j.1467-9493.2012.00448.x Another Political Ecology of Civil Society Reflexiveness Againts Urban...

8/11/2019 j.1467-9493.2012.00448.x Another Political Ecology of Civil Society Reflexiveness Againts Urban Industrial Risks f

1/16

sjtg_448 77..92

Anotherpolitical ecology of civil society

reflexiveness against urban industrial risks for

environmental justice: The case of the Bisasar

landfill, Durban, South Africa

Llewellyn Leonard

Centre for Sociological Research, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa

Correspondence: Llewellyn Leonard (email: [email protected])

The concerns of political ecology since its beginnings as a field have been predominantly set in rural

areas with limited focus on urban industrial risks. Further, debates on the global South (often from

Anglo-American perspectives) have not fully appreciated the divergent and differentiated percep-

tions of urban risks and, therefore, everyday forms of resistance within civil society. Instead, workhas mainly focused on civil society power relations against the state and industry that are driven

by coherent populist political agendas. Against this setting, this papers contribution aims to better

contextualize other third world localities in political ecology through a case study of urban

industrial risks in the upper/middle income (as opposed to rural, low/lower middle income)

country, South Africa. In doing so, the paper sheds light on the derelict aspect of civil society

contestation, especially along class and ethnic lines, over urban landfill infrastructure as a liveli-

hood resource or a health hazard. The paper draws upon frameworks of self-reflexivity and

reflexive localism as complementary to the mainstream political ecology to illuminate differenti-

ated civil society reflexiveness and therefore, aims to advance the discussion of other political

ecologies. The case study of the largest formal landfill site in Africa, the Bisasar landfill situated in

Durban, highlights differences underlying power relations and constraints within civil society (in

leadership, social networking, resources and mistrust) that have implications for mainstream

political ecology notions of civil society coherence.

Keywords: Bisasar landfill, civil society, Durban, environmental justice, political ecology, risk

society

Introduction

Despite the wide-ranging debates in political ecology since the 1980s, there has been

limited focus on urban risks, with much of that literature concentrated on the developed

world (Heynen, 2003; Schubert, 2005). The traditional literature has generally been

biased towards the rural agrarian sector (Bryant & Jarosz, 2004; Neumann, 2005) and

concerns of population growth (Bryant, 1997), poverty and poor peasants (Peet &

Watts, 2004) and biodiversity and indigenous knowledge (Escobar, 1999). Despite

political ecology recently moving beyond the focus on rural landscapes in developing

countries to involve the study of societyenvironment interactions in urban contexts

(the subfield of urban political ecology), research has mostly been on natural resources,

with limited applicability to explicate urban environmental risks1 (Veron, 2006). This is

notwithstanding an evolving urban political ecology exploring the interconnected pro-

cesses within the urbanization progression as one of the driving forces behind environ-

mental issues and a place where socioenvironmental problems are experienced

more acutely (see Heynen et al., 2006). Despite rapid urbanization (and increasedexposure to social and environmental risks), however, political ecology studies on Africa

have remained mostly rural (Moffat & Finnis, 2005). The field thus requires increased

bs_bs_banner

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9493.2012.00448.x

Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography33(2012) 7792

2012 The Author

Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 2012 Department of Geography, National University of Singapore and

Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd


2/16

consideration of geographic scale to reach neglected sites and advance new avenues of

research since environmental and social processes intertwine creating different scales of

relations producing distinctive (other) political ecologies (Zimmerer & Bassett, 2003).

In addition to the restricted scoping of urban industrial risks in the global South, the

field has limitedly explored the divergent perceptions of environmental risks by differentcivil society groupings. The lacuna in turn hinders better understanding of Southern

civil society in which differentiated perceptions and discourses influence the

in/coherence of civil society actions and contextualize other geographic urban localities.

Grove (2009) highlights that (urban) political ecology ignores the contested meaning of

the nonhuman in urban areas (e.g. landfill waste sites). Vayda and Walters (1999)

observe political ecologys treatment of human communities as fairly homogeneous,

while Brown and Purcell (2005) highlight the local trap in political ecologys narrow

assumption that action at the local level will produce desirable outcomes. According to

Neumann (2005), the field has marginally explored the micro politics within commu-

nities and everyday forms of resistance that shape the political ecology of localities.

Indeed, the traditional focus has been on the political agency of social movements and

struggles of poor people against alliances of industry and state capitalist developments

(Forsyth, 2004; Bryant & Jarosz, 2004), and driven by coherent populist political

agendas (Paulson et al., 2003) while neglecting links with livelihood struggles and class

conflict (Forsyth, 2004). Forsyth (2008) notes that the focus on a social movement

approach overlooks how less powerful voices within civil society may be swept into

hegemonic conceptions associated with the middle class losing sight of the material and

industrial risks faced by the poor. Within this context, Peet and Watts (1996) question

how populist language articulates between the people and those who rule.

Addressed to such epistemological gaps in mainstream political ecology, I challenge

the widely perceived notion of civil society as a coherent entity and the lack of focus on

urban industrial risks. In so doing, civil society reflexiveness is examined through the

case study of the largest formal landfill site in Africa, the Bisasar landfill in Durban,

South Africa (Figure 1) by exploring differentiated contexts of other political ecologies.

In particular, the notion of reflexivity offers a useful tool to highlight other civil society

reflexiveness in the local actions against urban risks emanating from the landfill.

Opened in 1980 during the apartheid era, in the largely Indian suburb of Clare Estate in

Durban, Bisasars closure in 1987 was postponed by nine years by the local government

agency managing the dumpsite, Durban Solid Waste (DSW). Yet, even in 1996, during

the post-apartheid democracy, local government not only renewed the landfill permit

but did so without local community consultation, thereby sustaining the racist politicalecology of apartheid that had shaped Clare Estate by the placing of a landfill in a

nonwhite area (GAIA, 2011: 2).

