Dissonant discourses: revealing South Africa’s policy-to-praxis challenges in the governance of coastal risk and vulnerability

Abstract

Despite South Africa’s transition to democracy and policy vocabularies of co-governance, inclusivity and fairness in decision making that underpin both the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and national coastal policy – the White Paper on Sustainable Coastal Development – these principles remain elusive in the day-to-day governance of coastal risk and vulnerability. A basic quantitative investigation into the representation of civil society on government-led ‘collaborative’ forums and the application of an Argumentative Discourse Analysis (ADA) reveals that a state-centric mode of governance dominates. This mode of governance is being stimulated and reinforced by isolationistic provisions contained within South Africa’s principal coastal legislation and policy instrument: the Integrated Coastal Management Act (No. 36 of 2014 as amended). This mode of governance is, in return, amplifying coastal risk and vulnerability in South Africa more broadly.

Keywords:

• coastal risk
• discourse analysis
• governance
• erosion
• procedural justice

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Prof. Maarten Bavinck, Prof. Dianne Scott, Dr Cathy Sutherland and Prof. Joyeeta Gupta for their support and insight in producing this article. The views expressed in this paper are in my own personal capacity, and do not represent the views of the institutions to which I am affiliated. Any errors or omissions remain our own.

Notes

1 This figure represents the length of coast over which the city has administrative jurisdiction. In total, the length of Cape Town’s coastline is estimated at 307 km; the extra 67 km comprising the Table Mountain National Park, as managed by South African National Parks.

2 Under South Africa’s apartheid regime and regulated by the Group Areas Act, certain beaches were reserved for the exclusive use of white South Africans, while less favourable areas were reserved for black South Africans. Similarly, white communities benefited from coastal development in desirable areas.

3 The ICMA was originally legislated into law on the 1^st December 2009. Before it was amended it was referred to as the ICMA (Act no. 24 of 2008).

4 Provided that the state does not contribute to or cause coastal erosion.

5 Communication between the state and vulnerable property owners is limited to a reactive compliance directed at individual property owners and/or individual body corporates (see Section 3.3). Such an approach is considered myopic in that coastal hazards span geographical scales that far exceed the boundary limits of individual properties (Brundrit 2016).

6 For a 2-km stretch of coast in Cape Town, it was estimated that R75–R100 million was needed to establish protective measures against coastal erosion (Smith Ndlovu Summers 2016).

7 Principles of co-governance, such as involving stakeholders in regulatory decision-making, consultations with stakeholders and the delegation of management responsibilities are now central tenets of the European Union common fisheries governance reform programme (Jentoft 2013).

8 Coastal Public Property is State land that is vested in the interests of the general public and falls under the protection of ICMA.

9 Environmental authorization is required from the competent authority (Provincial Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning) should certain listed activities take place within the coastal zone. This authorization is required to better regulate potential harmful activities in the coastal zone.

10 While some stakeholder engagement has been undertaken by the state in relation to risk and vulnerability, such engagement has focused primarily on informing coastal communities where hazardous areas are located along the coast. This has been undertaken through various state initiatives of implementing coastal management lines and determining vulnerability indices. There, however, remains little evidence of engagement by the state with the private sector who are currently vulnerable to coastal risk in terms of how to respond to such risks and limit their own vulnerability.

11 National government, as per Section 85 of the Constitution of South Africa, is tasked with the development, implementation and regulation of laws and policies at a national scale (Goble et al. 2014).

12 Provincial government, as per Section 155 of the Constitution of South Africa, is tasked with the regulation and enforcement of national legislation and to provide a supportive role to local government within each of the countries nine provinces (Goble et al. 2014).

13 As per Section 156 of the Constitution, local government is responsible for the management of beaches (Goble et al. 2014).

14 The surveys commissioned by the City were undertaken to better understand the nature of relationships between governance actors within the coastal risk and vulnerability domain.

15 In terms of the legislative provisions of ICMA, it is mandatory for national and provincial spheres of government to have coastal committees, whereas with local government it is optional.

16 Councilors are political representatives for community interests.

17 A pre-compliance notice is used to give the landowner an opportunity to make representation and justify his or her actions.