environmental assessment procedures cities: including...

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjep20

Download by: [University of Cape Town Libraries] Date: 02 May 2017, At: 08:35

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

ISSN: 0964-0568 (Print) 1360-0559 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20

Social and Environmental Justice in South AfricanCities: Including ‘Invisible Stakeholders’ inEnvironmental Assessment Procedures

Dianne Scott & Catherine Oelofse

To cite this article: Dianne Scott & Catherine Oelofse (2005) Social and EnvironmentalJustice in South African Cities: Including ‘Invisible Stakeholders’ in Environmental AssessmentProcedures, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48:3, 445-467, DOI:10.1080/09640560500067582

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640560500067582

Published online: 22 Jan 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 525

View related articles

Citing articles: 22 View citing articles

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cjep20

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/09640560500067582

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640560500067582

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=cjep20&show=instructions

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=cjep20&show=instructions

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/09640560500067582

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/09640560500067582

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/09640560500067582#tabModule

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/09640560500067582#tabModule

Social and Environmental Justice in SouthAfrican Cities: Including ‘InvisibleStakeholders’ in EnvironmentalAssessment Procedures

DIANNE SCOTT & CATHERINE OELOFSESchool of Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa

(Received March 2004; revised January 2005)

ABSTRACT In South Africa an intensive reform process to democratize policy, legislation andrelated institutions in the country commenced after the first democratic elections in 1994. Whileenvironmental law reform includes active public participation and equity principles, it is proposedin this paper that ecological modernization dominates current environmental assessment practice.This paper presents a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) of a proposed landfill on the periphery ofDurban, where large informal settlements and peri-urban areas exist as a relic of apartheidplanning. The methodology of the SIA was explicitly designed within a framework of socialjustice to include poor and marginalized people, who remain excluded from environmentaldecision making despite the promise of democratic equality. The study claims to deependemocratic practice by demonstrating that alternative methodologies can be designed to includethe interests of ‘invisible stakeholders’ in environmental assessments despite the dominance ofecological modernization in the implementation of environmental law and policy.

Introduction

In South Africa an intensive reform process has commenced, through which policy,legislation and related institutions in the country are being democratized to promotesocial justice and transform the inequities of the past. In this phase of democratictransition ‘democracy is an unfinished project’. There is a need in developed anddeveloping countries for the extension and deepening of democracy with ‘‘theprogressive inclusion of various groups and categories of people in political life’’(Dryzek, 1996, p. 475). This calls for an approach that recognizes democratization asan ongoing process of deepening and extending the logic of democracy throughoutsociety and the need to be able to measure the ‘advances’ or ‘retreats’ as a result ofthe impact of the state (Dryzek et al., 2003; Barnett & Scott, 2004).

Correspondence Address: Dianne Scott, School of Environmental Sciences, Howard College Campus,

University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041, South Africa. Email: [email protected]

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,Vol. 48, No. 3, 445 – 467, May 2005

ISSN 0964-0568 Print/1360-0559 Online/05/030445-23 # 2005 University of Newcastle upon Tyne

DOI: 10.1080/09640560500067582

It is proposed that there are many opportunities for extending and mainstreamingdemocratic practice and promoting justice. This is particularly the case forpractitioners working in the field of sustainable development and environmentalmanagement. This paper outlines a case study of such an attempt to makedemocracy more substantial and effective in environmental assessment using aformal statutory procedure. It is proposed that within environmental management,the explicit adoption of principles of social and environmental justice will contributeto the broader project of democratization and shift practices away from the efficiencybased mainstream approach to environmental assessment (Oelofse et al., 2002).

In South Africa, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), of which Social ImpactAssessment (SIA) is a part, is a well established procedure for assessing theenvironmental, social and economic impacts of development in terms of the NationalEnvironmental Management Act (Act 107 of 1998) (NEMA) and the EnvironmentalConservation Act (Act 73 of 1989, Amended 1997) (ECA). Principles of social andenvironmental justice were integrated into South African environmental policy andlegislation through a process which commenced with the development of theIntegrated Environmental Management (IEM) procedure in the late 1980s and early1990s (DEA, 1992; Fuggle & Rabie, 1999). However, despite this process and thepromulgation of some of the world’s most progressive environmental legislation,environmental assessment practices remain firmly located within a neo-liberalparadigm, which dominates society and the economy (Scott et al., 2001; Bond, 2002).The mainstream practices of environmental management in South Africa are basedon assumptions that apply to the developed world and do not always take intoaccount the social context of development. The issues of poverty and socialinequality that are prevalent in the developing world often remain neglected(Blowers, 1997; Weaver et al., 1999; Blowers & Pain, 2001; Scott et al., 2001).

In short, a technocratic expert-driven way of conceptualizing democracy that‘‘marginalizes the agency of ordinary people’’ remains engrained in South Africa(Boyte, 2004, p. 20). Environmental assessment practices fall into this category aslittle has been done to embed the democratic principles of social and environmentaljustice inherent in environmental policy into actual implementation, resulting inwhat Boyte calls ‘shallow democracy’ (Boyte, 2004). The equity principles of NEMAare not emphasized and values upon which decision making is based are not madeexplicit, with environmental assessment remaining a set of technical procedures(Laros, 2004). In the 2004 Presidential Address of the South African chapter of theInternational Association of Impact Assessment (IAIA) a call was made for theinclusion of social justice and equity as explicit principles to guide EIA practice inSouth Africa (Laros, 2004).

Alternative views to expert-driven state-centred democracy abound in SouthAfrica with the legacy of the struggle forming the basis of emergent civic strugglesover urban reproductive issues, merging with grassroots development imperatives.Much of the post-apartheid discourse in South Africa is rights-based and imbuedwith notions of participatory democracy, which requires a confident, informed andpoliticized citizenry. However, the implementation of these alternative approaches informal decision-making processes is not currently being achieved.

This paper proposes that the principles of social and environmental justiceinherent in environmental policy and legislation need to be explicitly adopted to

446 D. Scott & C. Oelofse

frame planning and development in the cities of societies in transformation to deependemocracy. There needs to be a shift from the technocentric, procedural practices ofenvironmental assessment to more participatory and equitable processes. Newmethodologies for social assessment are required to ensure that the rights and needsof marginalized urban dwellers are taken into account. A case study of a socialassessment undertaken from November 1999 to July 2000 of the proposeddevelopment of a large general landfill in the north of the Durban MetropolitanArea (DMA)1 is used to present an example of alternative practices of environmentalassessment that are proposed as more democratic and sustainable. The methodologywas specifically designed in order to explore how ‘invisible stakeholders’ could beincluded in assessment procedures. ‘Invisible stakeholders’ are defined as poor andmarginalized black2 people who potentially suffer the impacts of development buthave historically been excluded from assessment procedures due to the conventionalmethodologies of assessment.

Conceptualizing Environmental Practice

Characteristics of Mainstream Environmental Management Policy

‘Ecological modernization’ is a global environmental management discourse. Thisdiscourse represents a technocentric and prescriptive worldview of the mostappropriate way to manage environmental problems (Hajer, 1995; Christoff,1996). It supports the belief that the free market and science and technology arethe correct approaches to solving environmental problems. These approaches are atthe forefront of policy-making in developed countries and increasingly in developingcountries. It is within the utilitarian logic of this discourse that issues ofenvironmental protection are reduced to those of management through a range oftechnical and institutional mechanisms (Hajer, 1995; Dryzek, 1997; Adjer et al.,2000; Murphy, 2000; Seippel, 2000).