After apartheid laws were relaxed, African residents moved into Clare Estate and

set up informal shacks beside Kennedy Road around the landfill. Many of these informal

residents2 had been displaced without compensation from their ancestral homes by

the land acquisition in 1986 for the Inanda Dam to supply Durban with water. These

informal residents turned to picking off the landfill for material resources given the

high unemployment prevailing (GAIA, 2011: 2). While the Indian middle class residents

have continued to push for landfill closure for health concerns, the African residents

have resisted this. The intersection of ethnicity and class at the local civil societylevel and interactions with external civil society is explored to highlight how a lack of

civil society coherence over urban landfill infrastructure as a livelihood resource or a

health hazard shapes reflexiveness and collective action during engagements with

78 Llewellyn Leonard


3/16

government, and hence the political ecology of other localities. This paper contributes to

the differentiated notion/contestation of landfills, which has been insufficiently studied

in both the South and the North.

I proceed first with a brief discussion of South African urban risks and civil society

literature in relation to political ecology, before discussing political ecology and civil

society contestations. Additionally, self-reflexivity and reflexive localism theories are

discussed to provide insight into political ecologys narrow focus on civil society coher-

ence and to contribute to an understanding of other political ecologies. This will serveas a framework for examining civil society engagements to organize and respond to risks

created by the landfill in Durban. The case study is presented, followed by discussions

and some concluding reflections on the implications of mainstream political ecologys

authorship and interpretive predominance in definitions and truths surrounding civil

society (and urban industrial risks) in the global South.

South African political ecology, industrial risks and civil society differentiation

Contemporary political ecology in South Africa is influenced by the racial politics of

colonial and apartheid rule, and subsequent democratic transition. The apartheid state

segregated the layout of the urban environment by placing black townships next topolluting industries (Sparks, 2006). Industries were also placed next to townships to

facilitate access to cheap labour (Maylam, 1990; Peek, 2002). Durban served as a model

for urban segregation practices given its developed administrative control over the

African population. The transition from apartheid to democratic rule saw the newly

elected African National Congress (ANC) leadership embrace free market macroeco-

nomic policies that sustained a legacy of unsteady political economy and unequal

distribution of social and environmental risks (Ballardet al., 2005). This perpetuated the

existence of what Moore et al. (2003) term the geographies of exclusion entailing racial

segregation in both natural and defiled space. Smith and Ruiters (2006) refer to the

governmentality of the South African states turning to privatization of commonresources via a depoliticized external provider. Here the practice of the everyday is

normalized to conform to a particular political ecology framework, where local

authorities transform poor citizens into self-managed consumers and serve up

Figure 1. Showing the location of the Bisasar landfill site, and the formal and informal settlements in Clare

Estate, Durban, South Africa.

Source: Adapted from GAIA (2011: 1).

Civil society, urban industrial risks, Durban 79


4/16

technological solutions such as unaffordable prepaid water meters. Distributional

inequalities mean that many communities still lack basic needs (Ndlovu, 2007), with

class and race inequalities exacerbated and poverty in urban areas amplified (Bond,

2004). This puts the coherence of civil society actions especially along race and class

lines into question as political ecological struggles unfold against a risk society.

3

The ANCs embrace of commerce encouraged the policy of demobilizing the civil

society organizations that had propelled them into power (Bryant, 2008). With many

civil society leaders moving into government, the relationship between the state and

organizations in civil society became characterized by collaboration (Glaser, 1997). Civic

leaders became self-serving and alienated constituencies (Mayekiso, 1996). Even the

South African National Civic Organization, launched in 1992, lost many leaders to

government (Seekings, 1997). As the civic movement became fragmented, lacking

coherence and a sense of direction and purpose (Glaser, 1997), civil society organization

and opposition against industrial risks became stymied (Mackay & Mathoho, 2001).

Moreover, ANC-dominated African civics and loyalists have failed to resist government

neoliberal policies causing environmental injustice (Matlala, 2009).

Although popular black engagement with environmental politics (although limited)

began with the radical change in political climate, there has been no coherent ideology

between the diversity of struggles in positioning social and environmental concerns: in

short, there is no framework that links environment and race, class, gender and social

justice concerns (McDonald, 2002; Cock, 2007). Social justice concerns closest to inter-

ests of people, such as water, electricity and housing, have been the dominant focus,

with inadequate engagement on urban industrial risks (Leonard & Pelling, 2010;

Leonard, 2011; Naidoo & Veriava, 2003). As Bond and Dugard (2008) highlight, the

majority of the 5900 or so protests recorded by the South African Police between 2004

and 2005 were about basic needs. Furthermore, according to Bond (2008) committed

academics of the apartheid era, who connected struggles during the 1980s, moved far

to the right in the post-apartheid 1990s, and no longer mobilized across the left during

the 2000s. Apart from shifting positions in a changing political climate, the political

violence in KwaZulu-Natal townships also led to a decline of Durban civic organizations

from the late 1980s to early 1990s (Mamdani, 1996; Bond, 2004). This violence was in

part an outcome of the structural defects of organized civil society that remained

confined to urban townships without extending into constituencies in the countryside

(Mamdani, 1996). As a result, some organizations compromised by the violence such as

in Mpumalanga Township in Durban disappeared or lost their political will and are only

recently starting to re-emerge (Mosoetsa, 2005). Taken together, these diverse chal-lenges have limited civil society coherence and reflexiveness against urban industrial

risks.

Despite community challenges, the industrial South Durban Basin home to two

major industries and several hazardous waste dumps (Peek, 2002) has a history of civic

struggle addressing urban pollution issues (Chari, 2008; Scott & Barnett, 2009). One of

the earliest civil society actions in south Durban since the dismantling of apartheid rule

in 1994 was in mid 1995 when approximately 1000 residents protested for closure of the

Umlazi hazardous waste landfill, which was built in 1986 to accommodate toxic indus-

trial waste from Durban (Wileyet al., 2002). Various civil society strategic actions finally

saw it closed on 28 February 1997. Civil society actions were also successful in 1997against the attempt by Mondi, the international paper and packaging company, to

expand its hazardous waste dumpsite in the direction of a residential area: the dump

was closed by 31 July 1999 (Peek, 2002).



