I've always found it curious that different beetle (or entomological clearance) clauses for property sales agreements are used in different parts of the country. In truth, there is some variance between clauses between different agencies even if they are operating in the same region.

But this article raises some very interesting points about the dangers of the beetle clause as it is commonly set out in the Western Cape. Here are a few excerpts:
Ask any person in the process of purchasing a property if the presence of beetles on that property is a concern and you would probably get a definite 'No.' Quite possibly because for many years it was accepted that all properties on the coast were automatically inspected for the presence of wood destroying beetles. Given the migration of beetles and the prevalence of termites in most of the country though, many people are appreciating the value of having their properties inspected more regularly.

So, choosing a SAPCA qualified inspector is crucial, especially for the purchaser. But even then one may not be entirely out of the danger zone as the fine print in your beetle clause may actually limit the certificate to only two of many potentially destructive organisms. It may be that the property in question has an infestation destroying the structure which is ignored because of a technicality. The purchaser will then have no recourse against the seller as he/she has accepted and signed a deed of sale that limits the beetle certificate to cover Hylotrupes Bajulus (Italian beetle) and Oxypleuris Nodieri (brown house borer) only or alternatively the misnomer, 'notifiable beetle'. (This term derives from a law promulgated more than 20 years ago that stipulated that the Department of Plant Protection and Seed Control should be notified of the occurrence of various species of beetles. Although this included most beetle species, these were classified into categories according to the risks posed and somehow over time the term 'notifiable' was accepted to refer only to Hylotrupes Bajulus and Oxypleuris Nodieri.)

But what if the property's roof and eaves or floors and joinery were riddled with Anobium Punctatum (cmmon frniture betle), Lyctus Brunneus (powder post beetle) Bostrycidae spp. (shot hole borer) Phoracantha (eucalyptus borer) or Stenocellis Hylostoides, Nicobium Castaniun, Ernobius Molus or Xylocopidae Spp (carpenter bee)? Not to mention the insidious destruction of fungal decay like brown and white rots which, if left unchecked, will not stop until all the timber in the surrounding areas is affected.
read the full article on Property24.com here
One has to question the logic of limiting the scope of the seller's liability to a couple of species when there is a very real potential for other wood-destroying organisms of economic significance to be present. The motivation for paying any attention to this at all is not centered around the species; it's their potential to cause significant damage that is at issue.

Failure to address this is a disservice to:
  • The purchaser - who has a perfectly understandable reluctance to unknowingly inherit such a problem, and
  • The bank - which has a perfectly understandable reluctance to rely on a property which is infested with such organisms to remain adequate collateral on their loan.