South Africa is divided into 19 separate Water Management Areas (WMAs) for water management purposes by DWAF. The Mhlatuze catchment (Appendix 1) forms part of WMA 6 (Usutu to Mhlatuze WMA) which is situated in KwaZulu-Natal (DWAF, 2003) and falls under the uMhlatuze
Figure 3: Value Chain Analysis Methods (sourced from Roduner, 2005; 13)
Legend to Figure 3:
VCA: In depth Value Chain Analysis SSA: Sub-sector Analysis
RMA: (Participatory) rapid market
appraisal
AR: Action research / R&D
LBC: Local Business support Centres
42 Municipality. In the CSIR-Environmentek report (2005), DWAF has identified the Mhlatuze
catchment to be one of the first catchments to implement a CMA in order to integrate and devolve strategic water resource management to stakeholder level in the catchment. The main land uses in the Mhlatuze catchment are forestry (15.5%), commercial agriculture (14%), other (including industries and mining) (46%), rural settlements (19.5%) and urban settlement (2.7%) (Claasen et al., 2005). The land use figures indicate that rural settlements account for the second largest land use, highlighting the challenges of reallocation of water resources to address equity and
development issues.
Claasen et al. (2005; 88) state that “about 50 % of the Mhlatuze catchment is communally owned with rural communities only allocated 3-7 percent of water use”, indicating that there is inadequate access to the vital resource. Schreiner and van Koppen (2001) indicate that the primary goal of the government and DWAF is to use the NWA of 1998 to combat poverty through implementation of water allocation mechanisms aimed at promoting efficiency, equitable access and protecting the ecological integrity of the resource through sustainable use.
In the Mhlatuze sub-area, there is sufficient water supply to meet the current demand, although this is due to water transfers from the Tugela catchment, but DWAF (2004a) state that the resource has been over-allocated. The Mhlatuze catchment is classified as “stressed” (DWAF, 2004b), meaning that the supply of water into the catchment (without water transfers from other catchments) is unable to sufficiently meet the increasing demand placed upon the water by high value users downstream in the Empangeni and Richards Bay industrial sectors.
3.3.1 Equity of Resource Access and Population Distribution in Mhlatuze
According to DWAF (2004c) “431 000 people live in the Mhlatuze River Catchment”. The urban population (26%) is distributed mainly in the cities of Empangeni and Richards Bay and the peri- urban and rural populations (74 %) are concentrated around the smaller towns and Traditional Authority Areas of Dube, Khoza, Mkhwanazi North and South, and Zungu-Madlebe. The Mhlatuze Municipality portion of the catchment has a population of 340 000 consisting of 39 000 households, of which about 37 % are rural (Claasen et al, 2005). The distribution of the population settlement patterns and existing infrastructure in the Mhlatuze sub-area can be seen in Appendix 2 (Letty, 2005).
43 3.3.2 Access to Land
There is clearly a pattern of rural and peri urban settlement in the less serviced areas (indicated in Appendix 2, Letty, 2005) and poorer agricultural land (shown in Appendix 5, Letty, 2005). This population distribution pattern is an indication of the previous inequitable resource sharing policies governing land ownership and land use. This is borne out by the fact that, as is shown in Appendix 3, the Traditional Authority Areas are also focused in the rural areas with little infrastructure and little agricultural activity. The Traditional Authorities play an important role in access to land through their control and allocation of the Ingonyama Trust land.
3.3.3 Access to Water Resources
There are few accessible water resources in the Mhlatuze catchment, and when the pattern of rural and peri-urban population settlement is overlayed onto the main water resource map (Appendix 4, Letty 2005 from Connor and Associates, 2005)), there is further evidence of the inequities in resources sharing, namely the lack of settlement in those areas with access to water resources. The majority of river and groundwater resources in the catchment are accessed by commercial farming, occupying the riparian areas of the main rivers and owning the boreholes.
3.3.4 Income Distribution
There is a tendency discernible from the water resource map towards urbanisation around the main economic centres and areas of mining leases, indicating that the main form of income for this portion of the population is gained from employment in mining and industry. In Table 2 (Letty, 2005), which indicates the income brackets for each traditional area and the percentage of
households in each category, the effects inequities in resource sharing can be seen. There are high percentages of households with no income in the tribal authority areas (average of 30.2 % in the whole rural area). Although these areas are classified as rural/peri-urban (Appendix 3, Letty, 2005), there are a “number of very densely populated areas located within the traditional tribal areas”
(Letty, 2005:2). Considering the high percentage of households with no income, and that the biggest percentage of households in rural areas fall within the low income brackets, the low levels of income generation in rural areas is evident. When coupled with the land use maps (Appendix 5) which indicate low levels of agricultural activity in these tribal areas, the results of inequities in resource sharing can be seen.
44 Table 2:Household Income Distribution in Traditional Authority Areas ( Letty, 2005)
Table 3 (Letty, 2005) shows the percentage of economic population in the tribal areas who are employed. This may be evidence of the urban migration from tribal authority areas into the industrial and mining zones, indicating that the main sources of income into the tribal authority areas is employment rather than revenue creation in the rural/peri-urban areas. This does not take into account the self-employed rural population (Letty, 2005)
The majority of the population is settled in areas where it is difficult to access water resources (see appendix 4). The difficulty of access to water resources through geographical situation of the population and the lack of infrastructure in the rural areas makes creating a revenue stream through physical use of resources very difficult within the current socio-economic status of the Mhlatuze catchment.
Table 3: Employment Distribution in Rural Areas (sourced from Letty, 2005) TRADITIONAL
AUTHORITY AREA Percentage of economic population employed
DUBE 45
KHOZA 46
MKHWANAZI NORTH 35
MKHWANAZI SOUTH 57
ZUNGU-MADLEBE 48
The average unemployment rate in the rural populations of the Mhlatuze catchment is over 53 % TRADITIONAL
AUTHORITY
HOUSEHOLD ANNUAL INCOME BRACKETS (R)
No income 0 - 4801 4801 - 9600
9601 – 19200
19200 – 38400
38401 – 76800
76801 –
153600 > 153600
DUBE 33.78 9.58 17.32 19.40 13.41 4.88 1.23 0.41
KHOZA 36.32 7.41 16.23 18.28 13.70 5.81 1.66 0.58
MKHWANAZI NORTH 32.56 5.41 22.42 16.21 12.44 6.49 2.68 1.79
MKHWANAZI SOUTH 22.80 8.30 10.74 13.58 16.39 14.90 9.22 4.08
ZUNGU-MADLEBE 25.58 6.73 16.16 16.74 15.91 11.00 5.39 2.50
45 (Letty, 2005), highlighting the need for alternative revenue streams within the rural areas. The research methods described in the next section are aimed at identifying potential within the water sector for creating alternative revenue, and increasing holistic empowerment, through utilising a flexible allocation mechanism for increasing access to, and use of, water resources.
3.4 Research Methods