Environmental Science and Policy 93 (2019) 139–145

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Science and Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Developing a systemic-relational approach to environmental ethics in water T

resource management
⁎
Chris de Wet , Oghenekaro Nelson Odume
Unilever Centre for Environmental Water Quality, Institute for Water Research, Rhodes University, P.O. Box 94, Grahamstown, South Africa

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper argues for a systemic-relational (SR) approach to environmental ethics, in order to enable water
Complexity resource management (WRM) to be effective and fair. This will require WRM to develop and internalise an
Ethics ethically grounded approach. An SR approach holds that value with regard to the social-ecological system (SES)
Social-ecological systems is to be primarily located, not at the level of its constituent components, but at the level of the SES as an
South Africa
integrated unit. The key principles informing the SR approach are spelled out, and its potential relevance to
Water resource
Management
WRM is illustrated, using the key values operating within the WRM sector in South Africa as a case study.

1. Introduction
The interrelationship between environmental ethics and water re-
source management (WRM) has a range of implications. In South
Africa, for example, despite progress in water resource law, policy,
monitoring, regulation, management and research, the health and
functionality of aquatic ecosystems continue to deteriorate (CSIR,
2010). Similar situations are also prevalent in other countries, given a
growing human population, consumerist lifestyles, and the fact that
poverty and socio-economic inequalities may limit some people’s
choices and flexibilities in their dependency upon and utilisation of
natural resources (Forsyth et al., 1998; UN Water, 2008; 2016).
There is a growing recognition that humans are an integral com-
ponent of complex social-ecological systems (SES). The idea of an SES
postulates that what have in the last been regarded as separate social
and ecological systems, in fact form a unified and integrated system, in
which the social and natural components are interdependent and
tightly coupled. As such, humans’ beliefs, values and actions have direct
implications, whether intended or unintended, for the natural en-
vironment (Folke, 2006; Rogers and Luton, 2011). Significant questions
thus arise for how the natural and the human components of SES sys-
tems are best to be brought together; not only concerning matters of
sustainability and affordability, but - if both the natural and the social
components are to be genuinely regarded as worthy and equal com-
ponents of the SES – also in terms of fairness to all components. These
developments thus raise important implications, which go beyond what
specific individuals may hold valuable, and extend to the domain of
ethics (which is defined below).
This paper argues that it is necessary for WRM to be both effective
and fair. Effectiveness involves WRM meeting its goals and commit-
ments, and fairness involves holding all components of the SES and
their constituents in equal moral and managerial regard in relation to
their needs and rights. To do so, it needs to develop and internalise an
ethically grounded and coherent approach, in terms of the ways in
which it deals with different values, interests and constituencies in the
SES, and with short- and long-term considerations. Thus, this paper
seeks to develop an approach to environmental ethics, which situates
WRM within a complex SES, enabling it to be relevant to the range of
constituencies, pressures and competition relating to access to water. In
this regard, the paper explores tensions around values in the context of
WRM, which is conceptualised as a systematic process, which deals
with the acquisition, processing and distribution of water, and protec-
tion of aquatic ecosystems in specific administrative and institutional
contexts.
Humans are increasingly confronted by the complex and interwoven
nature of the situations in which all life on earth finds itself. The lo-
cation and role of humans, as integral components of SES, including
their particular and far-reaching powers to impact upon those systems,
is critical to the functioning and well-being of these systems. Humans
may reasonably be seen to have responsibilities to the broader en-
vironment, which go beyond their own species’, and individual per-
sonal and social, welfare (Shockley, 2016). The nature of human beings’
responsibility in relation to the rest of nature, and the principles upon
which it may be argued, is the domain of environmental ethics, which
will be considered in greater detail later in the paper.
A basic distinction needs to be made between ‘ethics’ and ‘values/

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: c.dewet@ru.ac.za (C. de Wet).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.030
Received 19 February 2018; Received in revised form 20 December 2018; Accepted 22 December 2018
Available online 07 January 2019
1462-9011/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. de Wet, O.N. Odume
morals’. In this paper, morals and values refer to what specific in-
dividuals or groups of people believe to be good or bad, such as e.g.
polygyny, or abortion, or vegetarianism. Ethics refers to a systematic
concern with the principles by which human beings seek to distinguish
between right and wrong, in terms of behaviour towards other people
and towards nature (de Wet, 2009: 78). Society can thus look to the
development of agreed ethical principles for water resource use, pro-
tection, and management, for dealing with tensions and conflicts be-
tween values among different constituencies in a water management
entity.
In socio-culturally diverse and politically and/or economically un-
equal societies, there are differences in the needs, values and desires of
people. Each development- related choice and action tends to implicate
other choices and actions. Particular actions thus tend to open out and
close down specific options in respect of e.g. access to the benefits of
water use and/or protection of the environment, and may be con-
tentious. As will be shown below, specific situations may give rise to
trade-offs between values. As Tietenberg and Lewis (2014: 116-118)
ask: are efficient allocations fair in relation to natural resources, when
one considers tensions and trade-offs between generational and sus-
tainability issues? In the South African WRM context, there are pro-
blems relating to achieving various values fully at the same time (such
as equity of access to a resource, and efficiency in the official man-
agement of accessing, distributing and financing of such a resource) or a
compromise in standards of water supply, e.g. for reasons of afford-
ability. This may result in water that is not always safe to drink, or
readily accessible.
