Chapter 2

Sustainability in South Africa

The following section outlines sustainability theory and how this has
progressed over the last four decades. It is important to understand
the sustainability principles in the context of future growth and
development in South Africa.

Sustainability in South Africa | 16

Chapter 2

Contents

2.1 SUSTAINABILITY
2.1.1 Introduction
2.1.2 History
2.1.3 Sustainability at a glance
2.1.4 Individual welfare and sustainable
development
2.1.5 Environmental sustainability
2.1.6 Planetary boundaries and the social
foundations
2.2 SUSTAINABILITY IN SOUTH AFRICA
2.2.1 National Framework for Sustainable
Development
2.2.2 National Strategy for Sustainable
Development
2.3 MEASURING ENVIRONMENTAL
SUSTAINABILITY
2.3.1 Ecological footprints
2.4 CONCLUSION
2.5 REFERENCES

2.1 SUSTAINABILITY

2.1.1 Introduction
Since the advent of democracy in South Africa in 1994, we have
begun to redress many social ills and, as part of the country’s
transition from apartheid to representative government,
planted the seeds for the emergence of an inclusive society,
whilst granting millions of previously disadvantaged people
improved access to education and health services, water,
electricity, housing and social security, with increases in the
number of people employed and reduction in poverty levels
(NPC 2012).

As South Africans, we are also proud of the rich natural

heritage that we hold in trust. This includes a wealth in
mineral resources, one of the most important clusters of
biodiversity on the planet, unrivalled solar power potential
and spectacular landscapes. Our citizens recognize elements
of the natural environment as part of a natural and cultural
heritage – some value the land, some the sun and rain, whilst
our cultural history speaks of a modern human existence based
on the use of the rich natural resources that stretches back
further in Africa than anywhere else on the earth. However,
current patterns of production and consumption, including
an environmentally unsustainable urban development model
and increasing inequality, have the potential to harm some of
these riches. We have recorded serious declines over recent
times in South Africa in biodiversity (including ecosystems
and species), our ground and surface waters are polluted;
our use of land is often inefficient; and our air quality is not
improving. In addition, we have specific instances of severe
environmental pollution or degradation that have potentially

Sustainability in South Africa | 17

dangerous long term implications in terms of impacts on The growing unease with the development trajectory
human and ecological systems (Box 2.1). experienced during the 1970s led to the birth of the ‘green
movement’, and a series of global environmental debates that
It therefore becomes evident that we face a challenge in measured progress made in terms of securing a sustainable
continuing with the further redress of our social problems and future and promoted policy directives that were required to
the expansion of our developing economy in new ways that steer development in a sustainable direction. This timeline
are not merely compatible with the long term health of our starts with the 1980 World Conservation Strategy, published
natural environment, but that can achieve improved results jointly by the International Union for the Conservation of
precisely because development is founded on sustainable Nature (IUCN), the WWF and the UNEP, within which the
resource exploitation. As the NDP puts it (NPC 2012): concept of a sustainable form of resource utilization was
mooted. It recognized that our transformation of the planet
“The country must now find a way to use its environmental has progressed to the point where conservation cannot take
resources to support an economy that enables it to remain place in the absence of development, and vice versa, thereby
competitive, while also meeting the needs of society. Thus, establishing a clear link between what we deemed to be
sustainable development is not only economically and socially technological progress and its environmental impacts.
sustainable, but environmentally sustainable as well.”
A seminal event followed in 1987, when the Brundtland
The following section outlines sustainability theory and how Commission published the report, Our Common Future.
this has progressed over the last four decades. It is important This report contained a specific definition of sustainable
to understand the sustainability principles in the context development that captured public attention and popularized
of future growth and development in South Africa. These the concept. It defined sustainable development as
principles provide the yardstick against which the SAEO report “development that meets the needs of the present without
is developed, and assist in the tracking of our successes and compromising the ability of future generations to meet
shortcomings, particularly in relation to specific environmental their own needs.” Importantly, this definition added inter-
themes and indicators. generational responsibilities to the scope of environmental
management. According to this ethos, the benefits of short-
2.1.2 History term economic and social development have to be weighed
up against the long-term environmental impacts, and the
The NDP (NPC 2012) recognizes that sustainable development costs not left for future generations to bear.
is not only about maintaining economic activity and improving
social welfare, but critically also about ensuring that the The Brundtland Commission’s work laid an important
natural resource base will not be irretrievably depleted foundation for the build-up to the 1992 United Nations
or damaged over time. To put it plainly, without the ability Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de
of ecosystems to continue to provide vital services such as Janeiro, Brazil, also known as the Earth Summit. At the Earth
water purification, no economic or social development will be Summit, several international conventions and agreements
possible. In addition, the New Growth Path (2010) focuses on that remain of relevance today were opened for signature
social welfare and equity considerations and aims to create and debate. These included the Framework Convention on
an additional five million jobs in the next ten years. The New Climate Change, which led to the Kyoto Protocol, as well as the
Growth Path identifies five other priority areas as part of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Most significantly
programme to create jobs, through a series of partnerships though, delegates agreed to a blueprint for responsible and
between the State and the private sector with a focus on: green sustainable development, known as Agenda 21. Agenda
economy; agriculture; mining; manufacturing; and tourism, 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan
together with other high-level services. It is crucial that South against which sustainable development can be measured.
Africa implements these strategies in a sustainable manner Indeed, it remains valid even in 2012 at the third instalment
that will enable South Africa to grow in a more equitable and of the Conference on Environment and Development
inclusive manner that supports its developmental agenda. (Rio+20) where delegates reaffirmed their commitment
to the strategy. In-between, the second World Summit on
This is not a new realization, as the origins of the concept of Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002 produced
sustainable development can be traced back to 1972 with the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation which seeks to
the publication of the book Limits to Growth as well as the expedite the realization of the original goals of Agenda 21.
United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (the
‘Stockholm Conference’). These two events recognized that Another important benchmark for sustainable development
the unbridled economic growth that was taking place at the are the MDGs of the United Nations Millennium Summit of
time simply cannot be sustained by the natural environment, 2000. These goals include six indicators of social welfare as
and that changes are required in the way that economic and well as the goal of ensuring environmental sustainability,
social activities are performed. The Stockholm Conference and the need for a global partnership for development. All
agreed on a declaration containing 26 principles, amongst member states of the UN have signed the declaration, and it is
which the protection of the natural environment is recognized supported by many international organizations. The deadline
as having an equal importance as social and economic set for the achievement of the MDGs is 2015.
development. The declaration also highlighted various
principles of responsible governance that are required to
ensure sensible development.

