SOME Penangites are asking about the siltation and mud on Gurney Drive, the result of nearby reclamation, so didn’t the environmental impact assessment (EIA) so-called expert consultants foresee the siltation would occur after the removal of the mangroves that would change the flow of sea currents in the area?

Who prepares the EIA for developers? Consultants appointed by them!

As such, are they really independent and are their reports 100% reliable?

No, as there is a conflict of interest (a serious one) – their bread and butter is provided by the developers.

They are paid to prepare a report that will ensure their projects are approved. Will any developer pay the consultants to write an honest report that might jeopardise the approval of his project?

No way.

So, the reports have to be engineered to show the viability of the project. To do this, the negative impacts (if touched on in the report) will be watered down as much as possible, or perhaps not even mentioned.

So, the purpose of EIA reports prepared specifically for development projects, and paid for by the developers, is to ensure the projects are approved, if need be by pulling some wool over the eyes of the approving authority, which is always eager to approve them.

Preserving the environment and its ecology is not the main objective of EIAs for developers, and neither that of the approving authorities.

In a society that does not have very high moral and ethical standards, the system of requiring developers to appoint consultants to prepare EIA reports for their proposed projects cannot produce truly unbiased EIA reports.

Thus the system is flawed. A 2014 survey by the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs showed that the level of ethical business in the country is very low, a mere 5%, meaning 95% is unethical.

Some of the developers’ proposed projects should be rejected outright by the authorities, eg the Penang South Reclamation (PSR) project.

The Ministry of Agriculture has experts in fisheries who have clearly stated this project will destroy a very rich fishing area.

The developers’ EIA tries to show the reclamation is possible and the fishermen who will lose their livelihood can be given work in factories that will be built on the reclaimed land.

All these are red herrings. It is far more than fishermen’s rice bowls. Fish is a rich source of protein and needed by the public at large, not just by the fishermen’s families.

Thus, food security for the public should be the first consideration, the more so as shown by the Covid-19 emergency. Malaysia cannot afford to be dependent on other countries to feed its own people.

The government beats its chest that developers’ EIAs are put on public display for comments. This is a charade at best.

This display is in name only to fulfil a legal requirement of public display, which does not spell out the details of how the display should be conducted for it to be meaningful.

For example, the public display of the PSR EIA was a real farce (Invisible transparency and accountability of the Penang govt, Malaysiakini 22 May 2019).

Chief Minister Chow Kon Yeow said the PSR EIA was approved after two years. This means nothing, for any study of the EIA by the government is bound to be biased as there is a conflict of interest – it has a vested interest in the projects – approval means money for the government from development fees, etc.

The law on review of EIAs should be changed to mandate third parties without any vested interests in the projects to carry out the reviews and whose findings should be the last word whether the project should be approved or not, or whether any changes should made.

In the latter case, the changes should again be reviewed by the third party. Politicians should have no power to override the studied views of the third-party experts.

Who could such third parties be and what would be the cost?

The cost would only be enough copies of the complete EIAs supplied to the third parties whose professional fees will be zero.

Yes, at zero cost, and with sufficient time give (up to six months or as requested by the third parties depending on the full length of the EIA reports to be studied) civil society groups, which have expertise in various fields will gladly do the job for free.

They have no vested interests and their comments would take the long term future into account, unlike the very short term personal future that politicians are concerned with, ie the votes to fish for in the next one, two, three or four elections at most.

Civil society groups have experts on hand who can study the EIAs in depth and point out any shortcomings without fear or favour.

This will not go down well with developers and even the local authorities, but for the long term good of the nation, we should move in this direction and no more decision making on projects requiring EIAs by parties with vested interests, direct or indirect.

The politicians’ “we know everything best” arrogant attitude must be buried for the good of the nation. – June 7, 2020.

* Ravinder Singh reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.