13 Activist Citizen Science: Building Water Justice in South Africa

Ferrial Adam ¹

Introduction

This chapter builds on my doctoral research with water justice activists in the Vaal region of South Africa (Map 6, page 242). The Vaal area, situated to the south of Johannesburg, is a rustbelt where shrinking industrial activity since the 1980s has left densely populated communities with significant legacies of pollution. The history of the Vaal has its roots in apartheid, which has influenced its social, political, environmental, and economic realities.

Drawing on my prior knowledge and experience as an activist, I carried out participatory research with the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA), a coalition of five environmental justice organisations focusing on air quality and health, water quality, waste, energy, and climate change in the Vaal area. The intention was to document the contexts of the region’s water struggles and the processes of activist knowledge building, decision-making and broader strategy development being used in local communities.

The chapter explores how activist citizen science (ACS) can build water justice through processes co-created with community members, and shows why communities need such an approach. This perspective is grounded in the work of Paulo Freire and Aziz Choudry on activism, as well as Alan Irwin and Melissa Leach on citizen science (CS).

To start, the chapter briefly discusses the science of water, what informs that science, new understandings and challenges, and how this all affects the way water is seen and managed. I then summarize South Africa’s water realities, highlighting the associated challenges of climate change, prolonged droughts, pollution and poor infrastructure, coupled with extreme water scarcity.

The next section overviews how water resources are being managed by government agencies and policies in South Africa. These policies are based on the principle of water as a basic human right, a key focus of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC). But the picture that emerges is one in which those policies and the governance that flows from them may be failing people on the ground. People and communities are turning to developing local solutions to manage their water resources—namely, “water justice from below.”

CS—depending on the type, and how it is used—can be key to building water justice from below. I document how local people, organized through VEJA, have built ACS, building on their prior experience with “bucket brigade” methods for local monitoring of air pollution; they have seen the advantage of using science to further their aims. VEJA has worked with traditional health practitioners (THPs²) to win recognition as key users of water in the Vaal area, using ACS to protect healers and their patients against polluted water and supporting THPs’ access to rivers.

At the end of the chapter, I give examples of the practical application in South Africa of the “contributory” and “collaborative” types of CS, and then reflect on VEJA’s experiences, discussing additional examples of how ACS can fit the needs of activists who are challenging environmental, climate, and water injustice in South Africa.

The Science of Water

The importance of water to life has been recognised throughout history and time. It has influenced where people live and how people live. The earliest towns and cities were located near rivers and seas; traditional and Indigenous healers have long identified the spiritual and physical health associated with water. In short, an understanding of water has always been imperative for life and local knowledge.

The science of water, thus, is not a new science. It can be traced to Indigenous knowledge and people’s science rooted in traditional practices and experiences which, as shared wisdom, are centuries old. The early history of science has shown that historically, contributions were made by ordinary people who used science as a way of challenging the prevalent ideologies and cultures of the societies within which they lived. But in the nineteenth century, science was institutionalised in a way that divided scientists from other people (Irwin, 1995; Dyson, 2006).

Science became a field of professional expertise and knowledge. It has been used to leverage power and limit basic information that people need about their worlds. In the environmental sphere, people at the frontline of pollution and environmental damage have found it difficult to challenge polluting industries, as science has been used to counter their arguments and refute their claims. Science has thus been used to sustain injustices and perpetuate power differentials.

More recently, what kinds of knowledge are needed to inform bodies of science are being debated, alongside the power of science itself. Understandably, this constitutes a profound challenge to the closed spaces that frame mainstream science. Martinez-Alier et al. (2014) speak of “popular epidemiology” which emphasizes the validity of “lay” knowledge and raises the importance of local knowledge. Here we see the emergence of a theoretical call for reframing science that takes into account the cultural boundaries that shape its perspectives and does not dismiss other ways of knowing. Making science more accessible and including local knowledge leads to the democratisation of science which can, in turn, lead to the empowerment of the marginalised and those whose voices have been ignored (Irwin, 1995; Leach et al., 2005; Munnik, 2015; Visvanathan, 2016).

Creating such a new type of relationship between scientific and other knowledge is part of a broader movement towards the decolonisation of science and cognitive justice. Shiv Visvanathan defines cognitive justice as “the constitutional right of different systems of knowledge to exist as part of dialogue and debate” (Leach et al., 2005, p. 92). The decolonisation of science can create respect and acknowledge contributions of both Western science knowledge and local and Indigenous knowledge (Visvanathan, 2016). Respecting other forms of knowledge relieves the powerlessness felt by communities (Martinez-Alier et al., 2014). Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2007) states that “the struggle for global social justice must be a struggle for global cognitive justice” (de Sousa Santos, 2007, p. 53).