There is thus a need to consider and present diverse approaches and
options in terms of water management, in order to develop ethical
(principle guided) thinking and practice in WRM, which will contribute
to the reconciliation of values that are not compatible at all times, in-
cluding those of equity, sustainability, efficiency and inclusiveness
(these values are discussed below). To achieve such a reconciliation
would seem particularly challenging in relation to water justice, where
issues involving (in)justices manifest in “both qualities and quantities of
water, the modes of accessing and distributing water, and meanings,
discourses, truths and knowledge that shape water control” (Boelens
et al., 2018).
The fact that human beings ascribe value to nature in different kinds
of ways, and have a diversity of views on WRM, relates to the fact that
there is a range of ways in which human societies and cultures see the
relationship/interdependence between human beings and nature, and
human beings’ place/role in nature. These differences are explored
more fully in the discussion below of various approaches to environ-
mental ethics.
The insights, perspectives, challenges and options suggested by
environmental ethics could thus provide useful approaches and issues
for thinking about, and attitudes and behaviour towards, the environ-
ment. An ethically informed approach to WRM in a particular situation
would reflect upon and make explicit the way(s) in which human
beings value and relate to the environment. Values exercise significant
influences over human attitudes and actions in relation to water re-
sources, and the degree to which people are willing to take responsi-
bility for their sustainable management (Adams et al., 2013; Pradhan
and Meinzen-Dick, 2010). Such willingness depends largely on how the
aquatic ecosystem is seen in relation to human society, e.g. whether
predominantly as a means to serve the end of human welfare, or as a
value- cum-end in its own right, or in a relationship of systemic com-
plementarity with society.
Environmental ethics offers valuable perspectives for analysing the
relationships between the components of the SES, with the potential for
improving ecosystems management through the recognition that these
ecosystems are part of the complex SES, in which values and interests –
as well as the rights of both the human and non-human components -
play a significant role. For example, in the institutional-governance
domain, perspectives and approaches to dealing with problems from
140
Environmental Science and Policy 93 (2019) 139–145
within environmental ethics, could potentially contribute to a frame-
work for reforming water policies and governance, management prac-
tices, and existing institutions, through a systematic investigation of the
value systems, beliefs, and moral affiliations of people living within a
catchment, both in time and space.
To take the idea of SES seriously, it is crucial to consider ways in
which value relates to, and/or derives from, the notion of a system - of
which human and non-human components are part. It is then not only
various kinds of components that may be seen to have intrinsic value.
Value is seen to derive also from the relationship between the compo-
nents, and, in a dynamic system, from the emergent, and complexity-
generated, properties of such a dynamic, interactive system (Pignatti,
2013).
Explicit consideration of different value systems, and clarifying and
relating of sets of environmental ethical principles and criteria in terms
of which such values can be negotiated in relation to each other, can
contribute to sustainable resource management. This can be achieved
by helping to clarify the implications of different claims and claimants,
and courses of action, and by addressing the concerns of claimants
within what are effectively pluralistic and polycentric institutional
frameworks of water governance and management (Brown and
Schmidt, 2010; Muller, 2012; Pradhan and Meinzen-Dick, 2010). These
claims may range from calls for fair and equitable water allocation, to
consensus around the ordering of social relationships and place-based
values, such as cultural and spiritual beliefs around water (Brown and
Schmidt, 2010; Groenfeldt and Schmidt, 2013). Ethics, in seeking to
establish broader principles to consider specific cases, plays an im-
portant balancing role between such claims and between claimants, as
well as in the relationship between humans and nature and in the at-
tribution of value to nature (Brown and Schmidt, 2010; Schmidtz,
2016).
1.1. A significant shift of approach to water management is required
Social-ecological systems (SES) are complex, as they are char-
acterised by unpredictability, non-linearity, cross-scale dynamic inter-
actions and multiple feedback mechanisms (Folke, 2007; McGinnis and
Ostrom, 2014). Managing water resources within the framework of
complex SES would require a careful consideration of management
decisions on both the social (human) and the ecological (non-human)
aspects, with explicit recognition of their inter-dependence on multiple
spatial and temporal scales. The implication is that a complexity ana-
lysis is an important prerequisite for effective and fair management of
the SES, inasmuch as it challenges the notion of linearity, and instead
proposes that systems be viewed holistically (Pollard et al., 2011).
Accepting SES as being fundamentally complex, would lead to a rethink
about resource management (Berkes et al., 2003; Virapongse et al.,
2016).
Managing water resources in the context of SES thus requires a
fundamental shift in the way the relationship and interaction between
humans and the rest of nature is conceived and interpreted. This is
because Western-derived approaches promoting a utilitarian ethic have
dominated WRM in most parts of the world (McGee, 2010). This has
effectively made WRM anthropocentric in its orientation, and involving
planning and implementation in terms of ideas of the public good that
have not necessarily been obtained by extensive democratic processes.
Since utilitarianism is defined with reference to only the human com-
ponent of SES, a new kind of ethic is required that emphasises the
systemic ethical unity of the SES, rather than the favouring of any of its
components.