Sustainability in South Africa | 18

2.1.3 Sustainability at a glance discredited for inter alia implying that the three components
must each somehow compromise or give up something to find
Although debate around the concept of sustainability has a settlement. The interlocking dimensions model also fails to
been contested for a considerable time, three key principles sufficiently highlight the interdependency and hierarchy of
have emerged through the course of the concept’s evolution. the three dimensions.
As population levels and consumption patterns continue
to increase the impact on natural resources also increases.
Conservation of the natural environment and economic
development are slowly being recognized as being on the
same side of the coin, rather than representing opposing faces.
Development is seen as a way of funding conservation efforts,
or as the process through which technology or innovation
can be applied responsibly in the interest of improving the
environment. Development also supports social welfare,
which in turn allows people to escape conditions that trap
them in a cycle of poverty and environmentally degrading
activities. It should be noted that the wealthy have a much
greater environmental footprint than the poor and are on the
whole guilty of far more environmentally destructive activities
than the poor. At both ends of the scale, human needs and
desires need to be sustainably satisfied and a cohesive social
network developed to prevent a depletion of natural capital.

Sustainable development has a dimension of fair and

equal allocation of natural resources and value. Just as Figure 2. 2: Nested model of sustainability
future generations should not be unfairly burdened with a Source: DEA (2012)
compromised environment, so also should coexisting nations
and communities not be unfairly compromising each other. Sustainable development must be cognisant of the absolute
An equitable share of resources and responsibility towards dependence of both the economic and social dimensions on
environmental protection should be universally applied. functioning ecosystems that can supply ecosystem services
such as water, air, natural resources, disaster risk mitigation
and so forth. For this reason, sustainability can be best viewed
as a nested model, as illustrated in Figure 2.2.
Ecosystem
services The nested model of sustainability also shows the role
of a governance system that can provide leadership and
systematic and strategic guidance, as well as sanction
Socio-political when required. This role is necessary in order to ensure fair
systems allocations of responsibility and obligation when it comes to
the environmental and developmental spheres. The model
shown in Figure 2.2 is contained within the South African
NSSD. This model is developed further in Part III of this report
to provide links with the DPSIR framework and the principle of
Economy individual welfare.

