Fostering Multiscalar Collaboration and Co-operation for Effective Governance of Climate Change Adaptation

Abstract

In order to address climate/environmental change successfully and sustainably, it is vital to foster collaborative relationships between national, regional and local government institutions. Insufficient attention has been paid to relational dynamics between multiple levels of governance, and related learning networks outside formal government structures, particularly in the context of development imperatives in poor countries. This paper illustrates these issues via an exploration of relations between two contiguous, yet contrasting local authorities in South Africa and between these local authorities and higher government levels and other networks. To date, most progressive local climate change initiatives have been undertaken autonomously and often there are mismatched priorities between different government spheres regarding climate change efforts. The likely implications for the execution of environmental change adaptation actions and the benefits of effective networking are considered in this light and through deploying conceptual insights from multilevel governance, systems approaches to urban governance and other literatures.

Introduction

Perhaps now, more than ever, in the context of worsening global environmental problems and the burgeoning need for effective solutions and actions (for example, Wisner et al., 2012; World Resources Institute, 2012), networked modes of governance where nations, regions and municipalities work co-operatively are imperative. However, as evidenced throughout history, co-operative governance confronts significant operational challenges including communication barriers, conflicting priorities and agendas, and competing policies. Such challenges are most formidable when addressing issues as complex as climate change (CC) or broader environmental change (EC), the term we prefer since it includes additional dimensions and human–environmental interactions. However, many of the relevant documents and policies are glossed as CC, even when addressing other ECs.

This paper argues that the relational dynamics between various levels of government, as well as between government and non-governmental networks, are central to the necessary reconsideration of what constitutes good governance in the context of current urbanisation and EC and sustainability challenges. While international and regional-level collaborations are vital (despite their problematic nature) for addressing ECs, a sharper focus on local-level intramunicipal and intermunicipal relations as well as relations between municipalities and other tiers of government and non-governmental networks is equally important.

Hitherto, the EC and sustainability literatures have given inadequate attention to the importance and complexity of such relational dynamics, characteristic of the shifting global governance landscape. Effective urban governance in the context of urbanisation and global environmental change (UGEC) requires genuine collaboration and co-operation (as opposed to mere interaction) between multiple scales of governance, especially regarding shared infrastructure and the optimal functioning of socio-ecological systems (SESs). However, the complex political realities in most countries, combined with the contested nature of power, resource and responsibility distributions within and among the respective institutions, provide often profound challenges to the achievement of such collaborative governance. Furthermore, the centrality of municipalities in implementing the vast majority of EC policies and plans calls for the consideration of such local-level capacities and roles in dealing with CC and other EC-related impacts (Satterthwaite et al., 2009).

There is an emerging literature on the central role of municipalities in tackling environmental problems such as CC, often emphasising the importance of transnational municipal networks (see Marvin and Guy, 1999; Bulkeley and Betsill, 2003, 2005; Bulkeley et al., 2009; Robinson and Gore, 2005; Simon, 2010). However, there is a missing thread within the urbanisation and (global) EC literature which this paper examines—namely, detailed specific consideration of intermunicipal collaboration and linkages at finer scales, particularly between neighbouring municipalities, necessary for dealing with complex and cross-boundary challenges associated with EC. Deploying insights from the limited existing literature and drawing from empirical investigations undertaken in two neighbouring municipalities—namely, eThekwini (Durban) metropolitan and Ugu district municipalities in the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) province, South Africa—this paper considers such multiscalar relational dynamics and the complexities that impede effective operational collaborations for addressing EC. Although South Africa’s post-apartheid transition imparts a distinctive element, the underlying issues and contestations exemplify well the broader development—environment dilemmas facing poorer countries. Empirical data presented in this paper are derived from a series of in-depth interviews (undertaken between October 2009 and June 2011) with key informants from the two municipalities and relevant external organisations such as environmental consultancy firms.

In addition to facing pressing urban and mining-industrial mitigation challenges, South Africa, as with all other countries, will need to adapt to the predicted negative impacts of CC.¹ Key regional CC impacts are likely to include water scarcity, increases in daily minimum temperatures and heat waves, sea level rise coupled with increased intensity of storm surges, increased intensity and frequency of existing weather such as storms and droughts (Cartwright and Constable, 2009; Joubert, 2008).

Hence, EC impacts are likely to pose significant challenges to all sustainable development goals, particularly efforts to redress poverty and inequality as marginalised population’s livelihoods continue to be undermined (Cartwright and Constable, 2009).

Climate Change and the Complexities of Urban Local Governance

As with many other environmental issues that transgress politico-administrative boundaries, there is growing acceptance—at least rhetorically—on the basis of hard experience as well as the cost, that no single body or category of governance institution can tackle EC effectively and that what is now increasingly referred to as multilevel or multiscale governance is necessary.

That said, governance of EC is fraught with difficulty or ‘clumsiness’ (Hulme, 2009, pp. 309–317) and bound up with a “messy and unpredictable set of interactions in which unintended consequences are inevitable” (Leach et al., 2010, p. 72). We have discerned at least five complementary reasons for this. First, there are obvious issues of addressing the phenomenon through different jurisdictions (horizontally between contiguous entities within the same level or tier of institution, as well as vertically among different tiers of authority), each of which might have different capacities in terms of resources and personnel. Secondly, EC can be conceived of and framed in radically different ways, including as a security, environmental, economic, social justice or development challenge, each of which has profoundly different implications for policy and practice. Thirdly, these different polities often have very different interpretations of the causes, severity and urgency of tackling EC, and how this is most effectively to be done—unilaterally, bilaterally or multilaterally; in terms of treaties, conventions and the associated national ratifying legislation; sub-national and non-state actors; via market mechanisms; by means of voluntarist measures and civic environmentalism; through fiscal measures such as tax and investment incentives; or through quotas (whether tradeable or not), limits and fines.