In this respect, those with Indigenous and local knowledge³ in areas of farming, fishing, and traditional healing have been important players in identifying and spotlighting injustices—for example, related to corporate control of seeds and fishing permits, access to rivers, and access to plants. Their knowledge and experience have been used to map out the challenges and impacts of climate change. In the context of water, a healthy relationship between scientific knowledge and traditional or Indigenous knowledge is desirable, especially in developing countries where technologies for prediction and modelling are least developed. Sharing and exchanging information and knowledge can foster better responsibility and care of water resources. Farmers, for example, can enhance their skills in soil and water management, while sharing their knowledge of micro-climates (Levidow et al., 2014). In other words, these groups conduct CS as part of their expertise or profession, and they are doing this by claiming a space that may also represent a way of slowly reclaiming the commons—shared use of land, water, and other requisites of sustainable livelihoods for all.

The State of South Africa’s Water

Water scarcity is fast becoming one of the most serious concerns facing the planet. It is estimated that more than one-third of the world’s population lives in water-stressed regions, with 663 million people facing a daily struggle to access clean and safe water. This is predicted to worsen, as suggested by the United Nations estimations that the world will only have 60 per cent of the water it needs by 2030 (DWA, 2012; Stewart, 2017).

South Africa, as the thirtieth driest country in the world, is not immune to this scarcity. With an average annual rainfall of 490 mm (well below the world average of 860 mm a year), it is estimated that less than 9 per cent of the precipitation eventually finds its way into South Africa’s river systems. Even then, much of it is lost to erratic runoff and high levels of evaporation (CSIR, 2010; DWA, 2012; WWF-SA, 2016).

The country’s water ecosystems are not in a healthy state. Of the 223 river ecosystem types, 60 per cent are threatened, with 25 per cent of these critically endangered by a changing climate and human activities. Less than 15 per cent of river ecosystems are located within protected areas, and 65 per cent of the wetland ecosystems have been identified as threatened, while 48 per cent are critically endangered (Department of Water and Sanitation, 2018).

To make matters worse, the little water available is being polluted and wasted. The main factors contributing to the deterioration of water quality in South Africa are mining, manufacturing industries, agriculture, crumbling infrastructure, and poor wastewater treatment (CSIR, 2010). It is estimated that 37 per cent of South Africa’s clean, potable water is lost and wasted through poor infrastructure such as leaking pipes (News 24, 2014). As the responsibility for supplying water lies with the local municipalities, there is a clear problem with the management of water at a local level.

There is quite a big gap between those who do and those who don’t have access to water. Powerful interest groups including agricultural, industrial, and mining sectors are prioritised by government due to their contribution to the country’s gross domestic product (GDP), as evident in the National Water Resources Strategy 2 (NWRS2) (DWA, 2012). These powerful groups are in a position to influence the allocation of South Africa’s scarce supply. Almost 98 per cent of the country’s fresh water is already allocated. Nearly 61 per cent is used by the agricultural sector, while 27 per cent is for domestic and urban use, 8 per cent for mining and energy, and 3 per cent for forestry (Department of Water and Sanitation, 2018; Mkhonza, 2017). Marginalised and poor rural and urban communities experience high levels of water insecurity and many do not have access to a reliable potable water supply.

Climate change is making water scarcity even worse (Dwortzan, 2021; Isaacman et al., 2021). According to the World Wildlife Foundation, eight out of nine provinces were declared disaster areas in 2016 due to the ongoing drought. The more vulnerable and poor are hardest hit. Not only do they lack the material means to protect themselves against the impacts of climate change, but they also rely directly on polluted water (Cock, 2006; Munnik, 2007).

The dire state of South Africa’s water resources has resulted in a myriad of responses—from government policies and programmes, to communities finding local solutions, to businesses using expensive technologies.

Government’s Water Policy as a Solution?

In South Africa, water as a basic human right is enshrined in the South African Constitution’s Bill of Rights and associated legislation.⁴ It stipulates that the state holds the environment and the water resources in public trust for the people, the principle being that both are public “goods” (commons) and should be enjoyed equally by all. National government is thus responsible for the regulation and allocation of water, and local government is responsible for supplying water.

South Africa has four core pieces of water legislation and policy that govern water resources in the country: the National Water Policy (1997), the National Water Act (1998), the Water Services Act (1998), and the National Water Resource Strategy (CSIR, 2010). The National Water Act and the Water Services Act together provide for the establishment of institutions for management and distribution of water. The National Water Policy rests on the concept of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) on a catchment basis, and the National Water Resource Strategy is centred around a recognition of water as a basic human need and its critical role in equitable socio-economic development (CSIR, 2010; Goldin, 2010; DWA, 2012). One significant element is the incorporation of a free basic water allowance of 25 litres per person per day, although there was a government proposal to scrap this in 2018 and it is not fully applied (OECD, 2021).