To minimise further degradation of aquatic ecosystems, an ecolo-
gically genuinely interactive process is needed, in which government
and associated institutions are not only accountable to people, but also
to the rest of nature. Such interactive practices would recognise and
promote the rights of human beings, as well as of the ecological com-
ponents of the SES, and place responsibility on all people, as morally
C. de Wet, O.N. Odume
responsible agents, to respect those rights (Hale, 2016). This paper
seeks to provide an enabling systemic relational (SR) environmental
ethical approach, with the capacity to bring together the diverse values
and constituencies involved. Before setting out the proposed SR ap-
proach, current approaches to environmental ethics are reviewed.
2. Approaches to western-derived environmental ethics
2.1. Value-oriented environmental ethics
Environmental ethics, as developed within western thought, can be
divided into two broad approaches, i.e. value-oriented and relation-
oriented (relational) environmental ethics (Kronlid and Öhman, 2013).
Western environmental ethics has been primarily concerned with the
intrinsic (inherent) value approach, in which, the anthropocentric and
non-anthropocentric perspectives have assumed prominence (Kronlid
and Öhman, 2013; Callicott, 2016; Thompson, 2016).
2.1.1. Anthropocentric environmental ethics
Anthropocentrism holds the general view that only humans have
intrinsic value (Light and Rolston, 2003; Thompson, 2016). Non-human
life forms have no such intrinsic value. Their value is seen as instru-
mental, in terms of the value and assistance which humans derive from
such non-human entities. In the context of water, aquatic ecosystems
and associated resources can therefore only be considered valuable and
deserving of protection if they are of instrumental value to humans and
to human well-being. Anthropocentrism thus places the human being at
the centre of the human-environment equation; while the environment
needs to be looked after, it is basically seen as of a morally ‘secondary
status’, and as there to supply human needs and their right to realise
their values.
2.1.2. Non-anthropocentric environmental ethics
Non-anthropocentrism holds that non-human beings, whether in-
dividually or collectively, have intrinsic value over and above their
instrumental value to human well-being (Taylor, 2003). Within the
non-anthropocentric perspective, the object of intrinsic value may be
seen in individualistic or holistic terms. For example, an eco-centric
non-anthropocentric outlook views the organic whole, i.e. ecosystems
and species, as holders of intrinsic value because they sustain life, and
because their functionality, integrity, resilience, stability and beauty
can be recognised (Taylor, 2003; Callicott, 2016).
From the non-anthropocentric perspective, accepting the notion of
intrinsic value in the natural environment (e.g. aquatic ecosystems)
centralises the claim that intrinsic value as such –whether located in
humans or non-humans - needs to be protected. This raises the further
implication that humans - as the only morally responsible being (i.e.
agents that can be held accountable for their actions) - have an ob-
ligation to protect and consider the interest of the non-human living
beings and the associated ecosystems. In this regard, Taylor (2003)
argues for an attitude of respect for nature, which hinges primarily on
the principle of inherent worth, and advocates the recognition of the
intrinsic value of nature, as an end in itself (see also Kallhoff, 2016).
An important ethical question thus becomes: how are human beings,
in the context of WRM, to respect the non-human environment? How
will WRM ethics move beyond anthropocentric approaches, and are
there limits to respect for nature - especially from the perspective of
available resources and other practical constraints?
The ethics of respect raises questions relevant to potential trade-offs
between e.g. human rights and the rights of the environment, or be-
tween different evaluations of aquatic ecosystems. Trade-offs can exist
between taxonomic diversity, functional diversity, biotic welfare and
environmental fidelity, as well as between ecosystem services and se-
curity (Sarkar, 2013). In the face of limited resources, which of these
environmental values deserve respect and attention, is an ethical
question that must be deliberated upon, taking account of the specific
141
Environmental Science and Policy 93 (2019) 139–145
social-ecological context. Where the human right to water (e.g. the
Human Need Reserve, as enshrined in the South African National Water
Act No 36 of 1998), and the environmental right to water (e.g. the
ecological Reserve, also in the National Water Act) are at odds, how
should such a trade-off be treated, and what ethical criteria should be
used in the underlying value judgement involved in the final decision?
Alternatively, should there be limits for the respect for nature and/or
for humans within the social context?
A reconceptualization of the human-environment relationship, in-
volving a social re-ordering in which humans become more conscious of
their inextricable link with nature, is needed to enable the attitude of
respect for environmental rights. This implies that legal rights alone are
not sufficient as the basis by which people would act voluntarily to
protect the natural environment. Institutional change, which actively
seeks to encourage the attitude of respect for nature, by practically
demonstrating various ways by which people are inextricably con-
nected to the natural environment, is also required.
2.2. Relational environmental ethics
Value-oriented environmental ethics has been criticised for its focus
on the intrinsic value debate, and for extending the idea of moral value
beyond the human dimension; by selectively ascribing intrinsic value, it
has been seen as dichotomising humans and the rest of nature (Gruen
and Gaard, 2003). It has also been criticised for not taking context
sufficiently into account in its prescription of ethical principles that
should guide human relationships with the rest of nature (Minteer et al.,
2004).
Relational ethics views life as relational; it holds that in the context
of SES, decisions around natural resource management must consider
the social and the ecological aspects as inextricably connected with the
context, as an important factor (Minteer et al., 2004). Pragmatist en-
vironmental ethics (Minteer, 2016), deep ecology (e.g. Naess, 2003),
ecofeminism (Plumwood 1986, 2012) and most African environmental
ethical approaches (e.g. Behrens, 2014; Kelbessa, 2005; Murove, 2009)
- into which we cannot go in detail, as they fall outside the scope of this
paper, - could be considered as varieties of relational environmental
ethics.