This environmental management discourse has been adopted throughout thedeveloped, and most countries of the developing, world (Lee & George, 1998). It isproposed here that these mainstream environmental assessment procedures andpractices fall short of fulfilling development and social goals in developing countries.Critics of mainstream environmental management policy and legislation proposethat in developing countries the conditions for the mainstream environmentalmanagement approach to succeed do not exist or are limited in their development(Blowers & Pain, 2001; Oelofse et al., 2002). Environmental degradation and povertyare so widespread that the management of these problems is impossible through themainstream approach (Blowers & Pain, 2001). Furthermore, social contradictionsare explicitly avoided particularly in project based EIAs where the context beyondthe project is assumed to be ‘outside the brief’. Thus, the social questions of‘development for whom?’ and ‘at whose expense?’ are not adequately dealt with(Blowers & Pain, 2001). In the case of South Africa, mainstream environmentalpolicy discourse was introduced in the late 1980s and early 1990s with EIA as a toolto evaluate development. However, a conscious effort was made by policy makers togo beyond the technocratic EIA process adopted elsewhere and move towards onewhich takes into account social contexts, ensuring the representation of those from

Social and Environmental Justice in South African Cities 447

disadvantaged backgrounds. This is reflected in the broad definition of ‘theenvironment’ adopted in South African environmental legislation, which includesthe social, economic and political components of the environment. Therefore,inherent within South African environmental assessment policy are the contrastinggoals of promoting efficiency and ensuring social justice and equity.

Part of the shift to a more democratic policy-making process both globally and inSouth Africa is the inclusion of other stakeholders in the process of publicparticipation (Taylor et al., 1995; Fell & Sadler, 1999; Oelofse & Patel, 2000;O’Riordan et al., 2000). This has become a cornerstone of South African practice,albeit based on traditional techniques. Within the approach of ecologicalmodernization it has been recognized that procedures and methods are necessaryfor adequately representing the voices of social groups in environment anddevelopment decision-making processes (Douglass & Friedmann, 1998). Conse-quently, a plethora of experimental institutional practices has emerged to makedecision making more democratic as part of the principle of sustainable development(Hajer & Kesselring, 1999). However, in practice participation largely remains alegitimizing process with marginalized groups playing a limited role or remainingaltogether ‘invisible’ (Blowers & Pain, 2001).

Worldwide there has been a move for the state to become less centralized andmore inclusive in its decision-making procedures with regard to environmentaldecision making. Dryzek et al., (2003) propose that there are three dimensions alongwhich the impact of the state on the democratization process and the ‘advance’ ofdemocratization can be evaluated. These are:

. Franchise: the number of people effectively participating in collective decisionmaking.

. Scope: the areas of social, economic and political life brought under consciouscollective control.

. Authenticity: the degree to which participation . . . is effective rather thansymbolic, and engaged by competent actors (Dryzek et al., 2003, p. 104).

The outcomes of the SIA considered in this paper are briefly evaluated against thesedimensions.

Social and Environmental Justice as a Framing Discourse for Development

Social justice is a well developed and long debated body of knowledge that addressesissues around relative deprivation and fairness (Rawls, 1971; Harvey, 1973, 1996;Smith, 1979; Cutter, 1995). It addresses issues of inequity through socialredistribution of the benefits of society. This discourse is proposed here as anappropriate normative framework for measuring the advance of democratization.

The social justice discourse is an alternative approach to that of ecologicalmodernization and critiques the latter for its focus on technocratic and institutionalsolutions, and its prioritization of efficiency at the cost of social equity (Hajer &Kesselring, 1999; Castells, 2000; Bond, 2002). It challenges the status quo byproposing changes in economic and social relations to prevent continuedenvironmental deterioration and social crisis (Blowers & Pain, 2001).


Environmental justice refers to the spatial distribution of environmental goodsand bads amongst people. Environmental justice has been defined as ‘‘fairness in thedistribution of environmental well being’’ (Low & Gleeson, 1998, p. 102). It allowsall to ‘‘define and achieve their aspirations without imposing unfair, excessive orirreparable burdens or externalities on others and their environments, now and in thefuture’’ (Hallowes & Butler, 2002, p. 51).

The impacts of environmental hazards are always socially and spatiallydifferentiated and the distribution of risk is often parallel with the distribution ofwealth (Harvey, 1996; Pulido, 1996; Low & Gleeson, 1998; Marsh & Oelofse, 1998;Scott et al., 2002). Modern production spreads both and also concentrates both(Low & Gleeson, 1998). Environmental justice reflects on the spatial distribution ofenvironmental quality and risk as well as on the process of how environmentaldecisions are taken. ‘‘These distributions which are highly variegated in socio-cultural and spatial terms interact to produce a diverse and shifting landscape ofecological politics’’ (Low & Gleeson, 1998, p. 104). This is particularly true in theSouth African context where the poor and vulnerable often absorb the greatest costsof development (McDonald, 2002). In the past, apartheid policies reinforced thesedistributions. This paper suggests that new methodologies need to be developed forsocial impact assessment so as to ensure that the costs and benefits of developmentare clearly understood by decision makers and more evenly spread (Scott & Oelofse,2001; Oelofse et al., 2002).

Many communities in South African cities have inherited the impacts of poorland-use planning from the apartheid era. Black communities in South Africa sufferfrom social injustice due to the historical underdevelopment and neglect of theirliving environments.2 In addition, industries, transport routes and infrastructuralelements such as landfills, airports and power stations, were located in closeproximity to surrounding poor communities (Scott et al., 2002). In some cases,poorer communities settled around these developments establishing informalsettlements in buffer zones separating developments from formal residential areas.This has resulted in a range of negative environmental impacts on the quality of lifeof the communities within the impact zones of these activities, causing environmentalracism (Scott et al., 2002). Adopting principles of social and environmental justice istherefore imperative in addressing these inequalities.

Context

The Urban Periphery

Asa result of the policies of the past, the peripheries ofmost SouthAfrican cities consistof largely poor and marginalized predominantly black communities. The historicallegacy of apartheid displaced poorer black people to the urban periphery, andseparated them from the white core areas. It is in these areas that the greatest growth ofurban population is occurring today (Cross et al., 1996; Freund & Padayachee, 2002)and which constitute desperately poor living environments (Dewar, 1992).

Further out lies the peri-urban fringe of the city, which consists of those areas thathave the physical appearance of rural landscapes, with evidence of subsistencefarming but which are functionally linked to the urban areas. These areas have a


more dense settlement pattern than rural settlements. In this peri-urban environ-ment, particularly around cities like Durban, which lie adjacent to tribal authorityareas, household members commute into the centre of urban areas to work in theurban economy. Where peri-urban areas are under tribal authority, rural blackhouseholds have moved closer to the urban core into these interface zones to gainaccessibility to jobs and urban resources (Hallowes & Butler, 2002).