Fourthly, there are likely to be substantial differences of priorities and policies among these governance institutions, reflecting the prevailing political affiliations of the respective bodies as well as situational variables such as predominantly urban, peri-urban or rural locations and populations, social diversity and the extent of any cleavages, and wealth distribution and the extent and nature of poverty among residents. Finally, the pace of globalisation and the associated increases in human mobility, trade and the associated transformations of environmental resources pose ever-greater challenges of co-ordination and harmonisation of policies and their enforcement among static political entities often designed at various times for very different prevailing circumstances.

Urban governance is a complex and challenging arena in its own right, particularly in poorer countries (Montgomery et al., 2005). For instance, the combination of legacies of centralised and unaccountable national and provincial governance, inadequate central revenue allocations to local authorities and poorly developed local revenue bases means that very few municipalities possess adequate funds to meet their legal duties and responsibilities (which are often referred to as ‘mandates’ in South Africa). A key element of governance reforms being attempted in many contexts world-wide is therefore to enhance local financial viability through greater autonomy to raise revenue locally from property rates and/or local income taxes, user charges, tolls and the like, as well as widening the local tax-base and reducing avoidance.

However, new challenges and roles that arise for underresourced local authorities, such as tackling EC, inevitably therefore create budgetary tensions with existing commitments and, unless a bespoke revenue stream can be identified (either from local or national sources or derived from external aid/technical assistance programmes), they may become ‘unfunded mandates’ in South African parlance. In such situations, EC programmes—which are still widely perceived as long-term issues and/or élite preoccupations—are almost inevitably deprioritised. This situation also forms part of the broader supposed development—environment conflict discussed later. Such conundrums are best addressed by formulating EC adaptation projects and programmes that can demonstrate developmental credentials, either in terms of meeting basic needs and immediate priorities directly or by safeguarding such investments for the longer term. Herein lie the roots of the developmental approach to EC referred to earlier.

In seeking to unlock such dilemmas, analytical tools that explore and explain stakeholder strategies and decision-making processes across scales are required.

Multiscalar Climate Change Governance: A Decision-centred Analytical Approach

Due to their dynamic, cross-scale potential, a multiscalar governance perspective, together with Moser’s (2009) decision-centred diagnostic approach, offer useful theoretical perspectives. Adaptation to EC is multidimensional and multiscalar, encompassing a multitude of actions, actors, sectors and governance levels. Moser’s (2009) approach supports an investigation of governance dynamics as facilitator of, or constraint to, adaptation through identifying the target space (for example, location, community, municipal area, sector, industry) under consideration for adaptation and potential adaptation decisions that may be made. According to Moser (2009, p. 317), “beginning with the decision-maker(s) provides a revealing diagnostic entry point into the structural governance context … that channels adaptation planning and implementation”. Under a multilevel governance framework, it is important to consider at which level (for example, local, provincial, national) decision-makers are situated, what their sphere of influence is and through which mechanisms, as well as how multilevel decisions are linked.

Predominantly rooted in studies of supranational institutions such as the European Union (EU), a growing body of literature on multilevel governance emphasises interpenetration and connectivity between different levels of government, particularly regarding multiscale and cross-cutting issues such as EC. Critics argue that the term ‘multilevel’ is gratuitous since governance perspectives should already encourage sensitivity to interrelations beyond the nation-state and between different government spheres and non-governmental institutions (Leach et al., 2007). Nevertheless, the term ‘multilevel’ retains central significance in this paper, particularly in light of its emphasis on the interconnected constraining or facilitatory effects that each governance level has on the other for decision-making and action—which are crucial for EC adaptation. Furthermore,

Climate change poses a significant challenge to the conventional analysis of institutions since traditional views of environmental governance are fundamentally hierarchical and climate change involves processes and institutions operating at a variety of scales (Koch et al., 2007, p. 1331).

Issues of co-ordination, responsibility, capacity and accountability are central concerns raised in the multilevel governance literature because in such a context, decision-making and actions at different levels of government are interlinked and interdependent, with each level shaping enabling or constraining conditions at other levels (Bulkeley and Newell, 2010). A multilevel governance framework

focuses on collective decision-making processes although it recognizes the influence of individual values and perceptions on these and the importance of values, culture and local context in decisions (Corfee-Morlot et al., 2011, p. 176).

Existing literature notwithstanding, multilevel governance requires further consideration since, historically and currently, meaningful and sustained cross-scale governance is lacking. Furthermore, there has been limited research on multilevel governance of EC, with a particular emphasis on adaptation and the unique role that urban governments have to play presented within a holistic framework (Koch et al., 2007; Corfee-Morlot et al., 2011). Building on this, as already highlighted, this paper emphasises the distinctive role played by collaboration between adjoining municipalities and their constituent decision-makers in EC adaptation and encouraging multiscale governance. This can be approached through a framework of understanding municipalities as linked systems.

Drawing on urban geographical insights and the systems approach to urban governance, Ernstson et al. (2010) explain that urban phenomena can be understood as occurring in a ‘system of cities’ where intricate connections between multiple entities (for example, trade, migration) support the flow of information, energy and matter through the cities in the system. Therefore

cities need to be viewed as loci in multiple networks of relationships at different scales, rather than as entities (Ernstson et al., 2010, p. 537).

This argument is applicable to interconnected rural and urban networks across municipal regions. Thus, individual municipalities stand to benefit from positioning themselves as part of a ‘system’ of municipalities where interdependencies and cross-scale linkages between shared social, ecological and technical features are considered strategically and inform governance dynamics.

Local Government in the Post-apartheid Context

In post-apartheid South Africa, local authorities play a prominent role in transforming inherited inequalities through what has become known as developmental local government (Parnell et al., 2002; van Donk et al., 2008). This developmental mandate means that EC is often perceived as a challenge to development in the sense of threatening other development imperatives (Parnell et al., 2007). Additionally, those local authorities in rural areas and catering for primarily black and poor populations are most likely to regard EC as either someone else’s responsibility (particularly national government) or a long-term environmental problem that should be discounted in favour of immediate developmental programmes. Such attitudes risk jeopardising urgently required EC remediation or prevention investments unless their developmental utility or importance—in the sense already discussed– can be demonstrated.