2.1.4 Individual welfare and sustainable

development
Governance The idea that individual human welfare (expressed as quality
of life in the NDP) is the holy grail of sustainability is strongly
premised on the principle that if society collapses, the
Figure 2. 1: Interlocking circles model of sustainability welfare of the individual will be reduced, that if the economy
Source: Todorov (2006) collapses that society will be significantly weakened, and
that if the environment collapses then the economy will be
Graphic representations of the concept of sustainable massively damaged. For individual welfare to be maximized,
development reflect how these principles relate to each other. environment, economy and society must be in best possible
Figure 2.1 depicts the idea that sustainability is found where state without compromising each other.
three spheres, the so-called three pillars of sustainability
namely social, economic and environmental dimensions, Max-Neef in his work titled ‘Human scale development:
interlock. This ‘three-ring circus’ model that shows society, conception, application and further reflections’ (1991)
economy and environment conveniently intersecting to forwards a series of needs and satisfiers in relation to human
give rise to sustainable development has become largely welfare. This provides a useful tool that links individual
welfare and societal interactions to the broader economy

Sustainability in South Africa | 19

and provision of ecosystem services. Individual welfare and services that ecological systems provide. Environmental
can therefore be seen as central to the advancement of goods and services are often also referred to as ecosystem
sustainability, and any limitations to meet basic individual services, and include a wide range of benefits that people
welfare results in a secondary effect on economic growth and derive from the natural environment and natural processes.
ecosystem health.
The services, materials and benefits that we derive from the
Max-Neef further states that “a development policy aimed at natural environment range from those necessary for basic
the satisfaction of fundamental human needs goes beyond life, namely air, food and water, to those materials needed for
the conventional economic rationale because it applies to the livelihoods and well-being, as well as non-material benefits
human being as a whole. The relations established between that enhances life through aesthetic, cultural and spiritual
needs and their satisfiers make it possible to develop a values.
philosophy and a policy for development which are genuinely
humanistic.” Material goods derived from nature provide the basic
resources required for subsistence and economic activities.
According to Max-Neef, satisfiers can be organized within All human activity is dependent on material resources being
the grids of a matrix which, on the one hand, classifies needs extracted from the natural environment, whether in the
according to the existential categories of being, having, doing form of raw materials for processing or as organic foodstuffs
and interacting and, on the other hand, according to the or for the air that we breathe. This link is most evident in
axiological categories of subsistence, protection, affection, South Africa in rural areas where subsistence livelihoods are
understanding, participation, idleness, creation, identity and derived directly from productive ecosystems. Rural South
freedom (Max-Neef 1991). Africans depend on natural water supply from rivers and
other sources, biofuels (such as trees, shrubs and cow dung)
The following excerpt from Max-Neef’s work illustrates for cooking and heating, pollination services from insects and
possible satisfiers of the need for subsistence and protection. small animals, natural pest control, and marine and coastal
These are by no means conclusive and is merely indicative of resources and wild terrestrial plant and animal products for
how needs can be met (Table 2.1). food and medicines.

Table 2. 1: A matrix of possible needs and satisfiers Natural resource materials are also critical for industry and
manufacturing, as well as the successful functioning of our
economic system. Our economy in particular is heavily reliant
axiological categories
Needs according to

Needs according to existential categories on the extraction and export of raw materials, whilst our
(columns) primary energy generation is highly dependent on the mining
(rows)

of coal. The agricultural sector needs sufficient supplies of

water, management of pests, nutrient cycles, pollination, and
Interacting

the like. Water, specifically, is necessary for most productive

Having

activities and the uninterrupted supply of food, water and

Doing
Being

energy is required to feed the high consumption oriented

Physical Food, Feed, Living
appetites of our urban areas.
health, shelter, work procreate, environment,
Subsistence

mental rest, work social setting Non-material benefits are also essential to keep the wheels
health, of the economy turning and to satisfy recreational, aesthetic
equilibrium,
sense of
and cultural needs. With our abundant wealth in biodiversity
humour, and attractive landscapes, nature based tourism forms an
adaptability important part of our economy, and a vibrant industry has
been built on wildlife ranching.
Care, Insurance Co-operate, Living
adaptability, systems, prevent, space, social
autonomy savings, plan, take environment, All of these activities are absolutely dependent on a healthy
Protection

equilibrium, social care of, dwelling and functional biophysical system that can maintain natural
solidarity security cure, help cycles, self-renew and repair, and maintain resilience during
health
systems,
times of stresses. Ecosystem services therefore include the
rights, ability to purify and store water, renew the productivity of
family, work soils, clean the air, pollinate crops, prevent topographical
instability etc.
Source: Max-Neef (1991)
A useful classification of ecosystem services is offered by
2.1.5 Environmental sustainability the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003). According to
As a subset of sustainable development, environmental the Assessment, ecosystem services are either provisioning,
sustainability refers to the ability of the biophysical environment regulating, cultural or supporting. Provisioning services
to maintain its functioning within natural parameters and provide basic resources or materials, regulating services
cycles over time, in order to supply environmental goods and maintain ecosystem processes, and cultural services include all
services to the economic and social spheres. In the South the non-material benefits of ecosystems. Supporting services
African context, this is a key issue due to our strong reliance on are necessary for the functioning of all other ecosystem
renewable and non-renewable resources, as well as the goods services (Table 2.2).