5/16

Despite these successful historical campaigns, however, south Durban civil society

has been too fragmented to respond coherently to urban industrial risks. For example,

the leadership of Merebank Residents Association, a mainly middle class Indian

community-based organization formed in the 1960s to tackle social and environmental

issues of concern, got entangled with the leadership of the Merebank Indian RatepayersAssociation over the right to speak for all Indians in south Durban. The coloured

community subsequently formed the Wentworth Development Forum in the 1990s to

respond to social and environmental local concerns, but to no avail (Sparks, 2006).

Recognizing the fragmentation within and between ethnic community groups in south

Durban, the community-based South Durban Community Environmental Alliance was

established in 1996 to link local concerns across racial boundaries and respond system-

atically to pollution issues. However, the alliance has failed to connect with the ANC-

affiliated African township leaders from Lamontville and Umlazi (Barnett & Scott,

2007). Disparities also exist between community organizations that accepted corporate

funding and the alliance, which does not (Leonard, 2011). Thus civic organizations vary

when responding to industrial risks.

Unfortunately, compounding the neglect by mainstream political ecologists of urban

originating social and environmental risks in the South (Heynen et al., 2006) are the

influences of specific historical processes such as apartheid in South Africa that contrib-

ute to differentiated understandings of political ecology (see Bryant, 1997). According to

Mooreet al. (2003), apartheid is interwoven from the threads of race and nature, and as

Davis (2009) notes, political ecology requires historical depth to explain contemporary

situations. A political ecology of environmental justice investigates how geographies are

encoded with or stripped of racial markers, including what would be the social meanings

and political consequences of this process (Di Chiro, 2003).

Mainstream political ecology and civil society differentiation

Civil society institutions, distinct from those of the state, question the relations between

civil society and the environment that political ecology has not considered sufficiently,

including varying discourses and ideologies between competing and conflicting cultural,

racial, gender, class and regional differences4 (Peet & Watts, 1996). Referring to main-

stream political ecologys applicability to third world environmental research and the

typical first world problem-solving role it assumes, Bryant (1997) points to the limited

attention paid to race and class in differentiating the poor. Even the recent corpus of urban

political ecology neglects detailed analysis of class, race and sociopolitical marginality(Byrne et al., 2007). Yet, within specific ethnic and cultural groups, there may be

competing discourses over meanings that influence how struggles unfold (Bebbington,

1996). Political power involves contestation between social actors for control of discourse

on the urban environment (Bryant & Bailey, 1997; Heynen et al., 2006), exemplified in

this paper by the argument over solid waste as a livelihood resource or a health hazard

(Pelling, 1999) and consequent divergent perceptions of risks (Campbell & Currie, 2006).

As such, the need for political ecology to engage fully with issues of urban risks must also

include resource access and control including the material resources derived from waste

(Moffat & Finnis, 2005). Nevertheless, contestation within civil society can take multiple

political, social and discursive forms little explored by political ecology (Peet & Watts,2004). Although urban political ecology is beginning to explore the interconnected

processes within urban centres, it is largely confined to conflicts between civil society, the

state and the private sector (see Heynen et al., 2006).



6/16

In addition, risks produced are distributed disproportionately between social actors

and ethnic groups, reinforcing or ameliorating social and economic inequalities (Newell,

2005; Veron, 2006) as some social groups benefit and others lose from environmental

changes, and some may or not be offered solutions to risks because of diverse ethnic and

class biases (Newell, 2005). Thus, Bebbingtonet al. (2008) and Di Chiro (2003) questionthe celebratory and nonimperializing formulations of the gathering together impulse of

common people that obscure real differences in race and class, livelihood and surviv-

ability, and, pertinently, power and environmental consequences that may be undemo-

cratic or authoritarian. Therefore, there is a need to understand the ways that social

actors are situated and how this influences their rationalities, which is a step forward in

analyzing the practical association between political ecology and civil society for a

reconfiguration of political ecology (Bebbington, 1996). Thus, questions of the robust-

ness of civil society itself must be raised by political ecology to theorize other political

ecologies and for the research field to grow systemically.

Civil society, self-reflexivity and reflexive localism in a network society

There are different ways to respond effectively to political ecologys lack of focus on

urban industrial risks and ensuing struggles within civil society over these risks.

Neumann (2005) and Moore et al. (2003) contend that despite its mostly rural (but

evolving urban) focus, political ecologys theorizing of the linkages among local social

and environmental change and large-scale political-economic processes on environ-

mental inequalities are conducive to urban research. Political ecology can assess envi-

ronmental risks in social, economic and political terms and associated power relations

(Bryant & Bailey, 1997). According to Pelling (1999), political and socioeconomic

analysis is placed at the centre of a political ecological framework for the study of urban

environmental risks. Environmental justice shares with rural political ecology an inter-

est in explanations for the distribution of environmental risks and benefits of develop-

ment. However, Robbins (2004) argues that urban political ecology must expand

beyond simply risk distribution (including civil society as a coherent force against

hegemonic interests). Ekerset al. (2009) point to how Gramscis concept of hegemony

can assist in understanding how discursive power is constructed, with hegemony focus-

ing on the forms that power takes, and the terrain of constraint and opportunity it helps

determine. Gramsci could bring to political ecology an awareness of how hegemony is

achieved through particular spaces and natures, including how different social groups

construct their hegemony through altering the ecologies of different landscapes.For the focus of this paper, it is suggested that political ecologys lack of emphasis on

civil society reflecting on itself can gain insight from the frameworks of self-reflexivity

and reflexive localism as a form of other political ecological contextual analysis. An

examination of the basic premises of these frameworks will help to explore civil society

differentiation against urban risks. Civil society reflexiveness in a risk society means

dealing with reflective action (strategic and planned decision making) and reflexive

action (action orientated spontaneous protest action; see Beck, 1992), with reflective

and reflexive actions tied together in a complex relationship (Eliott, 2002). Although

risk society theory like political ecology is not without limitations (Bulkeley, 2001),

reflexivity can usefully assist to explore anotherpolitical ecology of civil society reflex-iveness for actions against urban industrial risk. Besides structural reflexivity (civil

society reflecting on government and industry practices), which political ecology has

largely examined, self-reflexivity (civil society reflecting on itself) can help political