The South African Policy Context

The National Environmental Management Act (NEMA, Act 108 of 1996), which gives effect to the environmental clause in the constitutional Bill of Rights, explicitly provides decision-making principles and institutions to support co-operative environmental governance and mandates all tiers of government to take responsibility for environmental management (RSA, 1998; Swilling, 2008).

The principle of co-operative government is also enshrined in South Africa’s Constitution, thereby identifying it as a key priority for the government. The Constitution reflects a significant shift from past governmental structures since the previous three-tiered hierarchical government structure (local, provincial and national) is now regarded as comprising three separate yet interdependent and interrelated spheres of government (Schmidt, 2008). However, South Africa’s sophisticated environmental and other legislation has encountered significant implementational problems that often frustrate environmental and social justice (Scott and Oelofse, 2005; Patel, 2008). As this paper demonstrates, despite being enshrined in core legislation, co-operative governance in practice is highly inadequate across all government tiers and between municipalities. This has been particularly apparent in the recent development of EC policies and plans at various levels of government. Indeed, the empirical research which informs this paper has revealed a distinct weakness in vertical managerial and administrative interaction and a lack of formal and functioning procedures, regulations and guidelines for addressing EC-related issues between governmental spheres.

Furthermore, the fallacy of the ‘environment versus development’ conflict appears to persist throughout all government levels

Sustainable development is still regarded as a trade-off between environment and economic development priorities in South Africa in some powerful quarters (Patel, 2008, p. 357).

Such paradigms hamper both appropriate environmental and developmental progress. This tension has never been effectively overcome in Durban and has perhaps even deepened as development challenges continue to mount in the city (Roberts, 2008). Indeed, South African development objectives are still defined around basic needs—basic service provision, poverty reduction and reconstruction—necessitated by the massive infrastructural and development backlogs caused by the inequitable and oppressive apartheid order.

As a result, governments at all levels may become hesitant to implement EC initiatives if addressing the environmental challenges it poses is seen as potentially divisive. Unless addressed, such tensions are likely to bedevil new EC measures.

South African National-level Responses to Climate Change

The South African government is a signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol. Despite being initially slow to act, the government has in recent times achieved significant progress in developing an EC roadmap, partly to demonstrate its credentials when hosting the COP17 UNFCCC summit in Durban in December 2011 (for example, Koch et al., 2007; Atteridge, 2011; Bond, 2007, 2011; ASSAf, 2011).

The government’s overarching domestic EC framework is captured in the National Climate Change Response (NCCR) White Paper (Department of Environmental Affairs, 2011). The Paper identifies the cross-cutting nature of EC/CC that has implications for, and must be incorporated into, policy frameworks across the spectrum of government departments. The Paper’s (p. 13) proposal for a “balanced approach to both climate change mitigation and adaptation responses” is important because, as with many other countries and in line with international trends, the government has until recently focused disproportionately on mitigation. Curiously, though, it omitted urban areas from explicit consideration in the first National Climate Change Response Strategy (Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, 2004). This created a double disjuncture between local and national levels since much adaptation and mitigation necessarily have to occur in urban areas and, furthermore, several SA municipalities (for example, eThekwini and Cape Town) recognised the urgency of adaptation very early on and acted accordingly. However, the White Paper indicates a greater alignment in foci between government spheres. While the Paper underscores the importance of vertical collaboration between all government spheres, the pivotal role of intermunicipal horizontal co-ordination is somewhat absent and little reference to local government is made in the Paper.

While various policies and action strategies have been devised, CC adaptation is still an emerging field in the South African context, where government roles and responsibilities for climate policy and action are still being negotiated and are presently overlapping and contested. South Africa’s legislative CC framework will be largely ineffective if supporting institutional structures (including enforcement) and necessary resources are not introduced. While such national policies provide significant guideposts for tackling EC and reaching sustainability, they require extensive local-level implementation. This is a key concern for municipal officials emerging from our research

That is what I fear will happen with the climate change stuff is that we will have these bold commitments which will be fabulous but there will be no resources to achieve the commitments … creating the policy and setting the targets is obviously what national government has to do but in fact making that work at the local level, we’ve probably got 60/70 per cent of the grunge work to do here and we don’t have the money to do that (eThekwini municipal official, 08 August 2010).

Since local governments will be responsible for implementing many EC plans drawn up nationally, it is important to understand the broader developmental context within which they operate in pursuit of suchplans.

The South African Governance Landscape

The neo-liberal national Growth, Employ-ment and Redistribution (GEAR) macro-economic strategy (1997) marked a move away from more social democratic commitments in the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) introduced when the ANC took power in 1994. However, the Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa (AsgiSA; South African Government, 2006), again emphasises a more prominent developmental role for the state. AsgiSA proposes a major state-led infrastructural development programme and aims to foster the inclusion into the formal economy of the bottom third of the population (Winkler, 2009).

AsgiSA’s fundamental aims are yet to be achieved and it has raised environmental concerns as it

is premised on unlimited natural resources and an environment with a limitless resilience and recuperative ability (Friedmann and King, 2008, p. 36).

Building on AsgiSA, the 2010 New Growth Path (NGP) is the most recent addition to the stream of development programmes. Many question what is essentially ‘new’ about the NGP because its macro-economic underpinnings appear consistent with those of its GEAR and AsgiSA predecessors and broadly assume that business-as-usual can proceed indefinitely.

This overarching development framework therefore creates certain tensions with, and limitations to, plans and processes through which local authorities must attempt to implement transformative EC actions. Hence, examinations of environmental governance issues such as intermunicipal collaboration need to be informed by the broader governance and political contexts that drive or, in this case, inhibit, the development of local EC policies and plans. Yet such relationships are bidirectional

addressing climate change is in reality a subset of wider governance processes which shape and at the same time are affected by the nature of climate governance (Bulkeley and Newell, 2010, p. 35).

Local Government in the Post-apartheid Context

The devolution of many responsibilities to the local level has invested municipalities with considerable power over economic and social development (Parnell et al., 2002; van Donk et al., 2008). However, such implementation requires complex intergovernmental communication and funding for developmental mandates, all of which are notably inadequate despite the establishment by the national government of a ministry of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs to promote this objective.