Of the various environmental ethical approaches which we have
considered, relational ethics provides the most integrated approach to
the human-rest of nature interface, and therefore shows most simila-
rities to the SR approach to environmental ethics, which is developed in
this paper. However, unlike a relational ethical approach, which seems
to focus more strongly on a contextual approach to specific environ-
mental issues, the SR approach develops a systemically interrelated set
of environmental ethical principles, which enable working with diverse
values in the management of water resources within the SES as an in-
tegrated system.
3. Contextual value-based considerations relating to water
resource management
Thinking around water is itself culturally informed and value-laden,
and thus, if goals such as managing water sustainably are to be
achieved, the differing values and ontological postulates associated
with water, as held by different water users, must be taken into account
and clarified in WRM decision-making processes (Brown and
Schmidt,2010). Water - as well as the ways in which it is held valuable -
is relevant to most aspects of human endeavour (Kallhoff, 2016). E.g.
the spiritual value of water may be given higher priority by certain
local/indigenous communities/water users over other values, through
ontological commitment. Thus recognising and clarifying the cultural
contexts, and the ontological commitments and value systems that in-
fluence people and institutional behaviour towards water, should be an
important consideration in managing water (Groenfeldt and Schmidt,
2013).
C. de Wet, O.N. Odume
Since values are dynamic, and context-sensitive, ethical considera-
tions can play a critical role in value clarification during WRM decisions
(Foy, 2016; Pradhan and Meinzen-Dick, 2010). In South Africa, as in
other countries, the national constitution, with its recognition of in-
ternational treaties/declarations, and national level as well as cus-
tomary law, speaks to legal and value pluralism. Water claims and
people’s behaviour concerning water, may thus be justified in terms of
cultural norms, tradition and social practice (Pradhan and Meinzen-
Dick, 2010). In many African religions, water is seen as a purifying
agent that washes away impurities, and as a mediating factor between
the living and the dead (Bernard, 2010; Chiuta, 1995). Human beha-
viour towards water can thus not be totally understood and interpreted
in terms of secular legal systems. Central to explicit consideration of
values in WRM, is the provision of enabling ethical frameworks for the
resolution of conflicts and disputes, which recognise not only the eco-
nomic value of water, but also other ways in which water is valued, as
well as ways in which such different values can be constructively ba-
lanced (Schmidtz, 2016).
4. The argument for a systemic-relational (SR) environmental
ethical approach
Values significantly influence the human-water relationship. It is
important how the welfare of the aquatic ecosystem and of human
society are valued, and that they are both accorded a positive value in
their own right. It is however, crucial how they are valued in terms of
each other. This is where an SR approach to environmental ethics as-
sumes significance. Value-oriented ethics (whether anthropocentric or
non-anthropocentric) cannot adequately develop a set of principles and
values to deal with the complexities of the interrelationship between
humans and the rest of nature, or with situations where conflicts be-
tween values and claims arise across the SES – not least because such
approaches are not systemically oriented. This paper argues for the
perspective of SESs as integrated complex systems, in which the various
components are understood as mutually constitutive. The aquatic eco-
systems and human beings are thus to be seen as complementary and
co-supportive components in the SES.
Primary value with regard to the SES is thus located, not at the level
of its constitutive components, but at the level of the system as an in-
tegrated unit (see also Hourdequin, 2016). Components of the system
have value – but not in such a way as to deprive any other component of
the system of its value, e.g. by reducing water to having only instru-
mental value to serve the interests of human beings. Thus, an SR ap-
proach argues that, inasmuch as the various components of the SES i)
are co-constitutive of the SES – i.e. the overall source of value, and ii)
are integral to each other’s well-being, they iii) all have systemic, inter-
relational value, and thus iv) have both intrinsic and instrumental
value.
The SR approach is systemic, inasmuch as the ecological and the
social components together form an integrated and dynamic complex
system. It is relational, inasmuch as these two major components (and
their sub-components) are in ongoing complementary and co-suppor-
tive interaction. An SR approach to environmental ethics – together
with its enabling consequences for WRM – thus provides a means to
a) bring the two major components of the SES, i.e. the natural and the
social- which have in significant measure been handled separately in
previous water and environmental management regimes - into in-
tegrated relationship with each other, without assuming any ana-
lytical or policy weighting of either component in the first instance -
with any such subsequent weighting, being influenced by context
and agenda.
b) bring different values, which may at times come into conflict, into
balance and relation with each other - e.g. equity, efficiency and
sustainability.
142
Environmental Science and Policy 93 (2019) 139–145
4.1. Principles informing a systemic-relational environmental ethical
approach
The basic orienting principles that are necessary for a systemic-re-
lational environmental ethical approach to operate as a coherent
overarching and coordinating perspective, are here briefly set forth.
These basic ethical principles are to be distinguished from specific va-
lues held by specific individuals or constituencies, and are called upon
when specific values come into conflict/tension with each other.
1) The systemic-relational (SR) perspective considers the SES as an
integrated unit. It accordingly interprets, and ascribes value to, and
takes action in regard to, the SES as an integrated unit, and as a
dynamic complex system.
