IMPUMELELO CASE STUDIES
ENVIRONMENT
This case study is sponsored by the Development Bank of Southern Africa
Development Bank of Southern Africa
Impumelelo series of best practice – No: 10 ‘Building capacity for service delivery’
‘Building capacity for service delivery’
MISSION Impumelelo identifies, rewards, and promotes good governance and service delivery through an annual awards programme, case study research, policy analysis, training workshops and replication.
AIMS • To improve the quality of life of the poor; • To identify and highlight innovative and effective examples of service delivery in the country; • To encourage good governance; • To reward initiatives that break through fiscal and structural delivery constraints; • To highlight models of innovative government projects in order to encourage replication; • To recognise public and social entrepreneurs who are the backbone of exemplary programmes; • To provide compelling and credible portraits of the many ways in which government contributes to public problem-solving; • To support replication of good governance projects through case studies, training, policy analysis and research;
Impumelelo Innovations Award Trust PO Box 1739, Cape Town 8000, 6 Spin Street, Church Square, Cape Town 8001 Tel.: +27 21 461 3783 • Fax: +27 21 461 1340 • Email: info@impumelelo.org.za
The Impumelelo Innovations Award Trust is funded by the Ford Foundation, Sida (the Swedish International Cooperation Agency), the Open Society Foundation of South Africa and the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation
Focus on Environment Impumelelo identifies, rewards, and promotes good governance and service delivery through an annual awards programme, case study research, policy analysis, training workshops and replication. Although Impumelelo is not specifically an environmental organisation, many of the projects which have received its awards have fallen into the environmental sector. This booklet in the Impumelelo series of best practice is the second volume to spotlight environmental projects that have been recognised with Impumelelo awards, in this instance between 2005 and 2008. While the first volume clearly acknowledged the link between environmental issues and poverty alleviation, this volume explicitly focuses on the need for all poverty reduction efforts to encourage environmental sustainability. This perspective is becoming increasingly prevalent in the international community and has recently been reflected in South African policy statements. The case studies are prefaced with an overview of the theory of sustainable development followed by its specific application in the South African context. A brief overview of South African legislation and policy is presented, focusing predominantly on the recent National Framework for Sustainable Development and the need to integrate the goals and tools of environmental sustainability with those of economic development initiatives. The eighteen case studies describe how the projects were initiated and implemented, outcomes they have accomplished, and lessons that can be learned from their experiences. The studies were written using information from Impumelelo’s archives, outside research, site visits to the projects and interviews with project personnel and beneficiaries. The projects showcased here demonstrate important local solutions to global environmental problems such as water scarcity, deforestation, pollution and climate change. The information and lessons presented should prove invaluable to government, NGOs and local communities.
Chapter One: Policy Review
1
Series Editor:
Rhoda Kadalie
Principal Writer:
Todd G. Smith
Associate Writer:
Andrew Hartnack
6 Spin Street, Church Square, Cape Town 8001
Project Manager:
Rhoda Kadalie
Tel: +27 21 461 3783
Design:
Kult Creative
Fax: +27 21 461 1340
Reproduction:
Formeset Printers Cape
Email: info@impumelelo.org.za
Printed by:
Formeset Printers Cape
PO Box 1739, Cape Town 8000
Principal Photographer: Candice Jansen ISBN: 978-0-620-42870-5
2
Photographs by:
Ellen Elmendorp, Eric Miller,
Published by Impumelelo Innovations Award Trust
Wayne De Lange and the
First Published 2008
various projects
Focus on Environment
Contents Chapter One
Chapter Two
Policy Review
4
The Theory of Sustainable Development
4
Global Context: Different Obstacles for Different Countries
7
South African Policy and the Case Studies
9
The Case Studies
24
Conservation and Sustainable Living
25
CASE STUDY 1
Cape Flats Nature
25
CASE STUDY 2
Mnweni-AmaZizi Project
30
CASE STUDY 3
Mehloding Community Trust
35
CASE STUDY 4
Eco-Coffins
38
CASE STUDY 5
Kleinrivier Environmental and Employment Project
43
CASE STUDY 6
Working on Fire Programme
47
CASE STUDY 7
Makana Meadery Beekeeping Project
51
CASE STUDY 8
Gauteng Environmental Management Inspectorate
56
Chapter Three Waste Management and Pollution Control CASE STUDY 9
Chapter Four
Chapter Five
The South Durban Basin Multi-point Plan to Address Air Quality Concerns
61
CASE STUDY 10
Mariannhill Landfill Conservancy
67
CASE STUDY 11
Hammarsdale Sustainability Project
72
CASE STUDY 12
Emalahleni Water Reclamation Project
77
Water Availability
85
CASE STUDY 13
The Ebenhaeser Dam and Related Works
85
CASE STUDY 14
Rietpoort Water Supply Scheme
90
Environmental Education and Awareness Raising CASE STUDY 15
Chapter Five
61
93
SANBI’s Outreach Greening Programme & Greening of the Nation Programme
93
CASE STUDY 16
Junior LandCare – Minwater / Little Karoo
102
CASE STUDY 17
Waste Management in Education
105
CASE STUDY 18
Early Warning Weather System Project
109
Conclusions
113
Chapter One: Policy Review
3
Chapter One: Policy Review Theory of Sustainable Development The Problem: Unsustainable Resource Use
F
OR AT LEAST THE PAST TWENTY YEARS humankind has been living in a manner that our planet is incapable of sustaining indefinitely. We have been consuming resources faster than the earth can replenish them and we have been emitting wastes faster than the earth can absorb them. Essentially, we have been living beyond our ecological means and we will eventually render our planet uninhabitable, not only by humans, but by many other life forms.
According to the now widely accepted methodology of ecological foot-printing developed by Wackernagel and Rees1, the world is now using 2.2 global hectares per person (GHP) – our ecological footprint2 – while the earth’s available resources – its global bio-capacity – amount to only 1.8 GHP. In other words, it would take 1.2 earths to continue to support the world’s population at its current rate of resource consumption.3 This situation is known as ecological overshoot.