A major post-apartheid change is the revised demarcation of municipal boundaries under the Local Government: Municipal Demarcation Act 27 of 1998. This created three types of municipalities: metropolitan, district and local. Despite the intentions to achieve a greater balance between financial viability and representation among diverse municipalities, local governments country-wide appear to be more overstretched than ever, with many now having to administer much larger areas and populations with little extra financial and other support. Furthermore, the practical implications of such artificial boundary reconstruction are far reaching since adjacent communities now often fall under different jurisdictions, with either more or less capable local government, thereby directly affecting people’s livelihoods. Municipal bodies can ‘inherit’ new land and communities or forego existing areas through municipal boundary reconstruction, thereby creating new challenges to or opportunities for existing (or absent) community-based and municipal-led adaptation measures.

Despite this challenging context, governing in the context of urban EC challenges also poses a unique opportunity to reform current development agendas, to improve sustainability and, crucially, to foster meaningful and effective partnerships and networks among municipalities and between municipalities and other governmental tiers. This opportunity is underscored by the post-apartheid emphasis on developmental local government. Whether this opportunity is seized remains to be seen, but the status quo needs to be revisited, with revised intermunicipal relationships featuring prominently.

Governing Climate Change: Challenges and Opportunities for Collaboration between Different Governmental Tiers

Collaboration over Climate Change Issues at the Local Level: The Case of eThekwini (Durban) and the Ugu District

Ugu and eThekwini municipalities are situated along the south coast of KwaZulu-Natal (KZN). eThekwini is the only one of South Africa’s six metropolitan local authorities in that province. By contrast, Ugu is one of KZN’s ten district municipalities and encompasses six smaller, largely rural, municipalities.

The socioeconomic composition and settlement patterns within eThekwini are similar to those of the Ugu district where wealthier, well-serviced, predominantly urban coastal areas are juxtaposed with impoverished, underserviced, largely rural interiors with large commercial sugarcane and banana farms and many subsistence farmers. Sharp divisions of wealth and development needs and opportunities exist between the coast and the interior of both areas due to the divergent apartheid histories of the respective former ‘group areas’ which resulted in unequal resource allocation between previously designated ‘White’ (predominantly coastal) areas and African (predominantly interior) areas (Houghton, 2005). The fragile coastal strips face significant development pressures as urbanisation rates and associated demands for housing, infrastructure and services mount.

EC impacts are likely to exacerbate these existing challenges, with both areas recently experiencing significant losses and damage from extreme events such as storm surge and flooding. In addition, research undertaken by the Department of Agriculture has revealed that KZN is highly vulnerable to environmental changes and has the highest flood hazard level in South Africa, with the South Coast being the most exposed (KWANALOGA, 2010).

Durban (within eThekwini municipality) contributes substantially to the provincial and national economies as the largest port in Africa and the country’s second-largest manufacturing base (eThekwini Municipality, 2009). eThekwini has a population of approximately 3.5 million occupying an area of 2300 square km. There is a sharp contrast between the approximately 10 per cent rural population occupying about two-thirds of the municipal area, and the increasing and predominantly urban population occupying a much smaller and overburdened land area (eThekwini municipal official, 08 August 2010).

Ugu district municipality is 5866 square km in extent, almost double the area of eThekwini, with an estimated population in 2010 of 756 370 (Ugu Municipality, 2008). A financially underresourced and underskilled municipality, it has inherited large underdeveloped and underserviced rural hinterlands through revised municipal demarcations. Ugu has a much smaller tax-base than eThekwini on account of its smaller, predominantly rural population. Its economic priorities are agriculture and tourism and Ugu contributes an average of only 3.3 per cent to KZN’s economy (Ugu Municipality, 2008).

Globally, many cities, particularly those with strong leaders, extensive resource bases and advanced expertise, have begun to develop EC adaptation (and sometimes mitigation) plans, even in the absence of national-level instruction, support or policy. Durban is one proactive city to have done this and is at the vanguard of EC action both nationally and internationally through commissioning a municipal adaptation plan (MAP) (Cartwright and Constable, 2009), as has the City of Cape Town. eThekwini is a clear leader amongst municipalities within KZN and indeed the southern African region; most have yet to embark on such activities to any similar degree.

In addition to their MAPs, eThekwini has embarked on several other progressive EC ventures (for example, community adaptation plans (pilot phase), water loss management and urban agriculture programmes, sea level rise modelling and a green roof pilot project) under their Municipal Climate Protection Programme (MCPP). The municipality’s Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department (EPCDP) is well reputed nationally and internationally regarding disaster risk reduction, climate negotiations and best practice sharing. Further, Durban is a leader in promoting and using natural areas (‘green infrastructure’) to provide ecosystem services and other key functions (Roberts et al., 2012).

By contrast, Ugu district municipality, which shares key infrastructure, commuting corridors, ecosystems and other key elements with eThekwini, has inadequate resources and expertise, and neither Ugu nor its six constituent local municipalities has, to date, initiated any comparably comprehensive EC adaptation or mitigation strategies. Nevertheless, environmental issues have risen on Ugu’s agenda in recent years. For instance, municipal representatives participated in the KwaZulu-Natal Local Government Association (KWANALOGA) Climate Change and Rural Development Summit in Durban in March 2010, where all the province’s municipalities were invited to share experiences and determine collaborative ways forward in dealing with EC. An ‘Ugu response framework’ on EC was drafted, focusing on identifying the key vulnerabilities of each sector and opportunities for appropriate interventions. However, due to the prioritisation of other pressing issues and lack of municipal backing, there has been little follow-through (Ugu municipal official, 22 August 2010). Ugu’s current approach to EC is not as proactive as eThekwini’s since their focus is predominantly short term—on co-benefits of existing initiatives and complying with environmental impact assessment (EIA) recommendations and other legal requirements (Ugu municipal official, 22 September 2010).