Sustainability in South Africa | 20

Table 2. 2: Classification of ecosystem services Nine planetary boundaries (Figure 2.3) have been defined
by a group of scientists associated with the Stockholm
Resilience Centre, namely climate change, biodiversity loss,

Cultural services
biogeochemistry, ocean acidification, land use, freshwater,
Provisioning

ozone depletion, atmospheric aerosols and chemical pollution

Supporting
Regulating
(Rockström et al. 2009). Of these, it is argued that three,
services

services

services
biodiversity loss, climate change and the nitrogen cycle, have
already entered into a danger zone that is beyond commonly
considered tipping points. These aspects therefore have the
• Food • Climate • Spiritual or • Soil
• Fibre regulation religious formation
ability to now plunge the Earth System into an adjustment
• Fresh water • Disease • Recreation or • Nutrient phase that will disrupt biological activity as we know it. In
• Fuelwood regulation tourism cycling addition, indications are that freshwater use, land use change
• Biochemicals • Water • Aesthetic • Primary and the phosphorous boundaries might also be at risk of being
• Genetic regulation • Inspirational production
resources • Water • Educational
crossed.
purification • Sense of place
• Pollination • Cultural
heritage

Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003)

2.1.6 Planetary boundaries and the social

foundations
The concern that we as human beings are living beyond the
capacity of the natural environment is becoming increasingly
pervasive. We are living in a time where anthropogenic climate
change is threatening the ability of planetary scale biophysical
systems to maintain a natural equilibrium that has been
evident for the past 10,000 years. This period of equilibrium
in the natural system is known as the Holocene, and marks
an interglacial period during which climatic conditions were
stable enough at a continental and global level to allow
modern humans to invest in the large scale modifications of
their natural environment that were necessary for agriculture Figure 2. 3: Planetary Boundaries
and complex societies to develop (Rockström et al. 2009). Source: Azote (2009)

Our ability to alter our environment has, however, now Oxfam has recently, however, highlighted the fact that
developed to the extent that our activities have become a sustainable human existence needs to consider social
the dominant force determining change in the Earth System dimensions along with engagements on the biophysical
(the integrated biophysical and socio-economic processes environment (Raworth 2012). Accordingly, they proposed
and interactions taking place on land, in water and in the that thresholds of social justice be determined and measured
atmosphere). This period of human dominance is termed along with the biophysical planetary boundaries. The
the Anthropocene. The risk that we now face is that our underlying thinking is that social justice and personal safety
ability to modify the environment, through processes such as will always trump self-sacrifice for the sake of environmental
industrialization and urbanization could outstrip the ability of management. Put plainly, survival first, and saving the planet,
critical biophysical systems to absorb the changes and remain second.
within the boundaries of what is considered ‘stable’.
Accordingly, 11 key social priorities that need to be satisfied
One particular concern is that the planet’s biophysical before environmental degradation will be arrested, have been
systems have finite boundaries or thresholds within which defined. These are food security, adequate income, improved
they currently function. Should the systems be forced beyond water and sanitation, health care, education, decent work,
these thresholds, equilibrium will be lost, and the systems will modern energy services, resilience to shocks, gender equality,
self-adjust to new levels of equilibrium. Such self-adjustment social equity, and having a political voice. Max-Neef (1991)
will necessarily involve drastic and abrupt changes to climatic would also include the satisfiers of freedom and idleness.
conditions or productive capacities. It therefore follows that a
‘safe operating space’ can be defined for human activities – a It is therefore possible to visualize a living space for humans
level or form of human activity that does not transgress Earth that is built on the foundation of safe and just social conditions,
System parameters (Rockström et al. 2009). The parameters but limited through a ceiling of environmental thresholds. This
within which the Earth System can remain in balance are space was conceived graphically as a circular graph (Figure
termed planetary boundaries as they operate on a planetary 2.4), and hence became known as the ‘doughnut’ (Raworth
scale, and bind all humans to a common fate due to their 2012).
interconnectedness.