Improving the quality of life and effectively alleviating poverty, therefore, relies in part on the protection and conservation of the earth’s ecological resources and on economic development programmes that do not squander those resources.
Impoverished communities typically suffer the consequences of unsustainable resource use earlier and more severely than those better positioned to adapt to changing conditions created by disappearing resources. 1. 2.
3.
4
Mathis Wackernagle and William E. Rees, Our Ecological Footprint: reducing human impact on the earth (Philadelphia: New Society Publishers, 1996). “The Ecological Footprint of a country includes the biologically productive areas required to produce the food, fibre, and timber its people consume, to absorb the wastes emitted in generating the energy it uses, and to support its infrastructure. People consume ecological resources and services from all over the world, so their Footprint is the sum of these areas, wherever they may be located on the planet.” Global Footprint Network, "Africa: Ecological Footprint and human well-being," Global Footprint Network, 2008, http://www.footprintnetwork.org/africa (accessed June 20, 2008). “In 2003, the global Ecological Footprint was 14.1 billion global hectares, or 2.2 global hectares per person (a global hectare is a hectare with world-average biological productivity). Global biocapacity, the total supply of productive area—forests, grassland, cropland and fisheries—was 11.2 billion hectares in 2003 or 1.8 global hectares per person.” Ibid.
Focus on Environment
Impoverished communities typically suffer the consequences of unsustainable resource use earlier and more severely than those better positioned to adapt to changing conditions created by disappearing resources. In other words, while they are not without fault themselves, the brunt of environmental hazards borne by the poor is often disproportionate to their contribution to environmental degradation. As explained by the Global Footprint Network, human demand on ecosystems can exceed bio-capacity for some time, by depleting resource stocks and allowing carbon dioxide and other waste to accumulate in the biosphere. However, “as overshoot continues, fisheries will collapse, surface water and groundwater will become scarce, and forests will disappear”4. Such a reduction in resources will result in great human suffering which will first affect those who cannot migrate to more plentiful regions, or resort to importing increasingly expensive necessities. The specific challenges faced by the poor are numerous and interrelated: • The poor frequently pay disproportionate sums for inadequate water supply. This, combined with poor sanitation services in disadvantaged areas, lead to the spread of diarrheal diseases and, consequently, increased healthcare expenditures and decreased economic production. Furthermore, children, especially girls, are often kept out of school by the need to collect water and carry it long distances. They are therefore relegated to a future of illiteracy and poverty.5
4. 5. 6.
7
• Rising food prices have an obvious and disproportionate impact on impoverished families who devote a larger share of their income to nutrition.6 Among the many contributing factors to rising food prices are: drought and decreased rainfall that may be an initial symptom of climate change; increased transportation costs due to rising oil prices; and competition for crops to support the growing biofuel market.7 • Poor air quality in areas surrounding industrial polluters and often inhabited by the urban poor leads to respiratory diseases, which leads to increased health costs and loss of economic potential. • Loss of biodiversity (caused by overuse, habitat destruction, or introduction of alien species), soil erosion and nutrient depletion as well as deforestation are all increasing at an alarming rate. Among the tragic consequences of these factors are the failure of ecosystems and the loss of productive farmland upon which rural populations rely. • Impending climate change widely attributed to unsustainable emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will have a wide variety of detrimental effects on the world’s poor. In its most recent Human Development Report (2007) the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) identified five ‘risk-multipliers’ which could reverse
Ibid. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) focused on this problem in its 2006 Human Development Report entitled, Beyond Scarcity: Power, poverty and the global water crisis (New York: Palgrave Macmillan). World Bank President, Robert Zoellick, estimated earlier this year, that a doubling of food prices over the last three years could potentially push 100 million people in low income countries deeper into poverty. The World Bank, "Food Price Crisis Imperils 100 Million in Poor Countries, Zoellick Says," The World Bank: News & Broadcast, April 14, 2008, http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:21729143~menuPK:34457~pagePK:34370~piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html (accessed June 24, 2008). There is significant debate regarding the effects of biofuels on food prices versus their necessity to reduce carbon emissions and dependence on fossil fuels. For a thorough discussion of this issue in the context of the US market refer to the following sources: C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer, "How biofuels could starve the poor," Foreign Affairs 86, no. 3 (May/June 2007); Tom Daschle, C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer, "Food for Fuel?," Foreign Affairs 86, no. 5 (September/October 2007); and C. Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer, "How Ethanol Fuels the Food Crisis," ForeignAffairs.org, May 28, 2008, http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080528faupdate87376/c-ford-runge-benjamin-senauer/how-ethanol-fuels-the-food-crisis.html (accessed June 24, 2008).
Chapter One: Policy Review
5
current levels of human development, namely reduced agricultural productivity, heightened water insecurity, increased exposure to coastal flooding and extreme weather events, the collapse of ecosystems, and increased health risks. While this list is hardly exhaustive it is illustrative of the interconnectedness of the mechanisms through which disadvantaged communities are further impoverished by unsustainable resource use.
The Solution: Sustainable Development Improving the quality of life and effectively alleviating poverty, therefore, relies in part on the protection and conservation of the earth’s ecological resources and on economic development programmes that do not squander those resources.