2) The theoretical/intellectual perspective of the SES as an integrated
unit, has the consequence that the SES as an integrated unit, needs
to be seen as the central good/ value to be pursued, in seeking to
interpret, evaluate or manage the SES. This requires that we ac-
tively make efforts to move away from unconsciously emphasizing
our own particular values, as well as from emphasizing the value of
selected or specific aspects of the SES, such as its human or non-
human aspects.
3) The consequence of such decentring of components of the SES, is an
extension of the concept of ‘equity’ from its conventionally human
reference, to apply to the wider, systemic, SES, such that all com-
ponents of the system need to be regarded/treated equitably in
relation to each other.
4) Integration implies that the various components of a system express
and uphold the system, and uphold and serve each other. Each
component therefore has intrinsic value, inasmuch as it is an ex-
pression and an enabler of the ultimate value, i.e. the system as
such; each component also has instrumental value, inasmuch as it
upholds both the system and other components. All components of
the system should therefore be regarded as having both intrinsic
and instrumental value. Water thus has intrinsic value, inasmuch as
it embodies and enables life, and can be seen to have deep aesthetic
and spiritual value (which is not necessarily a function of its being
perceived as such by human beings). Water also has instrumental
value, inasmuch as it renders many services to human beings, in-
cluding enabling human life. Human beings are usually seen as
having intrinsic value, but they also have instrumental value. The
particular value that e.g. water or human beings may be seen as
having, will thus depend on the particular context.
5) Each component is thus worthy of respect. Worthiness of respect
implies that, in any decision-making situation - which usually in-
volves having to make preferential/differential allocations, due to
limited resources and other contextual factors - the intrinsic qua-
lities and claims of all involved components and parties must be
held open for as long as possible. And that this must be a deliberate
management strategy, which derives from the principle of the up-
holding of the overall SES as being the ultimate positive value
being pursued.
6) Seeking to respect all components of the SES, and to regard them as
having intrinsic value for as long as possible, has the implication
that the attitude of inclusiveness must be consciously adopted as
both a moral and as a managerial practice. Such inclusiveness
would need to operate at the following two levels for managers: i)
have I (as a manager) included all components/constituencies?
Have I left anybody and/or anything out? ii) Have I extended the
same moral regard in terms of intrinsic consideration, to all par-
ties/constituencies?
7) Different - and potentially conflicting – values (such as e.g. equity,
efficiency and sustainability) require to be balanced and accom-
modated in the management of water resources. This needs to be
done in such a way that the central value of the SES as an in-
tegrated unit, and its health and functionality, is upheld as the
C. de Wet, O.N. Odume
primary goal.
8) Systemic-relational ethics needs to be sensitive to the operating
context, recognising that the various components, as part of a
system, are in on-going systemic interaction, and stand in specific
relationship to each other, which varies from context to context. SR
ethics therefore needs to account for those factors which – whether
for environmental, historical, political, or whatever reasons – are
more entrenched factors influencing that interaction, as opposed to
those factors which are less deep-seated, and hence are more open
to circumstance and change.
9) Systemic-relational ethics promotes the active search for, and
management of, the interconnectedness of the components of the
SES, given that the SES as an integrated unit, is the primary value
driving a systemic-relational environmental ethical approach.
10) The systemic-relational approach to and perspective on environ-
mental ethics by itself, will be inadequate to achieve such a pro-
tection of the primacy of the SES, and of its health and function-
ality. This will require, inter alia, a range of policy, institutional
and training measures.
11) The above principles are all partial approaches and attempts at
solutions. By definition, we, as human beings, cannot have a
complete understanding of the full range of interactions, processes
and complexities of an SES. An attitude of provisionality and hu-
mility is therefore central in seeking to understand, manage and
navigate such a complex system.
5. An application of the SR approach to environmental ethics in
the water resource management sector in South Africa
Key values may be seen to be operating in the WRM sector in South
Africa - although not always in a manner in which those values are
reconcilable. These include the three values of equity, sustainability
and efficiency, enshrined in the South African National Water Act
(NWA) 36 of 1998, which is the overarching legal instrument that
speaks to WRM in South Africa. These values are stressed in protecting,
using, developing, conserving, managing and controlling water re-
sources in South Africa. After outlining them, we analyse the way these
values play out in practice.
Inasmuch as the three values of equity, sustainability and efficiency
are the cornerstone values around which the NWA, as well as water
policy flowing from it, are designed and organised, it makes sense to
adopt the conceptualisations of these three values as expressed in the
NWA and related documents. i) Equity (which is paraphrased by the
then Department of Water Affairs as ‘fair and equal’) “means that ev-
eryone must have access to water and to the benefits of using water.
Decisions to allocate water must be equitable (fair) to all people”. ii)
Sustainability “means promoting social and economic development and
at the same time ensuring that the environment is protected both now
and for the future”. iii) Efficiency “means that water should not be
wasted. Water should be used to the best possible social and economic
advantage”. (The above three definitional quotations are taken from
The Guide to the National Water Act (No date), page 11, issued by the
(then) South African Department of Water Affairs, DWA).
In the context of the NWA, the value of equity could be interpreted
as fairness in meeting the socio-economic needs of all people, and
fairness in meeting the needs of the environment. Equity involves a
range of environmental, political and socio-economic concerns related
to water resources. For example, equity in the active participation of
involved interest groups/stakeholders –particularly the economically
and politically marginalised - in debating divergent value systems and
in decision-making processes related to water resources, must be upheld
at all times.