Sustainability in South Africa | 21

Figure 2. 4: The Oxfam Sustainability Doughnut
Source: Raworth (2012)
For inclusive and sustainable economic development to its limited ecological resources responsibly for current and
occur, society needs to ensure that the 11 social deprivation future generations, and by advancing efficient and effective
indicators are fulfilled, whilst responsible management of integrated planning and governance through national,
human activities prevent the forcing of planetary systems regional and global collaboration” (DEA 2008).
beyond their current stable state.
The framework also outlines principles and trends regarding
2.2 SUSTAINABILITY IN SOUTH AFRICA sustainability in the country, as well as a set of implementation
measures. Key to the framework is how this can be achieved
through partnerships with civil society and entrenching co-
2.2.1 National Framework for Sustainable operative governance practices.
Development
South Africa has adopted a systems approach to sustainability
In response to the sustainable development agenda, South (Figure 2.2) which is one where “the economic system, the
Africa has adopted the National Framework for Sustainable socio-political system and the ecosystem are embedded within
Development (NFSD) (DEA 2008). The purpose is to express each other, and then integrated through the governance
the national vision for sustainable development and system that holds all the other systems together in a legitimate
indicate strategic interventions to re-orientate South Africa’s regulatory framework. Sustainability implies the continuous
development path in a more sustainable manner. The growing and mutually compatible integration of these systems over
stress on environmental systems and natural resources from time. Sustainable development means making sure that these
economic growth and development strategies were explicitly systems remain mutually compatible as the key development
acknowledged. The NFSD commits South Africa to a long-term challenges are met through specific actions and interventions
programme of resource and impact decoupling. to eradicate poverty and severe inequalities” (DEA 2008).
The vision for a sustainable society is: “South Africa aspires Sustainable development implies the continuous and mutually
to be a sustainable, economically prosperous and self- compatible integration of these systems over time.
reliant nation that safeguards its democracy by meeting
the fundamental human needs of its people, by managing

Sustainability in South Africa | 22

2.2.2 National Strategy for Sustainable • Sustaining our ecosystems and using natural resources
Development efficiently;
• Towards a green economy;
The NSSD identifies five strategic interventions required • Building sustainable communities; and,
to achieve the nation’s vision for sustainable development • Responding effectively to climate change.
(DEA 2011), as redefined versions of the strategic pathways
identified in the 2008 NFSD, namely: The strategy further identified the means of implementation
• Enhancing systems for integrated planning and that is finance, technology, capacity building and trade, as
implementation; illustrated in Figure 2.5.

3. Towards a green economy

- A just transition

2. Sustaining our 4. Building sustainable

ecosystems and using communities
natural resources
- Changing the attitudes and
efficiently behaviour
Ecosystem
- Environmental assets and services - Building self-sufficient
natural resources communities
Socio-
political

1. Enhancing systems Economy

5. Responding effectively
for integrated planning Finance to climate change
and implementation - Stabilisation of greenhouse gas
Technology
- Governance and institutional concentration
structures and mechanisms Capacity- - Adapt to and manage
building
- Monitoring and reporting unavoidable impacts
Trade

Governance

Figure 2. 5: Nested model of sustainability, priorities and means of implementation

Source: DEA (2012), adapted from Stafford and Brent (2011); Musango and Brent (2011)

2.3 MEASURING ENVIRONMENTAL examples include corporate reporting schemes such as the
Global Reporting Initiative, popular social well-being indices
SUSTAINABILITY such as the Happy Planet Index of the New Economics
Being in a position to know how sustainable our human Foundation, and the Ecological Footprint concept promoted
activities and environmental management practices are, is by the WWF.
a key step towards identifying and addressing aspects that
reduce overall sustainability. Sustainability reporting is thus In the context of a SoE report, such as the SAEO, it can be
featuring increasingly on the world leaders’ agenda, especially expected that the balance of information being collected and
since by definition sustainability ranks environment, society reported on will lean towards a description of the biophysical
and economy equally. Sustainability reporting therefore rather than social and economic. The information on its
attempts to monitor the success in each sphere of human own is therefore intended as a means to provide the reader
endeavours and report on their relative performance in a with an indication of the health of the natural environment.
manner that can highlight the tensions between them as well To add further value to the report’s findings though, the
as the trade-offs to be negotiated. In addition, sustainability environmental report card needs to be interpreted in terms
reporting needs to provide guidance as to which dimensions of the relationships between the natural, social and economic
or relationships need to be addressed in order to improve spheres. Social and economic information generally tend to
overall sustainability. function more as informants on the pressures and impacts
affecting the natural environment. Such sustainability
Because sustainable development and environmental reporting will thus point out reasons for poor environmental
sustainability are such wide ranging concepts, many different performance, impacts that can be ascribed to the good or bad
systems for reporting on sustainability exist, each with performance, as well as key aspects of society that can be
a slightly different focus area or reporting format. Some targeted in order to redress shortcomings.