Most households living in the peri-urban fringe display high levels of poverty andunemployment (Cross et al., 1996). As a result of the homeland polices of the past,3

the unequal distribution of resources, high population concentrations, difficultenvironmental conditions and poor governance and management, individuals livingin the urban periphery remain trapped in a cycle of poverty. These areas arecharacterized by poor living environments and a range of environmental problemsincluding no sanitation or waste removal, inadequate supplies of potable water, lackof energy sources, poor health, malnutrition and violence. Gender inequalities aresignificant in the peri-urban areas where there is an absence of males due tomigration and where female-headed households predominate.

As there is available undeveloped landon the urban periphery, it is the site for furtherdevelopment and outward expansion of urban activities and functions. Although therehas been a concerted effort in urban planning and management to integrate SouthAfrican cities and to make them more compact, urban areas are characterized by lowdensity sprawl with a highly fragmented urban form (Dewar, 1992; Todes, 2000).

It is proposed here that poverty and vulnerability need to be taken into account inthe assessment of the impacts of development in order to prevent the loading ofnegative externalities onto the peri-urban black communities (Scott & Oelofse, 1998,2000). One of the prime concerns in the landfill location process that commenced in1999 in the DMA was to ensure that those peripheral communities, which havealready borne the burden of apartheid injustices, are not burdened with additionalnegative externalities resulting from landfill siting. The potential risks posed by alandfill would be from possible odour emissions, visibility, traffic noise and hazard,water contamination and secondary impacts associated with potential land invasionsin the area. However, experience has shown that there are also benefits to be gainedfrom landfills especially with regard to the potential for small and medium sizedbusinesses to be established for recycling purposes. Hence, there is the potential foremployment opportunities related to the siting of a landfill as a result of the broaderdevelopment (such as infrastructure and associated activities) that may occur as aresult of the location of a landfill in an under-developed region.

The Establishment of Landfills in the eThekweni Municipality (Durban)

It is in these ‘undeveloped’ peripheral lands to the north of Durban, that the locationof the large landfill was proposed. In 1996 Durban Solid Waste (DSW), themunicipal waste service provider, established the need for new general large landfillsin the Durban Metropolitan Area as the existing landfills at the time of the study hada life of only 30 years (Hindson et al., 1996; Lombard & Associates, 2000). Based onthis analysis DSW commenced with the planning and application for permission todevelop and operate three large landfill facilities in the metropolitan area, to thenorth, west and south. Waste management in South Africa falls under the


Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF). A set of guidelines for thedisposal of waste provide the statutory conditions under which landfills can bedeveloped and these requirements guided the EIA (Lombard & Associates, 2000;DWAF, 1998). The case study presented here relates to the first of the landfills to bedeveloped in the North Zone of the metropolitan region.

In 1996 a lengthy technical process commenced to determine the optional broader‘window’ areas for landfill development in the three zones. Based on geology,topography, hydrological considerations and settlement patterns, a number of‘windows’ were identified as possible locations for landfills. The two optional sitesidentified within the window in the North Zone were the Buffelsdraai andSummerpride sites. The sites lie in the commercial sugar cane farming corridorbetween the coastal belt and the traditional authority areas further inland, in theprevious Ilembe Regional Council area (Figure 1).

In South Africa a statutory requirement of an EIA is public participation. Alengthy regional process commenced in 1998 in order to inform interested andaffected parties (I&APs) of the proposed landfill developments and elicit theircomments and concerns. Conventional public meetings, workshops and open housedisplays were held. A database was created of all parties who showed interest andengaged with this process of information sharing. Site Evaluation Committees(SECs) were established in the three zones comprising a range of stakeholders who

Figure 1. Location of optional landfill sites in the North Zone


engaged in an ongoing process in the choosing and testing of the suitability of thesites in each zone.

As part of the background information, a broad ‘social probe’ to determine thesocio-economic landscape of the three zones was undertaken (Scott & Oelofse, 1998).The key tool for the detailed assessment of the development of the proposed landfillin the North Zone was the EIA, which assessed the options of the Buffelsdraai andSummerpride sites. In South Africa, SIAs are mostly conducted by publicparticipation facilitators rather than social scientists, resulting in social issues beingraised through the public participation process adopted for the EIA and not beinganalysed to the depth that they should be through the application of social theory(Taylor et al., 1995). The SIA in this case study was commissioned as a specialiststudy for the EIA and was the first SIA of a landfill development in South Africa(Scott & Oelofse, 2000).4 This was done to ensure that social issues were given thesame weighting as the biophysical issues in the EIA procedure. In terms of cost, theSIA received a relatively small budget allocation relative to the technical studies andbroader public participation process. This was an indicator of the low importance ofthis specialist study in relation to the other natural science and technical reports.

Principles for Democratization of Practice in the Developing World

As a part of the ongoing and challenging task to ‘deepen democracy’ at all levels andin all institutions, it is critical to make explicit the normative principles of socialjustice upon which practice is predicated. The challenge is to replace the mainstreamprinciples of technical and institutional efficiency associated with weak sustainabilitywith the more democratic and socially oriented principles of strong sustainability(Christoff, 1996). The case study presents an example of practice explicitly based onsocial justice theory as the rationale for action. Key to the implementation of thisnew approach to SIA was the explicit use of a conceptual framework that containedsocial justice principles. These principles, which determine what ‘should be’, arethose of procedural, distributional and inter-generational equity (Lober, 1993; Scott& Oelofse, 1998).

Procedural equity ensures a fair process of environmental decision making.Distributional equity involves ensuring that there is fairness regarding the spatiallocation and distribution of impacts and benefits resulting from the developmentprocess (Scott & Oelofse, 1998). Account must be taken whether groups areprimary stakeholders or secondary stakeholders. It is the primary stakeholders whoare likely to be affected by the direct impacts on their living environments, such asodour, visibility, noise and a change in the nature of place, e.g. landowners andresidents. Secondary stakeholders are likely to be concerned about the landfillsiting in the broader context, and are usually representatives of certainconstituencies, such as politicians, local authority planners, conservationists, unionrepresentatives, etc. A policy based on social justice would ensure that thosecommunities that would be closest to proposed developments are not those thatare already bearing the costs of other injustices. Intergenerational equity is a moreillusive and difficult principle to apply. The main goal here is to ensure that thelocation of a facility does not have detrimental effects on future generations to thebenefit of present generations.


These principles provide an essential framework for determining what ‘should be’.In addition to these normative principles of sustainability, a range of social theoryrelating to the structure of society, social groupings, representation, social conflictand power relations as well as urban theory explaining the structure of SouthAfrican cities was employed to understand the complex social and urbanenvironment, particularly related to the legacy of apartheid. This body of theoryexplicitly framed the identification, description and assessment of the social impactsof the proposed landfills and the evaluation of the site options in the SIA. It istherefore proposed that this SIA and the participatory process designed to identifythe social issues of the range of stakeholders, is applied social science.