The second value, sustainability, which speaks to the right of
aquatic ecosystems to water, is reflected in Principle 9 of the National
Water Policy (NWP) (DWAF, 1997). This value is given effect in the
ecological Reserve (DWAF, 1997; DWA, 2013). In the NWA and NWP,
143
Environmental Science and Policy 93 (2019) 139–145
environmental sustainability is conceived in terms of resilience, and the
importance of ensuring that human activities that do impact, do not
limit such water resources’ capacity to recover to their natural, or near
natural, condition (DWAF, 1997).
The definition of the third value of efficiency as contained in the
DWA’s guide, as that water should be not be wasted and “should be
used to the best possible social and economic advantage”, is vague.
Presumably to everybody’s social and economic advantage, as well as to
the environment’s advantage, taking the value of sustainability into
consideration? Efficiency therefore seems to relate to the economically
prudent management of water resources in their access, use and pro-
tection.
4) Inclusiveness, though not explicitly expressed as a key value in
the NWA, seems implied, as without it, the other three values of equity,
sustainability and efficiency would effectively fall away. As we under-
stand inclusiveness, it relates to the comprehensive incorporation of all
potential components of the SES on at least two levels: i) actual po-
tential constituencies, such as the various components of e.g. the social-
ecological system, and of groupings in the social-economic-political
system ii) the respect in which these components are held, such that
they are all regarded as having intrinsic as well as instrumental value.
5.1. Factors influencing the way values play out in WRM practice
The above values interact; however, the ways in which they in-
teract, and the contexts in which they interact, may not always be
conducive to their being compatible. This raises not just moral, but also
managerial, problems. For example, if one pursues any of the NWA’s
three key values on its own, i.e. without ‘due regard’ for the other two
values in its triad of ‘foundational’ values – one is likely to land up in a
situation where these values become potentially incompatible. We
suggest that the principles and criteria by which they are able to be
balanced derive from a wider environmental ethical perspective, and
indicate the significance of the proposed SR perspective in this regard.
To illustrate this: poverty and inequity of access to services are
significant reasons as to why natural resources are heavily extracted
and degraded. This in turn threatens environmental sustainability.
However, efficiency of delivery of services is directly influenced by
whether or not service providers are able to afford to provide such
services. This increasingly requires charging service receivers - who
may be poor - for the supply of such services. Several authors have
noted that with water services institutions being required to recover
costs, economic efficiency may in the long-term undermine the
achievement of equity and sustainability (Pollard and du Toit, 2008).
Sustainability of the environment is contingent upon a range of
factors, which call the compatibility of the value of sustainability, with
the values of equity and of efficiency, into question. It may plausibly be
argued that people who are extremely poor, are not always in a position
to respect the environment, because they may effectively have no op-
tion, but to exhaust its resources in order to survive, and that therefore
inequity (as in extreme poverty) and environmental sustainability, are
incompatible – and that therefore the achievement of greater equity is
the (long term) path to environmental sustainability. However, it is
difficult to argue that the kind of economic efficiency that is necessary
to achieve the kind of economic growth that would offset the inequality
and inequity is achievable without any further damage to the en-
vironment. So, again, the values of equity, efficiency and sustainability
– for the best of (moral) reasons – do not always sit comfortably to-
gether.
The value of inclusiveness in terms of seeking to accommodate a
plurality of values, reflects the concern with equity in another kind of
way. Enabling, flexible and polycentric governance and management
institutions would seem to be necessary to achieve this inclusiveness in
practice. However, to establish and to maintain such institutions at a
viable level, requires high levels of time commitment that may not fit
easily with the goal of efficiency.
C. de Wet, O.N. Odume
Engaging with some of the key values relating to WRM, at least in
South Africa, and pursuing them in relation to each other with any ri-
gour, seems – not surprisingly - likely to land up in situations where
these values come into conflict. What is called for, is a way (or ways) to
bring them into balanced interaction, even into constructive trade-offs,
with each other. This paper suggests that an approach to environmental
ethics, involving an overarching set of principles, in terms of which to
relate such values to each other, is a way to achieve such balanced
interaction, and to deal with such conflicts of values. For example, the
notion of the Reserve in the South African National Water Act (NWA),
makes the provision for rights to accrue to the natural environment, as
well as to people. In providing water by right for both ecological and
basic human needs, the Reserve serves both social and environmental
justice, though the underlying value accorded to the ecological Reserve
is instrumental. It is, however, decision-making around the amount and
quality of water secured for resource protection, and the amount and
quality of water allocated to various human users with various levels of
security, which makes real the notions of water, as well as social and
environmental justice; therefore, the values influencing such decision-
making processes, when in conflict with other values, need to be ba-
lanced – and this is where the SR perspective assumes significance.
The NWA thus confers legal right of access to adequate water of
appropriate quality, quantity and reliability of supply on the aquatic
ecosystems. In reality, the operationalisation of the Reserve places
limits on the ability to respect the rights of aquatic ecosystems. In the
face of limited resources, there will always be a trade- off between re-
specting the rights of the aquatic ecosystem, and the realisation of other
legitimate rights (e.g. social-economic development) – thus balancing
the need for development and protecting the functionality of the
aquatic ecosystems.