Not surprisingly, there is a gap between water policy and its implementation. While the policies constitute an attempt to redress historical inequalities of the past, constraints determined by racial, economic, and social structures retain and reproduce dominant power relations. Empowering communities, and facilitating transfer of local knowledge via CS, can help to change this. Goldin (2010) suggests that people can learn about basic science, such as the water cycle and the effects of patterns of water consumption on people and the environment, empowering them to be able to make choices and be active in decisions concerning the institutions that are set up to manage water. More importantly, Goldin (2010) stresses that it is also important that those with “scientific” knowledge and expertise in these areas gain knowledge about the living conditions of the poor so that there is an exchange of different types of knowledge, all important for good water management.

Privatisation of Water: A Response to Failing Government

Managing the gap between water policy goals and implementation can be an enormous task. The trend in some countries is to privatise the country’s water, either by selling resources to an investor or by developing public-private partnerships. While there are arguments that privatisation can result in improvements in the efficiency and quality of service, there is ample evidence to show that privatisation has not worked for the majority of people and is incompatible with ensuring a human right to water, both in terms of access and affordability. Amongst other examples, privatisation plans in Bolivia and Tanzania were aborted (Public Citizen, 2003; Brown, 2010).

In South Africa, privatisation has taken many forms and has been met with varying responses. As early as 1996, municipalities involved the private sector in water and sanitation service provision, mostly through public-private partnerships. One privately owned contract is the thirty-year deal that was awarded to Siza Water Company for providing water and sanitation services to the iLembe District Municipality, along the KwaZulu Natal northern coastline (Food and Water Watch, 2015).

There is growing anger and frustration by communities that have no or limited access to water, with an increase in protests over poor or privatised service delivery (water, sanitation, and electricity in particular), social marginalization, and unequal access to water (Harrington, 2014). In 2014, just less than half of all households in South Africa obtained their water from a tap inside their home, while a further 27 per cent had a tap on their property, and 12 per cent walked up to 200 m to get water. Approximately 6 per cent of the population accessed piped water at a distance greater than 200 m (the target for basic services) and around 9 per cent of the population did not have access to piped water, relying on springs, rivers, and wetlands (WWF-SA, 2016).

Water as a Human Right

While government interventions have been important, they have not managed to reduce the challenges people face regarding water as a basic human right. The policies and institutions that have been developed are good on paper and come with good intentions, but the implementation has been poor. An example is the SAHRC, which is established under Chapter 9 of the Constitution. One of the areas it covers is service delivery for housing, water, and sanitation. On the issue of water, the SAHRC in 2018 held hearings with various groups and stakeholders in the Vaal region on pollution in the Vaal River, and declared that government was responsible for the pollution and must respond urgently. In addition, in 2019 the SAHRC ordered six education members of the executive councils to address the lack of sanitation and water and the continued use of pit toilets at schools in the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, North West, Mpumalanga, Limpopo, and Free State (SABC News, 2021).

The SAHRC has been active and has regularly tabled reports on the state of socio-economic rights in Parliament, but these interventions are not achieving the desired results as government has been slow to react. The SAHRC has very little power to hold relevant government departments and municipalities accountable.

The reality is that people on the ground have lost faith in government bodies and institutions, and increasingly people and organisations at the local level are creating change from below, seeing no other option.

Water Justice from Below

There is a growing global movement for water justice, as people and communities are coming together to fight for access to clean water, to end pollution of water resources, to end privatisation, and to engage in increased efforts to manage scarcity and find solutions to combat the impacts of climate change. In South Africa, for example, the civil society alliance Tshintsha Amakhaya has embarked on a Water Justice Campaign, while organisations like the Centre for Environmental Rights, VEJA, groundWork, Environmental Monitoring Group, and the South African Water Caucus are but a few of the structures and movements that are taking up the water justice fight.

Many of the measures government has taken to address water challenges are not easily available to communities, most of whom do not have the funds or knowledge to implement and sustain such measures. These include the use of high-level technical strategies, improving water use efficiency, development of new infrastructure, re-use and recycling, desalination, and the removal of water hungry alien invasive plants.

But communities are finding their own innovative ways to manage water resources. These responses can take many forms, such as simple technology solutions, Indigenous knowledge, water use efficiency, and CS. In some cases, local strategies offer cheaper alternatives: decentralised projects are more effective than the large-scale, centralised approaches that have dominated in the past.