The application of social justice principles is deemed to be essential both in thecontext of post-apartheid South Africa where the goals of society are aimed atreconstruction and development and the redress of past, and in the context ofprevailing neo-liberal economic policy. Thus mitigation is defined as not only theminimizing or eliminating of negative effects of the proposed landfills, but moreimportantly, ‘to enhance project benefits’ and provide for the developmentalpotential of the landfill to compensate for the identified impacts (DEAT, 1998; Scott& Oelofse, 2001).

In order to ensure adequate participation of communities throughout the NorthZone and fairness in landfill site selection, the principle of procedural equity was theguiding principle applied to the process. To ensure procedural equity there are anumber of procedural requirements (Scott & Oelofse, 1998). The principles listedbelow were used to guide the development of a methodology for the SIA:

. The process should give power to previously disadvantaged groups to influencedecisions, which affect their livelihood and quality of life.

. The process requires recognition of social differentiation and a respect fordiversity. This requires attention to social organizations as a means for gainingaccess to social groupings, for example, ratepayers’ associations, civic, andenvironmental organizations.

. All parties are to be accountable to their constituencies to make decisions andparticipate on their behalf and undertake to feed back information to them. Theyalso need to be accountable to the process that they have agreed to establish.

. In order that all stakeholders have an equal opportunity to participate, it isproposed that an environmental education and information sharing process is anecessary prerequisite and therefore an integral part of the process. The methodand content of this education process is to be prompted by the participantsaccording to their interests. Participation should therefore involve capacitybuilding and empowerment.

. The process needs to recognize that all individuals have a constitutional right ascitizens to participate in the decision-making process.

. There needs to be a commitment to an integration of local and scientificknowledge in an interactive, on-going process between an informed publicbringing their local knowledge to bear, and the scientific experts.

Distributional equity was addressed through the consideration of spatial impactsand implications across a range of stakeholder groups. Care needed to be taken to


ensure that those communities, which were closest to the proposed windows, werenot those who were already bearing the costs of other injustices. In order to assessthe distribution of impacts, it was necessary to undertake a social analysis tounderstand the background and structure of the affected communities, including thehistory of the area. This provided initial contextual information regarding importantissues that needed to be considered in the landfill siting process.

The principle of intergenerational equity required an analysis of the possible long-term impacts of the development in the region. An issue of particular concern washow the new landfill may result in the reshaping of space and place in the NorthZone. Changes that may happen in the social environment as a result of thedevelopment of the site had to be considered. These could cause the neighbourhoodto deteriorate, resulting in secondary impacts becoming more important than thoseassociated with the initial development of the site, as further landscapes of inequalityare formed and become mutually conditioning and reinforcing. This is particularlyrelevant in relation to the risk of informal settlements occurring adjacent to thelandfill as a result of the informal economic opportunities a landfill offers.

Designing a Methodology within a Social Justice Framework

The Social Impact Assessment commenced in November 1999. The aim of the designwas to provide a methodology for the SIA that explicitly targeted and included the‘invisible stakeholders’ in order to maximize procedural and distributional equityand extend the franchise for participation. This methodology needed to beappropriate to the development context of South Africa as a new democracy, andmore specifically to the specific local context in which the landfill was to bedeveloped. The SIA was undertaken during the current transitional phase in SouthAfrica’s history in which more democratic forms of participation and representationare becoming institutionalized. The methodology thus combined techniques to allowfor both representational democracy, which allows for elected councillors torepresent their constituencies in decision-making processes, as well as a moreparticipatory form of democratic decision making, which attempted to ensure thatthe more marginalized and ‘invisible stakeholders’ were explicitly included in theprocess. It is for this reason that the SIA was a relatively lengthy process, wasdynamic in the way it unfolded, and itself can be considered as a part of thetransformation process occurring at this point in South Africa’s history (Scott &Oelofse, 2001).

It is important to differentiate the SIA from the broader participation process toinform interested parties in the North Zone about the proposed landfill developmentand establish a Site Evaluation Committee (SEC). The latter process was essentiallyaimed at deriving consensus regarding landfill site selection, while the goal of the SIAwas to represent the interests and concerns of all stakeholders in relation to thepotential social impacts of the landfill. The SIA linked with representatives on theSEC, utilized the database, which formed the basis for its initiation, and reported tothe SEC of its processes.

The aim of designing an alternative, qualitative methodology that advanced thecurrent dominant environmental assessment practices was to ensure that the interestsand concerns presented were representative of all stakeholders, not only those who


were literate, powerful and linked into institutional mechanisms that allowed them toparticipate in the process. By conducting household interviews, it thus targeted thepoor, vulnerable and marginalized, such as women living in the peripheral tribalauthority area adjacent to the proposed landfill sites. Increasing the number ofpeople, particularly ‘‘those whose continued exclusion formal citizenship rights canmask’’ (Dryzek et al., 2003, p. 104) is a measure of the advance of democratization.

A set of stakeholders was identified via the database established by the initialpublic participation to establish the SEC, and by a process of networking, localinvestigation and the social probe (see Stage 3 of Figure 2). At the outset of the SIA,it became apparent that key primary stakeholders, living around the proposedlandfill sites, who are poor and vulnerable, had not been included in the earlier SECprocess and in many instances, were not aware at all that there was a participatoryprocess underway to inform residents and determine their views on the siting of alandfill in their area. An initial SIA community meeting was held in December 2000at the Osindisweni Hospital, which lies adjacent to the landfill site (Figure 1). Themeeting had been called by the local councillor and headman (induna).5 There wasonly one woman and no members of households located next to the proposed landfillsite present. The councillor explained that he was representing the communitiesadjacent to the proposed landfill site. However, the household interviews latershowed that very few of the residents living adjacent to the proposed site were awareof the proposal and constituencies had not been informed. These findings supportedthe need for a more inclusive approach to gathering data for the SIA.

The process of social impact assessment consisted of some conventional methodsof informing the public in addition to methods specifically designed to betransformative and participatory (Rycroft & Scott, 1998). Figure 2 is a schema ofthe Social Impact Assessment Process, showing the combination of overlappingtechniques used to derive the social issues and concerns of stakeholders. Householdinterviews were used to elicit the views of the primary ‘invisible stakeholders’ since itwas felt that they had had limited access to information from the SEC meetings andthe broader public participation process.

The social impact assessment methodology consisted of three separate proceduresto obtain responses from stakeholders (Figure 2). These were:

(1) Mailshot: Responses from the broader public were invited via a mailednotification brochure and response form.

(2) Individual Interviews: Primary ‘invisible stakeholders’ were identified andinterviewed as part of a 10% sample of the households living in the landfillbuffer zone. Key secondary stakeholders were interviewed.

(3) Stakeholder workshops: Information gathering and identification of keyconcerns and issues, including both primary and secondary stakeholders.

Using a Mailshot as a Form of Participation

Mailshots are examples of a conventional SIA tool to glean the responses of affectedparties and are used widely in the developed world (Fell & Sadler, 1999). Themailshot included a notification brochure in Zulu and English. The response formcontained a questionnaire to derive stakeholder responses in relation to opportu-


Figure 2. The social impact assessment process


nities and constraints, mitigatory measures, concerns and interests, evaluation ofoptions and information relating to the landfill siting process. The target group wasall the primary and secondary stakeholders in the North Zone database. Theresponse to the mailshot was very low with only 11 out of the 410 response forms(2.6%) being returned. These forms did not reach the peri-urban communities thatform the bulk of the primary stakeholders as they were not on the initialparticipatory process database, nor do households have postal addresses in theserural areas.

