Through the City of Cape Town’s grant funding, EMG has been working in Mfuleni to support communities to become active stewards of the Kuils River Catchment. The project brings together young people and water activists to learn about the challenges facing their waterways and find practical ways to respond.

The project involved a series of activities designed to build knowledge, encourage learning and create a foundation for constructive engagement with the City.

The first step was an Education and Awareness Workshop, where learners explored water, pollution, the challenges facing their local environment and what indigenous and alien invasive species you can find along the river. 121 learners and four teachers from four Mfuleni high schools – Bardale High, Fairdale 1, Fairdale 2 and Mfuleni Tech participate.

The following day learners participated in a clean-up of the Kuils River – But this wasn’t just a clean-up.

As part of the day, the learners carried out a mini Participatory Action Research (PAR) project, documenting and categorising the different types of rubbish they found along the river. Instead of simply removing waste, they were collecting information that could help answer an important question: what is actually polluting our river?

Learners collated the information which was processed by EMG and analysed by the learners. This gave them an opportunity to turn their experience into evidence – and their evidence into a voice.

The findings were then taken into a meeting with the City of Cape Town at Rondevlei Nature Reserve, where the report helped inform discussions about pollution and the Kuils River Catchment.

For EMG, this is what environmental education can look like: not simply teaching young people about environmental problems, but supporting them to investigate the issues around them, generate knowledge and use that knowledge to engage with the people responsible for making decisions.

The river clean-up was only one day. But the process – learn, investigate, act and engage – is about building the confidence and agency of young people to play an active role in the future of their environment.

Income security and access to essential services cannot be treated as separate policy debates. They are inseparable. Nowhere is this clearer than in South Africa’s growing water crisis.

The Constitution guarantees everyone the right to have access to sufficient water. Section 27 places an obligation on the state to progressively realise that right. Water and sanitation are not commodities reserved for those who can afford them—they are fundamental human rights.

Yet for millions of South Africans, that constitutional promise exists only on paper.

An estimated 8.5 million people still lack access to basic water services. Almost half of all treated water—around 47%—is lost before it reaches consumers because of leaking pipes, ageing infrastructure and poor maintenance. Communities across the country experience regular water interruptions, contamination incidents and failing sanitation systems.

While infrastructure failures dominate the headlines, another less visible problem is quietly excluding millions of poor households from the assistance intended for them.

South Africa’s Free Basic Water policy was introduced to ensure that no household would be denied a minimum amount of water simply because it could not pay. Every household is meant to receive at least 6,000 litres of free water each month—equivalent to 50 litres per person per day for a family of four, the minimum level recommended by the World Health Organization for basic health and dignity.

In practice, however, this promise has steadily eroded.

There is a strong correlation between rising poverty and declining access to free basic water. Access has become dependent on navigating complicated municipal indigent registration systems that require applications, supporting documents and repeated re-registration. In addition, penalties for non-payment are harshly implemented often resulting in the coerced installation of pay as you go water meters or drip systems.

Many households simply fall through the cracks.

For residents of informal settlements, however, the problem runs even deeper. The Free Basic Water system was largely designed around formal households with individual municipal accounts. Many informal settlement residents have no registered property, no individual water connection and often no straightforward way to register as indigent. Instead, they rely on communal standpipes that serve dozens, sometimes hundreds, of households. Although they are among those most in need of support, they are effectively excluded from a system that was intended to guarantee a basic level of water for all.

Ironically, many of these same households are already receiving social grants from the national government. Yet municipal indigent registers and national social grant databases are in most cases, disconnected. A household may be recognised as poor enough to qualify for income support but still be denied free basic water because it has not completed the separate municipal process.

The result is a fragmented social protection system where bureaucracy determines access more than need, while the design of the system itself creates de facto exclusion for many people living in informal settlements.

The consequences extend far beyond inconvenience.

When free basic water is unavailable, families spend grant income purchasing water, paying for transport to collect it or coping with repeated disconnections from prepaid meters once their allocation runs out. Women and children often spend hours collecting water from communal taps. Communities resort to unsafe rivers and streams, increasing health risks while placing additional pressure on already fragile freshwater ecosystems.

When people must buy what the Constitution guarantees, rights are quietly transformed into commodities. Water becomes something to be purchased rather than provided, and the value of every social grant is diminished in the process.

This is what might be called grant erosion.