Simple technology solutions include such practices as rainwater harvesting as used in India, fog catching/cloud harvesting in Nepal, and wastewater treatment in Cambodia (Asian Development Bank, 2006). In Bangladesh, where there is an extreme lack of safe drinking water, rickshaw pullers are using a pedal-powered water filter that provides clean and safe water. In India, a group called the Bengaluru “water warriors” challenge citizens in the city to be “water kanjoos”⁵ using a WhatsApp group to promote water conservation (Pinto, 2017). In some communities in South Africa, a simple mechanism using recycled tires to collect water is being used. The tires are cut and buried just beneath the soil where they act as a trap to collect excess water that has trickled down, which then lies available for plants/crops to consume at a later stage. The traps also make the soil warmer, which means that crops can grow faster and they yield more produce.

The bottom line is that communities are using traditional knowledge to cope with water shortages and climate change, especially in rural areas. Traditional knowledge has been gained over time and across generations, with communities that live close to natural resources often observing and closely understanding the environment around them. As a result, they are able to easily identify any changes and adapt accordingly, using CS.

Citizen Science

The participation of the general public in the generation of new scientific knowledge goes back a long way. What is newer is the term “citizen science,” which is now used to describe ordinary people participating in activities that involve science. The phrase was first used in the 1990s by Rick Bonney to describe the volunteer birdwatchers who shared their data with the Cornell University ornithology lab. CS activity (Irwin, 1995), which can include various fields such as astronomy, nature conservation, nuclear science,⁶ and environmental protection, gained traction in the 2000s and has been described by many as the participation of the general public or volunteers in gathering and collecting information and data over large geographic areas (Kearns et al., 2016; Kullenberg, 2015; Buytaert et al., 2014; Cooper et al., 2007). Large networks of citizen scientists have been established in the US, Europe, and Australia.

The Oxford English Dictionary added CS in 2014 and defined it as “scientific work undertaken by members of the general public, often in collaboration with or under the direction of professional scientists and scientific institutions.” However, this definition fails to take into account the complexity and nuances of CS. One of the more inclusive definitions is by Ceccaroni et al. (2017): “work undertaken with citizen communities to advance science, foster a broad scientific mentality, and/or encourage democratic engagement, which helps society address complex modern problems” (Ceccaroni et al., 2017, as cited in Eitzel et al., 2017, 6). This definition concurs with the view that CS refers to ordinary people using science, whether as volunteers gathering data or as a partnership between a community and scientists, to act on issues of concern (Vayena & Tasioulas, 2015).

There are three general models of CS. The first model is contributory. It involves volunteers only in data collection—for example, counting types of trees, identifying birds or capturing rainfall data. The second model is collaborative. Volunteers are more widely involved in data collection and they assist with the design of the research. In both models, the interpretation and analysis are conducted by professional scientists and the contribution made by other people is mostly towards gathering data (Goodwin, 1998). The third type of CS is co-created, where people are involved in all aspects of the scientific process and associated research. Although there is consensus on the potentially positive impact that CS can have on the environment, it is questionable whether all models can empower affected communities, particularly where people only collect data. Buytaert (2014) views CS, where community members work with professional researchers to seek solutions for problems at the community level, as participatory action research (PAR) and not as CS. However, the two are not mutually exclusive. PAR is a collaborative process that can be and often is a key component of CS. The more closely community members are engaged with the research design and research questions, the more opportunities arise for knowledge exchange and the more empowering the process is for community members.

CS is not new to South Africa. Vallabh (2021) has documented over sixty projects that utilise CS, ranging from identifying birds and plant species to river health actions. There are also good examples in other streams of knowledge such as health. For example, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, activists in the Treatment Action Campaign used CS to educate people about HIV and AIDS, antiretrovirals, and healthy living. In this example, activists used CS as an awareness-raising and education tool that was important to counter the dangerous and harmful views of people in high positions of power, such as the HIV denialism from then-president Thabo Mbeki (Cullinan, 2016).

An example of how knowledge can be used to fight environmental injustice is evidenced in the work of environmental organisations such as groundWork and the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA) who have used CS to monitor air pollution in refinery-impacted communities around South Africa. The activists in these organisations used the “bucket brigade” air monitoring system, in which an air quality sample is drawn into a bucket and then taken for laboratory analysis. This form of monitoring empowered communities to act on air pollution themselves, building empirical evidence to take both government and private companies to task and providing communities with a weapon to question and critique the environments within which they live. Crucially, this simple method managed to demystify science (Hallowes, 2014). VEJA also strategically uses science as a way to participate in spaces such as the Water Catchment Management Forums and to expose and challenge understatements about the levels of pollution.

