218
3 eThekwini’s Green and Ecological Infrastructure Policy Landscape
Throughout my investigation, I realised that technical and technocratic knowledge
play a pivotal role; however, what I did not notice was the presence of moral knowledge. That is not to say that the epistocrats are immoral, but it has more to do with their
inability to incorporate values and norms into their epistocratic policies. What I have
also found to be lacking, in this regard, is the incorporation of public opinions and
critical voices. It is, therefore, not impossible to argue that the epistocrats have their
eye on policy efficiency. They might argue that incorporating moral knowledge into
Durban’s green and ecological infrastructure policies might only add clutter to the
research process and increase uncertainty regarding the instrumental policies. This
is in line with the reasoning that epistocracies act as compensatory agents in policy
processes. It appears as if they have ignored the lone critical voice of Respondent
11, since they view his arguments as being unreliable and as having inherent shortcomings. The epistocrats are, after all, backed by the IPCC’s scientific processes,
the results of which are more dependable and trustworthy than Respondent 11’s
normative arguments. Furthermore, the epistocrats enjoy more representation within
municipal structures than in the Palmiet River Watch. The dominance of problemsolving theories in the analysis also hints at the top-down science-policy process
of the epistocrats, for whom science speaks truth to power. This could explain why
Respondent 3 mentioned the problematic relationship between the municipality and
the Amakhosi. Van Klaveren (2018) reached a similar conclusion when he investigated eThekwini’s green and ecological infrastructure projects from a constructivist
perspective. When talking about the eThekwini epistocrats and their collaborating
partners in other research entities and NGOs, he said that:
The state and cooperative civil groups form an in-group, who embody expertise and a collective mandate, resulting in top-down expert-run projects. Projects end up revolving around
community involvement through lobbying and physical labour programs.
Respondent 7 indicated that there is a lack of communication between the municipality and the public regarding green and ecological infrastructure projects. We see
this in the establishment process of the water fund, where the EPCPD is the first
to conduct a financial feasibility study, and then it communicates with the respective businesses to ascertain whether they are willing to contribute. The driving force
behind the establishment of the water fund appears to be a best practice approach,
with the epistocrats noticing that cities from around the world have established water
funds to deal with water security issues in their jurisdictions. That said, a public
participation process is absent, which means that there is no filter to translate the
scientific expertise into policy-making via the voices of the wider public. The risk
of this is that the water fund could be rejected by the businesses, since they might
deem it to be illegitimate. Should eThekwini establish the fund, it could run into
legitimacy problems in future, since there was no distribution of knowledge to offset
the scientific biases during the feasibility phase of it’s establishment. In other words,
what the businesses know, might be unknown to the epistocrats (Meissner et al.
2017a, b). This implies that the epistocrats could be missing perspectives from the
business community, should the municipality go ahead with the fund, which could
adversely influence the feasibility and sustainability of the water fund. It is possible
3 eThekwini’s Green and Ecological Infrastructure Policy Landscape
Throughout my investigation, I realised that technical and technocratic knowledge
play a pivotal role; however, what I did not notice was the presence of moral knowledge. That is not to say that the epistocrats are immoral, but it has more to do with their
inability to incorporate values and norms into their epistocratic policies. What I have
also found to be lacking, in this regard, is the incorporation of public opinions and
critical voices. It is, therefore, not impossible to argue that the epistocrats have their
eye on policy efficiency. They might argue that incorporating moral knowledge into
Durban’s green and ecological infrastructure policies might only add clutter to the
research process and increase uncertainty regarding the instrumental policies. This
is in line with the reasoning that epistocracies act as compensatory agents in policy
processes. It appears as if they have ignored the lone critical voice of Respondent
11, since they view his arguments as being unreliable and as having inherent shortcomings. The epistocrats are, after all, backed by the IPCC’s scientific processes,
the results of which are more dependable and trustworthy than Respondent 11’s
normative arguments. Furthermore, the epistocrats enjoy more representation within
municipal structures than in the Palmiet River Watch. The dominance of problemsolving theories in the analysis also hints at the top-down science-policy process
of the epistocrats, for whom science speaks truth to power. This could explain why
Respondent 3 mentioned the problematic relationship between the municipality and
the Amakhosi. Van Klaveren (2018) reached a similar conclusion when he investigated eThekwini’s green and ecological infrastructure projects from a constructivist
perspective. When talking about the eThekwini epistocrats and their collaborating
partners in other research entities and NGOs, he said that:
The state and cooperative civil groups form an in-group, who embody expertise and a collective mandate, resulting in top-down expert-run projects. Projects end up revolving around
community involvement through lobbying and physical labour programs.
Respondent 7 indicated that there is a lack of communication between the municipality and the public regarding green and ecological infrastructure projects. We see
this in the establishment process of the water fund, where the EPCPD is the first
to conduct a financial feasibility study, and then it communicates with the respective businesses to ascertain whether they are willing to contribute. The driving force
behind the establishment of the water fund appears to be a best practice approach,
with the epistocrats noticing that cities from around the world have established water
funds to deal with water security issues in their jurisdictions. That said, a public
participation process is absent, which means that there is no filter to translate the
scientific expertise into policy-making via the voices of the wider public. The risk
of this is that the water fund could be rejected by the businesses, since they might
deem it to be illegitimate. Should eThekwini establish the fund, it could run into
legitimacy problems in future, since there was no distribution of knowledge to offset
the scientific biases during the feasibility phase of it’s establishment. In other words,
what the businesses know, might be unknown to the epistocrats (Meissner et al.
2017a, b). This implies that the epistocrats could be missing perspectives from the
business community, should the municipality go ahead with the fund, which could
adversely influence the feasibility and sustainability of the water fund. It is possible