Every rand intended to provide food security, education, transport or dignity is instead diverted to compensate for failing public services. Cash transfers cannot achieve their intended impact when households are forced to use them simply to access a constitutional right.

This highlights an uncomfortable truth.

A Basic Income Grant is essential, but it cannot substitute for functioning public infrastructure.

South Africa cannot cash-transfer its way out of collapsing water systems.

Municipal finances illustrate the scale of the problem. Residential debt owed to municipalities exceeds R143 billion, while billions more are lost each year through leaking infrastructure and system failures. Estimates suggest that physical water losses and broader infrastructure failures cost the country nearly R34 billion annually. Investing in repairing water infrastructure is therefore not simply a service delivery obligation—it is an economic necessity.

The debate should not be framed as a choice between investing in income support or investing in infrastructure. South Africa requires both.

A modern social protection system should recognise that income and services reinforce one another. Automatic enrolment for Free Basic Water should be linked to existing social grant databases so that households qualifying for one form of support automatically receive the other. Administrative barriers that exclude vulnerable people should be removed. The design of Free Basic Water must also recognise the realities of informal settlements, where residents should not be denied a constitutional right simply because they lack a formal address or municipal account. Municipalities require greater technical capacity, stronger accountability and sustained investment to rebuild failing infrastructure.

Equally important, the integrity of public services must become part of the conversation about Basic Income.

When infrastructure functions properly, a Basic Income Grant stretches further because households spend less replacing services the state should already provide. When water systems fail, the value of every grant is diminished before it even reaches the household.

South Africa’s Constitution recognises that dignity depends on more than income alone. It depends on access to the basic conditions that allow people to live healthy, productive and meaningful lives.

The debate over a Basic Income Grant is therefore not simply about putting cash into people’s pockets. It is about building a social protection system that works as a whole.

Water is not an optional extra to that conversation.

It is one of its foundations.

South Africa is the 30^th most water-scarce country in the world and yet, our land-use choices place industrial production ahead of the people and ecosystems that depend on this precious resource.

Across parts of Mpumalanga and other provinces, communities live alongside vast eucalyptus and pine plantations while facing chronic water shortages themselves. Many households struggle to access enough clean water for drinking, cooking and sanitation, even as millions of litres are consumed daily by industrial tree plantations. This is a stark reminder that the way we manage land determines who has access to water—and who does not.

Many people assume that planting more trees is always good for the environment. But in South Africa, that is not the case. Ours is not naturally a forested country. Much of our water originates in grasslands, wetlands and mountain catchments that have evolved over thousands of years to capture, store and slowly release rainfall into rivers and underground aquifers. These ecosystems are among the country’s greatest natural water producers.

A catchment covered in trees is not always a healthy catchment. When water-producing grasslands and wetlands are replaced with dense, fast-growing industrial plantations, streamflow is reduced, groundwater recharge declines and less water is available for ecosystems and communities downstream. So, if we want to protect South Africa’s water, we have to prioritise protecting the landscapes that naturally produce it—not replacing them with industrial tree crops.

Industrial plantations are often described as forests because they contain trees. But plantations are not forests. A forest is a living ecosystem, made up of countless species of plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms that have evolved together over centuries. Forests regulate water cycles, enrich soils, protect biodiversity and support life.

A plantation is something very different. It is an industrial crop, usually made up of a single fast-growing species such as eucalyptus or pine, planted and harvested for commercial purposes. Like any monoculture, it simplifies nature rather than working with it.

The consequences are significant. A mature eucalyptus tree can use between 150 and 200 litres of water each day under favourable growing conditions. By comparison, South Africa’s Free Basic Water policy allocates just 50 litres of water per person per day. While these figures are not directly comparable, they expose a profound imbalance in our priorities. At a time when communities queue for water or rely on irregular municipal supply, we continue to devote vast quantities of water to industrial plantations.

The impacts do not stop there. Large-scale plantations replace biodiverse grasslands, wetlands and indigenous vegetation that naturally capture, filter and store water. They alter streamflow, contribute to soil acidification and reduce the diversity of plants and animals that healthy ecosystems support. Once plantations are harvested, restoring soils and ecological function can take many years. These landscapes are not empty spaces waiting for commercial development. They are living ecosystems and, for many Indigenous peoples and rural communities, places of history, culture, spirituality and livelihood. Their loss is both an environmental and a social injustice.