Another way that CS has been used is in legal challenges, as demonstrated by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER)⁷ in response to South Africa’s 2020 emission standards. CER analyses environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for new mining or industrial developments and asks trained activists to observe and report on their lived experiences, in order to expose discrepancies in industries’ arguments and what scientific data they include. This is an example of how CS can be used as a tool to enhance people’s resistance in the course of environmental and water struggles.

All types of CS can be regarded as forms of knowledge production, but it can be used to sustain the status quo or to challenge it, depending on how that knowledge is developed. This could result in what Epstein (1996) refers to as “the scientization of politics that simultaneously brings about a politicization of science such that political disputes could become technical disputes,” which could exacerbate the levels of exclusion of communities with less power (cited in Leach & Scoones, 2007, 16). Likewise, Weiler (2011) suggests that “areas of life are scientized and taken out of reach of participatory politics to be handed over to experts” (Weiler, 2011, p. 211). In this respect, it could be argued that the first two types of CS, in which active participation by the less powerful is not foundational, would also likely result in less action to resolve community problems. Here, citizen scientists could believe that they are privileged to participate in a science “endeavour” and that might foster or sustain an uncritical attitude towards how science is used and for what purposes. In turn, this could mean that there is less critique of the systemic causes of the environmental injustices and thus less challenging of top-down power.

CS that is only focused on collecting data for use within science models is not likely to challenge environmental injustice. According to Leach and Scoones (2007), defining a problem as a technical one will result in the solution being a technical and short-term one, when in fact it may require tackling root causes and systemic issues like environmental injustice and exclusion of marginalised communities. For example, burst pipes and overflowing manholes could be seen as an infrastructural issue that need technical expertise to fix—but on its own a technical fix could be a short-term solution. A deeper analysis could reveal a failing local government due to corruption and maladministration that neglects the provision of basic services to poor racialized communities. This, then, would require more than a technical fix—it requires a political approach as well.

Activist Citizen Science

As indicated earlier, in general there are different types of CS with varying levels of participation in activities that use science for awareness, education, monitoring the environment, and fun. The purpose of describing and discussing the applications and associated limitations of the options is not to identify the “best” example of CS, but rather to show that CS can be moulded to fit different situations and purposes. The kind of CS that is useful to grassroots activists dealing with injustices—which shares the general characteristics of the co-created type but also adds to and expands an understanding of what the co-created can entail—is ACS in which both critical reflection and action are necessary, by definition.

This concept of ACS emerges from a combination of the relevant literature, analysis of the types of CS, and the development of environmental justice activism in South Africa. The following three components are proposed as key to formulating and using ACS: challenging and building knowledge production, building networks and social movements, and shifting power relations.

ACS is a knowledge tool that can be used to work for justice through participation and conscientization. Paulo Freire (2000) not only argued that power and knowledge are inextricably linked, but that the type of education and the way one learns are relevant to shifting power relations. Instead of filling people with information, they can be conscientized to analyse and be critical of the world around them. Further, authors such as Choudry (2015) and Irwin (1995) argue that activists and people on the ground also create and produce skills and knowledge through their lived experiences and local knowledge. Within these frames, ACS can therefore be defined as an approach in which activists use science as a galvanising tool to redirect power to people and to challenge injustice.

ACS can be the nexus that brings together the science, the lived experiences of activists and communities, and an understanding of the power relations and politics at play. Leonard and Lidskog (2021) have found that the integration of knowledge between science experts and people’s lived experience can build an alternative expertise with the potential to increase levels of trust and interventions between communities and industries. Irwin (1995, p.144) convincingly argues that public education, like CS, must “include the wider social, economic and political aspects” as people on the ground are more interested in safety and health than the technical details. Having the science without the ability to advocate for change may result in CS becoming just another hobby or, as described by Leach and Scoones (2007), a case of “responsibilised citizens who come together to articulate individual rights in relation to public goods” (Leach & Scoones, 2007, p. 27).

Nonetheless, even all the learning and knowledge creation may not be enough to shift power relations because the learning is done in a way that supports the status quo, or the balance of forces is strongly in favour of those with power. Choudry’s (2014) view closely aligns to that of Freire: knowledge in itself does not lead to empowerment. The power held by government and the private sector could be strong enough that they can ignore activists, even if the activists have evidence and knowledge to back up their claims. That is why the building of collective voice and action, as carried out by social movements and civil society networks—through an ACS approach—is a way for activists to build counter knowledge (and thereby counter power) to government and the private sector. ACS thus presents itself as a way to build a movement of water warriors, who get involved in local or regional water justice issues and understand the link between water and broader issues of social justice.

The Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance and Activist Citizen Science

To learn more about ACS in action, I chose the VEJA as a case study because water conflicts in the Vaal were familiar to me from my own activism, and I knew about VEJA’s use of science as a tool to fight their struggles. In addition, VEJA works on water and environmental issues in poor and marginalised communities, central to the key research question—how does CS contribute to environmental justice?

VEJA uses detailed scientific knowledge as well as locally shared knowledge and observation to support participation in water governance. They built their ACS model through their earlier experience with the bucket brigades that monitored air pollution, as described above.

VEJA has built knowledge among activists to mobilise and create spaces for engagement. I attended community meetings, discussed my research goals with VEJA organizers, took advice from them about how to engage with community members, and collaborated with them on related projects during dozens of visits, meetings, workshops, and community events. I have observed four ways that they have made use of ACS in their water struggles. The first is that they try to give people a basic understanding of water science and politics through workshops, training, and site visits. The second aspect relates to participation in the catchment management forums⁸ that are otherwise mostly made up of farmers and industry representatives. The third involves the practical use of data they have collected to influence policy and debates. VEJA has used their own observations to challenge “scientific statements” made in the catchment forum meetings, for example the claim that ArcelorMittal Steel was a zero-effluent facility. VEJA had documented evidence (such as photographs with the time, date, and place) and monitored the effluent-laden water that came out of the facility over a period of several months. The fourth aspect is mobilisation, which uses all of the above to challenge and shift power relations.

VEJA has practised ACS by using scientific information and language to include marginalised people and to create public awareness on water pollution. The key result was local communities’ inclusion and recognition in various forums and structures. This is a reflection of a shift in power which, even if relatively minor, can be regarded as an important achievement.

Conclusion

The challenges involved in tackling water scarcity and injustice are complex and no one sector can simply “solve” the problem—whether it is government, business, or civil society. However, there are many examples globally, and in South Africa, of people taking control of their situations to make things better. These people are playing an important role in the sustainable management of natural resources and more specifically, water—the key to life.

It is becoming increasingly important for ordinary people, especially in a country like South Africa, to become more active on water issues. In a drought-prone country with deep inequalities, it is essential that water be democratised through people’s power. The laudable right to water in the South African Constitution can only be practically realised if people are an integral part of managing and controlling water resources through water sovereignty.

While the plethora of proposed solutions to water challenges should not be disregarded, there are fundamental limitations when the dominant focus is at a technical level. Technology can only go so far. It removes all blame from the system and those with political and economic power, and thus undermines community action for substantive change.

The key focus of ACS is not on how individuals can reduce their water consumption so that industry and government can keep polluting and using most of the resources, but rather to inspire activism within communities that directs water resources away from industry and into the hands of the people, to promote water justice and the health of common water systems.

Learning the basic science does not necessarily change the system of water management, but it is increasingly being called on to provide consensus in political disputes. Science experts are often summoned and empowered to settle political and social disputes, such as those over polluted water or a lack of water supply. This politics is influenced by the science, and at the same time the science is influenced by the politics.

It is within this context and these realities that ACS has the potential to ensure that water is seen, both conceptually and in practice, as a common good for all. ACS not only offers a better means to increase people’s knowledge and skills to monitor water resources and act as a vehicle to democratise water science, but it can also radically shift power dynamics that can lead to systemic change.

Notes

1. 1 Part of this chapter draws from my PhD Thesis and appeared in a booklet produced by the Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung Southern Africa, “No Easy Walk to Water,” 2021. My fieldwork was made possible through the QES program, funded by the International Development Research Centre and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
2. 2 THPs have been campaigning for recognition as healers. They have been marginalised as their Indigenous methods are often disregarded by the medical establishment (See Louw & Duvenhage, 2017).
3. 3 There is another form of CS in South Africa that is not covered by the three types mentioned in this chapter and could be linked to the result of epistemicide mentioned here. This form of CS links to the issues of popular epidemiology and cognitive justice. It revolves around the recognition of Indigenous and local knowledge in areas of farming, fishing, and traditional healers, where people use community organised seed banks in farming, monitoring of fish stocks, and recognition of plants for healing with traditional healers.
4. 4 Some of the key water laws and policies that govern water in South Africa include the National Water Policy (1997), the National Water Act (1998), the Water Services Act (1998) and the National Water Resource Strategy 2 (2012)—all founded on the government’s vision to redress past inequalities and build a sustainable water future.
5. 5 Kanjoos is an Urdu word that means stingy.
6. 6 Greenpeace trains activists on the basics of nuclear science, enabling them to measure radiation levels in food, water, etc. I was trained by Greenpeace and spent a week in Fukushima with Japanese activists measuring the radiation levels in various parts of the city.
7. 7 Such as the “Deadly Air: groundWork’s section 24 challenge.” For a full list of all CER’s litigation, visit https://cer.org.za/programmes/pollution-climate-change/litigation.
8. 8 The purpose of the Catchment Management Agencies (CMAs) and catchment management forums is to involve various stakeholders and local communities in regional or catchment level water resource management. See https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/migration/waterprivatizationfiascos.pdf (visited on 19 September 2020).