Interviews with Primary Stakeholders around each Proposed Site

Mainstream environmental assessment procedures couched within an ecologicalmodernization approach are based on the assumption that the ‘public’ is a uniformliterate body, with an awareness of stakeholder rights and access to the media andinstitutional processes. Therefore, the assumption is that if notice is given of anassessment procedure via an advert in a daily newspaper and a mailshot, invitingresponses, then participation can be assumed to have taken place. With the emphasison the biophysical environment and the reliance on the analytical tradition ofpositivist science, mainstream environmental assessment neglects the social environ-ment and the context of development (Blowers, 1997). It is proposed here that theseassumptions still pervade environmental assessment practice in the South Africancontext where practitioners adopt an ‘analytical’ approach and abstract thedevelopment context out of the assessment.

Participation of this type is merely a legitimizing process accomplishing no morethan informing some stakeholders and completely neglecting the marginalized socialgroups who will play a limited role or remain altogether ‘invisible’ (Freeman, 2001;Blowers & Pain, 2001). Thus one of the major limitations of the mainstreamapproach in developing countries is that the assumed conditions for mainstreamenvironmental management to be successful, i.e. literacy, access to the media etc, arenot present or are poorly developed. The inequalities of wealth and power, which areparticularly evident in developing countries, form a barrier to the creation ofpartnerships and co-operation in environmental decision making.

Of importance to this paper, is the fact that the discourse of ecologicalmodernization or mainstream environmental management is criticized for explicitlyavoiding addressing social contradictions (Blowers & Pain, 2001). Hence the largevolume of literature that is now emerging on the procedures and methods foradequately representing the voices of social groups in environment and developmentdecision-making processes (Douglass & Friedmann, 1998; Oelofse & Patel, 2000;Oelofse et al., 2002). The interview process in this study was a process of appliedsocial science whereby a methodology was designed particularly to target a specificcategory of people, i.e. the marginalized rural households in the traditional authorityareas which were predominantly female-headed, the ‘invisible stakeholders’. Anumber of steps were designed to achieve this goal:

Analysis of social context. The sampled community respondents living around theproposed landfill were drawn from different types of living environments and thesecontexts needed to be understood in order to plan the programme, transport and


timing of the interviews. Adjacent communities were found to be living in formal andinformal urban living environments, i.e. Buffelsdraai and Redcliffe respectively, butalso peri-urban communities living in a rural environment in traditional authorityareas, i.e. Osindisweni (Figure 3). In order to promote social justice and ensure the‘effective’ engagement by ‘competent actors’ (Dryzek et al., 2003) the interviewprocedure needed to capture the views of the primary ‘invisible stakeholders’ frominformal and rural areas who had been excluded from the earlier participationprocess of the EIA. This necessitated negotiating difficult physical and politicalterrain, poor roads and locating remote homesteads. It is for this reason that thiscategory of stakeholders is often neglected in environmental assessments in the peri-urban and rural areas in developing countries (Vanclay, 2000; Scott & Oelofse,2001).

Negotiating access. Obtaining permission to work in the area and to interviewhousehold members had to be obtained from the councillors and headmen. This wasnecessary in the Ilembe region particularly with regard to the traditional authorityareas. In both cases the Ilembe Regional councillors were contacted and informed ofthe process, and were requested to provide permission that the interviewing may takeplace. It was felt that these leaders may be acting as gatekeepers in the process. Thisconcern was further supported by the fact that very few of the primary stakeholderswere aware of the proposal to locate a landfill in their area, even though theircouncillors and headmen had been present at the SEC meetings and had stated thatthey would feed information back to their communities. This raised concerns aboutthe process of representative democracy and the need to adapt techniques accordingto the socio-political context in order to embed social and environmental justice in

Figure 3. Sampling Zones: Buffelsdraai site


the EIA process. In challenging the existing power relations, the process had thepotential to be transformatory.

Sampling. In order to derive a sample of the primary stakeholders living around theproposed sites, maps with a buffer around the proposed sites were drawn, and asample of households was selected. Given the social geography and topography ofthe area, a distance of 1 km was selected to define the buffer zone around theproposed site in which stakeholders are likely to be the most impacted. It wasdecided that a further buffer zone of 1 km should be included as a secondary impactzone in which some stakeholders might also be affected but to a lesser degree. Due toparticular concern that the marginalized groups living adjacent to both sites were notaware of and had not participated in the public participation process, a 10% sampleof those primary stakeholder communities living within a two kilometre zone aroundthe footprint of the Buffelsdraai and Summerpride sites were selected.

With the use of the 1:50 000 maps, 1:10 000 orthophoto maps, 1999 aerialphotographs and the engineer’s site plans of the site footprints, GIS maps of the siteswere digitized and a 1 km and 2 km zone around each site footprint created (Figures3 and 4). The DMA boundary formed an important boundary on the map separatingthe urban from the rural environment as well as dividing those areas provided withservices from those without services.

Within the 1 km and 2 km zone, stakeholders were sampled from the clusters andclassified into those groups living within the DMA and within the Ilembe RegionalCouncil. The 1997 and 1999 colour aerial photography at 1:10 000 and 1:11 000respectively, along with the 1992 orthophoto map were utilized to count the numberof households/ businesses lying within the buffer zones of the Buffelsdraai andSummerpride sites.

Figure 4. Sampling Zones: Summerpride site


The technical specialist team proposed that a ‘limited study’ be undertaken aroundthe Summerpride site, due to the biophysical constraints of this site and thelimitations this placed on its ability to fulfil the requirements of the EIA.

Interviews. A team of six Zulu-speaking post-graduate students from the Universityof KwaZulu-Natal6 were trained as field workers to undertake the householdinterviews, which took place between January and mid-May 2000. De-briefing afterthe initial pilot interviews allowed for the fine-tuning of the interview process and the‘groundtruthing’ of the map, which was then edited and landmarks added.Inaccessibility and poor access roads slowed down the interview process, whichwas exacerbated by summer rains.

Each household interview was an intensive, lengthy interview due to the necessityto explain the social impact assessment process; the proposed optional landfill sites;the specialist and objective nature of the study and answer many questions thatrespondents posed. Laminated photographs of modern landfill sites were shown torespondents. It was apparent that most people around the site, other than a few ofthe landowners, were not aware that this process of landfill siting was in progress.This presented the interviewers with the task of information provision before theresponse form could be completed. Capacity building of the ‘invisible stakeholders’was an important product of the interview process. In addition, respondents supplieduseful local knowledge about other relevant stakeholders in the area and so anetworking process was used to add to the original sample.

A total of 86 interviews were conducted in households in the 2 km buffer zonearound Buffelsdraai and 14 in households around Summerpride, which includedadjacent landowners who were pinpointed as important stakeholders to beinterviewed.