Sustainability in South Africa | 23

2.3.1 Ecological footprints land and water area is necessary to produce food, energy
and materials, as well as to absorb wastes, as required by a
Ecological footprints are a tool that reflects the renewable particular way of living and prevailing technology. Should the
resources that people consume against bio-capacity (ability for total required biologically productive area be more than what
renewable resources to regenerate) (Global Footprint Network is available, then the levels of production and consumption
2011). They aggregate calculations for a cropland footprint, that are being measured are not considered sustainable. Only
grazing footprint, forest footprint, fishing ground footprint, when the ecological footprint can be absorbed within the
carbon footprint and built-up land. The measurement unit for regenerative and absorptive capacity of the natural system
ecological footprints is the amount of global hectares (g/ha) can it be considered sustainable over time.
affected by humans per capita of a country.
The first Ecological Footprint Index was reported in 1996,
The world’s average bio-capacity is 1.8 g/ha per person and it was found that the world average footprint is
(Global Footprint Network 2011). This means that globally, 2.85 g/ha) per person (WWF 2000). Global hectares represent
there is an ecological deficit of 0.9 g/ha per person (6,000 the fraction of the biosphere necessary to maintain the current
million people on earth in total). If a country has insufficient material throughput of the human economy, under current
ecological resources to match the demand of people, then it is management and production practices. Africa’s average was
an ecological debtor country (high over-consumption). 1.33 g/ha per person, but South Africa had a footprint of 4.04
g/ha per person.
Although South Africa’s ecological footprint is below the
global average of 2.7 g/ha, the country is in ecological deficit By 2005, the global footprint had reduced slightly to
(-1.18 g/ha) (Table 2.3). In comparing ecological footprints, 2.7 g/ha per person, at which level it remained in 2008 (the
South Africa compares poorly to Brazil which has a population most recent measurement). This footprint indicates that
size almost four times larger, and to Australia which has half people uses the equivalent of 1,5 earths to sustain their
the South African population size. activities (WWF 2012).
Table 2. 3: Ecological footprint of countries
South Africa’s ecological footprint was revised to 2.55 g/ha
per person in 2008, based on a refined assessment of the
biocapacity of the country’s natural resources, whilst Africa
as a whole had risen to 1.4 g/ha per person (WWF & AfDB
2012). Out of 151 countries for which measurements are
available, South Africa ranks at number 80, roughly in the
same range as Botswana (number 87 at 2.8 g/ha per person)
and Brazil (number 90 at 2.9 g/ha per person; Abdallah et al.
13.34 1.89 2.33 0.44 2012). This also represents the fourth highest footprint of sub-
Saharan countries (out of 37 countries) (Abdallah et al. 2012).
20.85 6.84 14.71 7.87
The largest contributor to South Africa’s ecological footprint
49.70 2.32 1.14 -1.18 remains carbon emissions (WWF & AfDB 2012) which result
from a heavy reliance on fossil fuel derived energy, especially
61.30 4.89 1.34 -3.55 coal.

190.20 2.91 8.98 6.07 The comprehensive approach from Yale University, the
Environmental Sustainability Index, ranks countries in
308.67 8.00 3.87 -4.13 terms of a diverse set of socio-economic, environmental,
and institutional indicators that characterize and influence
1,164.67 0.91 0.51 -0.40 environmental sustainability. The last Environmental
Sustainability Index was calculated in 2005, when it was
1,336.55 2.21 0.98 -1.23
replaced by an Environmental Performance Indicator that
*g/ha per person focuses on environmental policy outcomes.
Source: Global Footprint Network (2011)
The Environmental Sustainability Index was designed to track
In the 2006 SAEO report, South Africa’s environmental 76 different elements of environmental sustainability, including
sustainability was profiled using the Ecological Footprint index natural resource endowments, past and present pollution
of the WWF and the Environmental Sustainability Index from levels, environmental management efforts, contributions to
Yale University. The ecological footprint is a hard measure the protection of the global commons and the capacity of a
of how resource intensive our activities are, whereas the society to improve its environmental performance.
Environmental Sustainability Index provides a more integrated
perspective that relates environmental systems to human South Africa’s Environmental Sustainability Index rank in 2005
vulnerability and social custodianship over the environment. was 93rd out of 146 countries (Esty et al. 2005). The score
The first index, the ecological footprint, calculates the impact of 46.2 ranks it lower than many of its SADC neighbours.
that people’s consumption of natural resources and disposal Compared to member countries of the New Partnership for
of waste have on the planet, and expresses it in terms of Africa’s Development (NEPAD), South Africa ranked 20th out
how much biological productivity is required to absorb the of 40, with Gabon, the Central African Republic, Namibia, and
impact. In other words, the index shows how much productive Botswana in the first four places.

