The department released its policy document on the proposed amendments of the Statutory Regulatory Framework of the Built Environment Professions on March 4, giving interested and affected parties until March 28 to comment. The deadline was subsequently extended to April 11, following several objections, which argued that the schedule allowed little scope for consultation.

A key proposal in the draft was for the six existing professional councils within the built environment to be rationalised into a single ‘super council', to be known as the ‘South African Council of the Built Environment (SACBE)', and for the existing statutory bodies be converted into ‘boards' under the SACBE.

Resources would be shared, implying that the larger professions, currently represented by ECSA and the South African Council for the Architectural Profession (SACAP), would probably crosssubsidise the smaller professions.

The councils affected included the Council for the Landscape Architectural Profession, the Council for the Project and Construction Management Profession, the Council for the Property Valuers Profession, the Council for the Quantity Surveying Profession (SACQSP), as well as SACAP and ECSA.

The content of the draft framework reportedly caught the councils by surprise, with the most outspoken critic being ECSA, which immediately described the framework as "flawed".

ECSA, SACAP and SACQSP also openly questioned the apparent haste with which the DPW was proceeding. In fact the architectural body argued that the "nonnegotiable timetable" would "stifle any meaningful, constructive and healthy debate".

Similarly, the SACQSP described the proposed amendments and the timeframe proposed as a "most unpleasant surprise", while stressing that it was willing to engage constructively with the concerns raised in the policy document.

Repeated attempts to gain an explanation from the department as to why it felt it necessary to proceed on the basis of the current formulation, as well as with such speed, proved unsuccessful.

More forthcoming was ECSA CEO Prof Ravi Nayagar. Speaking exclusively with Engineering News ahead of its submission Nayagar said that, while he could not reveal the precise details of its alternative proposal, he could confirm that it would resist plans for the creation of the SACBE.

He stressed that ECSA agreed wholeheartedly with the department's aspiration for improved access to the profession, accelerated transformation, and an enlarged training effort. But he argued that the solutions put forward in the draft framework were not only based on an outdated 2003 review, but were also premised on inaccurate "assumptions" and "generalisations".

"The creation of the SACBE will not achieve the desired outcomes and will further dilute the engineering profession by creating an even greater distance between the professionals and the council," Nayagar argued.

The quantity surveyors, meanwhile, described SACBE as "too unwieldy to tackle the cited shortcomings in the present regulatory framework".

In a written response to the department, SACQSP registrar Prof Gaye Le Roux said it was inconceivable that a single board would effectively and adequately monitor and control the activities of boards that oversee the roles of the various built-environment professions with wide-ranging expertise and interests.

"The immediate impact of the proposed change is the loss of morale among current, knowledgeable staff of the councils and potential difficulty of achieving voluntarism in the service of councils," Le Roux added.

Access and transformation, in Nayagar's view, were indeed key priorities, but it objected to the notion that barriers were still in place for black professionals.

"Access to the engineering profession is limited only by the potential of the individual to develop the competencies necessary for admission to the educational programme. And, I must stress that, as ECSA, we are right at the end of that value chain, with access really being determined by the standard of schooling, particularly in maths and science," Nayagar asserted.

He added that all transformation efforts were also subject to the constraints to the educational pipeline.

"That said, we are playing an active role within the Joint Initiative for Priority Skills Acquisition, or Jipsa, to support and improve technical education and training efforts. Further, we are working with industry to improve access to work opportunities for those who require practical work experience in order to graduate."

INDEPENDENCE SEEN AS CRUCIAL
ECSA suggested that priority attention should rather be given to improving the functioning of the existing Council for the Built Environment (CBE), rather than seeking to erode the independence and autonomy of the professions.

For ECSA, independence from government prescriptions on standards had to be sustained as a guiding principle, particularly if South Africa was intent on retaining its high standing within the international engineering fraternity.

The council was a signatory to the Washington, Sydney and Dublin Accords, governing professional engineers, professional engineering technologists and professional engineering technicians respectively.

But Nayagar warned that it should not be taken for granted that the country's status would be preserved under the proposed SACBE. In fact, he noted that there were a number of instances where engineers had been precluded on the basis of an actual or perceived interference by their respective governments on the administration of standards.

"We could be placing this international standing and accreditation at risk, with could dampen morale at a time when the country really requires contented professionals, particularly given the opportunities abroad," he cautioned.

South African-trained professional engineers remained the only engineering professionals in Africa to have gained such accreditation, and there was a desire, under the New Partnership for Africa's Development, to move the entire continent in the same direction.

Meanwhile, SACAP, which would deliver its detailed response by Friday, containing legal opinion, also felt the current draft missed the mark.

President Malcolm Campbell wrote recently that he was concerned that the policy document focused too narrowly on changes to the regulatory environment, and did not deal with the challenge of sustainable delivery.

"Of critical concern, is that the effort and time involved in establishing such a new structure will divert energies away from the urgent and overdue interventions necessary to address the challenges of transformation, which are demanding immediate and drastic interventions," Campbell said.

Engineering News understands that SACAP would also like to see the review process broadened beyond the DPW, to include other departments such as Trade and Industry, and Transport, given its cross-cutting implications, which extended beyond the purview of the DPW.

To watch a video in which ECSA CEO Prof Ravi Nayagar explains to Engineering News Editor Terence Creamer the reasons for its objection to the draft framework go to www.engineeringnews.co.za adn click 'Video clips'.