6
Focus on Environment
Known today as sustainable development, this concept was first embraced in 1987 by the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development when it wrote in its final report, Our Common Future: “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.� The concept has been increasingly accepted in the past twenty years and has been the subject of several international conferences. The 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro resulted in the adoption of Agenda 21, still considered, 16 years later, to be the quintessential framework for sustainable development. The first paragraph of the Preamble to Agenda 21 reads:
“Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfillment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can—in a global partnership for sustainable development.” 8
Global Context: Different Obstacles for Different Countries Obviously, not all countries are alike in their use of environmental resources. The Global Footprint Network has pioneered a revealing tool to assess a country’s progress toward sustainability. This measure plots a country’s ecological footprint against its human development index (HDI), a measure of wellbeing created by the UNDP using life expectancy, literacy and education, and per capita gross domestic product, normalized to a score between zero and one. Only a few countries meet the minimum criteria for
Only a few countries meet the minimum criteria for sustainability: high human development – an HDI of over .8; and a sustainable ecological footprint of less than 1.8 GHP. Still, sustainable development is hardly universally accepted. The argument for sustainable resource use as a precondition for poverty eradication is in stark contrast to the persistently predominant perspective amongst many developmental economists who promote poverty reduction through economic development first followed by environmental clean-up later.9 Inherent in the latter approach is the danger that short-term economic gains will, in the long-term, be outweighed by the lasting consequences of unsustainable resource use. Thus, whereas effective management of ecological assets can assist to end cycles of poverty and support changes that improve quality of life, the “gains built on liquidating ecosystems will only be short-lived, and poorer countries will be most at risk of suffering the consequences”.10
sustainability: high human development – an HDI of over .8; and a sustainable ecological footprint of less than 1.8 GHP. The rich developed nations of North America and the European Union have a high HDI accompanied by a large ecological footprint. The United States consumes an alarming 9.6 GHP. These countries are faced with the challenge of reducing their consumption of resources while maintaining their high level of development. A reduction in resource consumption will undoubtedly rely on a combination of strategies. Technological innovation, most notably in the area of sustainable or renewable energy sources, is vitally important and research into new technologies should be vigorously pursued. Technological advances, however, will not be enough. Improved conservation of dwindling resources must be a
8
UN Sustainable Development, “Agenda 21”, United Nations Sustainable Development, 1992, http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/Agenda21.pdf (accessed June 20, 2008). 9 Mark Swilling, "Local Governance and the Politics of Sustainability," in Consolidating Developmental Local Government: Lessons for the South African Experience, (Cape Town: UCT Press, 2008): 77-107. 10 Global Footprint Network, "Africa: Ecological Footprint and human well-being," Global Footprint Network, 2008, http://www.footprintnetwork.org/africa (accessed June 20, 2008).
Chapter One: Policy Review
7
priority and will require a mix of governmental regulation and market mechanisms to change individual behavior.
reduction. The main document to result from this conference was the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, which states:
At the other extreme, most countries in subSaharan Africa have sustainable ecological footprints but the lowest human development in the world. The average footprint of all of subSaharan Africa is less than one GHP. This is not to imply that these countries are more ecologically responsible than the rest of the world. Rather, in very simplistic terms, ecological footprint is a function of consumption levels and poor countries consume less. These countries face a very different challenge. They must increase their human development while maintaining sustainable levels of resource use. This is an unprecedented challenge that requires original thinking and innovative models of development. As noted above, the old model of industrialization followed by environmental clean-up is no longer an option that can be expected to yield long-term dividends.
Eradicating poverty is the greatest global challenge facing the world today and an indispensable requirement for sustainable development, particularly for developing countries. Although each country has the primary responsibility for its own sustainable development and poverty eradication and the role of national policies and development strategies cannot be overemphasized, concerted and concrete measures are required at all levels to enable developing countries to achieve their sustainable development goals as related to the internationally agreed povertyrelated targets and goals, including those contained in Agenda 21, the relevant outcomes of other United Nations conferences and the United Nations Millennium Declaration (World Summit on Sustainable Development 2005).
Beyond the obvious injustice of this state of affairs, it creates seemingly intractable obstacles to global cooperation. But cooperate we must. In 2002, the international community met in Johannesburg for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). South Africa, as the host country, focused much of the attention of the conference on poverty
While it is true that poverty, especially urban poverty, and environmental degradation are intricately linked, it is not true that ecological sustainability cannot be obtained until poverty is eradicated. Advocates of this proposition consider poverty to be the root cause of ecological collapse. Conversely however, as is clear in many of the case studies, environmental hazards are often a major contributing factor to poverty. Consequently,
Ecological footprint is a function of consumption levels and poor countries consume less. These countries face a very different challenge. They must increase their human development while maintaining sustainable levels of resource use.
8
Focus on Environment
sustainable use of ecological resources and eliminating environmental hazards go hand-inhand with poverty reduction. Attaining international goals for poverty reduction will require considerable progress toward sustainability through industrious and innovative programmes on the national and local levels in conjunction with global cooperation. In the words of a thirteen-year-old girl from the Cape Flats,“We need everyone to work together to take care of the environment.”11
South African Policy and the Case Studies A Unique Predicament Nowhere is the complex relationship between poverty and the environment more evident than in the context of South Africa. South Africa has an HDI of 0.67,12 below the established minimum for high development, and an unsustainable ecological footprint of 2.3 GHP.13 This somewhat unique situation is a function of the vast inequality in South Africa, which has one of the world’s most unequal distributions of wealth.14 Unsurprisingly, its consumption of ecological resources is likewise strikingly unequal. A sizable minority in South Africa matches the high human development of the world’s richest nations as well as the accompanying unsustainable ecological footprint. A much larger segment of the population, however, rivals the stunted human development of its sub-Saharan neighbors15 and the small footprint corresponding to their lower consumption levels. A recent study examined the different footprints of the widely divergent neighborhoods of Cape Town. It found
11 Kimico, Nadine, Riana and Zaeedah, interview by Todd G. Smith, Visit to West End Primary School, Mitchells Plain, (June 27, 2008). 12 United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Reports, 2008, http://hdrstats.undp.org/countries/data_sheets/cty_ds_ZAF.html (accessed June 23, 2008). 13 Global Footprint Network, "Africa: Ecological Footprint and human well-being," Global Footprint Network, 2008, http://www.footprintnetwork.org/africa (accessed June 20, 2008). 14 At 57.8, South Africa’s GINI coefficient, a measurement of income inequality, is the tenth highest in the world according to the UNDP. United Nations Development Programme, 2007/2008 Report: Ineqality in income or expenditure, 2008, http://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/147.html (accessed August 12, 2008). 15 According to the United Nations Development Programme, 34 percent of the population of South Africa, 16.3 million people, live on less than two US dollars per day. United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Reports, 2008, http://hdrstats.undp.org/countries/data_sheets/cty_ds_ZAF.html (accessed June 23, 2008).