South Africa’s Constitution recognises that everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being, and to have the environment protected for present and future generations. It also recognises the right of everyone to have access to sufficient water. These are not separate rights. Healthy ecosystems are what make clean, reliable water possible. When rivers, wetlands and catchments are degraded, the right to water is undermined.

Agroecology offers a different vision.

Rather than treating land as a factory for producing a single commodity, agroecology works with natural systems. It restores soils, protects biodiversity, improves the land’s ability to absorb and retain water, and supports food production that strengthens local communities rather than displacing them. Agroforestry—where indigenous trees are integrated with crops and livestock—is one example of how trees can contribute to livelihoods while enhancing biodiversity, conserving water and restoring ecological health. It demonstrates that trees themselves are not the problem; industrial monocultures are.

The climate crisis demands that we rethink how we value land. Conservation cannot simply mean planting more trees. It must mean protecting the ecosystems that sustain life, respecting Indigenous knowledge and land rights, and ensuring that communities have secure access to water and food.

Water justice, conservation and agroecology are inseparable. If South Africa is serious about building climate resilience, protecting biodiversity and fulfilling the constitutional rights to water and a healthy environment, then we must move beyond industrial plantations and invest instead in landscapes that nurture both people and nature.

The future will not be secured by planting more industrial tree crops. It will be secured by restoring rivers, wetlands, grasslands and healthy soils, and by supporting the communities who have long understood that caring for the land is also how we care for water.

Communities are not waiting for change to happen—they are helping to shape it.

At EMG’s Ecopolitics School in Mpumalanga in July, community members spent time examining how industrial plantations, water governance, conservation and agroecology are deeply interconnected and impacted by climate change. The discussions reinforced an important lesson: decisions about land and water cannot be left to experts, government or industry. The people who live with the consequences must play a central role in shaping them.

During the school, the question of what we do kept coming up. December shared his experience attending the Department of Water and Sanitation meeting on water use tariffs, where he advocated for stronger regulation of water-intensive industrial plantations and the implementation of commitments made in 2001 relating to plantation water management and rehabilitation. IN the meeting government agreed that gum plantations should pay higher tariffs and that the DWS would re-visit the 2001 agreement that they were yet to implement. These discussions have shown that government can be receptive when communities bring evidence, lived experience and practical solutions to the table.

The same principle applies beyond water tariffs. Communities have a critical role to play in public hearings on the Water Services Amendment Bill, in the development of municipal Integrated Development Plans (IDPs), Economic Development Plans (EDPs), and Just Transition strategies. These processes determine how land is used, where public resources are invested, whose livelihoods are supported and, ultimately, who has access to water, food and a healthy environment.

Too often, public participation is treated as a procedural requirement rather than a democratic right. Yet communities possess knowledge that cannot be found in technical reports alone. They know where springs have disappeared, where rivers no longer flow as they once did, which wetlands have been degraded, and how changes in the landscape affect their lives. This knowledge is essential if South Africa is to develop policies that are both environmentally sustainable and socially just.

Building climate resilience is not only about changing how we manage land. It is also about changing who has the power to influence the decisions that shape our shared future.

The twenty-first session of the Committee for the Review of the Implementation of the Convention (CRIC 21) to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) took place at the Silk Road Samarkand Congress Center, in Samarkand, Uzbekistan from 13 to 17 November 2023 – EMG’s Anne Plaatjies- Hanase attended.

During UNCCD CRIC 21, statements made by the Parties and civil society organizations alike echoed the importance of addressing the impact of drought, with the United Nations warning that drought may be the next pandemic. Drought is an important global process and occurrence and worldwide, more than 55 million people are affected by drought. The UNFCCC IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) has outlined the intensity and frequency of drought, including predicted increases. It notes that the length of droughts is likely to double and will be exacerbated by climate change and rising temperatures.