Reference List

• Asian Development Bank. (2006, March). Fostering participation: Water management by local communities. https://www.adb.org/publications/fostering-participation-water-management-local-communities

• Brown, R. (2010). Unequal burden: Water privatisation and women’s human rights in Tanzania. Gender & Development, 18(1), 59–68.

• Buytaert, W., Zulkafli, Z., Grainger, S., Acosta, L., Alemie, T.C., Bastiaensen, J., De Bièvre, B. Bhusal, J., Clark, J., Dewulf, A., Foggin, M., Hannah, D.M., Hergarten, C., Isaeva, A., Karpouzoglou, T., Pandeya, B., Paudel, D., Sharma, K., Steenhuis, T., ... Zhumanova, M. (2014, October 22). Citizen science in hydrology and water resources: Opportunities for knowledge generation, ecosystem service management, and sustainable development. Frontiers in Earth Science, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2014.00026

• Choudry, A.A. (2015). Learning activism: The intellectual life of contemporary social movements. University of Toronto Press.

• Cock, J. (2006). Connecting the red, brown and green: The environmental justice movement in South Africa. In R. Ballard, A. Habib, & I. Valodia (Eds.), Voices of protest: Social movements in post-apartheid South Africa (pp. 179–201). University of KwaZulu-Natal Press.

• Cooper, C.B., Dickinson, J., Phillips. T., Bonney, R. (2007). Citizen science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems. Ecology and Society, 12(2), 11. https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art11/

• CSIR (Council for Science and Industrial Research). (2010). A CSIR perspective on water in South Africa. CSIR Report No. CSIR/NRE/PW/IR/2011/0012/A. https://mpaforum.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/CSIR-Perspective-on-Water_2010.pdf

• Cullinan, K. (2016, March 7). Mbeki still believes his own AIDS propaganda. Health-e News. https://health-e.org.za/2016/03/07/mbeki-letter-believes-aids-denialism/

• Department of Water and Sanitation. (2018). National water & sanitation master plan: Volume 1:call to action (draft). http://www.dwa.gov.za/National%20Water%20and%20Sanitation%20Master%20Plan/Documents/NWSMP%20Call%20to%20Action%20Final%20Draft%20PDF.pdf

• DWA (Department of Water Affairs). (2012, July). Proposed National Water Resource Strategy 2 [NWRS2]: Summary—Managing Water for an Equitable and Sustainable Future. https://static.pmg.org.za/docs/120911proposed_0.pdf

• Dwortzan, M. (2021, November 5). Scientists project inreased risk to water supplies in South Africa this century. MIT News. https://news.mit.edu/2021/scientists-project-increased-risk-water-supplies-south-africa-this-century-1105

• Dyson, F. (2006). The scientist as rebel. The New York Review of Books.

• Eitzel, M.V., Cappadonna, J.L., Santos-Lang, C., Duerr, R.E., Virapongse, A., West, S.E., Kyba, C.C.M., Bowser, A., Cooper, C.B., Sforzi, A., Metcalfe, A.N., Harris, E.S., Thiel, M., Haklay, M. Ponciano, L., Roche, J., Ceccaroni, L., Shilling, F.M., Dörler, D., … Jiang, Q. (2017). Citizen science terminology matters: Exploring key terms. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 2(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.96

• Epstein, S. (1996). Impure science: AIDS, activism, and the politics of knowledge. University of California Press.

• Food and Water Watch. (2015). Water privatisation: Facts and figures. https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/insight/water-privatization-facts-and-figures

• Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed—30th anniversary edition (30th ed.). Continuum.

• Goldin, J.A. (2010). Water policy in South Africa: Trust and knowledge as obstacles to reform. Review of Radical Political Economics, 42(2), 195–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0486613410368496

• Goodwin, P. (1998). “Hired hands” or “local voice”: Understandings and experience of local participation in conservation. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 23(4), 481–499. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0020–2754.1998.00481.x

• Hallowes, D. (Ed.). (2014). Slow poison: Air pollution, public health and failing governance. groundWork. https://static.pmg.org.za/141028slow_poison_2014_groundwork.pdf

• Harrington, C. (2014, May 2). Water security in South Africa: The need to build social and ecological resilience. Sustainable Security. https://sustainablesecurity.org/2014/05/02/water-security-in-south-africa/

• Irwin, A. (1995). Citizen science—A study of people expertise and sustainable development. Routledge.