Chapter One: Policy Review
9
that the wealthiest households – the top seven percent – had an ecological footprint of 14.8 GHP and the upper-middle class neighborhoods – the next nine percent – consumed 5.8 GHP. In contrast, the bottom four categories or 51 percent of households – those living in the townships or informal settlements – had an ecological footprint of a mere one GHP or less.16
Environmental Hazards and Environmental Degradation This, however, is not to suggest that the poor live environmentally idyllic lifestyles. One has only to visit one of the many informal settlements in South Africa’s urban centers to observe the numerous
environmental hazards that confront the residents every day. Inadequate sanitation and polluted water sources, overcrowded housing, accumulated solid waste, poor air quality, a deforested landscape and degraded soil are often characteristics of these areas. Furthermore, these informal settlements are often located in areas that are more susceptible to natural disasters, particularly flooding, the effects of which are often intensified by these environmental hazards. The argument that environmental degradation is linked to, or even a product of urban poverty needs to be balanced against the fact that environmental hazards are also a major contributing factor to urban poverty. The key distinction here is the difference between environmental degradation and environmental hazards:
16 Mark Swilling, "Sustainability and infrastructure planning in South Africa: a Cape Town case study," Environment and Urbanization (Sage Publications) 18, no. 1 (April 2006): 23-50.
10
Focus on Environment
At the core of most misunderstandings about the link between poverty and environment is the confusion between environmental hazards and environmental degradation. In most urban centers in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, a high proportion of the poor (however defined) face very serious environmental hazards in their homes and their surrounds and in their workplaces. Such hazards impose large burdens on such groups in terms of ill health, injury, and premature death. These health burdens are a major cause or contributor to poverty. But most of these environmental hazards are not causing environmental degradation. For instance, the inadequacies in provision for piped water, sanitation, and drainage in most low-income neighborhoods often mean very serious problems with insect-borne diseases such as malaria or dengue fever or filariasis and with diseases associated with a lack of water for washing such as trachoma, but these do not degrade any environmental resource.17 The environmental degradation that takes place in or around urban centres thus needs to be looked at in the context of urban growth rates that are outpacing the extension of infrastructure and services to the urban poor. In other words, it is not necessarily the inhabitants of informal settlements who are to blame for environmental degradation. All people, regardless of income, have the same basic needs. Inadequate water provision causes unsustainable use of limited or polluted sources
because people need water; lack of sanitation facilities causes pollution of those same water sources because people need to defecate; lack of rubbish collection services causes solid waste accumulation because people create waste; failure to plan properly for growth causes untenable land-use, deforestation and species loss because people need space and building materials; inadequate provision of electricity also causes deforestation and species loss as well as unsustainable carbon emissions because people need wood for heating and cooking fuel.18 Therefore, along with its other causes, such as increasing population pressure, failures of governance need to be considered as one of the major causes of environmental degradation.
Redefining Poverty‌ and Poverty Reduction It is also important to understand that inadequate income or consumption is not a satisfactory definition of poverty. Satterthwaite presents a broader conception of poverty that incorporates eight interrelated sets of deprivations: 1. Inadequate income (and thus inadequate consumption of necessities including food) and often problems of indebtedness, with debt repayments significantly reducing the income available for necessities.
Failure to properly address inequality in resource use can also be viewed as a failure in governance, resulting from shortsightedness and a breakdown in the linkage between overall government expenditure and environmental wellbeing. 17 David Satterthwaite, "The Links between Poverty and the Environment in Urban Areas of Africa, Asia, and Latin America," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (Sage Publications) 590 (November 2003): 73-92. 18 Water pollution, solid waste accumulation and soil degradation in poor communities are undoubtedly local environmental hazards but do not constitute environmental degradation on a national or global scale. In contrast, unsustainable consumption of wood for heating and cooking fuel can lead to deforestation as well as unmitigated carbon emissions. These are indeed degradations that can and do impact on non-local and global ecosystems. In a 1994 study, Berry et al. found that informal settlements contributed significantly to loss of coastal vegetation in South Africa’s South-Eastern Cape. M.G. Berry, B.L. Robertson and E.E. Campbell, "Impacts of Informal Settlements on South-Eastern Cape Coastal Vegetation (South Africa)," Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters (Blackwell Publising) 4, no. 5 (September 1994): 129-139.
Chapter One: Policy Review
11
2. Inadequate, unstable, or risky asset base (nonmaterial and material including educational attainment and housing) for individuals, households, or communities. Different assets have different roles—for instance, some are important for generating or maintaining income, some are important for helping low-income people cope with economic stresses or shocks, and some are important for limiting environmental hazards that can have serious health and economic costs.
3. Inadequate shelter: typically poor quality and overcrowded and often insecure (because of no protection from eviction by landlords or landowners). 4. Inadequate provision of public infrastructure (piped water, sanitation, drainage, roads, footpaths, etc.). 5. Inadequate provision of basic services such as day care and schools, healthcare, emergency services, public transport, communications, and law enforcement. 6. Limited or no safety nets to ensure basic consumption can be maintained when income falls and to ensure access to shelter and health care when these can no longer be paid for. 7. Inadequate protection of poorer groups' rights through the operation of the law: including laws and regulations regarding civil and political rights, occupational health and safety, pollution control, environmental health, protection from violence and other crimes, and protection from discrimination and exploitation. 8. Poorer groups' voicelessness and powerlessness within political systems and bureaucratic structures, leading to little or no possibility of receiving entitlements; of organizing, making demands, and getting a fair response; and of receiving support for developing their own initiatives. Also, no means of ensuring accountability from aid agencies, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), public agencies, and private utilities and being able to participate in the definition and implementation of their urban poverty programs.19
19 David Satterthwaite, "The Links between Poverty and the Environment in Urban Areas of Africa, Asia, and Latin America," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (Sage Publications) 590 (November 2003): 73-92.
