Question 1
(20 marks)
Namibia Railway Company (NRC) was considering two options for a new railway line
connecting two towns. Route A involved cutting a channel through an area designated
as being of special scientific importance because it was one of a very few suitable
feeding grounds for a colony of endangered birds. The birds were considered to be an
important part of the local environment with some potential influences on local
ecosystems.
The alternative was Route B which would involve the compulsory purchase and
destruction of Frekkie Stein's farm. Mr Stein was a vocal opponent of the Route B plan.
He said that he had a right to stay on the land which had been owned by his family for
four generations and which he had developed into a profitable farm. The farm
employed a number of local people whose jobs would be lost if Route B went through
the house and land. Mr Stein threatened legal action against NRC if Route B was
chosen.
An independent legal authority has determined that the compulsory purchase price of
Mr Stein's farm would be N$1 million if Route B was chosen. NRC considered this a
material cost, over and above other land costs, because the projected net present
value (NPV) of cash flows over a ten-year period would be N$5 million without buying
the farm. This would reduce the NPV by N$1 million if Route B was chosen.
The local government authority had given both routes provisional planning permission
and offered no opinion of which it preferred. It supported infrastructure projects such
as the new railway line, believing that either route would attract new income and
prosperity to the region. It took the view that as an experienced railway builder, NRC
would know best which to choose and how to evaluate the two options. Because it
was very keen to attract the investment, it left the decision entirely to NRC. NRC
selected Route A as the route to build the new line.
A local environmental pressure group, 'Save the Birds', was outraged at the decision
to choose Route A. It criticised NRC and also the local authority for ignoring the
sustainability implications of the decision. It accused the company of profiting at the
expense of the environment and threatened to use 'direct action' to disrupt the building
of the line through the birds' feeding ground if Route A went ahead.
REQUIRED:
(a)
Assess the decision to choose Route A by focusing on financial, legal,
ethical, environmental, sustainability and other factors.
(10)
(b) Discuss the importance and/or possible consequemces to NRC of
recognising all of the stakeholders in a decision such as deciding between (5)
Route A and Route B.
(c) Explain what a stakeholder 'claim' is, and critically assess the stakeholder
claims of Frekkie Stein, the local government authority and the colony of (5)
endangered birds.
TOTAL
(20)
2