Introduction
This case study explores how two South African civil society organisations (CSOs) have used scientific evidence to influence air pollution management in one of the country's pollution hot-spots, the South Durban industrial basin. In 2000, the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA) in collaboration with a national environmental CSO, groundWork, launched an air monitoring project for South Durban. Their findings, which revealed high levels of benzene and 18 other pollutants in the air, triggered the establishment of South Africa's first local air quality management programme, the South Durban Multi-Point Plan (MMP).

The type and extent of policy change
Until 2005, the legislative framework governing air quality management in South Africa was the Atmospheric Air Pollution and Prevention Act (APPA) of 1965. This legislation was based on a top-down regulatory approach in which emission permits were granted without the requirement of ambient air quality assessments considering local meteorological and topographical conditions. Local authorities did not have any jurisdiction over air quality management. This changed when, in 2005, the South African government passed the Air Quality Act which, in line with the Constitution, places strong emphasis on the subsidiarity principle and encourages public participation in policy making through consultative processes.

Some thoughts on the explanation of the policy change
Political context
As a result of South Africa's apartheid-past, the government places great emphasis on the inclusion of previously politically marginalized groups in the policy making process. However, in a field like environmental policy, which is based on highly specialised knowledge and technology, the goal of broad participation is subject to the concentration of relevant knowledge and technology in one small sector of society and industry. In this sense, both government and CSOs are at a considerable disadvantage vis-à-vis industry in terms of scientifically trained human and technological resources. Additionally, enforcement is constrained by the government's dependence on economic growth and employment.

The ways CSOs tried to affect policy change (strategy and activities)
The strategy of SDCEA and groundWork to affect policy change consists of several components such as environmental education and capacity building in fence-line communities; the mobilisation of support through public events, the media and a network of national and international partner-CSOs; lobbying the government; engaging directly with industry; and monitoring. Monitoring represents an important aspect of mobilisation since it enables the CSOs to back their arguments with 'hard data'. This strengthens their credibility and legitimacy in a political debate which is framed largely in scientific terminology. Furthermore, the Air Quality Project plays a major role in improving the capacity and confidence of community organisations, such as SDCEA, to negotiate local policy change with government and industry.

Nature of research based evidence (content, source, reliability)
The Air Quality project used by SDCEA in collaboration with groundWork is based on the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved Bucket Brigade system. A small vacuum pump draws air into a specialised clear plastic bag inside the bucket air sampler. The bag is then sealed and sent to a laboratory in the US. Here, the contents of the bag are run through a GCMS (Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer), which compares the fingerprints of the sample with the fingerprints of toxic gases, such as sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxides and benzene, in the computer library. As additional evidence for the health impact of pollution, SDCEA and groundWork monitor clinic records and ask teachers to record the health complaints of students.

Mechanisms used to get the evidence into the policy process
SDECA and groundWork have pursued a range of strategies to get their air quality data into the policy process. Firstly, they have presented their findings to government authorities through both formal and informal channels. One important formal channel has been opened up by the government's emphasis on participatory environmental governance, such as the consultative processes surrounding the development of the national Air Quality Act and the Multi-Point Plan. On the informal level, SDCEA and groundWork have presented their data to local authorities in order to enable them to challenge data provided by the industry sector.

Before the establishment of the monitoring network as part of Durban's Multi-Point Plan, the government's main source of information about emissions was data provided by the industry sector. In this situation, the data provided by SDCEA and groundWork presented a valuable additional source of information for the government in negotiations with industry.

SDCEA and groundWork have also used their air quality data to mobilise the media, either to publicly shame individual companies or to attract attention to the general problem of pollution in South Durban.

International factors
Two main external factors have shaped the ability of SDCEA and groundWork to influence environmental policy through the use of scientific evidence: the link to an international network of environmental CSOs and an increasing interest on part of donor agencies in the environmental policy.

Lesons Learned
Four lessons can be learned from this case study:

• The use of scientific evidence can be an important source of credibility and legitimacy for CSOs and thus enhance their capabilities to influence policy.
  
• The validity of data is not only determined by scientific methodology but also by social representation. The policy impact of scientific evidence can be greatly diminished in a situation of political conflict where the only sources of data are the parties involved. The example of Durban's Multi-Point Plan illustrates that building state capacity to generate and verify data can provide a way out of this deadlock.
  
• While access to scientific know-how can enhance the influence of CSOs on the design of policy, their overall impact can be greatly reduced if the state is not able to enforce it.
  
• International organisations, both civic and intergovernmental, can assist CSOs in building and sustaining scientific capacity by providing expertise, technology and funding.

View full case study ( 138kb)

Back to Case Studies index