A built-in flaw in South Africa’s environmental approval process is contributing to destructive projects — from wind farms to coal mines — getting the green light from the government, say conservationists and lawyers.
The problem, they say, is that the environmental assessment practitioners (EAPs) who conduct environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are in the pay of the very developers whose plans they are supposed to be vetting in an independent way.
“There’s a kind of a vested interest there,” says Brandon Abdinor, a climate advocacy lawyer at the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER). “And it does appear that very often the EAP wants to give the developer the answers that the developer wants, which is basically to go ahead with the particular project.”
Abdinor tells the FM that in his experience EAPs span the spectrum from “very professional” to “really unprofessional”.
“You also get the state decision-maker who wants these projects to go through, and they’ll authorise it regardless of what the assessment report says. I’m not going to lay the blame for all of this at the door of the EAPs; it’s the EAPs and the developers and the state, all pushing in the same direction for this to happen.”
Abdinor says a common phenomenon is for an EAP to adequately lay out the problems associated with a project, but then conclude “that notwithstanding the severity of the impacts that they have identified, the project is still OK to go ahead. It’s often that gap, between the findings and the conclusion, that leaves us scratching our heads.”
This disconnect is the “most fundamental glitch in the system”, agrees ornithologist Andrew Jenkins, who has been involved in assessing the impact of wind farms on birds since the first turbines were erected in South Africa more than 15 years ago.
EAPs hire subject specialists such as Jenkins to carry out in-depth research on whatever aspects of the environment could be at risk from a project — from its visual impact to water sources, fynbos species, bats and black harriers.
“When you deliver a report that is not favourable for development, it doesn’t count,” says Jenkins. “Negative findings just seem to be swept under the carpet. We’ll submit a report saying this is a highly problematic project ... and yet things go forward. Even if the term ‘fatal flaw’ is in the report, that doesn’t seem to carry any weight. It’s extremely disappointing and depressing.”
He says specialist consultancies such as his own — Avisense — that deliver “conservative” reports find that EAPs avoid hiring them. Instead, Avisense is usually commissioned by landowners opposing planned wind farms in their vicinity.
Ticking the boxes
Kate Webster, an activist for the vulture conservation NGO VulPro in the Eastern Cape, says many EAPs — who by law are supposed to deliver “independent and objective” assessments — are anything but independent. “Because if they don’t OK and tick the boxes then they don’t get paid by whoever has contracted them. So they’ve sold their souls, because that’s what they’re making their living on, finish and klaar. That’s their bread and butter.”
EAPs, Webster says, have to be honest with their clients. “Guys, you’ve got to be outspoken, you’ve got to say: ‘No, I don’t agree with the development.’” But those who do so are ostracised “and then they won’t get the jobs they need to survive”.
Catherine Horsfield, head of the mining programme at the CER, says one possible solution is to change the system so that developers contribute to a central fund from which EAPs would be paid. The relevant government department would then appoint an EAP for a specific project, and there would be no direct payment from the developer.
The issue of objectivity “wouldn’t be such a problem if our authorising departments, the department of mineral resources, the department of forestry, fisheries & the environment, weren’t so dependent on the EAPs. In no way does our state have the resources, such as enough scientific experts, to go and review the EIAs and specialist reports associated with them.”
Another problem, Horsfield says, is that the regulatory body, the Environmental Assessment Practitioners Association of South Africa (EAPASA), is failing to enforce standards. “We see quite egregious behaviour on the part of EAPs being met with a slap on the wrist.”
Webster says several wind farms in the Eastern Cape should never have been given the go-ahead because of the known likelihood that endangered vultures would be killed, and Abdinor cites the Musina-Makhado special economic zone (SEZ) in Limpopo as one of the standout examples of the shortcomings of EIAs.
“The SEZ in Limpopo is going to be a climate bomb. A very destructive project that will use up to 16% of South Africa’s carbon budget [under the Paris climate accord], and yet the conclusion is that it’s OK to go ahead; it really doesn’t add up for us,” Abdinor says.
There is also the plan to deploy a gas-to-power plant on a floating barge at Richards Bay, “a project four times the size of the Karpowerships”, he says.
“Northern KwaZulu-Natal is recognised as becoming subject to the risk of tropical cyclones because they’re moving further south; you can imagine what the physical risk is of something like that. And the EIA report says that ‘provided the port facilities are maintained’ it shouldn’t be a problem. One line that dismisses a massive risk.”
‘Bad apples’
EAPASA registrar Patrick Sithole acknowledges there are concerns about the independence of practitioners. “When somebody figures out for the first time the EAPs are paid by the applicant, they’ve got butterflies in their stomach,” he says. “They are not sure whether that works, it’s as if the applicant becomes your employer.”
But he says this model is the norm around the world. And South Africa, he says, is the only country that has a regulator like the EAPASA. “We are actually the safest country in the world when it comes to the independence of practitioners because there is a council that has oversight. And if a member of the public has an issue about how a professional is operating, they can report to us.”
EAPs are obliged by law to register with the association and have to sign a code of ethics. “They know if somebody complains, the EAPASA has the power to discipline them.” Penalties range from fines of R20,000 to termination of EAPASA membership for serial offenders.
There are a few “bad apples” among the nearly 2,000 EAPs registered with the regulator, Sithole admits. “The majority are really serious about their work. Generally over the past few years we’ve seen an improvement in attitude and execution of the tasks. The professionals in the environmental sector are really trying.”
He says the EAPs who attract complaints are often unregistered. “These are the guys who cause chaos. The lawyers and conservationists come back and say the EAPs are messing up, but when you look at the person, they are not registered. How were they even appointed by the applicant?”
André van der Spuy, a Cape Town environmental consultant, says the National Environmental Management Act of 1998, which ushered in the requirement for EIAs, led to a surge in the number of EAPs — “people who don’t have a first love for the environment”.
He adds: “‘Environment’ is a buzzword, a hot topic. It’s a career, it’s for money. And they’re willing to trade in the environment, and that’s not the type of person who should be an EAP. The ultimate result is that the environment is getting hammered.”
Along with the wave of new EAPs, the boom in renewable energy in particular has sparked a proliferation of people describing themselves as expert ornithologists, Jenkins says. “Because there’ve been so many wind farm projects suddenly coming into the EIA process, there’s been a massive growth in the number of bird specialists … There’s quite a lot of slipshod work being done by people without the requisite credentials and experience. It’s transparently obvious. There are definitely people practising as bird specialists who shouldn’t be.”
Van der Spuy says he would never join the ranks of EAPs. “I can’t bring myself to align myself with what’s happening and the principles and the practice. The industry is rotten to the core. They are invariably cooking the results and working towards a predetermined outcome, which is the applicants’ desire for an approval.”
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.