This report is the result of an international collaboration between faculty and students from seven universities in three countries -- South Africa, the United States and Madagascar. It began in May 2000 with email correspondence between Nancy Jacobs, a historian at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, USA and Sophia Kisting, a medical doctor at the IHRG in Cape Town. Dr Kisting has been a leader in asbestos activism in South Africa, and Professor Jacobs became aware of asbestos contamination through her research into the history of Kuruman, a former site of crocidolite mining. Lundy Braun, a cancer biologist with experience in breast cancer advocacy, joined them in advising students in this service-learning project. Simphiwe Mbuli, an environmental scientist at Peninsula Technikon in Bellville, contributed his expertise during the research in South Africa. Together, this team of faculty advised the student researchers and worked as volunteers, receiving no extra compensation for their participation in this project.
We do not want to overemphasise the role of faculty: Most of this research in the following report is the work of young people -- university students who are committed to socially relevant research. The American students began writing research proposals and seeking funding in late 2000. At Dr Kisting's suggestion, they based their research projects on different aspects of the 1998 National Asbestos Summit. Our team was impressed at the progressive and holistic proposals adopted by this meeting and agreed to look into their implementation. Thus, our report is loosely conceived as a follow-up to the 1998 Summit, and borrows its structure from the four commissions on rehabilitation, health, regulation and industrial alternatives.
We should stress that we do not consider this report a comprehensive study of asbestos in South Africa. Rather it is an examination of specific areas where we believed we could contribute. One opportunity we identified regarded asbestos contamination in the region surrounding Kuruman, where our research drew upon Professor Jacobs's contacts among previously disadvantaged communities. In writing this report, we were encouraged by many, including the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on Asbestos, to give prominence to voices in these rural villages, and to highlight the experiences and perspectives of people living with the asbestos problem. In part, we thought of ourselves as a conduit, bringing the stories of an often-overlooked area to national attention. We hope that we have represented our informants' concerns appropriately and that this report leads to more discussion between them and other South Africans on ways to address the problem of asbestos.
Imbalances of wealth and power in our global society require us to address the politics of our international collaboration. The American participants in our group did not consider themselves called to "solve South Africa's problems," but to use skills and resources available to them to analyse the situation and to bring attention to solutions -- many already suggested by South Africans. They appreciated the opportunity to learn from, as well as contribute to, South Africans. In turn, the South African participants valued this effort as an equal north-south collaboration and appreciated the opportunity to share their resolve to solve the asbestos problem.
Most of the evidence for this report is drawn from interviews conducted by student researchers in June and July 2001. Unfortunately, because of the pressures of time and busy schedules, it was not possible to interview all of the important stakeholders and officials. Therefore, some critical perspectives and voices are missing from this document. We regret these absences and have noted them in the relevant sections of this report. On issues where we lacked necessary evidence, we have offered a more tentative analysis.
Any evaluation of contemporary South Africa requires a deep understanding of its history. Clearly, the burden of asbestos and the character of asbestos policy are the legacy of the country's inequitable history. The seven years since multiracial elections have provided South Africans with an opportunity to choose a new direction, but there has not been sufficient time to mitigate fully the inequalities, inefficiencies and mistrust enduring from earlier dispensations. This was particularly evident to us in our research in the former homeland of Bophuthatswana. However, at the local, provincial and national levels, we witnessed many officials working assiduously and creatively to improve government services under difficult circumstances. Although we recommend specific improvements, we do not intend to criticise the efforts of people in responsible positions who have been seeking solutions. Rather, we intend to support their efforts, by contributing a useful perspective and new information.
We would like to make one final point on the use of racial terminology in this report. Under the Population Registration Act of 1950, people in South Africa were classified on the basis of their perceived "colour." The main classifications were African/black, coloured, Asian/Indian and white. The effects of apartheid resulted in these "racial" groups being very closely linked to socio-economic status. It is clear in post-apartheid South Africa that these "racial" groups are still very closely linked to the socio-economic status of people. Unfortunately, the legacy of apartheid will remain for some time. Continuities from the past are reflected in disparities in where people live: for example, in rural areas the population is distributed between under-developed villages and their own private farms. The pattern largely reflects historic racial classifications. South Africans in many walks of life are trying to find creative, positive and unifying ways to overcome the legacy of racial classification and the associated socio-economic determinants. Trying to find solutions within the superficial confines of apartheid classification will further perpetuate the problem. Therefore, this report uses the terms "African," "coloured," "Indian," and "white" with reluctance and simply for the purposes of clarification.