Nature Undervalued: The Hidden Cost of Environmental Apathy

---

My Sustainable Encounter with Michael Tsiagbey (EPt)

by Albert Schiller

The frameworks for sustainable development, like Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), provide us with powerful tools for analysis and planning. Yet, progress often feels frustratingly slow. Why does a gap persist between our technical capacity to assess environmental impacts and our collective will to act decisively? My exchange with Michael, an experienced EIA practitioner from Ghana now certified as an Environmental Professional in training (EPt) in Canada, offered profound reflections grounded in frontline experience, particularly concerning the deeply ingrained human barriers to genuine sustainability.

The Gap Between Assessment and Appreciation

Michael's extensive background involved operating an EIA firm in Ghana, guiding development proponents towards practices that preserve ecological, social, and economic well-being. This role placed him directly at the interface between development ambitions and environmental preservation. However, the primary obstacles he encountered were often not technical, but perceptual.

This observation cuts to the core of the sustainability dilemma. If the fundamental value of natural capital – the clean air, water, soil, and biodiversity that underpin human prosperity – is not deeply understood or appreciated, how can frameworks designed to protect it gain traction? Does this point to a profound deficit in our collective environmental literacy, or perhaps a value system that consistently prioritizes immediate, tangible gains (like fuel wood) over less visible, long-term ecological functions?

The Cost of Apathy and Avoidance

This lack of appreciation manifests in tangible resistance, particularly when mitigation measures carry costs. Michael highlighted the reluctance of project proponents to invest in minimizing environmental degradation.

"Development project proponents are unwilling to pay for the cost of putting mitigation measures in place..."

Coupled with what he described as a pervasive "who cares about the environment" attitude, this unwillingness points towards systemic issues. Are environmental costs too easily externalized? Does the perceived distance between individual actions and collective consequences breed indifference? Michael's insights reinforce the critical need for robust enforcement of environmental laws and adherence to principles like "polluter pays," as he advised for companies. Furthermore, his emphasis on poverty alleviation underscores the complex feedback loops where economic hardship can exacerbate environmental pressures, making stewardship seem like a distant luxury rather than a necessity.

Defining the Destination: What Are We Sustaining?

Beyond these practical barriers, Michael offered a crucial conceptual clarification regarding the term 'sustainability' itself. He stressed the need for specificity – a clear identification of what precisely we are choosing to sustain.

He argued that sustainability isn't fundamentally "about" integration or consultation; these are merely methods employed once the goal is clear. The ambiguity surrounding the term, he suggested, arises precisely because the object of concern often remains undefined. Does this lack of a clearly defined "true north" dilute efforts and permit inaction? Must we articulate specific, measurable ecological, social, or economic conditions we aim to maintain before effective strategies can be designed and implemented? This call for clarity seems essential to move beyond vague aspirations towards targeted, meaningful action.

Michael’s reflections, drawn from years navigating the realities of EIA implementation, serve as a potent reminder. Technical expertise and assessment tools are indispensable, but achieving sustainability demands confronting deeper human challenges: fostering genuine environmental appreciation, overcoming economic reluctance and apathy, and establishing clear, shared goals for what we intend to sustain for future generations. Without addressing these fundamental human dimensions, our best-laid plans risk remaining just that – plans on paper.

So what can we take from her approach?