The South African government’s current approach to WRM, as de-
veloped from the NWA, seems to us to contain various potential in-
herent tensions and limitations, partly due to the fact that it elevates the
three values of equity, sustainability and efficiency to ‘Constitution-like’
foundational principles. We have tried to show why each of these
should more realistically seen as values, rather than as foundational
principles, and require more systemic integration, both in terms of an
ethical framework, and of the rigorous adoption of a social-ecological
systems perspective with respect to WRM.
6. Conclusion
This paper has argued that there is a need for a systemic-relational
approach to environmental ethics, to provide an overarching perspec-
tive in relating the key values in water resource management to each
other. Adopting such an SR approach will also facilitate a complex
social-ecological systems orientation with regard to water resource
management. Such an SR approach to ethics is better able to guide
thinking about and application of, specific values operating in the water
sector, as well as about more practical factors which influence the way
that these values play out in on the ground situations.
However, the realisation of such positive outcomes via the im-
plementation of an SR approach to water management, also requires
the achieving of the enabling policy, institutional and managerial
conditions necessary for realising such ethically grounded WRM. What
such enabling conditions involve, and how they are to be brought about
and sustained, are substantial issues, which need to be discussed in their
own right, and therefore fall outside the scope of this paper. We intend
to take these issues further in forthcoming papers.
Acknowledgements
The Water Research Commission of South Africa is acknowledged
for funding the research project (Project No. K5/2342), on which this
paper is based.
144
Environmental Science and Policy 93 (2019) 139–145
References
Adams, D.C., Allen, D., Borisova, T., Boellstoff, D.E., Smolen, M.D., Mahler, R.D., 2013.
The influence of water attitudes, perceptions, and learning preferences on water-
conserving actions. Nat. Sci. Educ. 42, 114–122.
Behrens, K.G., 2014. An African relational environmentalism and moral considerability.
Environ. Ethics 36, 1.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., Folke, C., 2003. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Bernard, P.S., 2010. Messages From the Deep – Water Divinities, Dreams and Diviners in
Southern Africa. Rhodes University, South Africa PhD thesis.
Boelens, R., Vos, J., Perreault, T., 2018. Introduction -the multiple challenges and layers
of water justice. In: Boelens, R. (Ed.), Water Justice. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge https://www.cambridge.org/…/water-justice/introduction-the ….water-
justice…../core_reader. (Accessed 14/12/2018).
Brown, P.G., Schmidt, J.J., 2010. Water Ethics – Foundational Readings for Students and
Professionals. Island Press, Washington.
Callicott, J.B., 2016. How ecological collectives are morally considerable. In: Gardiner,
S.M., Thompson, A. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics. Oxford
University Press, New York, pp. 113–124.
Chiuta, T.M., 1995. Indigenous knowledge systems for wetland conservation: Barotse
Floodplain, Southern Africa. IUCN Wetlands Programme Newslett. 11, 6–7.
CSIR (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research), 2010. A CSIR Perspective on Water
in South Africa. CSIR Report No: CSIR /NRE /PW/IR/0012/A. Council for Scientific
and Industrial Research, Pretoria, South Africa.
De Wet, C.J., 2009. Does development displace ethics? The challenge of forced resettle-
ment. In: Oliver-Smith, A. (Ed.), Development and Dispossession: The Crisis of Forced
Displacement and Resettlement. School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe, pp.
77–96.
DWA – (Department of Water Affairs), 2013. National Water Resource Strategy, second
edition. Department of Water Affairs, Pretoria, South Africa.
DWA (Department of Water Affairs), 1998. National Water Act, No 36 of 1998. (Accessed
15 June 2015). www.dwa.gov.za/Documents/Legislature/nw_act/NWA.pdf.
DWAF – (Department of Water Affairs and Forestry), 1997. White Paper on a National
Water Policy for South Africa. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria,
South Africa.
Folke, C., 2006. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems
analyses. Glob. Environ. Change 16, 253–267.
Folke, C., 2007. Social-ecological systems and adaptive governance of the commons. Ecol.
Res. 22, 14–15.
Forsyth, T., Leach, M., Scoones, I., 1998. Poverty and Environment: Priorities for
Research and Study. https://wwwresearchgate.net/…302524644….Poverty _an-
d_environment_priorities_for _research_and_study_an_overview_study_prepared
_for_the _United_Nations_Development_Programme_and European_Commission.
(Accessed 13 December 2018. .
Foy, K.C., 2016. Balancing multiple goals at the local level: water quality, water equity,
and water conservation. Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum 26, 241–272.
Groenfeldt, D., Schmidt, 2013. Ethics and water governance. Ecol. Soc. 18 (1), 14.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04629-180114. (Accessed 15 June 2015).
Gruen, L., Gaard, G., 2003. Ecofeminism: towards global justice and planetary health. In:
Light, A., Rolston IIIH. (Eds.), Environmental Ethics: An Anthology. Blackwell
Publishing Ltd, Malden, USA, pp. 276–294.
Hale, B., 2016. Rights, rules and respect for nature. In: Gardiner, S.M., Thompson, A.
(Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics. Oxford University Press, New
York, pp. 211–222.
Hourdequin, M., 2016. The ethics of ecosystem management. In: Gardiner, S.M.,
Thompson, A. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics. Oxford
University Press, New York, pp. 449–462.
Kallhoff, A., 2016. Water ethics: toward ecological cooperation. In: Gardiner, S.M.,
Thompson, A. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics. Oxford
University Press, New York, pp. 416–426.