12
Focus on Environment
Using these criteria, it is easy to see that poverty is most concentrated in, but not exclusive to, urban informal settlements. Mark Napier, who has extensively studied poverty, informal settlements and the environment in South Africa, writes, “Certainly given definitions of poverty that are not simply generated by counting household incomes, by definition the lack of access to adequate shelter, water, sanitation, drainage and solid waste removal which accompanies the occupation of unconsolidated and un- or under-serviced informal settlements
means that human poverty is indeed concentrated very explicitly in such settlements.” 20 It is both shortsighted and narrow-minded then, to think of poverty reduction – or improved human development – merely in terms of creating new jobs. Ironically, it is the draw of better economic opportunities – jobs – that often brings the poor to urban centers and thereby exacerbates the environmental hazards prevalent in informal settlements where these newcomers settle. The creation of new
20 Napier, M. (2002: 6). “Informal settlement integration, the environment and sustainable livelihoods in sub-Saharan Africa.” In proceedings of Improving Post-Disaster Reconstruction in Developing Countries, Universite De Montreal Canada. 23 – 25 May.
Chapter One: Policy Review
13
jobs in an area may provide additional income to a community and accordingly raise consumption, but without access to basic services the real conditions of poverty will remain unchanged and, indeed, may worsen. Conversely, it is possible to alleviate the conditions of poverty without increasing income.21 By discovering or developing creative and innovative methods to improve service delivery it is possible to overcome the environmental hazards that deepen the poverty of millions of South Africans. By taking action in the absence of public service delivery, NGOs, governmental departments, and ordinary people are improving their own situation and that of their fellow citizens. It is in this context that many of the innovative programmes presented in this booklet are effectively improving the quality of life of those living in impoverished situations.22 Of course, it is still essential that the disproportionate consumption of ecological resources of the rich and middle-class be reduced drastically if sustainability is to be achieved. “Indeed, the key relationship between environmental degradation and urban development is in regard to the consumption patterns of non-poor urban groups (especially high-income groups) and the urban-based production and distribution systems that serve them.23 ” Failure to properly address inequality in resource use can also be viewed as a failure in
governance, resulting from shortsightedness and a breakdown in the linkage between overall government expenditure and environmental wellbeing. For example, disease and other health problems caused by poor sanitation and poor air quality lead directly to increased and inefficient healthcare expenditures. The restoration of this connection is the primary innovation of some of the initiatives in this booklet, particularly those in the eThekwini Municipality (South Durban Basin Multi-Point Plan, Mariannhill Landfill Conservancy and Hammarsdale Sustainability Project). By emphasizing these linkages the municipality is fostering direct cooperation between all interested stakeholders and improving the ecological sustainability of the entire community. Alternatively, many of the programmes are contributing directly or indirectly to more equitable and sustainable resource use. As impoverished communities take action to protect the local environment they gain an increased understanding of the importance of conservation and sustainable resource use and the consequences of unsustainable resource use. This new understanding emboldens these communities to demand government action or increased responsibility from other sectors of the community. People who invest time and energy into creating new green spaces are more likely to be incensed by polluting industries. People who take responsibility for managing their own water
It is both shortsighted and narrow-minded then, to think of poverty reduction—or improved human development—merely in terms of creating new jobs. 21 “A growing number of case studies show how the deprivations associated with low income can be much reduced without increasing incomes through improving infrastructure and services or through political changes, which allowed low-income groups to negotiate more support.” David Satterthwaite, "The Links between Poverty and the Environment in Urban Areas of Africa, Asia, and Latin America," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (Sage Publications) 590 (November 2003): 73-92. 22 Satterthwaite divides innovations of this type into two categories: “The first is the innovation shown by particular city authorities in developing and implementing their own local agendas…. The second is the innovation shown by local NGOs working with organisations of the urban poor - sometimes working with government, sometimes working in the absence of government….” David Satterthwaite, "The Links between Poverty and the Environment in Urban Areas of Africa, Asia, and Latin America," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (Sage Publications) 590 (November 2003): 73-92. 23 Ibid.
14
Focus on Environment
use are more likely to demand change from other irresponsible users. The problem remains, however, of ensuring political access to groups that for social or economic reasons may be totally or partially disenfranchised. This is where the Environmental Management Inspectorate, or‘Green Scorpions’, can play a major role by providing a vehicle through which communities can voice their concerns and assisting them to realize their environmental rights (see case study 8).
designed and implemented in an ecologically sustainable manner. As argued above, any policy that aims to increase human development at the expense of the environment will exacerbate the predicament of the poor and, by extension, all of South Africa. In short, ecological sustainability must be required of any undertaking, public or private. Although rarely attained, this holistic approach is encapsulated in South Africa’s statutory definition of sustainable development:
Ultimately, what is needed is a holistic approach if the lives of the millions of South Africans living in extreme poverty are to be improved. Unsustainable resource use must be addressed and curtailed in an economically feasible manner. Economic development programmes must be
“Sustainable development means the integration of social, economic and environmental factors into planning, implementation and decision-making so as to ensure that development serves present and future generations.”(National Environmental Management Act [No. 107 of 1998]). Chapter One: Policy Review
15
Legal and Administrative Framework Accepting that ecological sustainability is a necessary prerequisite for poverty reduction, the question then becomes how best to create and implement sustainable development programmes and projects in South Africa’s administrative framework. The first environmental volume in this series contains an excellent discussion of South Africa’s legislative basis for environmental management. It is, however, worth reviewing here. The Constitution South Africa’s Constitution explicitly provides for specific environmental rights of every citizen. Section 24 states: Everyone has the right 1. to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and 2. to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that: i. prevent pollution and ecological degradation; ii. promote conservation; and iii. secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.
Additionally, Section 26 provides that everyone has the right to“adequate housing.”Section 27 provides that everyone has the right to have access to“health care services” and “sufficient food and water.” Furthermore, it requires the state to“take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of each of these rights”. When considered together, it is clear that access to sufficient ecological resources to meet basic human needs is the right of each and every South African, present and future. The current inequitable distribution of resources is a great challenge to government. Section 152 requires local government to provide services to communities in a sustainable manner; to provide democratic and accountable government for local communities; to ensure the provision of services to communities in a sustainable manner; to promote social and economic development; to promote a safe and healthy environment; and to encourage the involvement of communities and community organisations in the matters of local government.