• Isaacman, A.F., Musemwa, M., & Verhoeven, H. (2021). Water security in frica in the age of global climate change. Daedalus, 150(4), 7–26.

• Kearns, G., Fegler, M., & Schreiber, M. (2016, April 1). Citizen science programs, parks & recreation. National Recreation and Park Assocation. https://www.questia.com/magazine/1P3–4042304311/citizen-science-programs

• Kullenberg, C. (2015). Citizen science as resistance: Crossing the boundary between reference and representation. Journal of Resistance Studies, 1(1), 50–76. https://scientometrics.flov.gu.se/files/Kullenberg-Citizen-Science-Journal-of-Resistance-Studies-issue-1.pdf

• Leach, M., & Scoones, I. (2007). Mobilising citizens: Social movements and the politics of knowledge. Institute of Development Studies. https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/123456789/4030

• Leach, M., Scoones, I., & Wynne, B. (Eds.). (2005). Science and citizens: Globalization and the challenge of engagement. Zed Books.

• Leonard, L. & Lidskog, R. (2021). Industrial scientific expertise and civil society engagement: Reflexive scientisation in the South Durban Industrial Basin, South Africa. Journal of Risk Research, 24(9), 1127–1140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1805638

• Levidow, L., Zaccaria, D., Maia, R., Vivas, E., Todorovic, M., & Scardigno, A. (2014). Improving water-efficient irrigation: Prospects and difficulties of innovative practices. Agricultural Water Management, 146, 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGWAT.2014.07.012

• Louw, G., & Duvenhage, A. (2017). Does the traditional healer have a modern medical identity in South Africa? Australasian Medical Journal, 10(2), 72–77. https://doi.org/10.21767/amj.2017.2730

• Martinez-Alier, J., Anguelovski, I., Bond, P., Del Bene, D., Demaria, F., Gerber, J.-F., Greyl, L., Haas, W., Healy, H., Marín-Burgos, V., Ojo, G., Porto, M. Rijnhout, L., Rodríguez-Labajos, B., Spangenberg, J., Temper, L., Warlenius, R., & Yánez, I. (2014) Between activism and science: Grassroots concepts for sustainability coined by environmental justice organizations. Journal of Political Ecology, 21(1), 19–60. https://doi.org/10.2458/v21i1.21124

• Mkhonza, A. (2017). Presentation by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) at a Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance workshop on 20 May, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa.

• Munnik, V. (2007, November). Solidarity for environmental justice in Southern Africa. groundWork. https://groundwork.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Solidarity-for-enviroment.pdf

• Munnik, V. (2015, November 4–7). Making space for cognitive justice: Creating a level playing field for catchment forums in South Africa [Paper presentation]. Action Learning, Action Research Association (ALARA) World Congress, Pretoria, South Africa.

• News 24. (2014, November 3). South Africa’s looming water disaster. https://www.news24.com/News24/South-Africas-looming-water-disaster-20141103

• OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2021). Water governance in Cape Town, South Africa. OECD Studies on Water, chapter 1. https://doi.org/10.1787/a804bd7b-en

• Pinto, N. (2017, April. 9). Bengaluru “water warriors” challenge citizens in city to be “water kanjoos” this summer. India Today. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/bengaluru-water-shortage-challenge-kanjoos-summer/1/924530.html

• Public Citizen. (2003). Water privatization fiascos: Broken promises and social turmoil. https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/migration/waterprivatizationfiascos.pdf

• SABC News. (2021, October 1). SAHRC orders six education MECs to address lack of sanitation and water at schools. https://www.sabcnews.com/sabcnews/sahrc-orders-six-education-mecs-to-address-lack-of-sanitation-and-water-at-schools/

• de Sousa Santos, B. (2007). Beyond abyssal thinking: From global lines to ecologies of knowledges. Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 30(1), 45–89. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40241677

• Stewart, R. (2017). Wild water: The state of the world’s water. www.wateraid.org.

• Vallabh, P. (2021). For the common good: A counter-hegemonic (re)stor(y)ing of the citizen sciences. Rhodes University.

• Vayena, E., & Tasioulas, J. (2015). We the scientists: A human right to citizen science. Philosophy and Technology, 28(3), 479–485.

• Visvanathan, S. (2006). Alternative science. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(2–3), 164–169.

• Weiler, H.N. (2011). Knowledge and power: The new politics of higher education. Journal of Educational Planning and Adminstration, 25(3), 205–221.

• WWF-SA. (2016). Water: Facts and futures—rethinking South Africa’s water future. https://wwfafrica.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/wwf009_waterfactsandfutures_report_web__lowres_.pdf