Despite their already-mentioned similarities and being interconnected in spatial and functional terms, the two municipalities differ with regard to several key features and functions such as developmental priorities, economic activities and profiles, land use functions and key infrastructure. This appears to act as a barrier to the formation of intermunicipal partnerships and collaboration. Representatives from the Ugu and eThekwini environmental management departments argue that although certain issues would benefit from joint ventures and collaboration, the municipalities’ differing foci negate the necessity for constant collaboration and partnerships, particularly when it comes to CC related issues. As one eThekwini official explained

We don’t talk to them … and that’s the point, it’s that we have nothing in common with Ugu or any of the others, Sisonke or those, the people we talk to will be Cape Town, Jo’burg, because we are a local government that is more reliant on big metros obviously; we would never talk to the District (interview, 8 August 2010).

Similarly a key Ugu municipal official suggested that

The coastal cities, Durban, PE, East London, CT, let them get together, but the coastal district municipalities can also have another network that can operate at their level because probably issues are going to get confused, we have got no big issues to talk about with them (interview, 2 August 2010).

This argument relating to barriers created by municipal diversity is broadly applicable. Similarly, Gore’s (2010) research on Canadian municipal networks revealed that—even in the very different context of a high-income country—municipal diversity in terms of population size, socioeconomic character and so forth poses a barrier to cohesion over joint municipal advocacy positions, which translated to preferences to (somewhat unsuccessful) partnering with the federal government.

Authorities from both KZN municipalities, as well as authoritative external figures interviewed, emphasised the following additional key barriers to intermunicipal collaboration which are often cited more broadly in governance-related research: interdepartmental conflicts, conflicting priorities, departmental protection, complex governance structures, lack of support from politicians, high staff turnovers in government departments which disrupt existing communication channels and often slow progress, institutional constraints, unequal skills and technical capacity between municipalities and ineffective communication channels.

There is a long history of inadequate communication and integration between municipal departments within and between local government bodies as well as between local government and provincial and national government tiers in South Africa and, indeed, globally. Despite these real barriers, municipalities—especially small, less well endowed and capacitated ones—do nevertheless stand to benefit from increased communication relating to EC and other initiatives. Since SESs and EC impacts, along with appropriate adaptation processes, do not conform to municipal boundaries, they can be meaningfully addressed only through collaborative and co-operative governance. While perhaps not sharing specific similarities, even between adjacent municipalities, there are certain broader aspects over which municipalities can collaborate. Hence, Ugu could perhaps learn from leading metropolitan municipalities such as Cape Town and eThekwini regarding lessons learnt and strategies adopted in MAPs. While adequate contact and integration are difficult to achieve in practice, initial ties can be formed through simple actions such as smaller municipalities with young and understaffed environmental departments making their existence and functions known to larger municipalities with more established departments.

Crucially, despite their differences, adjoining municipalities do share SESs and some core infrastructure and functions. Explicating some of the connections between the two municipalities already alluded to will illustrate some key aspects of their relationship in the context of EC adaptation. Contiguous physical regions inevitably transcend multiple municipal boundaries, which are drawn according to political and other criteria rather than ‘natural’ functional regions. Such overlaps create interdependencies and shared problems and opportunities between the contiguous municipalities.

There are reciprocal labour and trade flows (for example, commercial and subsistence agricultural trade such as bananas and sugarcane) and established commuting patterns for work and recreation (for example, rural Ugu residents seeking employment in Durban city) between the municipal areas. The municipalities also share critical biodiversity and ecosystem goods and services. For example, several catchment systems extend through both municipal areas and are thus impacted by activities in both areas. Connecting and conserving networks of open spaces, including grasslands, forests (including dunes) and water bodies across the municipal areas are important for enhancing biodiversity, ecosystems and ecological corridors in support of adaptation measures. For instance, from an EC adaptation perspective, the impacts of sea level rise and storm surge along the interconnected municipal coastal corridors can be attenuated through enhancing vegetation and protecting fore dunes and ensuring that coastal developments straddling administrative borders are built in accordance with appropriate set-back lines.

Collaboration and co-operation between the municipalities could facilitate the extension of Durban’s pioneering metropolitan open space system (D’MOSS)—a protected network of open spaces (approximately 74 000 hectares of land and water)—beyond its boundaries to create a much larger network of open space (including water bodies) and natural resources to support adaptation through various functions such as flood attenuation and soil erosion control (Roberts et al., 2012).

Such collaboration could also enhance the distribution of natural vegetation cover such as endangered endemic grasslands. Additionally, the municipalities share critical infrastructure such as road networks (for example, the N2 highway and R102 coastal road), rail networks, underground water pipes and storm water drainage systems.

Collaboration and Networking amongst Other Municipalities Country-wide

Importantly, other South African metropolitan councils (for example, Cape Town and Johannesburg) have emerged as ‘climate leaders’ as they have also begun to prioritise EC adaptation in recent years (Carmin et al., 2012). Despite concurrently pursuing EC adaptation, there has, however, also apparently been surprisingly little information sharing and collaboration between some of these bodies. As Carmin et al. note,

At the present time there is no structured co-ordination or communication between these different communities and, therefore, no domestic efforts to promote joint learning or sharing of best practices (Carmin et al., 2009, p. 9).

More recently, however, several large municipalities, such as eThekwini and Cape Town, have made concerted efforts to develop structured communication and networks relating to their respective EC experiences through extensive engagement, and proposed joint initiatives such as a coastal cities network (eThekwini municipal official, 8 August 2010). Hence, despite initial shortcomings, metropolitan municipalities which share broadly similar EC challenges are beginning to initiate effective working partnerships which are likely to be beneficial to both municipalities and their citizens in terms of long-term EC adaptation. District municipalities such as Ugu and adjoining Sisonke stand to learn from these recently initiated networked relations and to begin to form similar horizontal partnerships. In this way, municipal bodies province-wide can engage in knowledge and best-practice sharing and ultimately influence and inform national and even international-level relations and EC policy and actions through networked and co-ordinated influence. This suggested shift to networked municipalities is likely to encourage a more contextually appropriate inside-out approach to EC strategies as opposed to predominantly hierarchical, top–down strategies from national government level, often based on international practices and without adequate modification to the South African context.