7/16

ecology expand its research agenda to include other political ecological contexts. Self-

reflexivity deals with analyzing knowledgeably from ones own situation and semantic

backgrounds, relationships and lifestyle affinity groups (Lash, 1994). It is a confronta-

tion with the self and others (Gaylard, 2002) potentially improving the quality of

relationships (Nagata, 2004).Relating to self-reflexivity, DuPuis and Goodman (2005) refer to a reflexive localism,

drawing attention to social relations and the politics of power at the local level. Unre-

flexive localism, however, leads to a potentially undemocratic and unrepresentative

inequality, and defensive militant particularism. Reflexive localism can potentially

gather diverse groups to investigate and discuss ways of changing their society whilst

dealing with conflicts and differences between people. Reflexive localism not only

emphasizes social relations and power asymmetries between civil society, the state and

industry, but also sheds light on a reflexive conceptualization of localism and social

classes (Goodman & Goodman, 2007). According to DuPuis and Block (2008) localiza-

tion is tied to notions of participation and community empowerment. Bebbington

(1996) also calls for a reconfiguration of political ecology for analyzing the association

between political ecology and civil society (especially at the micro level). The lens of

self-reflexivity and reflective localism theories can assist mainstream political ecology,

through other political ecology perspectives, to move its research agenda beyond

romanticizing civil society coherence (against urban industrial risks).

Case study findings

The data used is from fieldwork conducted over several months in 2007 as part of my

doctoral research (Leonard, 2009). Semistructured interviews on the Bisasar landfill

were conducted with civil society actors, including the 10 key informants cited here: alocal community leader/representative, nongovernmental organization (NGO) leaders/

representatives (n=2), academics (n=4), media representatives (n=2), and a local gov-

ernment representative. A purposive sampling design allowed me to judge who were

likely to provide the best information for the research, while snowballing referred me to

other informants. My previous work as an activist in Durban and with residents of both

the formal and informal settlements of Clare Estate surrounding the Bisasar landfill gave

me access to civil society actors. Sometimes interviews could not take place, such as that

with a grassroots resident who preferred that I speak to the informal leader who

understood concerns of the informal settlement. Also, the formal residents leader

initially had been too ill to speak and subsequently passed away from cancer. Datacollection was aimed at gathering the views of key social actors, including those residing

within the grassroots community. In order to enhance understanding of the other

political ecology of civil society reflexiveness against urban industrial (landfill) risk, data

analysis employed grounded theory and open coding to identify themes. Six key themes

cutting across the various relationships of civil society engagements were identified:

leadership, social networking, resources, mobilization/protests, trust/transparency and

participation.

Leadership

Indian activist and formal settlement representative Sajida Khan, who passed away on15 July 2007, had no doubt that her cancer was caused by exposure to the landfill

(Leonard, 2011). Khan was at the frontline in calling for closure of the dump and

opposing a proposed World Bank clean development mechanism (CDM) project to



8/16

extract methane gas at Bisasar under the 1999 Kyoto Protocol.5 Khans detailed tech-

nical submission of the projects environmental impact for international legal proceed-

ings temporarily scared off the World Bank from investing (Reddy, 2005). In 2002 Khan

initiated a lawsuit against the city authorities for failure to close the dump. Despite these

actions, some informants suggested that Khan was not tactical in forging links andsharing information about the landfill and the proposed CDM project with formal and

informal residents for reflexive localism. Some attributed this to Khan wanting to be at

the forefront of the struggle, or to the sensitive nature of the legal case as Khan herself

had claimed in past informal conversations with me. Speaking of Khan, journalist

Rehana Dada said:

There is one person who . . . is fighting [the landfill] . . . and claims to be representing the

community, and every time you speak to these people . . . is she representing us is a different

issue. . . . They [formal and informal residents] all hate the dump, they dont understand the

whole CDM issue. Sajida does and is withholding a lot of information (pers. comm.).

Nevertheless, formal and informal leaders did not engage jointly on strategies to address

the landfill and CDM project. Informal settlement leader Sbu Zikonde had not taken the

initiative to work with Khan on a plan that would benefit all residents because of the

informal livelihoods the dumpsite supported, as he explained:

we have not done much . . . to engage them [formal residents] around this [landfill], simply

because we are still benefiting. . . . Although we know that we can get even more benefits as

long as there is . . . unity amongst ourselves (pers. comm.).

Class inequalities resulted in differentiated approaches to urban landfill risks.

Social networking

Communication between local residents is shaped by networking and communication

within the local community (both within the formal community, and between formal

and informal communities), and networking between the local community and external

civil society actors. Although Indian residents supported landfill closure, they did not

collaborate: whilst some Indian residents approached Durban Solid Waste to halt the

CDM project, other Indian and African residents reflectively engaged with government

to implement it, albeit separately. This hindered intraethnic collective action, as

observed by John Parken (pers. comm.), deputy head of Plant and Engineering at DSW:

there is a big split in the Indian community. The Africans were basically with us, saying

they support [the CDM project].

Indian residents also exhibited a middle class bias for wanting to remove the landfill

including the informal settlements, without considering their livelihood concerns.

Richard Ballard (pers. comm.), academic coordinator at the School of Development

Studies, University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) said:

more middle class Indian people dont like having a shack settlement nearby. So in getting the

dump closed, there might be complicated narratives about the continued presence of a shack

settlement there.