The member states of the African Union hosted a side event at the CRIC entitled Drought at a glance, Experiences of Africa and Beyond. The purpose of this side event, was to highlight the impact of drought in African countries and to promote the African Union’s member states’ call to the international community to sign a legally binding agreement on drought. The UNCCD Deputy Executive Secretary, Ms. Andrea Meza addressed the meeting noting that Africa is the continent most vulnerable to climate change and that two thirds of arable land is subject to degradation. Climate change will intensify drought impacts and lengthen drought periods, severely impacting on social gains. She further noted that there is an economic case to be made in the context of drought and that we need to bring more political attention and traction to this issue so as to shape sustainable solutions. She emphasised that Africa will not achieve the SDGs that are related to or impacted upon by drought and that the international community needs to respond to drought with a combination of elements. These elements may vary from the right investments to early warning systems. Granted that the impact of drought are differentiated, the findings presented nevertheless all reiterated that drought threatens livelihoods, fuels migration, and places a burden on agriculture. The question remains, if drought is not a sectoral issue, how should the international community respond?

The burden of drought impacts on agriculture is regarded as one of the most devastating to communities, with drought having been identified as the single greatest cause of losses in agricultural production. With this as the backdrop, the members present were asked if the UNCCD, as an instrument that brings together the international community around issues of sustainable land management, is doing enough to address drought.

Although there was consensus around the need to include local knowledge and local experiences in efforts to mitigate drought impacts, the participants agreed that not enough was being done. European members and state representatives noted that the onus lies with governments to set the agenda and mitigation plans around droughts at a national level. African governments were urged to develop other plans and incentives to address drought at a national level.

The members of the African Union argued that the introduction of a legally binding agreement on drought could catalyse sustainable solutions that could address drought. In response, some European representatives expressed the view that their governments were not in favour of developing a legally binding agreement on drought.

What this side event highlighted was not only the Global North/ Global South divide, but it called attention to agenda setting, and who gets to determine which agenda should receive more political attention and traction. The impacts of drought urgently require decisive action, for Africa and beyond.

If more political attention and traction is needed to respond to the impacts of drought, a legally binding agreement on drought could contribute renewed momentum. The UNCCD is celebrating 30 years of existence in 2024, and this is the opportune time to reconsider its work on drought, given that Africa and the Global South will not achieve the SDGs that relate to or are impacted on by drought.

In 2023 EMG participated in a process with other Southern Hemisphere civil society organisations to advocate for developing world concerns being centered in Just Transition implementation.

The process was facilited by Solidar, with the support of the Olof Palme Centre and IFWEA.

The process noted numerous issues that need to be addressed within the European Green Deal (EGD) initiated by the EU.

The main weaknesses of the EGD were identified as:

• Lack of targeted finance to the stakeholders in a weaker position
• Lack of teeth for implementing a truly just transition
• Lack of integration between internal and external policies, especially trade, leading to excessive spillover effects
• Lack of consideration for the concept and principles of Fair Trade, as a driver of sustainable development changes
• Lack of underlying transformation of the current economic model and of the drivers of overconsumption

The demands for change centred on the following:

1.   Reforming the Global Financial Architecture

Access to high-quality, affordable, and long-term financing from both official and private sources is critical for giving partner countries the chance to implement climate mitigation and adaptation, boost their efforts to reverse biodiversity loss and increase progress in social outcomes.

2.  A concrete strategy and binding work plan to achieve a Just Transition

The current Just Transition measures applied in the EGD (mostly of a financial nature) need to be complemented with new measures such as transforming the economy in a fair and inclusive manner to ensure the maintenance and creation of good quality jobs and the safeguarding of universal social protection systems. –       .

3. A policy coherence for sustainable development with a deep reform of the EU Trade policy and a major political focus on reducing the spillover effects

The EGD does not contribute to Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development (PCSD) as the impact of the European green transition on partner countries is only partly addressed and the EU trade policy has been left unreformed after the advent of the EGD. Like other wealthy countries and regions, the EU generates large externalities (or spillover effects) due notably to unsustainable consumption and supply chains.

4. Mainstreaming Fair Trade practices to advance sustainable production, consumption and business governance

The Commission must adopt a new Communication on Fair Trade to show the growing relevance of FT in terms of EU public policies and to further expand it through binding legislative measures:

5. Turning the Green Deal into a driver of change of the EU economic model

Economic growth is at the core of the EGD, with the EU going as far as presenting it as “a new growth strategy”. This comes despite the mounting evidence showing that it is not economic growth per se that creates jobs, ensures wellbeing, or reduces poverty but rather the overall mix of government policies which together determine whether the economy supports progress for all people while preserving the environment and addressing climate change.

EMG have also supported the newly formed Global Just Transition Working Group, that aims to build international solidarity and collaboration around the Just Transition.