Sustainability in South Africa | 24

Since 2006, however, the Environmental Sustainability Index pollution, the commitment still needs to be translated into
was transformed into the Environmental Performance Index concrete action. Interestingly though, the carbon dioxide
that focused even more on the environmental issues for which output per capita is increasing whilst the overall greenhouse
governments can be held accountable. It aims to measure gas intensity of the economy (carbon dioxide emissions per
policy efficacy (i.e. performance) by comparing a country’s unit GDP) is improving. This is counterpoised by other air
actual environmental management status to universal policy quality aspects that are deteriorating as outlined in Chapter
targets. The lower the Performance Index score, the further 10: Air Quality.
away from policy goals a country would find itself. In total,
22 performance indicators are tracked, which then measure The remaining poor performance area is public health, as
performance in terms of two broad policy outcomes – measured by childhood mortality. Mortality in children below
Environmental Health and Ecosystem Vitality. Environmental the age of five is greatly influenced by environmental factors,
Health relates to environmental stresses on human health, and therefore it can be assumed that most people in South
and Ecosystem Vitality to natural resource management. Africa actually live in environments of low quality that place
This Environmental Performance Index is not comparable to severe stress on living conditions. Ideally, the decline in the
the Environmental Sustainability Index due to differences in environmental index should be addressed in a manner that
data sources, imputations, methodology, framework, target can support the improving trend in human health albeit of a
setting, weighting, and aggregation, but both remain equally low base.
valid in their own rights.
The Ecological Footprint and Environmental Performance
Out of the 132 countries that were assessed for the Index represent relative and indicative rather than absolute
Environmental Performance Index, South Africa ranks gauges of environmental performance. Global scale indices
extremely poorly at number 128, with a low overall score are difficult to maintain due to the large amount of uncertainty
and a trend that is worsening (Emerson et al. 2012). This also associated with data collection, reporting, data standards and
ranks the country as the worst performer of 21 countries in socio-political challenges. It is therefore necessary to regard
Sub-Saharan Africa. Our closest ranked neighbours are Angola such rankings with the necessary circumspection that will
and Mozambique, at numbers 13 and 12 respectively. When compensate for inaccuracies and uncertainties. Nevertheless,
considered in terms of the two main categories of policy broad trends and relative scores do hold value, and should be
outcomes, South Africa’s Ecosystem Vitality (environmental used as high level warning signs for aspects of environmental
management) is classified as poor and declining, whilst the management that are deviating from an optimal course.
Environmental Health (environmental impacts on human The tools also offer a better understanding of our role in
health) is regarded as poor but improving. the global system and provide information on which to base
our participation in the global debate on the environment-
The poor Environmental Performance score is attributed development interface.
to practices used to manage the country’s water scarcity,
contribution to climate change, air pollution, agricultural In the South African context, there have been initiatives to
practices and poor public health. This echoes the findings of introduce sustainability indicators through the StatsSA census
the 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index that highlighted as this provides a systematic process of acquiring information.
air and water quality, contribution to climate change and These include aspects relating to renewable energy, access
human vulnerability as particular problems. to public transport, urbanization patterns and use of natural
resources. It is anticipated that the ongoing inclusion of
South Africa’s relative water scarcity has resulted in many sustainability indicators will provide a more comprehensive
watercourse modifications, which impact on aquatic picture of key sustainability issues, as well as the performance
ecosystems, water security, wetlands and ecological of South Africa in terms of sustainable development.
reserves. This leaves the country with a poor overall score for
ecosystem-related effects of water use, whilst worryingly the Government performance of these strategic interventions
trend analysis of the Environmental Performance Index shows is intended to be tracked through means of monitoring and
that the trend is still strongly negative. Urgent intervention reporting on 113 interventions and 20 headline indicators that
is therefore necessary to improve the efficiency of water respond to MDGs and Government Outcome processes.
use and overall water resource management, including the
management of freshwater ecosystems. In addition, the NSSD and Action Plan proposes that
identified indicators be monitored through quarterly non-
In the related field of agricultural practices, the two indicators financial reports. These reports will have to be linked to
of agricultural subsidies and pesticide regulation both leave programme outputs or strategic objectives contained in the
room for improvement, since the absolute score is low, and Annual Performance Plans of government departments,
the trend still downwards. municipalities and public entities (DEA 2011).

