1.2 The Conceptualisation of Green and Ecological Infrastructures
9
an ecological infrastructure to the same status, and with the same function, as
technological infrastructures.
The research of Pringle et al. (2015) and Jewitt et al. (2015) focused on ecological
infrastructures of the uMngeni River Catchment. The uMngeni provides ecosystem
services in the form of water, climate regulation, soil formation and disaster risk
reduction (Kotzé 2013). Since large parts of this catchment are rural, Kotzé (2013)
argued that such areas contain the vital ecological infrastructure for maintaining
and restoring the river. These essentials, including indigenous forests and wetlands,
contribute directly to rural livelihoods. Kotzé’s (2013) article in The Water Wheel,
a publication of the Water Research Commission (WRC), reported on the Project
on Ecosystem Services (ProEcoServ) of the Council for Scientific and Industrial
Research (CSIR) in the following way: ‘ProEcoServ aims to enhance the integration
of ecological infrastructures and ecosystem services into national development planning …’ (SAPECS, no date). The ProEcoServ researchers have adopted SANBI’s
definition as their conceptualisation of an ecological infrastructure.
Therefore, as emphasised by Li et al. (2017), an interdependent link exists
between ecological and built or hard infrastructure. Pringle et al. (2015) argue that
an engineered infrastructure can enhance the benefits that we derive from nature, but
that continued development compromises the ability of the environment to deliver
numerous services. Here we deal with a compromising situation, namely, that an
ecological infrastructure, together with a built infrastructure, must be sustainably
managed and restored (Pringle et al. 2015) to deliver such services.
To bring this notion closer to the subject at hand, in a press release, dated 28
February 2013, after a workshop to establish the uMngeni Ecological Infrastructure
Partnership (UEIP), officials from the eThekwini’s Water and Sanitation and Environmental Planning and Climate Protection departments defined ecological infrastructures as follows: ‘Ecological (or natural) infrastructures refer to functioning
ecosystems that produce and deliver services that are of value to society, such as
fresh water, climate regulation, soil formation and disaster risk reduction’ (eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality 2013). This definition is very similar to that of the
SANBI description. In fact, SANBI played a major role in the formation of the UEIP
during the workshop (Pringle 2020; Stuart-Hill 2020).
eThekwini convened the workshop ‘to catalyse a new partnership initiative that
was aimed at unlocking the potential of natural ecosystems in the water security equation’ (eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality 2013). During the workshop,
eThekwini officials indicated that an ecological infrastructure has a dual function,
namely, to improve the quality of the uMngeni’s water resources and to create jobs
by restoring and maintaining it. In the light of the establishment of this partnership,
Neil McCleod, the former head of Durban’s Water and Sanitation Department, said
that the engineering solutions for securing water for Durban had not worked and that
a ‘novel approach is needed for improving the quality and the quantity of water in the
uMngeni through the restoration and maintenance of the catchment’s [sic.] natural
infrastructure i.e. its ecosystems’ (eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality 2013).
eThekwini defines an ecological infrastructure as the water security improvements
that are linked to water quality and quantity. In the light of this, eThekwini juxtaposes
9
an ecological infrastructure to the same status, and with the same function, as
technological infrastructures.
The research of Pringle et al. (2015) and Jewitt et al. (2015) focused on ecological
infrastructures of the uMngeni River Catchment. The uMngeni provides ecosystem
services in the form of water, climate regulation, soil formation and disaster risk
reduction (Kotzé 2013). Since large parts of this catchment are rural, Kotzé (2013)
argued that such areas contain the vital ecological infrastructure for maintaining
and restoring the river. These essentials, including indigenous forests and wetlands,
contribute directly to rural livelihoods. Kotzé’s (2013) article in The Water Wheel,
a publication of the Water Research Commission (WRC), reported on the Project
on Ecosystem Services (ProEcoServ) of the Council for Scientific and Industrial
Research (CSIR) in the following way: ‘ProEcoServ aims to enhance the integration
of ecological infrastructures and ecosystem services into national development planning …’ (SAPECS, no date). The ProEcoServ researchers have adopted SANBI’s
definition as their conceptualisation of an ecological infrastructure.
Therefore, as emphasised by Li et al. (2017), an interdependent link exists
between ecological and built or hard infrastructure. Pringle et al. (2015) argue that
an engineered infrastructure can enhance the benefits that we derive from nature, but
that continued development compromises the ability of the environment to deliver
numerous services. Here we deal with a compromising situation, namely, that an
ecological infrastructure, together with a built infrastructure, must be sustainably
managed and restored (Pringle et al. 2015) to deliver such services.
To bring this notion closer to the subject at hand, in a press release, dated 28
February 2013, after a workshop to establish the uMngeni Ecological Infrastructure
Partnership (UEIP), officials from the eThekwini’s Water and Sanitation and Environmental Planning and Climate Protection departments defined ecological infrastructures as follows: ‘Ecological (or natural) infrastructures refer to functioning
ecosystems that produce and deliver services that are of value to society, such as
fresh water, climate regulation, soil formation and disaster risk reduction’ (eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality 2013). This definition is very similar to that of the
SANBI description. In fact, SANBI played a major role in the formation of the UEIP
during the workshop (Pringle 2020; Stuart-Hill 2020).
eThekwini convened the workshop ‘to catalyse a new partnership initiative that
was aimed at unlocking the potential of natural ecosystems in the water security equation’ (eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality 2013). During the workshop,
eThekwini officials indicated that an ecological infrastructure has a dual function,
namely, to improve the quality of the uMngeni’s water resources and to create jobs
by restoring and maintaining it. In the light of the establishment of this partnership,
Neil McCleod, the former head of Durban’s Water and Sanitation Department, said
that the engineering solutions for securing water for Durban had not worked and that
a ‘novel approach is needed for improving the quality and the quantity of water in the
uMngeni through the restoration and maintenance of the catchment’s [sic.] natural
infrastructure i.e. its ecosystems’ (eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality 2013).
eThekwini defines an ecological infrastructure as the water security improvements
that are linked to water quality and quantity. In the light of this, eThekwini juxtaposes