Stakeholder Workshops

Six individual stakeholder workshops and one multi-stakeholder workshop wereheld as part of the SIA. The stakeholder workshops were held separately for thefollowing groups of stakeholders:

. Local, provincial and national regulators

. The developer, i.e. Durban Solid Waste

. Community stakeholders

. Environmental organizations

. Landowners

. Landfill users, i.e. North Local Council, Ilembe Regional Council and Businessand Industry

The workshops were conducted according to the principles of procedural equity(Scott & Oelofse, 1998). The goals of the individual stakeholder workshops were togain insight into the concerns of stakeholders and to attempt to get stakeholders tounderstand the views and concerns of others, thereby moving from individualinterests to common interests, thus enabling consensus to be reached about the keysocial issues and impacts around the location of a large general landfill in the North


Zone (Rycroft & Scott, 1998). Only one community representative was able to attendthe community workshop, once again supporting the need for household interviews.

The individual workshops, which had a 60 – 75% attendance rate, aimed toexplore the social impacts of the proposed landfill in a non-threatening environment.This served the purpose of eliciting the main social issues, providing proposedsolutions or mitigation measures and electing two representatives to go forward tothe multi-stakeholder workshop.

The multi-stakeholder workshop followed on by exploring the key social issuesthat had arisen in all the stakeholder workshops and listing the general issuesrelevant to both sites and the specific issues that are pertinent to the two sites,Buffelsdraai and Summerpride. The goal was for all participants to work towardsconsensus and a vision for the future. The workshops aimed to get common interestson the table rather than individual interests.

The SIA recorded a strong mandate from all stakeholders that broaderdevelopmental compensation would be necessary in order to mitigate for thepresence of large general landfill in the region. This compensation, it was suggested,could be in the form of environmental education, the stimulation of economicactivities, the continued role of local stakeholders in the decision making around thelandfill (a landfill monitoring committee) and infrastructural development (upgrad-ing schools, roads, sporting facilities in adjacent communities) (Scott & Oelofse,2001).

The application was finally approved on 21 September 2001 by the Tribunal of theDevelopment Facilitation Act, and the Buffelsdraai site approved subject to anumber of conditions. The record of decision required that ‘the long-term physicaland human resource development of the area’ was a necessary prerequisite fordevelopment (DAEA, 13/10/2000). As this was the overriding concern of localpeople living adjacent to the proposed site, it could be said that in a broad sense theirconcerns had been addressed. Furthermore, the SIA called for DSW, as the publicdeveloper, to assume the role of developmental local government and engage in localeconomic development in partnership with other local institutions.7

The development of the Buffelsdraai site commenced in July 2004. The eThekweniMunicipality has bought the relevant land and the landfill will commence operatingin 2005 on a small scale. The developmental concerns are being included into theSpatial Development Framework for the northern zone (R. Lombard, pers.comm.14/12/2004).

As South Africa’s new democracy is both representative and participatory, thepractices adopted in the social impact assessment sought to include both electedrepresentatives (councillors), representatives of social, residential, business andgovernment stakeholders, as well as providing for the participation of marginalizedsocial groups. It is concluded here that the use of social and environmental justicetheory as a framing discourse for designing SIA methodology has contributed todemocratic ‘advance’ in a number of ways. It provided for the ‘franchise’ to beexpanded, i.e. the number of people participating in collective decision making wasincreased. What is important is the inclusion of a previously marginalized group ofpredominantly female household heads in a peri-urban area. Second, it is contendedthat the participation in this case was more ‘authentic’ in that this group of womenwere not symbolically included via representation by a male tribal leader or


councillor but had their own voice heard and effectively raised their concerns whichrelated to the impact of the ‘dump’ to reproductive issues, i.e. their livingenvironments, health education and the safety of their children. Finally, it iscontended that the explicit introduction of social and environmental justice in thearea of environmental assessment served to expand the scope of areas in whichdemocratization is occurring.

Conclusion

Although formal citizenship rights exist in South Africa, the discourse of democracyis overwhelmingly about the representation and participation of all people in societaldecision making. In this context, a more meaningful definition of democratization isthat of a process which includes the broader transformation of society over a longerperiod of time, beyond the achievement of formal democracy which guarantees civilliberties through constitutional means (Dryzek et al., 2003; Barnett & Scott, 2004).The paper presents the hegemonic discourse of ecological modernization thatdominates environmental management and policy in developed and developingcountries. Through a critique of this environmental policy approach, it is proposedthat this technocentric discourse is not appropriate in the context of a developingcountry due to its inability to address social issues, particularly high levels of povertyand inequality. Second, it is demonstrated that an alternative discourse of socialjustice is capable of ‘radicalizing’ ecological modernization by introducing principlesand practices to make environmental management more socially equitable.

In the South African context the mainstream environmental managementapproach developed in Western democracies has been adopted. However, principlesof social and environmental justice were integrated into this approach via theoriginal Integrated Environmental Management framework when it was establishedin the late 1980s and early 1990s. However, the paper argues that although theseprinciples exist in environmental policy and the framing legislation, they have notbeen adequately applied in environmental assessment practice. A case study is thenpresented as an example of the implementation of the ‘social justice’ approach inenvironmental management. The advance of democratization through the imple-mentation of social justice in environmental assessment practice is then brieflyevaluated through three dimensions proposed by Dryzek et al. (2003) upon which tomeasure democratic ‘advance’, namely franchise, scope and authenticity.

The research outlines an alternative methodology for social impact assessmentthat was applied to the case of a proposed general landfill in the North Zone of theDMA. It proposes that the concepts of social and environmental justice, which iftaken into consideration, would provide for a sustainable landfill siting process. Thepaper represents an attempt to democratize the practice of environmental assessmentby explicitly including poor and marginalized people who remain excluded fromenvironmental and other forms of decision making despite the promise of democraticequality. This social group, termed here as the ‘invisible stakeholders’, continue to beexcluded from processes of environmental assessment in the new democratic SouthAfrica despite policy and legislative reform. While the intent of environmental policyis to provide a framework for democratization and sustainability, environmentalassessment practices remain technocratic and state-centred and are not appropriate


in the developing world and in countries in a process of transition. The paperproposes that within the practice of environmental management, an alternativeapproach, which includes the explicit adoption of a framing discourse of social andenvironmental justice within which methodologies are designed, will contribute tothe broader project of democratization. This would serve to shift practices awayfrom the efficiency based mainstream approach. The case study of the SIA of theeThekweni Municipality landfill serves to illustrate the application of this approach.

Two key questions need to be asked about the methodology employed in the casestudy. Was the methodology truly alternative to current SIA and EIA practice and inwhat way did it advance the process of democratization? It can be concluded that themethodology used was applied social science designed within a specific set oftheoretical assumptions related to democratic and sustainable decision making andnormative principles. The inclusion of an interview process consisting of a largenumber of face-to-face interviews with marginalized people can be considered to bean alternative more democratic approach not normally undertaken in the standardSIA and EIA processes in South Africa. The interviews of primary stakeholders werevery important as they allowed marginalized groups to be represented revealing veryreal concerns and lack of knowledge about landfills. Furthermore, this group ofmainly women, needed considerable capacity building in order that they mightparticipate effectively. However, this key component of the methodology was noteasy due to difficulties with physical conditions and procedural access to thecommunity, as well as limited time and resources. The interviewers had to work in ahighly politicized environment and be sensitive to political tensions within theregion.