Climate change and air quality are measured in terms of 2.4 CONCLUSION
effects on human health (i.e. Particulate Matter (PM2.5) and
indoor air quality), effects on ecosystems (i.e. sodium dioxide), South Africa has done well in defining sustainability
contributions to greenhouse gases (i.e. carbon dioxide) and and sustainable development and the adoption of the
renewable energy. South Africa scores low in all of these except NFSD commits the country to a long-term programme of
PM2.5, indicating that despite there being policy commitment resource and impact decoupling. The Framework however,
towards climate change mitigation and a reduction in air acknowledges that there is growing stress on environmental

Sustainability in South Africa | 25

systems and natural resources from economic growth and
development strategies. The country has continued to build 10. New Growth Plan (2010). The New Growth Plan: The
on the Framework and several initiatives launched by key Framework. South African Government. http://www.info.
role players have adopted the NSSD which redefined strategic gov.za/view/DownloadFileAction?id=135748.
pathways and means of implementation. The Strategy is seen
to be making a worthy contribution towards the understanding 11. NPC (National Planning Commission), (2012). National
and achievement of sustainable development in the South Development Plan 2030: Our future – make it work.
African context. Furthermore, its five strategic priorities set a National Planning Commission, Pretoria.
high standard for future development and contains numerous
indicators which are well formulated and measurable. 12. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin
III, F. S., Lambin, E., Lenton, T. M., Scheffer, M., olke, C.,
There is however still significant work to be done to reverse the chellnhuber, H., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C. A., Hughes, T., van
many prevalent negative trends identified in the measurement der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P. K., Costanza,
of environmental performance. In response, government R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W.,
in partnership with community organizations, business and Fabry, V. J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson,
academia are putting in place structures and strategies to turn K., Crutzen, P. and Foley, J. (2009). Planetary boundaries:
the situation around. The chapter on Governance (Chapter 4) exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology
will discuss this in more detail. and Society 14(2):32. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/
vol14/iss2/art32/.
2.5 REFERENCES
13. Raworth, K. (2012). A Safe and Just Operating Space for
1. Abdallah, S., Michaelson, J., Shah, S., Stoll, L., Marks, Humanity: Can We Live Within the Doughnut? Oxfam
N. (2012). The Happy Planet Index: 2012 Report: A Discussion Papers, Oxford.
global index of sustainable well-being. New Economics
Foundation, London. 14. Todorov, V. (2006). System sustainability and development
sustainability: Modelling problems (Is Econometrics of
2. Azote (2009). The Nine Planetary Boundaries. Stockholm sustainable development possible?). Management and
Resilience Centre.www.stockholmresilience.org. Sustainable Development 18(3-4):136–140 (in Bulgarian).

3. DEA (Department of Environmental Affairs), (2011). 15. WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature). (2000). Living
National Strategy for Sustainable Development and Planet Report 2000. World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland,
Action Plan (2011 – 2014). Department of Environmental Switzerland.
Affairs, Pretoria.
16. WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature). (2012). Living
4. DEA (Department of Environmental Affairs), (2008). Planet Report 2012. World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland,
National Framework for Sustainable Development. Switzerland.
Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria.
17. WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) and AfDB (African
5. DEA (Department of Environmental Affairs), (2012). Development Bank. (2012). Africa Ecological Footprint
Overview of National Strategy for Sustainable Report. World Wide Fund for Nature and African
Development. Department of Environmental Affairs, Development Bank, Switzerland and Tunisia.
Pretoria.

6. Emerson, J.W., Hsu, A., Levy, M.A., de Sherbinin, A., Mara,

V., Esty, D.C., and Jaiteh, M. (2012). 2012 Environmental
Performance Index and Pilot Trend Environmental
Performance Index. New Haven: Yale Center for
Environmental Law and Policy.

7. Esty, D.C., Levy, M., Srebotnjak, T. and de Sherbinin,

A. (2005). 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index:
Benchmarking National Environmental Stewardship. New
Haven: Yale Centre for Environmental Law and Policy.

8. Max-Neef, M.A. (1991). Human scale development –

Conception, application and further reflections. Apex
Press, New York.

9. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003). Ecosystems

and human well-being: a framework for assessment.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Island Press,
Washington.

Sustainability in South Africa | 26