence attorneys with a proven track record are generally also the most expensive, and in high demand. This means that wealthy offenders are likely to get the best defence attorneys because they can afford it.
So how does this relate to so-called Environmental Consultants? According to the Code of Conduct “Environmental Assessment Practitioners shall at all times place the integrity of the environment, including conservation and long-term sustainable use of the biophysical environment, and the social welfare, health and safety aspects of the socio-economic environment, above any commitment to sectional or private interests.”
But the reality is that consultants are more likely to be contracted, just like good defence attorneys, if they have a good track record among developers. It makes no sense to employ a consultant who has been largely ineffective in facilitating developments, who has erred on the side of caution and not pushed the development agenda, and requested that measures be put in place that protect the environment, even though they may be costly for the developer to implement. In other words, an objective consultant, one who tries to find that balance between protecting biodiversity and the needs of the developer is likely to be appointed.
A consultant that is not only driven by financial returns, but also by the needs of the environment facing climate change and significant biodiversity loss. It’s therefore logical that those consultants that have a good track record in getting developments approved will be the ones most sought after by developers and so the status quo remains; more and more unsustainable developments.
I mean, its logical, a consultant would like repeat business, their livelihoods depend on it, so they would like to find favour with developers, who wouldn’t!!
Despite our Constitution stating that we have a right to “… have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures …” we live in a country where environmental legislation is poorly enforced, developments poorly policed, and penalties for environmental transgressions inadequate, thus many consultants can make merry.
Is it not time that consultants be selected, possibly by the authorities, on a case-by-case basis and be paid through a pooled fund or similar instead of directly by the developer. No idea if this is feasible, but it is imperative that consultants not be “forced” or “coerced” into promoting or endorsing developments based on monetary returns, but on ensuring that we have development that prioritizes environmental protection without negating the “rights” of landowners to develop their properties.
Surely in a world facing a massive extinction crisis it is about time that biodiversity be afforded more protection.
According to the Western Cape 2025 State of Conservation Report we have 350 ecosystems of which 109 are critically endangered, 54 are endangered and 28 are vulnerable. Extinctions are happening right on our doorstep; we cannot continue on this trajectory.
The response to Ritchie Morris letter by Desireé du Preez entitled, “EIAs are not enough – Garden Route needs its people” also warrants a response but there is not enough space here to do so suffice to say that we can agree on one point that the Garden Route needs its people, including its consultants. However. to allude to the fact that the fault lies solely with the legislation is a bit like blaming a firearm for doing harm, and not the person pulling the trigger.
Guess the pertinent question is: Do so-called Environmental Consultants speak for the environment, protect our exceptional biodiversity, or do they merely facilitate developments at the cost of the environment.
There are obviously exceptions, consultants that care deeply, but struggle to “survive” in a world where decisions need to be based on monetary returns and not necessarily doing what is right. I often ask myself if Environmental Consultants should not be called Development Consultants, because from where I sit many promote development and not conservation.
Dr Arne Witt is an internationally renowned environmentalist and the Regional (African and Asia) Coordinator for Invasive Species for CABI, Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International.
Comment and opinion are that of the author and not necessarily shared by Group Editors, any of its publications or staff members.
‘We bring you the latest Garden Route, Hessequa, Karoo news’
