LOCAL ENVIRONMENT NEWS - "It is, of course, much more difficult to deal with people than it is to deal with an environment that cannot speak up for itself," wrote environmental lawyer Tracey Davies in 2016.
For the Garden Route, a region prized for its breathtaking coastal landscapes, estuaries and biodiversity, this statement is more relevant than ever.
With mounting development pressure, locals are questioning whether environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are truly fulfilling their duty under the National Environmental Management Act (Nema, 107 of 1998).
Nema is clear: development must be socially, environmentally, and economically sustainable. It further states that vulnerable ecosystems - like those in the Garden Route - deserve specific attention when facing human development pressures.
Who speaks for the environment?
EIAs involve four key role players: the applicant, the environmental authority (such as the DEA&DP), the environmental assessment practitioner (EAP), and interested and affected parties (I&APs). Notably absent: the environment itself.
In theory, the environment is represented through EAPs, specialists, and public input. But only if the information is unbiased and of high quality.
EAPs carry significant responsibility and must be registered with the Environmental Assessment Practitioners Association of South Africa (EAPASA) and, where applicable, with professional bodies like SACNASP (South African Council for Natural Scientific Professionals).
Despite legal requirements, some EAPs operate without full registration - undermining the process and breaching compliance with SACNASP Act 27 of 2003.
A memorandum of understanding signed between SACNASP and EAPASA in 2020 clarified that registration with both bodies is mandatory for natural scientists conducting EIAs.
Conflict of interest?
Concerns are growing over EAPs being hired as environmental control officers (ECOs) on the same developments they assessed. This presents a clear conflict of interest. As Paul Hardcastle (2006) noted, EAPs must have no personal or financial interest in a project beyond fair remuneration for services. By overseeing compliance after recommending approval, their impartiality is seriously questioned.
A flawed process?
Environmental experts warn that EIAs have become a procedural box-ticking exercise. Patrick Dowling of Wessa has referred to assessments as overly mechanistic. Environmental planner Susie Brownlie says studies are often conducted in silos - leaving it to the EAP to connect the dots, a step frequently missed.
Tracey Davies adds, "It is distressingly rare to see an EIA that concludes a development should not proceed - even when specialist reports suggest otherwise." The 2014 amendment to EIA regulations, requiring EAPs to recommend whether a development should be approved, has further tilted the process toward developers.
Meanwhile, the mitigation hierarchy is being misapplied. "Avoidance is too often avoided, and minimisation is minimised," said Peter Lukey of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment in a 2018 presentation.
New houses built behind the foredune at Myoli beach. Photo: Supplied
Who is the real client?
Hardcastle stated that government should regard the environment as the client, not the developer.
This is echoed in Nema's requirement for full disclosure of all information, even if unfavourable to the applicant. But in practice, information can be diluted - especially when development proposals evolve over time.
Sensitive areas, like estuaries and coastal forests, are particularly at risk when EIAs fail to account for shifting development footprints and increased impact levels.
Mindshift needed
The Garden Route faces increasing development pressure, but its environment must not be the casualty of weak or compromised assessments. Authorities need to critically evaluate EIA submis-sions, and EAPs must act with full professional integrity. Dual registration (with EAPASA and SACNASP) must be enforced, and roles must not overlap where objectivity is at risk.
Above all, a shift in mindset is needed: the environment must be seen as the primary client in any assessment process.
As proposed by Professor Richard Fuggle, the idea of appointing a Commissioner for the Environment should be reconsidered by government - to offer an independent, accountable voice in the interest of South Africa's ecological well-being.
In a region where nature drives tourism, supports livelihoods, and defines identity, protecting the environment is not optional - it's essential.
The author, Ritchie Morris, who has 40 years' experience as an environmental hydrogeologist, lives near Sedgefield. He is registered with the Geological Society of South Africa: Groundwater Division, and was registered as a professional natural scientist (Pr Sci Nat) on 29 May 1990. He has a BSc degree in geology and geography, and a BSc Honours degree in geography, both from Rhodes University. Morris believes that the environment should have far greater rights.
‘We bring you the latest Garden Route, Hessequa, Karoo news’