The White Paper A decade ago, the White Paper on an Environmental Management Policy for South Africa (1998) recognized explicitly the importance of sustainable development to the future of the country. Although the White Paper is not binding legislation—its purpose is to inform the public about government’s objectives and inform government agencies how to
Economic development programmes must be designed and implemented in an ecologically sustainable manner. Section 26 of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right to “adequate housing.” Section 27 provides that everyone has the right to have access to “health care services” and “sufficient food and water.”
16
Focus on Environment
achieve these objectives—it laid the groundwork for future legislation in its recognition of the link between protection of environmental resources and human development. In its vision the White Paper establishes the centrality of sustainable development and equitable resource use to the nation’s future:
The vision of this environmental management policy is one of a society in harmony with its environment. The policy seeks to unite the people of South Africa in working towards a society where all people have sufficient food, clean air and water, decent homes and green spaces in their neighborhoods enabling them to live in spiritual, cultural and physical harmony with their natural surroundings. We can only achieve this through a new model or paradigm of sustainable development based on integrated and coordinated environmental management. This model must promote the environmental health and well-being of the nation’s people by addressing: • people’s quality of life and their daily living and working environments • equitable access to land and natural resources • the integration of economic development, social justice and environmental sustainability • more efficient use of energy resources
The vision of this environmental management policy is one of a society in harmony with its environment.
• the interaction between population dynamics and sustainable development • the sustainable use of social, cultural and natural resources • public participation in environmental governance • the custodianship of our environment. To achieve the vision of a society in harmony with its environment, South Africans must work together towards the goal of sustainable resource use and sustainable living to meet present and future needs.24 The remainder of the document recognizes the need for an integrated and holistic approach to management of the environmental resources of the country. Chapter three enumerates several principles integral to such an approach. Among these are:
24 Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, "White Paper on Enviromental Management Policy for South Africa," Government Gazette Staatskoerant, Vol. 395, no. 18894 (Pretoria, May 15, 1998). All subsequent references come from the White Paper unless otherwise specified.
Chapter One: Policy Review
17
• Coordination of environmental concerns across all governmental institutions; • Cradle to Grave, or the responsibility of government to consider environmental impacts of its policies, programmes, services and activities throughout its life cycle from planning to waste management; • Custodianship, that is the government’s “constitutional duty to protect the environment for the benefit of current and future generations of South Africans”; • Demand Management by ensuring that the price of goods and services reflects the “environmental cost of sustaining the rate of supply over time”; • Full Cost Accounting, meaning that “decisions must be based on an assessment of the full social and environmental costs and benefits of policies, plans, programmed, projects and activities that impact on the environment”; • Inclusivity of “the interests, needs and values of all interested and affected parties in decision making to secure sustainable development”; • Participation, that is “the inclusion of all interested and affected parties in environmental governance with the aim of achieving equitable and effective participation”; and • Polluter Pays, or the responsibility of the party responsible for environmental damage to “pay the repair costs both to the environment and human health, and the costs of preventive measures to reduce or prevent further pollution and environmental damage”. Chapter four of the White Paper presents seven specific goals of environmental management policy under the overarching goal of sustainable development: The intention is to move from a previous situation of unrestrained and environmentally insensitive development to sustainable development with the aim of achieving an environmentally sustainable economy in balance with ecological processes.
18
Focus on Environment
Of particular interest in the context of the case studies presented here are two of the specific goals. The first is Goal 2: Sustainable Resource Use and Impact Management, which is specified as follows: Promote equitable access to, and sustainable use of natural and cultural resources, and promote environmentally sustainable lifestyles. Integrate environmental impact management with all economic and development activities to achieve sustainable development with the emphasis on satisfying basic needs and ensuring environmental sustainability. The second is Goal 3: Holistic and Integrated Planning and Management, which reads: Develop mechanisms where necessary, and build on existing ones, to ensure that environmental considerations are effectively integrated into existing and new government policies, legislation and programmes, all spatial and economic development planning processes, and all economic activity. These goals and, indeed, the White Paper in general capture quite thoroughly the theory and purpose behind sustainable development. Unfortunately, the principles and goals of the White Paper have not been applied in the large majority of governmental programmes. Despite grand proclamations of the importance of sustainable development, environmental management is still considered to be the purview of a single governmental department, the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), rather than the responsibility of any programme that impacts on the environment or uses the nation’s resources, i.e. every government department. The National Environmental Management Act The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) is South Africa’s overarching legislation for the implementation of environmental management and protection. The legislation includes the initial Act 107 passed in 1998 and four additional Acts passed in 2004:
Like the White Paper that underpins it, the initial 1998 legislation relies heavily on the concept of sustainable development, which is defined as “the integration of social, economic and environmental factors into planning, implementation and decision-making so as to ensure that development serves present and future generations.” 25 Chapter one of the Act outlines a number of principles to guide environmental thinking. First, the section specifies that all the listed principles shall “apply throughout the Republic to the actions of all organs of state that may significantly affect the environment”. The next two paragraphs establish the following main principles: 2. Environmental management must place people and their needs at the forefront of its concern, and serve their physical, psychological, developmental, cultural and social interests equitably. 3. Development must be socially, environmentally and economically sustainable. Environmental management must place people and their needs at the forefront of its concern, and serve their physical, psychological, developmental, cultural and social interests equitably.
Finally, the section enumerates 18 implementation principles that closely match those laid out in the White Paper.26 The remainder of the Act and the 2004 Amendment Acts deal with the specific application of these principles in various contexts. The National Framework for Sustainable Development
• National Environmental Management Amendment Act (No. 8 of 2004) • National Environmental Management – Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004) • National Environmental Management – Protected Areas Amendment Act (No. 31 of 2004) • National Environmental Management – Air Quality Act (No. 39 of 2004)
The most recent governmental espousal of sustainable development principles is the National Framework for Sustainable Development (NFSD).27 Drafted in response to the WSSD obligation to“take immediate steps to make progress in the formulation and elaboration of national strategies for sustainable development,” the NFSD reiterates the need to meet human development needs within
25 National Environmental Management Act (No. 7 of 1998). 26 Ibid. 27 Sometimes referred to as the National Strategy for Sustainable Development (NSSD).