The stakeholder workshops were successful in engaging different stakeholderrepresentatives to work together. Issues from the range of stakeholders were fed intothe final workshop and synergy was obtained in deriving the main issues andprioritizing them. People moved beyond personal or group interests to a broaderunderstanding of the public interests at large. A high degree of satisfaction amongstakeholders was recorded as an outcome of having participated in the workshopsand household interviews.

The political context of transformation, underdevelopment and poverty created avery difficult context within which to work. The methodology required anengagement with the problems experienced in peripheral areas of South Africancities and an understanding of the social context. Although it was not the primarygoal of the process, capacity building was necessary to empower participants toengage in the process effectively and took place throughout the process. Capacitybuilding also took place among local state representatives involved in thestakeholder workshops regarding the importance of citizens’ rights and the needto give greater priority to social impacts in environmental assessment processes.

The pressing issues of poverty and social inequalities highlighted in the SIA reportcould not be ignored and, through the integration of the SIA, spilt over into the EIAprocess. However, in the final outcome, the utilitarian and technicist analyticalmethod of the EIA process tended to dilute the significance of the social anddevelopmental recommendations made (Scott & Oelofse, 2001). Despite thisconstraining framework, it is concluded that the SIA process was able to includethe views of ‘invisible stakeholders’ in the decision-making processes and enable


them to participate effectively. The social and developmental issues raised hadgreater status in the EIA because the SIA was a separate specialist report.Participation moved beyond being merely symbolic and can be characterized in thisprocess as ‘authentic’ (Dryzek et al., 2003). An advance in democratization is alsoevident in the additional number of people that participated and particularly thosewho would normally be excluded from the process—the ‘invisible stakeholders’.

Public participation in environmental decision-making is a requirement in SouthAfrican environmental law. However, this case study demonstrates that it is how thisparticipation takes place that is critical in terms of achieving environmental andsocial justice and advancing democratization. There are three key practical areas towhich attention must be paid in order that social issues be adequately incorporatedinto the practice of environmental assessment and environmental decision-making.First, the confusion between social assessment and participation needs to be clarifiedin order that the former can provide a social analysis of the social, political, culturaland economic landscape, and equitably represent the interests of all interested andaffected parties, as well as providing a context for the design and implementation ofthe latter. Second, environmental consultants, who are commissioned by developers,need to be trained and accredited to integrate the social and natural/physical/technical dimensions of environmental assessment and give them equal emphasis andresourcing. This would require a social scientist as part of the assessment team. Theyneed further to explicitly incorporate the social and environmental justice principlesinherent in environmental legislation and policy in their practices. Third, since it is inthe provincial environmental departments that approval is granted by governmentofficials for development to proceed, these officials need further training along thelines of that suggested for consultants above. With the pressure for development inSouth Africa as a developing country, environmental officials are hard pressed todeal with the complex issues surrounding environment and development and fallback on the well tested traditional procedural and technocentric measures. Thus thewhole field of environmental assessment practice, from the private to the publicsphere needs a revision of the practices upon which it currently relies so as to extendthe scope of democratization and challenge the dominant discourses and underlyingvalues.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank students of the Geography Division of the thenSchool of Life and Environmental Science at the University of Natal for undertakingthe field work for this project, Lombard and Associates for their assistance and co-operation, and the anonymous referees who provided many interesting and thoughtprovoking comments. Sappi Ltd is thanked for supporting Catherine Oelofse’s postat the University of KwaZulu-Natal.

Notes

1 At the time of the study, the Durban Metropolitan Area was divided into six sub-structures, one of

which was the North Zone in which the study area was located. In December 2000 the boundaries of the

DMA were expanded as part of the national process of municipal boundary demarcation. The term


‘DMA’ will be used here to denote the former city boundary as the Social Impact Assessment process

took place in this context where the location of stakeholders ‘inside’ or ‘outside’ the then city boundary

influenced their interests in the process. The district lying outside the DMA boundary in the North Zone

was the Ilembe Regional Council Area where the traditional authority areas canvassed in the case study

were located. Both areas now lie within the eThekweni Municipality. For the purposes of this paper the

boundaries prior to 2000 and the related responsible authorities will be referred to.

2 The term ‘black’ is used to refer to Africans, coloureds and Asians due to their common oppression

under apartheid. Although it is acknowledged that apartheid-era racial classifications are social

constructs, these classifications are adopted as they remain an important part of contemporary political

analysis.

3 During the apartheid era from the 1970s the policy of separate development resulted in the creation on

geographically separate ‘homelands’ for the different African ethnic groups of South Africa with the

goal of removing Africans to these areas from the rest of ‘white’ South Africa. These areas were

systematically neglected and underdeveloped.

4 The EIA included geotechnical, social, visual, odour and planning specialist reports.

5 Some of South Africa’s large metropolitan areas have been expanded to include areas under traditional

authority where these areas are functionally linked to the metropolitan economic fabric. In these and all

other communally owned traditional authority areas, traditional authority is vested in the nkosi (chief),

whose territory is divided into wards, which are controlled by indunas (headmen). In addition, as part of

the new representative democracy there are elected councillors for these areas who are accountable to

the electorate and responsible for representing the residents of their wards as they hold seats on the local

municipal councils. These councils are responsible for service provision. There is thus a dual system of

governance in these areas.

6 Now the University of KwaZulu-Natal.

7 The role of SIA as a development tool to promote developmental local government is presented in Scott

& Oelofse (2001).

References

Adjer, W. N. Benjaminsen, T. A., Brown, K. & Svarstad, H. (2000) Advancing a political ecology of global

environmental discourses. CSERGE Working Paper GEC 2000-10 (Norwich: CSERGE, University of

East Anglia).

Barnett, C. & Scott, D. (2004) Contested democratisation: the politics of the environment in South

Durban. Paper presented at the International Geographical Union Congress, Glasgow, 15 – 20 August.

Blowers, A. (1997) Environmental policy: ecological modernization or risk society? Urban Studies, 34(5 –

6), pp. 845 – 871.

Blowers, A. & Pain, K. (2001) The unsustainable city? in: S. Pile, C. Brook and G. Mooney (Eds) Unruly

Cities? Order/Disorder (New York: Routledge).

Bond, P. (2002) Unsustainable South Africa: Environment, Development and Social Protest (Scottsville:

University of Natal Press).

Boyte, H. (2004) Seeing like a democracy: South Africa’s prospects for global leadership, in: M. Strom,

(Ed.) Lessons from the Field: A Decade of Democracy, published in the Mail and Guardian, 20

November, 2004.

Castells, M. (2000) The Power of Identity (Massachusetts: Blackwell).

Christoff, P. (1996) Ecological modernisation, ecological modernities, Environmental Politics, 5(3), pp.

476 – 500.

Cross, C., Luckin, L., Mzimela, T. & Clark, C. (1996) On the edge: poverty, livelihoods and natural

resources in rural KwaZulu-Natal, in: M. Lipton & F. Ellis (Eds) Land, Labour and Livelihoods in Rural

South Africa, Vol. 2: KwaZulu-Natal and Northern Province (Durban: Indicator Press).

