Participatory Planning, Justice, and Climate Change in Durban, South Africa

Abstract

IntroductionParticipatory local democracy has inspired hopes, in both social and environmental policy circles, that popular participation beyond the ballot box will produce more just and environmentally sound development. Radical bioregionalists like Carr (2004) have proffered their support, as have organs of global trade liberalization like the World Bank (1997;2000a;2000b) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2001). In its 2007 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also began discussing the merits of participation (Sathaye et al, 2007;Yohe et al, 2007). Agreement among such an ideologically diverse set of actors calls for closer scrutiny of`participatory governance'. My intent in this paper is to review the literatures surrounding the social and environmental impacts of participatory processes, and to look critically at claims that participation can help local governments address climate change in the context of uneven development.Drawing from the work of Michel Foucault and Ju« rgen Habermas, as well as recent work from the fields of urban and environmental planning, I parse the various forms that participation can assume in order to develop a clearer understanding of its broad appeal. This provides context for a case study of the coastal city of Durban, South Africa, a city that has committed significant resources to designing participatory processes that address the apartheid legacy of social and economic inequality. (1) As part of these processes, it has also declared an increased commitment to environmental sustainability (eThekwini, 2006). In addition, the city is home to an active civil society community which pursues its aims both within and outside of these formal channels. Durban is therefore an excellent site to observe the relationship between consensus and conflict within participatory planning. It also makes Durban a productive location

Networked Urban Climate Governance: Neighborhood-Scale Residential Solar Energy Systems and the Example of Solarize Portland

“…Rather, Solarize is a strong example of the complex and multifaceted nature of public participation envisioned in the literature discussed in subsection 2.3 (Aylett, 2010a;Ballard, 2007;Barnett and Scott, 2007;de Souza, 2006;Flyvbjerg, 1998;Holmes and Scoones, 2001;Owens, 2000). Solarize wove together a mixture of citizen-led direct action, institutionalized participatory processes (the NA system), municipal support, nonlocal NGOs (ETO), federal financial subsidies, and local solar SMEs.…”

“…A survey of the recent literature on broadening public participation produces a list of benefits that apply to both the state and its citizens (see Aylett, 2010a). From the perspective of government actors, participatory processes can increase the legitimacy of government programs, reduce public opposition, and create a consensus between state and nonstate actors over the direction of development.…”

“…Following a thread that I have developed in previous papers (Aylett, 2010a;2010b), I will be using analytical concepts drawn from discussions of public participation that have taken place across the fields of planning, urban studies, and development studies. These literatures date back to well before the beginnings of research into urban sustainability, and originally had as their focus issues of social justice and participatory democracy.…”

An Urban Political Ecology of Climate Change Governance

“…At the same time, local residents are part of a dynamic urban civil society that does not always passively accept the priorities and programs of local government. Urban politics are a complex interplay of “both collaborative and highly confrontational forms of participation” that can challenge, contest, and (re)direct the actions of the local state (Aylett , 110). The productive conflict politics (as opposed to consensus or collaboration) offered by urban society through demonstrations and mobilization around climate change is (and will continue to be) a central component in the manifestation of a more just urban climate politics (Aylett ).…”

Building resilience and well‐being in the Margins within the City: Changing perceptions, making connections, realising potential, plugging resources leaks

“…This phase has been accelerated by the new environment of fiscal austerity: public sector spending was cut in 2009 and even more substantially in the emergency budget of 2010. Welfare and development responsibilities will be 'downloaded' from central government to local authorities and neighbourhoods (Aylett, 2010), with voluntary sector organisations expected to step into the service delivery gap: not-for-profit companies, charities and local groups. This new regime has huge implications for already precarious and deprived communities.…”