Class and livelihood differences influenced how Indian and African residents networked

differently for reflexive localism against landfill risks. Informal community leader Sbu

Zikonde (pers. comm.) also noted the resulting lack of communication:



9/16

Their [Indian community] point is close the dump, we have suffered a lot . . . from cancers

. . . because even if . . . I had a lot of money . . . then why should I have the smell close to

me. . . . The informal settlers, [are] saying, we want it. . . . Its the poverty that keeps us apart.

Networking and solidarity between informal residents and external civil society

actors mostly concerned securing social needs (housing and service delivery), thoughengagement on environmental justice issues with NGOs also occurred when possible.

National nonprofit environmental justice organization groundWork (http://www.

groundwork.org.za/) supported the informal settlement on basic needs and services as

well as communicating on landfill risks. As Bobby Peek (pers. comm.), director of

groundWork, said:

Abahlali[shack dwellers] say to groundWork, you asking me to fight a landfill site when Im

smelling my shit when Im going to the toilet. I want assistance; I dont care about the landfill

site. It didnt stop groundWork from working there . . . after a couple of years were in a

position . . . to deal with the landfill.

This shows that although the African informal community was aware of landfill risks,

these were secondary to basic survival needs.

Networking also took place between residents and academics. An academic centre

based within UKZN provided expertise on the disadvantages of carbon trading for Sajida

Khans campaign and supported the informal settlement on addressing basic needs.

However, in 2006, personality clashes within the unit led to the informal settlement

disengaging from networking with them, as an academic community outreach officer

with the centre told me:

We as academics . . . have our own politics. . . . When [a former academic within the depart-

ment working with the informal settlement] left, and that whole relationship [with theinformal community] started to crumble . . . I am saying why, when somebody leaves.

For some academics, a focus on retaining ownership of informal contacts and the

knowledge obtained from working within the community, including career gains, may

have been more important than supporting the continuation of ongoing work in the

informal community: academics were fighting amongst themselves, [and] fighting for

control of our struggle . . . People want to be doctors and professors out of this poverty

(pers. comm., Zikonde). Another academic informant within UKZN expressed a similar

view: we find that those academics writing, they know nothing about how to live in a

shack . . . but they talk for the people living in an informal settlement (pers. comm.).

Clearly, then, conflicts within external civil society groups temporarily constrained their

support for the local civil society facing up to landfill risks.

Beyond those within the academic centre, UKZN academics generally did not engage

in networking with the Clare Estate residents, nor undertake research with community

participation to educate and support residential concerns. Responding to the lack of

involvement over the landfill issue, Rajen Naidoo, Deputy Director and Associate

Professor of UKZNs Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine said:

I dont get any rewards for that unless I am able to establish a research project and able to

produce papers, or I am able to set up an academic training program for undergraduates. Those

are the two things we get evaluated on. The incentives from the institutions [to engage with

communities] are limited (pers. comm.).

It seems that academics mostly engaged with the grassroots when required by the terms

and conditions of their career.



10/16

In 2005, DSW proposed to set up a Waste Transfer Station at Bisasar, a facility to bulk

transport compacted landfill refuse. DSW received mixed reactions from Indian and

African residents, as articulated by informal community leader Zikonde:

There has been this environmental impact assessment around the [compacting] issue

and . . . the Indian community objected [to] it. But we still believe the reality is the livingpolitics if that would mean more people would be employed, why not . . . We not interested

in terms of noise pollution and so on (pers. comm.).

However, Zikonde did note the importance of community collaboration across class and

race for reflexive localism and reflectively agreeing on a single position before approach-

ing DSW to influence decision making.

Resources

External civil society was hindered by limited resources to assist the local community in

addressing landfill risks. The lack of financial and human resources support for local

studies to determine landfill health effects was confirmed by Rajen Naidoo from the

NRMSM School of Medicine:

if you look at the landfill site at Bisasar, we dont know what effects these are having on the

community in a scientific way . . . [even] if somebody came and gave us 10 million rand [over

USD 1 million] to look at a problem associated with the Bisasar Road site, we may not

necessary have the human resources (pers. comm.).

Other external actors such as the Diakonia Council of Churches, which works to

promote justice and prophetic action for people, and groundWork did provide some

educational and technical resources to help informal residents. According to Karen Read

(pers. comm.), an economic and environmental justice capacity building officer at theDiakonia Council of Churches, informal residents were invited to workshops on social

justice issues and landfill risks. During my previous employment as waste manager at

groundWork, I worked with informal residents on a proposal to present to DSW on the

benefits of a resources recovery facility (RRF) aimed to maximize recycling and waste

minimization (as opposed to creating a landfill). Bobby Peek, director of groundWork,

endorsed such a facility, which creates jobs and where people are employed formally

(pers. comm.)

Mobilization/protests

Limited mobilization was noted to result from class differentiation influencing percep-tions of risks. Informal residents had in the past marched in protest against formal

residents wanting to close the landfill, not just to keep the landfill site open but also

because they make [their] living off the landfill (pers comm., John Parken, DSW). This

was in spite of the dangers of scavenging and working on the landfill, as informal

community leader Sbu Zikonde (pers. comm.) stressed:

[the landfill] is not safe . . . its contributing a lot [to] low life expectancy . . . they are working

under unprotected conditions. . . . But people are able to have their earnings . . . [When] the

shacks were on fire, and it is accessible and nearby for people to get material and rebuild . . . if

you understand poverty, we can say it is something.

Trust/transparency

There was little trust or transparency between formal and informal residents. Three

main contributing elements were the class and ethnic distinctions, the Indians percep-



11/16

tions of Africans as criminals, and the local government role in indirectly heightening

class differences by misleading the African residents to enlist support for the proposed

CDM project.

Class and ethnic distinctions resulted in middle class Indian residents not wanting

African residents in Clare Estate:the formal settlement . . . see race before they see anything else . . . For example, the pension-

ers grouping in Clare Estate . . . have actively attempted to keep out pensioners from the

informal site. So it is those sorts of things that obviously create mistrust (pers. comm., Rajen

Naidoo, UKZN Medical School).

