Written by Craig Cowper CEnvP-SC, Alliance
You serve on the CEnvP Certification Board and are also a long-serving volunteer with ALGA. How do these two roles complement each other?
It’s recently occurred to me just how complementary, and connected, the two roles actually are to each other. They definitely feed each other.
Being on the Certification Board gives me a view from 30,000 feet of the broader environmental profession. I see trends and bigger-picture challenges and opportunities facing environmental practitioners. I’m part of conversations that help shape certification standards and the pathways that go with those standards.
Meanwhile, volunteering with ALGA is a bit more ‘boots on the ground’. It keeps me in touch with the coal face, across a broad field of industries in the contaminated land sector … consulting, contracting, consent authorities, landowners, labs, regulators.
The two roles combined are a decent mix of strategic and real-world perspective – a bit like having a compass as well as Google maps. It’s a position that definitely wouldn’t exist if one role was missing.
Why is professional certification, such as the CEnvP Scheme, important for the sector, and how does it contribute to strengthening standards and trust across industry and government?
I see certification as more than just a stamp on a report or a certificate to hang on the wall. It can give you credibility, can help build trust with other stakeholders, it’s a demonstration of integrity, and commits you to a code of ethics. And it can be how we turn ‘just doing the job’ into ‘doing it with purpose, precision, and pride.’ It can mean the difference between just ticking boxes, or being ‘best in show’.
With the Site Contamination specialist aspect, that provides recognition of a certain level of competence in the game. I’m a big believer that competency is critical for people managing or making decisions about human health and the environment. And having that competency brings a lot with it … opportunity for greater collaboration, reduced risk, and most critically, work that is not just done, but done well, consistently, and ethically.
The CEnvP Scheme has recently expanded into a pilot trial. Can you share what this trial involves and what it could mean for practitioners and employers across the industry?
The trial is being undertaken to test new evidence requirements for practitioners in the contaminated land sector that are working outside consulting, specifically those in the regulator and government employee space. I have no doubt practitioners in those fields could meet certification proficiency requirements. But the challenge is proving it on paper. The current method of providing evidence (e.g., primary reports) can constrain the certification process for those practitioners. So the Scheme is trying to fix that, with the assistance of the CEnvP’s Specialist Environmental Advisory Committee (SEAC) for Site Contamination. The SEAC is identifying new sources of evidence that are more appropriate for those not doing primary reports, and that fits the way those practitioners work.
What opportunities do you see in extending certification to government employees, and how might this influence collaboration between regulators, consultants, and industry stakeholders?
For regulators and government employees, certification can create a more professionally recognised workforce, with ongoing skill development from the guaranteed commitment to CPD. That kind of lifelong learning is something the contaminated land definitely needs as our challenges become more complex and urgent.
I see a lot of benefits and by-products coming from a broader pool of certified practitioners. First up, it means everyone is speaking the same language while sharing common professional standards. It’s far easier to develop trust in that kind of working environment, and the risk of misunderstanding can reduce dramatically. It’s a great recipe for more effective collaboration, consistency, less friction, and most of all, better outcomes for human health, the environment, and projects as a whole. That’s how we move from ‘us and them’ to ‘we’ve got this together’.
From your time on the CEnvP Board, what insights have you gained into the challenges and opportunities facing the profession, and how have these shaped your outlook for the industry as a whole?
We’re a sector filled with passionate people who genuinely want to make a difference, while trying to work through increasingly complex environmental issues, dealing with resource limitations, varied appetite for risk, and science that moves faster than legislation. But I think we need to see those challenges as opportunities for more learning and professional development, continuous improvement, and overall better practice in everything we do.
Looking ahead, where do you see the greatest potential for the CEnvP Scheme, and what role do you hope it will play in shaping the environmental sector in the years to come?
I think the biggest opportunity for the Scheme is to contribute to harmonisation and consistency in standards (and how they are adopted and applied). Contamination doesn’t behave differently because it crosses some land boundary decided by politics. We need to be mindful of jurisdiction disconnects influencing or creating a fragmented approach to managing environmental issues at a broader or higher level.
At its core, I don’t think CEnvP is just about certification. It’s more about shaping a practice and profession that can, and does, make a real, measurable difference. I hope the Site Contamination specialisation aspect of the program becomes a goal for all professionals in this sector, who can be confident in their skills, but also respected for their expertise, standards and values. These are the professionals we need who can deal with the problems we already know about, as well as the problems that we haven’t seen emerge yet.
And the spin-off from all that should be stakeholders feeling confident that human health and the environment are being managed by capable hands today, and tomorrow.