This idea of a network of municipalities resonates with Ernstson et al.’s (2010) argument for ‘systems of cities’, introduced earlier and the argument for a ‘system’ of municipalities where interdependencies and cross-scale socio-ecological and technical linkages that join municipalities begin to inform multilevel governance dynamics. The idea of a system of municipalities can be further developed to link closely with increasingly popular resilience theory through proposing a socio-ecological system of municipalities where the coupled nature of social and ecological dynamics connecting municipalities is brought to the fore in EC adaptation decision-making and actions. The systems approach to urban governance, which also draws on urban ecological insights, is increasingly being highlighted as essential for dealing with cross-scale EC challenges (for example, Bai et al., 2010; Grimm et al., 2008; World Bank, 2009). Existing networks between individual local governments which are sometimes proving effective in addressing transboundary environmental and developmental problems such as transport planning or environmental protection can provide useful insights and lessons for informing EC research and creating coalitions between local governments, particularly neighbouring municipalities (Bai et al., 2010; Simon, 2010). Such municipal coalitions can

improve the voice of local actors and therefore increase the likelihood of influencing policy and action and broader spatial or institutional scales (Bai et al., 2010, p. 133).

Local government is evidently a key actor for successful EC adaptation as it has to provide the framework and policies for encouraging the public, NGOs and private companies to support and contribute to the initiatives. In one of the very few South African studies to consider municipal responses to EC and intermunicipal relationships, there is “scope for far greater information-sharing” and a “need for better co-ordinated strategic interaction among the municipalities” (Mokwena, 2009, p. 29). However, several prerequisites need to be met in order for local government to meet all of these requirements adequately, as considered next.

Challenges to Multiscalar Collaboration and Co-operation for Effective Governance of Environmental Change Adaptation

The metropolitan municipalities with strong urban cores have emerged as EC leaders in South Africa while rural-orientated municipalities lag behind significantly. Likely reasons for this include the larger and more diverse resources often available to strong urban cores; stronger human resource capacities with key individuals often acting as leaders or catalysts (‘champions’) for climate action; successful networking with local and international bodies, thereby strengthening knowledge and sometimes financial resource bases; as well as key staff dedicated to EC issues. However, in order for these strong urban cores to maintain long-term resilience to EC impacts such as threats to food security, it is important to create strong bidirectional, supportive and sustainable linkages with their rural hinterlands.

Rural and often undercapacitated municipalities that have, to date, been less engaged in EC initiatives and networks are less likely to be in influential positions in national negotiations and would potentially benefit from partnering with metropolitan municipalities which could represent their shared interests (Mokwena, 2009). However, in order for municipalities to forge meaningful and sustained relationships, support structures are required from provincial and national governments. Indeed,

the local politics of climate change is not taking place only within a discrete sphere of local governance, but through vertical relations of power and governance (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2003, p. 185).

Importantly, difficulties in collaborating ‘across boundaries’ relate to all governmental tiers. Hence, horizontal relational dynamics at the local level need to be considered in conjunction with vertical relations with higher governmental tiers. We now turn to such considerations.

The South African Local Government Association (SALGA) is an organisation empowered by the Constitution to assist in local municipal transformation and consolidate local government in this complex governance landscape.² There are also nine provincial local government associations (PLGAs) mandated to represent their respective local governments. To date, SALGA’s performance appears to have been inadequate, particularly with regard to guidance on CC-related issues. Pieterse et al. (2008, p. 19) assert that, “Institutions such as SALGA struggle to define their relevance and impact”. Key officials from both eThekwini and Ugu district municipalities concurred, citing a lack of meaningful interaction, lack of clarity regarding the institution’s role, inadequate guidance on CC issues, as well as ineffectiveness when describing SALGA. Recently, however, an employee in the newly formed SALGA CC branch has provided a “glimmer of hope that SALGA may do something going forward” in relation to climate change and become more effective in providing guidance and improved communication, as evidenced in SALGA CC-related draft documents distributed to municipalities for comment (eThekwini municipal official, 8 August 2010).

Recently, both SALGA and KWANALOGA have encouraged municipalities to share information on EC initiatives and to work together to address related problems (Mokwena, 2009).³ Indeed, the need for intermunicipal co-operation in addressing EC has been identified by all levels of government, yet there is a lack of national and provincial support mechanisms and follow-through to facilitate the development of such substantive co-operative local initiatives. The state has been slow to act on its rhetorical commitments and declarations of intent regarding EC and the need for co-operative governance, with insufficient concomitant financial and human resource investment forthcoming. To quote Schmidt (2008, p. 109), “We are strong on ideas and conceptions, poor on implementation”.

Nevertheless, it is often at the local government scale that innovative adaptation actions have been embarked upon, ahead of the national level. Thus, the success of national plans and policies is likely to be determined, in large part, by drawing on and being informed by local-level experiences. However, inadequate communication between national and local levels creates a barrier to necessary information exchange. Information sharing, interaction and collaboration between municipalities, the provincial sphere of government and the national government are evidently very poor. This applies particularly to environment-related issues. Describing the interaction between national and provincial levels with eThekwini environmental department, a key informant explained that

It’s almost non-existent, I mean there isn’t any, it’s as simple as that … well … there isn’t anything meaningful. Ja, SALGA is ineffective, SACN is ineffective … national never speaks to us and province, really, why were they even created? (interview, 8 August 2010).

An Ugu environmental department representative also emphasised the criticality of communication, information sharing and partnering between local, central and provincial government for putting them “on the right track” for addressing CC (interview, 18 November 2009). However, officials interviewed agree that there is a lack of meaningful interaction and guidance on EC issues from both national and provincial government, which poses an urgent problem. Poor provincial support mechanisms are certainly not unique to the South African or even the so-called developing world context. As Robinson and Gore (2005, p. 116) highlight, despite their direct link to municipalities, “provinces cannot be counted on for widespread political leadership on the climate change issue”.

Further, several senior local government interviewees expressed their frustrations about not being consulted about national-level decisions, as well as inadequate guidelines and policies informing climate-related actions. Moreover, many local authorities in both case study areas articulated a distinct lack of understanding within provincial and national government as to what occurs at the local level.