John Parken (pers. comm.) from DSW revealed the divisions that emerged at public

meetings: Nasty stuff gets said . . . one [Indian] guy stood up and said you [Africans are]

not part of our community. Furthermore, negative stereotyping of Africans as criminals

entrenched relationships along class and race lines: for the Indian community . . . think

there are criminals there [in the informal settlement] so all of them must be criminals

(pers. comm., journalist Rehana Dada). This fractured the political ecology of local civil

society reflexiveness against risks for reflexive localism. DSW also contributed to this

fracturing of the political ecology of local civil society reflexiveness against risks between

Indians and Africans to find joint solutions by presenting false promises of benefits

derived from the CDM project:

they [informal settlement] . . . believed that the CDM was going to give them 50 bursaries

. . . [and] 200 jobs. The reality is 6 jobs, 5 bursaries over 21 years for residents of eThekweni

[Durban] (pers. comm., journalist Rehana Dada).

Thus, the influence of external forces (government and international finance institu-

tions) shaped trust/transparency within civil society for collective actions:

There is dissatisfaction that the formal community had been betrayed that it was going to be

closed . . . Seems now that the life of that site is for [the] CDM to capture methane gas, the

community suffers and its presented as an environmental project (pers. comm., Tom Carnie,

environmental journalist, The Mercury).

Participation

Collective participation between formal and informal residents, even within the formal

settlement, was limited. In addition to the different perceptions and priorities of risk

arising from ethnic and class differences, and the lack of human resources that discour-

aged external civil society actors from helping residents understand landfill risks, therewas no united position on the CDM project within the formal community. Whilst some

Indian residents reflectively engaged with DSWs CDM proposal, others tried to halt the

DSW public participation processes, which they viewed as tokenistic. DSWs John

Parken (pers. comm.) observed the dynamics at a meeting: some members wanted to

participate, the others didnt . . . [but] didnt want to walk out because they knew some

people would participate and, in their view, legitimise the process. Formal residents also

tried to halt government meetings with the informal community on implementing the

Waste Transfer Station: We had a meeting at the hall at the top [near the informal

community] . . . They [Indian community] came across and stopped the meeting, saying

you [DSW] are trying to hide (pers. comm., John Parken, DSW).One option to deal with the landfill risks effectively would have been for DSW to

engage residents and implement a RRF as suggested by African residents. As informal

community leader Sbu Zikonde (pers. comm.) highlighted, an RRF facility could bridge



12/16

Indian health concerns and African socioeconomic concerns because it can be driven by

the community, and have some formal employment and effective recycling methodol-

ogy. The divergent positions on the landfill within the formal community and between

formal and informal communities are instructional for political ecologys narrow

assumption of civil society coherence, which overlooks differentiated discoursesbetween competing and conflicting class and race groupings that influence participation

(and perceptions) against urban risk.

Discussion

The case of the Bisasar landfill highlights the limitations of mainstream (and urban)

political ecology focus on urban industrial risks, including civil society coherent actions

against landfill risks (especially in the South). Across the case themes, the associational

life in Clare Estate was based on protecting the respective interests of class (and ethnic)

groups, rather than facilitating cross community engagements for coherent actions. In

addition to the transition to democracy that demobilized civil society, the post-apartheid

governments engagement in macroeconomic policies that sustained the political

ecology of its apartheid predecessor also deepened class inequalities and impacted the

coherence of civil society actions. The Bisasar case highlights the failure in political

ecology theorizing to unearth differences in race and class, associated power dynamics,

and contested livelihoods and survivability, whilst uncritically romanticizing civil society

unity. The field requires increased reflection of the Southern geographic scale to reach

neglected sites and grow new avenues of investigation (via self-reflexivity and reflexive

localism), especially within urban industrial risk society.

Field evidence highlighted how issues of class and race, differing perceptions and

priorities of risk, individualised leadership, resource constraints, and intraethnic and

class conflicts undermined coherent civil society action. Also, it was seen that the

motivations of external civil society interventions at the grassroots may at times be

counterproductive in assisting vulnerable groups address local concerns. The complexi-

ties of local and external civil society positionalities created differentiated political

ecologies. Therefore, political ecology needs to explore the politics of scale within civil

society, bringing multilevel interests to the fore in analyses of other political ecology

localities addressing industrial risk. As Forsyth (2008) notes, a challenge for political

ecology is how social actor positionalities (within civil society) might not be predictable

in reflecting less obvious positions of power. For example, although formal residents

were against the landfill, intraethnic conflict within this group resulted in some sup-porting the CDM and influencing power dynamics. Thus, it is important to understand

competing contestations within civil society and how strategies against perceived risks

(or lack of) and constructions of reality are coproduced to enhance a socioenvironmen-

tal understanding of risk perceptions.

The Bisasar landfill case also showed how a topdown approach to climate change

mitigation the proposed market-based CDM project further undermined local col-

lective actions. Empirical results highlighted government manipulation (promises of

bursaries and jobs from the CDM project) to further influence local social relations

between formal and informal residents. The research suggests a need for political

ecology to understand the influence and goals of external nation-state actors that mayindirectly hinder local civil society collective actions and serve international political

interests. Political ecology must take into cognizance such wider political dynamics and

opportunities hindering civil society coherence, including being more sensitive to issues



13/16

that actually shape civil society actions in nonwestern and nonrural communities. This

will strengthen analysis of interactions and discourses within civil society and resultant

actions against hegemonic forces, including urban risks generally, contributing to the

differentiated understanding of the political ecology of the global South. Furthermore,

the historical legacy of apartheid and the consequent siting of the Bisasar landfill suggesta need for political ecology to explore the origins of urban risks for a deeper under-

standing of other political ecologies and civil society reflexiveness.

