CHAPTER 5 UNDERSTANDINGS OF BEACH WATER QUALITY AND THE
5.3.2 The Blue Flag Programme as an approach to sea water quality management
In Durban’s recent history, the BFP has been officially adopted, at a municipal scale, to manage beach water quality for two periods: from 2001 to 2008; and from 2013 to the time of the study (Fig.3.4). Water quality management is a central element of this approach (Appendix A) (FEE, 2014). While much of the knowledge underpinning this approach is available in the literature and online through the Blue Flag webpage (www.blueflag.org), an analysis of data collected in this study from interviews and newspapers is reveals the public perception and understanding of the BFP and its knowledge base.
Across the board, all participants were able to articulate at least a partial understanding of the BFP and the foundational knowledge supporting the programme. This can potentially be attributed to two reasons:
1. A purposive sampling technique targeted participants assumed to have knowledge of the BFP, either through their participation in the decision-making around eThekwini’s involvement, or by being involved in the coastal zone in eThekwini, either professionally, politically, or recreationally (i.e. surfers); and
84
2. The highly publicised nature of the debate around eThekwini’s association with the BFP imparted enough knowledge regarding the BFP for most participants to have an understanding of this management system.
A thematic analysis of primary data collected in interviews reveals a number of patterns in participants’ understanding of the BFP and the knowledge used to inform both its establishment and sustainability as a beach management and water quality monitoring approach. These patterns are identified as a number of discourses that have varying degrees of dominance and influence. These discourses are: the ‘Blue Flag beaches for Tourism’ discourse; the
‘international credibility’ discourse; the ‘politically independent programme’ discourse; and the ‘holistic or broad’ discourse (Fig. 5.1), all of which are used by different stakeholders supporting and arguing for the BFP’s use.
Figure 5.1. Discourses related to the Blue Flag Programme knowledge base
The ‘Blue Flag beaches for tourism’ discourse
The ‘tourism’ motivation for wanting to attain Blue Flag accreditation for beaches emerged as a dominant discourse. All knowledge holders who participated in interviews, including eThekwini officials who rejected the management imperatives of the approach, expressed an understanding of this component of the knowledge base (Breetzke 13/10/2014; Carnie 01/10/2014; Chrystal, 07/10/2014; Datadin, 17/10/2004; Jackson, 16/10/2014; Jones, 23/09/2014; Kelly, 01/11/2014; Larmont, 30/09/2014; Pullan, 03/10/2014; Respondent C, 09/10/2014; Respondent D, 17/10/2014; Sutcliffe, 03/11/2014). According to Weerts (28/10/2014), tourism is not the only motivation for attaining accreditation but it is definitely
“the low hanging fruit” because tourism can theoretically support an industry and drive local economic development in a municipality, especially where there is a need for poverty
Bl ue Fl ag Pr og ramme
'Blue Flag beaches for tourism' 'International credibility'
'Politically independent' ' Holistic and broad scope of the
Blue Flag Programme'
85
alleviation and job creation in a developing country (Kaplan, 2004; Maharaj et al., 2006; Nel et al., 2003). The importance of the tourism value of the BFP leads to this being the discourse dominating the debate about the importance of the BFP as a beach management programme.
Alison Kelly, former coordinator of the Blue Flag SA Programme, expressed an acute awareness of the tourism value of Blue Flag accreditation, arguing that “a main motivation of having a Blue Flag is the amount of money generated by visitors” (Kelly, 01/11/2014), a claim substantiated by reference to an economic assessment of a Blue Flag beach at Margate, on KZN’s south coast, which suggested that a Blue Flag beach is worth as much as R100 million a year to a coastal municipality (Nahman & Rigby, 2008). In a neoliberal economic context, cities within the same country compete with each other for market share of tourism. Cape Town and Durban are the main competitors in South Africa’s coastal tourism market, a fact alluded to by a number of knowledge holders (Carnie, 01/10/2014; Chrystal, 07/10/2014;
Pullan, 03/10/2014). Analysis of newspaper data suggests that Durban citizens also understood the tourism value of Blue Flag accreditation. John Barton, the chairman of the KZN Growth Coalition argues that:
“ … business is ‘absolutely mystified’ why anyone would not want Durban’s beaches to have Blue Flag status … other beaches ‘up the coast’, which would eventually get Blue Flag status, would reap the benefits. Tourist numbers would drop as a result of the loss of the Blue Flag status and Durban beachfront hotels would suffer” (Barton cited in De Boer & Cole, 06/08/08:
3).
Blue Flag accreditation is attractive to international tourists from first world countries in Europe because it is a system of beach management and grading with which they are familiar (Larmont, 30/09/2014; Respondent A, 09/10/2014. For Respondent A (09/10/2014) this is because “foreign tourists inherently feel unsafe about South Africa so when they see a recognisable symbol of safety, such as the Blue Flag, they feel safer”. Expressing his understanding of the marketing power of Blue Flag, Larmont (30/09/2014) cynically argued that:
“… at the end of the day, it is all about money. If you want European tourists to visit then you need to apply the norms and standards that are acceptable for these tourists. Blue flag is seen as primarily tourist marketing tool which
86
equals more money. Money is spent when people feel safe, when there is clean water to swim in. Affirmative action and BBEEE is not important to tourists but Blue Flag is. The socio-political concern is not important to tourists”.