However, national and provincial budget allocations for environmental, particularly EC, plans and projects remain low. A lack of financial resources appears to be a major impediment to pursuing EC initiatives at the municipal level. While certain metropolitan municipalities have formed strategic relationships with organisations such as the Danish International Development Assistance Agency (DANIDA) which has helped to create funding opportunities for certain EC initiatives, less ad hoc, more consistent and long-term budget allocations are required from the national government.

Conclusions

Environmental and narrower climate changes are occurring to different extents in different contexts world-wide and cannot be addressed successfully at any single geographical scale or by any one category of actor. Effective collaboration across politico-administrative boundaries is therefore essential in all political contexts and we emphasise the importance of rethinking what appropriate governance structures for climate governance in particular contexts might constitute. Recognising that the broad argument for multiscalar CC governance is now relatively well established, we propose, as a general principle, that existing governance dynamics need to shift to focus on strong bidirectional linkages between all governmental tiers and encourage local networked government bodies to take the lead in climate negotiations. Despite significant barriers to collaboration, by drawing on empirical examples, we have argued that there are very substantial synergies between successful EC adaptation and optimally functioning relational dynamics between all tiers of government, particularly between neighbouring local authorities within functional economic or socio-ecological systems.

Weak horizontal and vertical networking between governmental tiers, as discussed by means of a case study in South Africa, poses a critical barrier to adaptation at all scales. Lack of information sharing, communication and reciprocal learning between similar municipalities throughout the country represents an obstacle to the adoption and implementation of effective climate adaptation programmes. Additionally, effective action is hampered by a plethora of economic, political, cultural and developmental challenges on which consensus may be hard to achieve. Nevertheless, if recognised and addressed, such obstacles can be transformed into opportunities for adaptation through increased networking and forging meaningful engagement over EC and other relevant issues.

However, tensions and trade-offs between competing policy agendas, developmental and environmental agendas, as well as political priorities between all scales of government are notoriously difficult to overcome. Furthermore, divergent and dynamic values, agendas and priorities between individuals in key government positions appear to be common dominant themes that can potentially undermine efforts at collaborative ventures for climate adaptation. The lack of regulatory frameworks and guidance for developing such collaborative networks for climate change adaptation evidently pose an additional significant barrier to the development of such networked relationships.

Although the particularities of this empirical situation may be distinctive to the post-apartheid South African context by virtue of the precise combination of high-level economic growth, (re)distributive and environmental imperatives, the generic issues arise in most contexts around the world, where trade-offs between perceived priorities and agendas within individual local jurisdictions are having to be made both across the boundaries of adjacent local authorities and vertically in terms of interactions with intermediate and central government institutions in order to tackle environmental/climate change and other transboundary issues.

Footnotes

Notes

Funding

Empirical work for this paper was partly funded by the Emma Smith Overseas Scholarship and the Royal Holloway, University of London College Overseas Research Fund.

References

ASSAf (Academy of Science of South Africa) (2011) Towards a low carbon city, focus on Durban. ASSAf, Pretoria.

Atteridge

. (2011) Multiple identities: behind South Africa’s approach to climate diplomacy. Policy brief, Stockholm Environment Institute.

Bai

McAllister

R. R. J.

Beaty

R. M.

Taylor

(2010) Urban policy and governance in a global environment: complex systems, scale mismatches and public participation, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2, pp. 129–135.

Bond

. (2007) Privatization of the air turns lethal: ‘pay to pollute’ principle kills South African activist Sajida Khan, Capitalism Nature Socialism, 18, pp. 6–37.

Bond

. (2011) Politics of Climate Justice: Paralysis Above, Movement Below. Scottsville: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press.

Bulkeley

Betsill

(2003) Cities and Climate Change: Urban Sustainability and Global Environmental Governance. London: Routledge.

Bulkeley

Betsill

(2005) Rethinking sustainable cities: multilevel governance and the ‘urban’ politics of climate change, Environmental Politics, 14, pp. 42–63.

Bulkeley

Newell

(2010) Governing Climate Change. London: Routledge.

Bulkeley

Schroeder

Janda

Zhao

. (2009) Cities and climate change: the role of institutions, governance and urban planning. Report prepared for the World Bank Urban Symposium on Climate Change, Marseille, 2009.

10.

Carmin

Anguelovski

Roberts

(2012) Urban climate adaptation in the global south: planning in an emerging policy domain, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(1), pp. 18–32.

11.

Cartwright

Constable

(2009) eThekwini Municipality municipal adaptation plan: health and water. Environmental Resources Management (ERM) Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd.

12.

Corfee-Morlot

Cochran

Hallegatte

Teasdale

P. J.

(2011) Multilevel risk governance and urban adaptation policy, Climatic Change, 104, pp. 169–197.

13.

Department of Environmental Affairs (2011) National climate change response. White Paper, Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria.

14.

Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (2004) National climate change response strategy. Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Pretoria.

15.

Donk

M. van

Swilling

Pieterse

Parnell

(Eds) (2008) Consolidating Developmental Local Government: Lessons from the South African Experience. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

16.

Ernstson

Leeuw

S. E. van der

Redman

C. L

Meffert

D. J.

. (2010) Urban transitions: on urban resilience and human-dominated ecosystems, Ambio, 39, pp. 531–545.

17.

eThekwini Municipality (2009) eThekwini Municipality integrated development plan (IDP) 5 year plan: 2006/07 to 2010/11, 2009/10. Annual review, Review 3 of 4, eThekwini Municipality, Durban.

18.

Friedmann

King

(2008) The state of our environment, in: Zipplies

. (Ed.) Bending the Curve: Your Guide to Tackling Climate Change in South Africa, pp. 28–39. Cape Town: Africa Geographic.

19.

Gore

. (2010) The limits and opportunities of networks: municipalities and Canadian climate change policy, Review of Policy Research, 27, pp. 27–46.

20.

Grimm

N. B.

Foster

Goffman

Grove

J. M.

. (2008) The changing landscape: ecosystem responses to urbanization and pollution across climatic and societal gradients, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 6(5), pp. 264–272.