Conclusion

This paper explored limitations of mainstream (and urban) political ecology in terms of

understanding urban risks and civil society coherence against the state (and interna-

tional institutions) without homogenizing other or Southern political ecological con-

texts. As such, the paper drew upon frameworks of self-reflexivity and reflexive localism

as complementary with political ecology to illuminate a political ecology of civil societyreflexiveness and contribute towards addressing the diversifying contexts of other

political ecologies. The South African urban landfill case highlighted how preconcep-

tions regarding civil society coherency can lead to an insufficiently critical populist

stance. The paper made an enquiry of this relatively little studied aspect of political

ecology, including the necessity for an urban and industrial focus, in order to better

appreciate contextual conflicts of other political ecologies across class and ethnic groups

namely, livelihood and resource constraints influencing civil society reflexiveness for

coherent action. Thus, exploring anotherpolitical ecology of civil society reflexiveness

against urban industrial risks can assist in reorienting mainstream (and urban) political

ecology thinking away from romanticizing civil society as a coherent entity.

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank the reviewers and the SJTG editorial board for their constructive comments.

Acknowledgement must also be extended to Raymond Bryant, Kings College London and Soyeun

Kim, University of Leeds and Re-shaping Development Institute, Seoul for their comments and

feedback on the draft papers in coordinating this special section. Financial assistance for my

research was received by the National Research Foundation, via the South African Research Chair

in Social Change, University of Johannesburg.

Endnotes

1 Although urban environmental risks have been relegated mostly to the environmental justice

literature (Veron, 2006), the focus has mainly been on the West, more specifically the US

(Njeru, 2006), and narrowly concerned with distributional perspectives on justice (Holifield,

2009).

2 The term informal residents in the paper refers to the African residents living around the

Bisasar dumpsite who lack access to formal housing and basic services (water, electricity, waste

disposal/collection and postal).

3 Risk society refers to industrial practices in urban areas that are physically reconstituting the

environment in ways that escape their control (Beck, 1992).

4 Although these social identities have been examined for new social movements related to

nature, as opposed to a more micro level and focus on urban risks (Neumann, 2005).

5 The Kyoto Protocol allows developed countries to invest in CDM projects in developing

countries to reduce green house gas emissions, but without reductions in their own countries.



14/16

References

Ballard R, Habib A, Valodia I, Zuern E (2005) Globalization, marginalization, and contemporary

social movements in South Africa.Journal of African Affairs 104, 61534.

Barnett C, Scott D (2007) Space of opposition: activism and deliberation in post-apartheid envi-

ronmental politics. Environment and Planning A 39, 261231.Bebbington A (1996) Movements, modernisation and markets. In Peet R, Watts M (eds) Liberation

Ecologies, 35882. Routledge, London.

Bebbington A, Hickey S, Mitlin D (eds) (2008) Can NGOs Make a difference?Zed Press, London.

Beck U (1992) Risk Society. Sage Publications, London and California.

Bond, P (2004) From racial to class apartheid. Monthly Review Press 55, 4560.

Bond P (2008) Rejoinder: collaborations, co-optations and contestations in praxis-based knowledge

production.Review of African Political Economy 35, 25570.

Bond P, Dugard J (2008) Water, human rights and social conflict. Available at http://www.

go.warwick.ac.uk/elj/lgd/2008_1/bond_dugard (accessed 25 March 2011).

Brown C, Purcell M (2005) Theres nothing inherent about scale. GeoForum 36, 60724.

Bryant R (1997) Beyond the impasse: the power of political ecology in Third World environmentalresearch. Area 29, 519.

Bryant J (2008) Towards delivery and dignity.Journal of Asian and African Studies 43, 4161.

Bryant LR, Bailey S (1997) Third World Political Ecology. Routledge, New York.

Bryant R, Jarosz L (2004) Ethics in political ecology. Political Geography 23, 80712.

Bulkeley H (2001) Governing climate change: the politics of risk society. Transactions of the British

Institute of Geographers 26, 43047.

Byrne J, Kendrick M, Sroaf D (2007) The park made of oil. Local Environment12, 15381.

Campbell S, Currie G (2006) Against Beck: in defence of risk analysis.Philosophy of the Social Sciences

36, 14972.

Chari S (2008) The antinomies of political evidence in post-apartheid Durban, South Africa. Journal

of the Royal Anthropological Institute 14, 6176.Cock J (2007) The War Against Ourselves. Wits University Press, South Africa.

Davis D (2009) Historical political ecology. GeoForum 40, 28586.

Di Chiro G (2003) Beyond ecoliberal common futures. In Moore DS, Kosek J, Pandian A (eds)

Race, Nature, and the Politics of Difference, 20432. Duke University Press, Durham, NC.

DuPuis EM, Block D (2008) Sustainability and scale. Environment and Planning 40, 19872005.

DuPuis EM, Goodman D (2005) Should we go home to eat? Towards a reflexive politics of localism.

Journal of Rural Studies 21, 35971.

Ekers M, Loftus A, Mann G (2009) Gramsci lives. GeoForum 40, 28791.

Eliott A (2002) Becks sociology of risk: a critical assessment. Journal of Sociology 36, 293315.

Escobar A (1999) After nature: steps to an antiessentialist political ecology. Current Anthropology40,

130.

Forsyth T (2004) Industrial pollution and social movements in Thailand. In Peet R, Watts M (eds)

Liberation Ecologies, 28398. Routledge, United Kingdom (second edition).

Forsyth T (2008) Political ecology and the epistemology of social justice. GeoForum39, 75664.

Gaylard G (2002) Mastering arachnophobia. Journal of Commonwealth Literature 37, 8599.

Glaser D (1997) South Africa and the limits of civil society. Journal of Southern African Studies 23,

525.

Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA) (2011) The Bisasar landfill in Durban, South

Africa: carbon trading prolongs environmental racism at Africas largest municipal dump. GAIA

Case Studies, November. Available at http://www.no-burn.org/downloads/bisasar.pdf (last

accessed January 2012).

Goodman D, Goodman M (2007) Localism, livelihoods and the post-organic. In Maye D, Holloway

L, Kneafsey M (eds) Alternative Food Geographies, 2338. Elsevier, Oxford.

Grove K (2009) Rethinking the nature of urban environmental politics: security, subjectivity, and

the non-human. GeoForum 40, 20716.



