Hi Everyone
I attended a meeting which presented to the staffthe concepts behind the new Life Sciences building. Much of this presentation was about building efficiency and flexibility of design. The issue that the new building looked like a DubaiTerminalBuilding (a five storey construction) was explained by the fact that the funder made their millions in Airport Tax-free retail outlets and he wanted something that made a statement. I am not particularly taken with the architecture; it is that ostentatious, homogenized International design of glass and wavy roofthat is devoid of any real characteror sense of place. I think these designswill date rather quickly with their brashness, and during the 21st century there will be a return to more classic and conservative designs for Universities. When I visited Germany and the quant gothic town of Marburg I was appalled that their University could build such a hideous edifice of glass. I am not saying that this building is hideous, I just doubt that most people will really notice it since it will look like another airport building. The BCB department will occupy the first floor and the roof above the computer labs will be where the plants can be kept on the roof. We have already lost one major computer server through a roof leak - this does not sound very practical to me.
I raised the issue about the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) as per the new regulations. To say that the response was surprising would be an under-estimate, but in essence it was that the university have passed the documents concerning the new EIA to our law faculty. Exactly what does this mean? Is UWC looking for a loophole to avoid having to undertake an IEM? For UWC to gain respect nationally and internationally, it needs to be a socially responsible institution, promoting democracy, and to have concerns for people and the environment while maintaining high educational standards. A glass block on an ecologically sensitive habitat that is about the last representatives of Cape Flat vegetation using a legal loophole to avoid conducting an EIA seems a good way NOT to get respect. To compound the ethics of the situation for the BCB to be accommodated in such a building is more than ironic, it is downright embarrassing.
For the rest of this posting I will indicate exactly why this site is so sensitive.

1) The Cape Town Environs have the highest species extinction rates in the world due to loss of natural habitat.

2) The Cape Town Lowlands (including the CapeFlats) have high species richness, uniqueness and as you move across the landscape a high turnover of species. The world's total population of species can literally be contained with a few hectares.

3) The closest similar Sandplain vegetation has been lost over the last few years (e.g. Century City) and this has increased the relative conservation value of this particular remnant.

4) The vegetation removed to make way for this building was classified by CCT Biodiversity Strategy as Sandplain Fynbos - of which there is very little left in good condition and only 1% is conserved, well under the 10% required under IUCN and Convention on Biodiversity to which South Africa is a signatory.

5) Sandplain Fynbos is the second most critically endangered vegetation type within the world famous Cape Floral Region - an area that has biodiversity packing that is about the highest in the world.

6) Sandplain Fynbos occurs on an acidic, low nutrient substrate, making it sensitive to any nutrient runoff and to any construction employing concrete (it will make it alkaline).

7) The CapeFlats vegetation on UWC Campus was identified as far back as 1987 as one of the top ten most important floral sites for conservation in a study undertaken by the Botanical Society.

8) The site represents a gradient from Coastal (Dune) Thicket to Sandplain Fynbos (referred to as an Ecotone) making it one of only two remnants of natural vegetation left in Cape Town.

9) The conservation plight of the CapeLowlands has achieved huge global coverage (e.g. David Attenborough in his documentaries on the State of the Planet - used the CapeLowlands to illustrate species extinction through loss of habitat.

10) Sand Plain Fynbos is virtually impossible to re-establish at an ecosystem level, it has a number of edaphic and other conditions (e.g. microrhiza) that makes it impossible to simply transplant adult plants. Harvesting of seed and storing of the top soil are the best methods for re-establishing this type of vegetation after a disturbance - but if the soil nutrient levels are elevated or the pH changed it will be more difficult to restore the ecosystem functionality.

11) The proposed site is very natural and remarkably free of alien grass species, which are usually one of the first signs of increased nutrient and human-disturbance in Sandplain Fynbos.

I have prepared a map showing in Red the sensitive areas, and in Green areas that have little or no ecological value, there is quite a bit of it. If a developer proceeds with developing a sensitive site as identified under the EIA regulations of NEMA the penalties are not particularly high, BUT the court could stop the development and instruct the site to be re-stored, and that would be expensive. Undertaking an EIA will incur delays in the construction of the building, but realistically, were the University to go the EIA route, there is every chance that the new Life Science Building will be given the green light if the footprint is kept fairly small (the latest plans put it at about 1ha) but a biodiversity offset may be required (probably a financial cost in the region of R1-5 million) to secure another area with similar biodiversity status. What is not in UWC’s favour is the amount of available land that is not ecologically sensitive and that it built the School of Government on another part of sensitive Sandplain Fynbos in the last five years without any consultation.