Pullan, (cited in Nair, 29/06/2012: 3), quoted in the popular press, is insistent that Durban is
“the country’s premier beach tourist destination, [and] it is only right that our beaches are measured at international standards”, while Rose (cited in Aberdeen, 14/06/2013: 3) provides an insight into her understanding of the competitive nature of neoliberal economics in her argument that “if popular beaches along the coast, from Cape Town to Kosi Bay, have it [Blue Flag status], then we need it as well. We have to keep up with the Joneses”. Both statements provide insight into the inter-city competition for tourism revenue and the public perception of Durban’s failing ability to attract tourists (De Boer, 02/07/2008).
The international credibility’ discourse
All knowledge holders expressed awareness of the ‘international’ status of the BFP, with most correctly indicating that it was established in Mediterranean Europe (Breetzke, 13/10/2014;
Carnie, 01/10/2014; Datadin, 17/10/2014; Fennessey, 23/10/2014; Jackson, 16/10/2014; Jones, 23/09/2014; Larmont, 30/09/2014; Pullan, 03/10/2014; Respondent D, 17/10/2014). However, very few participants were able to pinpoint France as the country of origin, indicating that the approach was known to most knowledge holders purely because it was perceived as having been “started somewhere in Europe” (Weerts, 28/10/2014) and was therefore an ‘international’
initiative. This point is reiterated by Respondent C (09/10/2014), who, when prompted on his awareness of other beach management approaches, stated that “I’ve only really been interested in the Blue Flag because I know it is international”. For Carnie (01/10/2014) and Jones (23/09/2014), the ‘international’ status of the approach is the source of its credibility and legitimacy; the perceived value and credibility of an internationally accredited approach exists because there is a perception that ‘international’ is preferable to local since the technical experts who hold the requisite codified knowledge are found in the north and in Europe.
The ‘politically independent programme’ discourse
Another component of the BFP highlighted by knowledge holders interviewed in this study relates to the credibility of the approach, which according to many, is also attained through its independence (Pullan, 03/10/2014). The BFP is branded as an eco-label, and accreditation
87
carries with it requirements for ‘independence’ (FEE, 2014). As an NGO, FEE is ‘independent’
from any national government and is therefore administered and run as an ‘independent’
organisation. The BFP, administered by FEE, is argued to be an ‘independent’ approach subject to ‘independent’ auditing. FEE is responsible for setting microbiological parameters for water quality for the BFP (Appendix A presents a full list of the BFP’s criteria) and requires
‘independent’ water quality monitoring and grading in line with these parameters. For some knowledge holders, the ‘independence’ discourse is used to argue for the legitimacy of the tool.
For example, Pullan (03/10/2014) stated that “Blue Flag is an external and independent body [and its] credibility is attained through independence”. Fennessey (23/10/2014) and Carnie (01/10/2014) also noted that objectivity, transparency, and external auditing are critical elements of the approach which are the result of its ‘independence’. External auditing is considered necessary in order to ensure that all elements of what is perceived of as a ‘holistic’
approach are effectively adhered to.
The ‘holistic and broad scope of the Blue Flag Programme’ discourse
The ‘holistic’ nature of the BFP is a further feature argued for by the majority of participants, including Municipal officials. This implies that most participants are aware that there are multiple criteria that must be adhered to in order to obtain accreditation at a given beach site.
For example, Jackson (16/10/2014) expressed a keen understanding of the ‘holistic’ nature of the approach, indicating that “Blue Flag is holistic and focuses on water quality, facilities, [and]
environmental learning [and therefore] water quality is not the sole focus”. A similar level of understanding was communicated by Respondent A (09/10/2014) and Respondent C (09/10/2014) who both expressed their understanding that Blue Flag is an approach that focuses on more than just water quality monitoring. Respondent D (17/10/2014) proposed that it is system that is:
“all encompassing, rather than just how’s the water quality, it is [an]
internationally recognised, holistic management approach, not just focused on what is happening on the beach … it is holistic and tries to get more standardisation and control over how beaches are managed”.
It was also argued that the BFP is ‘holistic’: “the BFP has an environmental education and management focus but it is a holistic programme (Datadin, 17/10/2014). While these particular participants were able to express a full understanding of the ‘holistic’ nature of the BFP, the majority did not have this understanding. It can be inferred however, that for most interview
88
participants, the credibility of the programme is derived through its ‘holistic’ approach to beach management.
In conclusion, participants interviewed in this research used a number of discourses when debating the knowledge base of the BFP and arguing for its credibility as a beach management programme. The discourses reveal the most prominent themes that were expressed in the newspaper articles. A discussion of participants’ understandings of the Municipal Programme’s knowledge base follows.
5.3.3 The Municipal Programme to marine water quality management (2008 to 2013)