21.

Houghton

. (2005) Place and the implications of the local for sustainability: an investigation of the Ugu District Municipality in South Africa, Geoforum, 36, pp. 418–428.

22.

Hulme

. (2009) Why We Disagree on Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

23.

Joubert

. (2008) Boiling Point: People in a Changing Climate. Johannesburg: Wits University Press.

24.

Koch

I. C.

Vogel

Patel

(2007) Institutional dynamics and climate change adaptation in South Africa, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies to Global Change, 12(8), pp. 1323–1339.

25.

KWANALOGA (KwaZulu-Natal Local Government Association) (2010) Discussion document: climate change and rural development. Prepared for the Climate Change and Rural Development Summit, Durban, March.

26.

Leach

Scoones

Stirling

(2009) Dynamic Sustainabilities: Technology, Environment and Social Justice. London: Earthscan.

27.

Leach

Bloom

Ely

Nightingale

. (2007) Understanding governance: pathways to sustainability. Working paper, STEPS Centre, Institute for Development Studies, University of Sussex.

28.

Marvin

Guy

(1999) Beyond the myths of the new environmental localism, in: Atkinson

Dávila

J. D.

Fernandes

Mattingly

(Eds) The Challenge of Environmental Management in Urban Areas, pp. 203–312. London: Ashgate.

29.

Mokwena

. (2009) Municipal responses to climate change in South Africa: the case of eThekwini, the City of Cape Town, and the City of Johannesburg. Research Report No. 113, Centre for Policy Studies, Johannesburg.

30.

Montgomery

M. R.

Stren

Cohen

Reed

H. E.

(2005) The challenge of urban governance, in: Montgomery

M. R.

Stren

Cohen

Reed

H. E.

(Eds) Cities Transformed: Demographic Change and Its Implications in the Developing World, pp. 355–409. London: Earthscan.

31.

Moser

. (2009) Whether our levers are long enough and the fulcrum strong? Exploring the soft underbelly of adaptation decisions and actions, in: Adger

W. N.

Lorenzoni

O’Brien

(Eds) Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance, pp. 313–334. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

32.

Parnell

Pieterse

Swilling

Wooldridge

(Eds) (2002) Democratising Local Government: The South African Experiment. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

33.

Parnell

Simon

Vogel

(2007) Global environmental change: conceptualizing the growing challenge for cities in poor countries, Area, 39(3), pp. 357–369.

34.

Patel

. (2008) Tools and trade-offs in environmental decision-making, in: van Donk

Swilling

Pieterse

Parnell

(Eds) Consolidating Developmental Local Government: Lessons from the South African Experience, pp. 357–376. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

35.

Pieterse

Parnell

Swilling

Donk

M. van

(2008) Consolidating developmental local government, in: van Donk

Swilling

Pieterse

Parnell

(Eds) Consolidating Developmental Local Government: Lessons from the South African Experience, pp. 1–23. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

36.

RSA (Republic of South Africa) (1994) Reconstruction and Development Programme White Paper. Government Gazette No. 16085. Pretoria: Government Printer.

37.

RSA (1996) Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Government Gazette No. 17678. Pretoria: Government Printer.

38.

RSA (1998) National Environmental Management Act, No. 107 of 1998, chs 1 and 5. South African Government, Pretoria.

39.

Roberts

. (2008) Thinking globally, acting locally: institutionalizing climate change at the local government level in Durban, South Africa, Environment and Urbanization, 20, pp. 521–537.

40.

Roberts

Boon

Deiderichs

Douwes

. (2012) Exploring ecosystem-based adaptation in Durban, South Africa: ‘learning by doing’ at the local government coal face, Environment and Urbanization, 24, pp. 1–29.

41.

Robinson

P. J.

Gore

(2005) Barriers to Canadian municipal response to climate change, Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 14, pp. 102–120.

42.

Satterthwaite

Huq

Reid

Pelling

Romero Lankao

(2009) Adapting to climate change in urban areas: the possibilities and constraints in low-and middle-income nations, in: Bicknell

Dodman

Satterthwaite

(Eds) Adapting Cities to Climate Change: Understanding and Addressing the Development Challenges, pp. 1–47. London: Earthscan.

43.

Schmidt

. (2008) From spheres to tiers: conceptions of local government in South Africa in the period 1994–2006, in: van Donk

Swilling

Pieterse

Parnell

(Eds) Consolidating Developmental Local Government: Lessons from the South African Experience, pp. 109–130. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

44.

Scott

Oelofse

(2005) Social and environmental justice in South African cities: including ‘invisible stakeholders’ in environmental assessment procedures, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 48, pp. 445–467.

45.

Simon

. (2010) The challenges of global environmental change for urban Africa, Urban Forum, 21, pp. 235–248.

46.

South African Government (2006) Accelerated and shared growth initiative for South Africa (AsgiSA). Pretoria (http://www.info.gov.za/asgisa/asgisa.htm; accessed September 2010).

47.

Swilling

. (2008) Local governance and the politics of sustainability, in: van Donk

Swilling

Pieterse

Parnell

(Eds) Consolidating Developmental Local Government: Lessons from the South African Experience, pp. 77–108. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

48.

Ugu District Municipality (2008) Ugu District municipality integrated development plan (IDP) 5 Year Plan: 2007/8–2011/12, 2008/9 Annual Review. Ugu District Municipality, Port Shepstone, KwaZulu-Natal.

49.

Winkler

. (2009) Cleaner Energy Cooler Climate: Developing Sustainable Energy Solutions for South Africa. Cape Town: Human Sciences Research Council Press.

50.

Wisner

Guillard

J. C.

Kelman

(Eds) (2012) The Routledge Handbook of Hazards and Disaster Risk Reduction. London: Routledge.

51.

World Bank (2009) Systems of cities: harnessing urbanization for growth and poverty alleviation. The World Bank Urban and Local Government Strategy, Washington, DC.

52.

World Resources Institute (2012) EarthTrends: environmental information (http://www.wri.org/project/earthtrends/; accessed 22 August 2012).