Chapter One: Policy Review
19
the limits of sustainable resource use. New to the NFSD, however, is a more thorough roadmap for how sustainability will be achieved. The first chapter presents a more complete vision of sustainable development that goes beyond an approach that balances economic, social and environmental concerns—the so-called triple bottom-line approach—to one that views these concerns as inter-dependent and indivisible. The economy is dependent upon the soundness of the sociopolitical system and both are dependent upon the sustainable resource use. This new policy acknowledges that there are inflexible limits to the country’s ecological resources: In South Africa, as in the rest of the world, the situation of continuing inequality accompanied by a deteriorating resource base, makes it imperative for us to go beyond thinking in terms of trade-offs and the simplicity of the ‘triple bottom line’. We must acknowledge and emphasize that there are non-
negotiable ecological thresholds; that we need to maintain our stock of natural capital over time; and that we must employ the precautionary principle in this approach. We must accept that social, economic and ecosystem factors are embedded within each other, and are underpinned by our systems of governance. The NSSD seeks to build on the definition of sustainable development set out in the NEMA by highlighting the importance of institutions and systems of governance in implementing the concept, and in oversight activities. In practical terms, then, if we wish the pursuit of growth to meet human development needs to become sustainable, we must pursue growth that respects the limits of the natural resource base. We must also priortise developing sufficient governance capacity to ensure effective implementation. Through these mechanisms, we can achieve sustainable shared and accelerated growth.28
28 Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, "National Framework for Sustainable Development" (2006). All subsequent references come from the NFSD unless otherwise specified.
20
Focus on Environment
After presenting this new definition, the NFSD devotes a chapter to the discussion of current natural resource, economic, social and governance trends. By analysing these trends it is possible to identify areas in need of intervention. This trend analysis concludes: This review of major trends, risks and opportunities reveals that we can no longer take our endowment of natural resources for granted. It is clear that we are rapidly using up our natural resources as we pursue growth and seek to eradicate poverty. … Growth and poverty eradication strategies are not decoupling from unsustainable resource use and exploitation. This means that democratic South Africa has not broken away from the natural resource exploitation model put in place by colonial conquest and refined during the apartheid era. We need to act rapidly and decisively to change this. The analysis confirms that thresholds are now being reached and if ignored will generate dysfunctional economic costs that will
than undermine a sustainable future.”Closely related to this is the need to advance sustainable community structures. This is the focus of the next chapter and the arena where sustainable development most noticeably intersects with poverty reduction, particularly in the urban areas and informal settlements.
Tools for Sustainability Integrated Development Plans & Environmental Impact Assessments The final two chapters of the NFSD focus on the tools and capacity needed to achieve sustainability. Historically, the two primary tools for economic development and poverty reduction—the Integrated Development Plan (IDP) and Local Economic Development (LED) plans—have been in conflict with the primary tool of environmental protection—the Environmental Impact Assessment
Empowering communities to manage their own limited environmental resources is the first-step but it is not enough. undermine investments in growth and poverty eradication. Fortunately, it is also clear that technologies and practices exist that open up opportunities for decoupling unsustainable resource use from growth and poverty eradication strategies. The next chapter focuses on the importance of ecosystems as the basis of society and the economy, the services provided by healthy ecosystems, and the need to use natural resources efficiently. Following this is a chapter about the need to develop service delivery infrastructures that are ecologically sustainable. The NFSD presents this as an opportunity rather than an obstacle.“Given that the public sector is about to embark on the biggest investment ever made in South Africa’s history, it is obvious that this is a major opportunity to leapfrog outdated technologies and build infrastructures that prepare for rather
(EIA). IDPs are generally used by local government officials and consultants in the formulation of longterm, municipal-level development frameworks that incorporate several distinct projects. These officials and consultants have traditionally given little up front consideration to sustainable use of ecological resources. Rather, each individual project within the framework will be subjected to an EIA that will then consider its use of environmental resources. All too often this approach places the EIA in conflict with the IDP. Furthermore, the project level EIA does not specifically consider the environmental implications of the larger development context of the municipality. If the IDP is to be truly integrated, planners should consider how most effectively to implement socioeconomic development within the sustainable limits Chapter One: Policy Review
21
of the available environmental resources. The NFSD explicitly recognizes the need to reconcile these important tools: Systems for integration lie at the heart of improving governance for sustainable development. South Africa does have frameworks in place at both the national and the local level to promote integrated decision-making, but these need to be improved for better integration of all aspects of sustainability. Sustainable resource use criteria need to be built into all levels of programme and development planning and implementation. At the project level, we need to integrate a sustainable resource use perspective, so that development projects are redefined to be ecosystem and resource enhancing rather than environmentally destructive. This will allow us to move away from the dualist approach that sees environmental impact assessments and development projects as polar opposites in permanent tension with each other. Unfortunately, this is still just a policy statement, not an imperative. With few exceptions, South Africa’s municipalities are still pursuing the old paradigms of non-integrated IDPs followed by limiting EIAs. 22
Focus on Environment
Capacity Building Effective capacity building is also a fundamental prerequisite to achieving sustainable development. The final chapter of the NFSD is summarized as follows: To make sure that sustainable development becomes a practical reality in everyday life, new capacities and skills will be required across society. Building the capacity of local government is clearly a major priority, so too are multi-sectoral partnerships, community empowerment and direct engagement with communities. However, sustainability is about culture change and this will only be possible when educational curricula incorporate sustainable development principles and when public sector managers are enrolled in courses that introduce them to what sustainable development means at the global and local levels. Empowering communities to manage their own limited environmental resources is the first-step but it is not enough. A fundamental respect for the environment and an understanding of sustainable resource use must be instilled in the next generation
of South Africans if the natural ecology of the country is to be protected for generations to come. Multi-Stakeholder Processes The concept of multi-stakeholder processes (MSP) is not new in South African environmental management policy. The White Paper principles of inclusivity and participation are implicit in the MSP concept. What is relatively new is the explicit recognition of MSPs as a useful tool that, when implemented properly, have met with considerable success reconciling seemingly incongruent interests of different parties or stakeholders. Minu Hemmati describes the thinking behind MSPs thus: The term multi-stakeholder processes describes processes which aim to bring together all major stakeholders in a new form of communication, decisionfinding (and possibly decision-making) on a particular issue. They are also based on recognition of the importance of achieving equity and accountability in communication between stakeholders, involving equitable representation of three or more stakeholder groups and their views. They are based on democratic principles of transparency and participation, and aim to develop partnerships and strengthened networks among stakeholders. MSPs cover a wide spectrum of structures and levels of engagement. They can comprise dialogues on policy or grow to include consensus-building, decision-making and implementation of practical solutions. The exact nature of any such process will depend on the issues, its objectives, participants, scope and time lines, among other factors (Hemmati 2002, 2).