15/16

Heynen N (2003) The scalar production of injustice within the urban forest. Antipode 35, 980

98.

Heynen N, Kaika M, Swyngedouw E (2006) In the Nature of Cities. Routledge,London.

Holifield R (2009) Actor-network theory as a critical approach to environmental justice: a case

against synthesis with urban political ecology. Antipode 41, 6378.

Lash S (1994) Reflexivity and its doubles: structure, aesthetics, community. In Beck U, Giddens A,

Lash H (eds) Reflexive Modernization, 11073. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Leonard L (2009) Civil Society Reflexiveness in an Industrial Risk Society: The Case of Durban,

South Africa. PhD dissertation, Department of Geography, Kings College London.

Leonard L, Pelling M (2010) Mobilisation and protest: environmental justice in Durban, South

Africa.Local Environment15, 13751.

Leonard L (2011) Civil society leadership and industrial risks: environmental justice in Durban,

South Africa. Journal of Asian and African Studies 46, 11329.

McDonald D (2002) Environmental Justice in South Africa. Ohio University Press and University of

Cape Town Press, Rondebosch.

Mackay S, Mathoho M (2001) Worker Power: The Congress of South African Trade Unions and its

Impact on Governance and Democracy. Research Report No. 79, Centre for Policy Studies,Johannesburg.

Mamdani M (1996) Citizen and Subject. Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

Matlala B (2009) Against ourselves: party loyalty, participation and contradictions the case of

Phiri activists. Paper presented at the CORUS workshop on The Voice of the Poor in Urban

Governance: Participation, Mobilisation and Politics in South Africa cities, University of Cape

Town, 2325 November.

Mayekiso M (1996) Township Politics: Civic Struggles for a new South Africa. Monthly Review Press,

New York.

Maylam P (1990) The rise and decline of urban apartheid in South Africa. African Affairs 89, 57

84.

Moffat T, Finnis E (2005) Considering social and material resources. Habitat International 29,45368.

Moore D, Kosek J, Pandian A (2003) Race, Nature and the Politics of Difference. Duke University Press,

Durham, NC.

Mosoetsa S (2005) Compromised communities and re-emerging civic engagement in Mpumalanga

township, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal. Journal of Southern African Studies 31, 85773.

Naidoo P, Veriava A (2003) People before profits? Development Update 4, 6788.

Nagata A (2004) Promoting self-reflexivity in intercultural education. Journal of Intercultural Com-

munication8, 13967.

Ndlovu M (2007) Azania shall return: re-founding the struggle for complete emancipation from

capitalist globalisation. Paper presented at Political power: state-party-popular power, The

Rosa Luxemburg Seminar 2007, Community House Capetown, 13 March. Available at http://ccs.ukzn.ac.za/files/notions%20of%20political%20power.pdf (last accessed January 2012).

Neumann PR (2005) Making Political Ecology. Oxford University Press, London.

Newell P (2005) Race, class and the global politics of environmental inequality. Global Environmen-

tal Politics 5, 7094.

Njeru J (2006) The urban political ecology of plastic bag waste problem in Nairobi, Kenya. Geoforum

37, 104658.

Paulson S, Gezon L, Watts M (2003) Locating the political in political ecology. Human Organisation

62, 20517.

Peek B (2002) Double speak in Durban. In McDonald D (eds) Environmental Justice in South Africa,

20219. Ohio University Press and University of Cape Town Press, Rondebosch.

Peet R, Watts M (1996) Liberation Ecologies, 2nd edition. Routledge, London.Peet R, Watts M (2004) Liberation Ecologies, 2nd edition. Routledge, London.

Pelling M (1999) The political ecology of flood hazard in urban Guyana. Geoforum 30, 249

61.



16/16

Reddy T (2005) Durbans perfume rods, plastic covers and sweet-smelling toxic dump. Carbon

Trade Watch, March 9. Available at http://www.carbontradewatch.org/index.php?option=com_

content&task=view&id=180&Itemid=36 (last accessed March 2012).

Robbins P (2004) Political Ecology. Blackwell, Oxford.

Schubert J (2005) Political Ecology in Development Research: An introductory overview and

annotated bibliography. NCCR North-South, Bern. Available at http://www.nccr-north-

south.unibe.ch/publications/Infosystem/On-line%20Dokumente/Upload/Schubert_2005_

Political%20ecology-finalversion.pdf (last accessed January 2012).

Scott D, Barnett C (2009) Something in the air: civic science and contentious environmental

politics in post-apartheid South Africa. Geoforum 40, 37382.

Seekings J (1997) SANCO: Strategic dilemmas in a democratic South Africa.Journal of Tranforma-

tions 34, 130.

Smith L, Ruiters G (2006) The public/private conundrum of urban water: a view from South Africa.

In Heynen N, Kaika M, Swyngedouw E (eds)In the Nature of Cities, 18398. Routledge, London.

Sparks S (2006) A long history: civil society, pollution and the Wentworth oil refinery. Centre

for Civil Society Research Report 45. In Research Reports 2006, Vol. 1, 167193. University

of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban. Available at http://ccs.ukzn.ac.za/files/RREPORT_VOL106_SPARKS.pdf (last accessed January 2012).

Vayda A, Walters B (1999) Against political ecology. Human Ecology 27, 16779.

Veron R (2006) Remaking urban environments: the political ecology of air pollution in Delhi.

Environment and Planning38, 2093109.

Wiley D, Root C, Peek B (2002) Contesting the urban industrial environment in south Durban in

a period of democratisation and globalisation. In Freund B, Padayachee V (eds) ( D)urban Vortex,

23237. University of Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg.

Zimmerer K, Bassett T (2003) Political Ecology. Guilford Press, New York.


j.1467-9493.2012.00448.x Another Political Ecology of Civil Society Reflexiveness Againts Urban...

Documents

Transcript of j.1467-9493.2012.00448.x Another Political Ecology of Civil Society Reflexiveness Againts Urban...