Cutter, S. (1995) Race, class and environmental justice, Progress in Human Geography, 19(1), pp. 111 –

122.

Department of Agriculture & Environmental Affairs (13/10/2000) Record of decision for establishment of

new large General Waste Disposal Site for the North Zone, sub-region of the Durban Metropolitan

Area (KwaZulu-Natal).

Department of Environmental Affairs (1992) Integrated Environmental Management (Pretoria: DEA).


Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (1998) Environmental Impact Management Guideline

Document, EIA Regulations. Implementation of Sections 21, 22 and 26 of the Environment

Conservation Act (Pretoria: DEAT).

Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (1998) Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill,

2nd edn (Pretoria: DWAF).

Dewar, D. (1992) Urbanisation and the South African city: a manifesto for change, in: D. Smith (Ed.) The

Apartheid City and Beyond: Urbanisation and Social Change in South Africa (London: Routledge).

Douglass, M. & Friedmann, J. (1998) Cities for Citizens (Chichester: John Wiley).

Dryzek, J. S. (1996) Political inclusion and the dynamics of democratisation, American Political Science

Review, 90(1), pp. 475 – 487.

Dryzek, J. S. (1997) The Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Dryzek, J. S., Downes, D., Hunold, C., Schlosberg, D. with Hernes, H. J. (2003) Green States and Social

Movements (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Fell, A. & Sadler, B. (1999) Public involvement in environmental assessment and management: preview of

EIA guidelines of good practice, Environmental Assessment, June, pp. 35 – 39.

Freeman, S. (2001) The role of capacity building in the public participation process: the case of landfill

siting in the North of the Durban Metropolitan Area, Unpublished Masters Thesis, Durban, University

of Natal.

Freund, B. & Padayachee, V. (2002) Durban, in: W. Freund & V. Padayachee (Eds) Durban Vortex: The

South African City in Transition (Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal).

Fuggle, R. & Rabie, M. (1999) Environmental Management in South Africa, reprint, (Cape Town: Juta).

Hallowes, D. & Butler, M. (2002) Power, poverty, and marginalized environments: a conceptual

framework, in: D. McDonald (Ed.) Environmental Justice in South Africa (Cape Town: University of

Cape Town Press).

Harvey, D. (1973) Social Justice and the City (London: Edward Arnold).

Harvey, D. (1996) Justice, Nature and the Geography of Difference (Oxford: Basil Blackwell).

Hajer, M. (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process

(Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Hajer, M. & Kesselring, S. (1999) Democracy in a risk society? Learning from the new politics of mobility

in Munich, Environmental Politics, 8(3), pp. 1 – 23.

Hindson, D., King, N. and Peart, R. (1996) Durban’s Tomorrow Today, Sustainable Development in the

Durban Metropolitan Area (Durban: Indicator Press).

Laros, M. (2004) Promoting human and environmental rights in the development process: EIA, the

sharpest tool in the shed? Presidential Address, International Association of Impact Assessment (IAIA)

Conference, Champagne Sports Resort, Drakensberg, South Africa, 2 – 5 October.

Lee, N. & George, C. (1998) Environmental Development in Developing and Transitional Countries (Wiley:

Chichester).

Lober, D. J. (1993) Beyond self-interest: a model of public attitudes towards waste facility siting, Journal

of Environmental Planning and Management, 36(3), pp. 345 – 363.

Lombard & Associates (2000) Durban Metropolitan Area: North Zone Proposed New General Waste

Landfill Sites Environmental Impact and Mitigation Report (Durban: Lombard and Associates).

Low, N. & Gleeson, B. (1998) Justice, Society and Nature: An exploration of Political Ecology (London:

Routledge).

Marsh, J. & Oelofse, C. (1998) Risk Assessment. Auslinks Environmental Training Manual for

Development Facilitators (Cape Town: Environmental Evaluation Unit).

McDonald, D. A. (2002) Environmental Justice in South Africa (Cape Town: University of Cape Town

Press).

Murphy, J. (2000) Editorial—Ecological Modernisation, Geoforum, 31 (1), pp. 1 – 8.

Oelofse, C., Scott, D., Duenez, R., Houghton, J., Oelofse, G. & Wiseman, K. (2002) Ecological

modernization or alternate approaches: new tools for sustainability in South Africa. Paper presented at

the International Association of Impact Assessment (IAIA) Conference, Britz, 7 – 9 October.

Oelofse, C. & Patel, Z. (2000) Falling through the net: sustainability in Clermont township in Durban,

South African Geographical Journal, 82(2), pp. 35 – 43.

O’Riordan, T., Preston-Whyte, R., Hamann, R. & Manqele, M. (2000) The transition to sustainability: a

South African perspective, South African Geographical Journal, 82(2), pp. 1 – 34.

Pulido L. (1996) A critical review of the methodology of environmental racism research, Antipode, 28, p. 2.


Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Rycroft, A. & Scott, D. (1998) Environmental mediation: a case study in participative problem solving,

South African Journal of Environmental Law, 5, pp. 87 – 97.

Scott, D. & Oelofse, C. (1998) Social Probe of Proposed Landfills in the DMA (Durban: University of

Natal).

Scott, D. & Oelofse, C. (2000) Social Impact Assessment of Large General Landfills in the North Zone of the

Durban Metropolitan Area (Durban: Durban Solid Waste).

Scott, D. & Oelofse, C. (2001) Social impact assessment as a development tool: principles and practices in

a developing context, in: Proceedings of the Local Chapter of the International Association of Impact

Assessment (IAIA) Conference, White River, 7 – 10 October, pp. 262 – 279.

Scott, D., Oelofse, C. & Guy, C. (2002) Double trouble: environmental injustice in South Durban, Agenda,

52, pp. 50 – 57.

Scott, D., Oelofse, C. & Weaver, A. (2001) The institutionalisation of social assessment in South Africa:

the post-apartheid window of opportunity, in: A. Dale, N. Taylor, M. Lane & R. Crisp (Eds) Integrating

Social Assessment in Resource Management Institutions pp. 37 – 50. (Collingwood, VC: Australia:

CSIRO Publishing).

Seippel, O. (2000) Ecological modernization as a theoretical device: strengths and weaknesses, Journal of

Environmental Policy and Planning, 2, pp. 287 – 302.

Smith, D. (1979) Geography, Inequality and Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Taylor, C. N., Hobson Bryan, C. & Goodrich, C. G. (1995) Social Assessment: Theory, Process and

Techniques (Christchurch: Taylor Baines and Associates).

Todes, A. (2000) Reintegrating the apartheid city? Urban policy and urban restructuring in Durban, in: S.

Watson & G. Bridges, (Eds) A Companion to the City (London: Blackwell).

Vanclay, F. (2000) Social Impact Assessment, in: N. Lee & C. George (Eds) Environmental Assessment in

Developing and Transitional Countries (New York: Wiley).

Weaver, A., Hounsome, R. & Ramasar, V. (1999) Can EIA in its present form contribute to poverty

alleviation in South Africa? A think-piece. Keynote address, International Association of Impact

Assessment Conference, Bloemfontein, 27 – 29 September.


environmental assessment procedures cities: including...

Documents