Hemmati further defines stakeholders as“those who have an interest in a particular decision, either as individuals or representatives of a group. This includes people who influence a decision, or can influence it, as well as those affected by it.” 29 The roles of various stakeholders are extensively stipulated in Agenda 21.30 “In each of its chapters Agenda 21 refers to the roles that stakeholder groups have to take in order to put the blueprint into practice. Stakeholder involvement is being described as absolutely crucial for sustainable development.”31 MSPs seem to be the best mechanism to ensure the participation of stakeholders in the decision-making process, their acceptance of the resulting decisions and plans, and the ultimate effectiveness of implementation of the decisions and plans. Still, it is not sufficient simply to identify and engage the relevant stakeholders. Many people and organisations may either be unwilling to engage in the dialogue, or compromise their positions for the sake of progress. Corporate officers often think that provided their business activities remain within legal regulations their business decisions are reviewable solely by their shareholders. Furthermore,“governments and intergovernmental bodies may feel threatened by the growing influence of stakeholders, viewed as unelected powers with insufficient transparency and undeterminable legitimacy”.32 NGOs and CBOs can usually be categorized either as advocacy groups who view it as their role to oppose or limit the activities of government or industry or as service providers that make it their role to make up for governmental failures. In either
29 Minu Hemmati, Multi-stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability: Beyond Deadlock and Conflict (London: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 2002: 2). 30 Section 3.2 of Agenda 21 reads: While managing resources sustainably, an environmental policy that focuses mainly on the conservation and protection of resources must take due account of those who depend on the resources for their livelihoods. Otherwise it could have an adverse impact both on poverty and on chances for long-term success in resource and environmental conservation. Equally, a development policy that focuses mainly on increasing the production of goods without addressing the sustainability of the resources on which production is based will sooner or later run into declining productivity, which could also have an adverse impact on poverty. A specific anti-poverty strategy is therefore one of the basic conditions for ensuring sustainable development. An effective strategy for tackling the problems of poverty, development and environment simultaneously should begin by focusing on resources, production and people and should cover demographic issues, enhanced health care and education, the rights of women, the role of youth and of indigenous people and local communities and a democratic participation process in association with improved governance. UN Sustainable Development, "Agenda 21," United Nations Sustainable Development, 1992, http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/documents/agenda21/english/Agenda21.pdf (accessed June 20, 2008). 31 Minu Hemmati, Multi-stakeholder Processes for Governance and Sustainability: Beyond Deadlock and Conflict (London: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 2002: 3). 32 Ibid.: 4
Chapter One: Policy Review
23
case, cooperation with governmental authorities or industrial interests may not be an attractive course of action. In addition, NGOs and CBOs that do engage in stakeholder dialogues with government or industry are often accused by their more unyielding counterparts of contributing to“green-washing,”the practice of an industry masking its environmentally harmful practices with token measures toward sustainability. The importance of an effective facilitator or champion, therefore, cannot be overstated. An individual or group that is knowledgeable of the context and trusted, or at least respected, by all stakeholders is needed to facilitate cooperation between the involved parties.
The Case Studies The projects presented in this booklet are remarkable for their integrated approach to sustainable development even if some municipal IDPs are still far from integrated. Hopefully, they can lead the way for other local government bodies. Some of the projects, such as SANBI’s Outreach Greening and Greening the Nation projects and Cape Flats Nature, seek to restore environmental concerns to the socio-economic lives of people who have lost this connection. Other projects like Mnweni-AmaZizi Project, EcoCoffins and Makana Meadery’s Beekeeping Project are addressing the socio-economic needs of the beneficiaries in a manner that is not only ecologically sustainable but is restoring or protecting environmental resources. Finally, a third category of initiatives, including South Durban Basin Multipoint Plan, Mariannhill Landfill Conservancy and
the Hammarsdale Sustainability Project, sees the utilization of available technology to restore environmental sustainability to projects that are meeting the socio-economic needs of the population. Every one of the above initiatives has an identifiable champion. The qualification for some of these champions comes from their technical expertise in the focus area of the project. In this category are Siva Chetty of the South Durban Multi-point Plan, Donavan Fullard of SANBI’s Environmental Education Directorate and Dr. Garth Cambray of Makana Meadery. Other individuals are more accurately described as facilitators or connectors because their forté is the ability to effectively bring together disparate parties. Meridy Pfotenhauer of the Mnweni-AmaZizi Project and Tanya Goldman of Cape Flats Nature are examples of this type of facilitator. Finally, many of these projects focus on building the capacity of communities to serve as effective custodians of ecological resources within their control. Mnweni-AmaZizi Project and Mehloding Community Tourism Trust are the most obvious illustrations of this capacity building. But Cape Flats Nature, the Beekeeping Project and the Kleinrivier Environment & Employment Project are also empowering communities to take responsibility for their own environment. Making perhaps the deepest impact, however, are the projects that are building environmental awareness and capacity in the next generation of South Africans. By focusing on building capacity in children, the efforts of SANBI’s Environmental Education Directorate, Junior Landcare and Waste Management in Education will have genuinely lasting effects. The same is true of Working on Fire’s school fire awareness programme.
The projects presented in this booklet are remarkable for their integrated approach to sustainable development even if some municipal IDPs are still far from integrated. 24
Focus on Environment