Kelbessa, W., 2005. The rehabilitation of indigenous environmental ethics in Africa.
Diogenes 207, 17–34.
Kronlid, D.O., Öhman, J., 2013. An environmental ethical conceptual framework for re-
search on sustainability and environmental education. Environ. Educ. Res. 19 (1),
21–44.
Light, A., Rolston, I.I.I.H., 2003. Environmental Ethics: An Anthology. Blackwell
Publishing Ltd, Malden, USA.
McGee, W.J., 2010. Water as a resource. In: Brown, P.G., Schmidt, J.J. (Eds.), Water
Ethics – Foundational Readings for Students and Professionals. Island Press,
Washington, pp. 87–90.
McGinnis, M.D., Ostrom, E., 2014. Social-ecological system framework: initial changes
and continuing challenges. Ecol. Soc. 19 (2) Art 30.
Minteer, B.A., 2016. Environmental ethics, sustainability science and the recovery of
pragmatism. In: Gardiner, S.M., Thompson, A. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of
Environmental Ethics. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 528–540.
Minteer, B.A., Corley, E.A., Manning, R.E., 2004. Environmental ethics beyond principle?
The case for a pragmatic contextualism. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 17, 131–156.
Muller, M., 2012. Polycentric governance: water management in South Africa.
Management, Procurement and Law (Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers) 165 Issue MPO: 1-8.
Murove, M.F., 2009. An African environmental ethic based on the concepts of ukama and
ubuntu. In: Murove, M.F. (Ed.), African Ethics – An Anthology of Comparative and
Applied Ethics. University of KwaZulu-Natal Press, Scottsville, pp. 315–331.
Naess, A., 2003. Self-realisation: an ecological approach to being in the world. In:
C. de Wet, O.N. Odume
Vandeveer, D., Pierce, C. (Eds.), The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book, 3rd
edition. Wadsworth/Thompson Learning, Inc., pp. 268–273.
Pignatti, S., 2013. A discussion on the foundations of environmental ethics. Rend. Fis.
Acc. Lincei 24, 89–94 (2013).
Plumwood, V., 2012. Ecofeminism: an overview and discussion of positions and argu-
ments. Austr. J. Phil. 64 (Suppl. 1), 120–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048402.
1986.9755430. Published online 27 April, 2012 (Accessed 13 December 2018).
Pollard, S., du Toit, D., 2008. Integrated water resource management in complex systems:
how the catchment management strategies seek to achieve sustainability and equity
in water resources in South Africa. Water SA 34 (6), 671–679.
Pollard, S., du Toit, D., Biggs, H., 2011. A Guide to Complexity Theory and Systems
Thinking for Integrated Water Resources Research and Management. Water Research
Commission, Pretoria WRC Report No. KV 277/11.
Pradhan, R., Meinzen-Dick, R., 2010. Which rights are rights? Water rights, culture, and
underlying values. In: Brown, P.G., Schmidt, J.J. (Eds.), Water Ethics – Foundational
Readings for Students and Professionals. Island Press, Washington, pp. 39–58.
Rogers, K.H., Luton, R., 2011. Strategic Adaptive Management as a Framework for
Implementing Integrated Water Resource Management in South Africa. Water
Research Commission, Pretoria WRC Report No KV 245/10.
Sarkar, S., 2013. Multiple criteria and trade-offs in environmental ethics – comment on
“Ethics of species research and preservation” by Rob Irvine. Bioethical Inquiry 10,
533–537.
Schmidtz, D., 2016. Environmental conflict. In: Gardiner, S.M., Thompson, A. (Eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics. Oxford University Press, New York, pp.
145
Environmental Science and Policy 93 (2019) 139–145
517–527.
Shockley, K., 2016. Individual and contributory responsibility for environmental harm.
In: Gardiner, S.M., Thompson, A. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Environmental
Ethics. Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 265–275.
Taylor, P.W., 2003. The ethics of respect for nature. In: Vandeveer, D., Pierce, C. (Eds.),
The Environmental Ethics and Policy Book, 3rd edition. Wadsworth/Thompson
Learning, Inc., pp. 189–201.
Thompson, A., 2016. Anthropocentrism: humanity as peril and promise. In: Gardiner,
S.M., Thompson, A. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Environmental Ethics. Oxford
University Press, New York, pp. 77–90.
Tietenberg, T., Lewis, L., 2014. Dynamic efficiency and sustainable development. In:
Tietenberg, T., Lewis, L. (Eds.), Environmental and Natural Resource Economics,
2014, 9th ed.). Pearson Education Ltd., Harlow, Essex, pp. 109–126.
UN - (United Nations) Water, 2008. Status report on integrated water resources man-
agement and water efficiency plans. Prepared for the 16th Session of the Commission
on Sustainable Development. (Accessed 30 July, 2015. http://www.unwater.org/
downloads/UNW_Status_Report_IWRM.pdf.
UN (United Nations) Water, 2016. The United Nations World Water Development Report
2016. Water and Jobs. Facts and Figures. UNESCO: UN World Water Assessment
Programme, Perugia, Italy.
Virapongse, A., Brooks, S., Metcalf, E.C., Zedalis, M., Gosz, J., Kliskey, A., Alessa, L.,
2016. A Social-ecological systems approach for environmental management. J.
Environ. Manag. 178, 83–91.