International Conference on Implementing Environmental Water Allocations (IEWA) 23 – 26 February 2009
Conference organised by: Cilla Taylor Conferences Port Elizabeth, South Africa
Produced by: Document Transformation Technologies cc
INTEGRATING ENVIRONMENTAL FLOW REQUIREMENTS INTO A STAKEHOLDER DRIVEN CATCHMENT
MANAGEMENT PROCESS
K.M. ROWNTREE S.A. BIRKHOLZ, J.C. BURT and H.E. FOX
Catchment Research Group, Department of Geography, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa; email: [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
ABSTRACT
South Africa's National Water Act (NWA no 36 of 1998) recognizes the need for environmental protection through the ecological Reserve, defined in the Act as the quantity and quality of water required to protect aquatic ecosystems in order to secure ecologically sustainable development through the constrained use of the relevant water resource. Further more the NWA stipulates that the allocation of licenses to new water users, or the granting of increased water use to established water users, can only take place once the the Reserve for the river has been determined and approved by the Minister. This means that water users' needs (beyond those required for basic human needs) take second place behind the environment. Whether or not the inclusion of the ecological Reserve in South Africa's water legislation leads to sustainable use of South Africa's water resources depends on its successful implementation. This in turn depends on the will of both the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF), the implementing agent, and the end water users who need to be convinced of the priority given to environmental needs. In this paper we look at the process of implementing the ecological Reserve in the Kat Valley in the Eastern Cape of South Africa as part of a stakeholder driven process of developing a water allocation plan for the catchment that prioritized participation by water users. The extent to which DWAF and the water users expedited or thwarted the process is examined in the light of national and international calls for local-level participation in water resource management processes.
1. INTRODUCTION
The National Water Act of 1998 (RSA, 1998) and National Water Resource Strategy (NWRS) (DWAF, 2004) are based on the philosophy of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM), that is, managing the water resource so as to balance environmental, social and economic needs (DWAF & WRC, 1996; Gorgens et al., 1998). The Act has two significant components that are relevant to this paper. Firstly, the Act devotes a whole chapter to protection of the water resource through Resource Directed Measures (RDM) and Source Directed Controls (SDC) (RSA,1998, Chapter 3). Secondly it promoted decentralisation of water governance and participation in water management by water users through regional and local water management institutions - Catchment Management Agencies (CMA), Water User Associations (WUA) and Catchment For a (CF).
The purpose of Resource Directed Measures (RDM) is to protect the water resource from over exploitation so as to ensure its sustainability for future generations. In effect this means protecting the river ecosystems that are considered to be part of that resource. The RDM are achieved through specifying a flow regime (the ecological Reserve) that is required to maintain the specified level of ecosystem function, a flow regime that must be left in the river. It therefore represents a constraint on water that can legally be allocated to water users. The Reserve is a space and time-variable quantity that attempts to mirror natural variability. This can be difficult to implement and even more difficult to monitor and police, especially in rural areas where individual users abstract water directly from the river. The RDMs can only be effective if water users themselves respect the Reserve, understand and accept its relevance and agree with the Management Class assigned to the river. Hence water users and other stakeholders need to embrace the RDM process if it is to be successful. Effective implementation of the Reserve is therefore linked to meaningful participation in local water governance by water users in the catchment.
This paper looks at the process of developing the RDM for the Kat River as one component of the Water Research Commission (WRC) driven project “A stakeholder driven process to develop a catchment management plan for the Kat River Valley”. This project built on the continuing work of the Catchment Research Group (CRG) researchers and was carried out jointly between the CRG and the Institute for Water Research (IWR). The IWR and associates were largely responsible for the technical aspects of the Reserve,
while the concerns of the CRG were for stakeholder involvement.
2. ENVIRONMENTAL FLOW REQUIREMENTS FOR THE KAT RIVER – SUMMARY OF THE PROCESS
Instigating environmental flows for the Kat River was a long process that effectively started in 1997 and is still ongoing at the end of 2008. The time-line for the process is outlined in Figure 1. Further details are given by Burt et al. (in press).
Researchers from the Catchment Research Group (CRG) at Rhodes University have been working with various groups in the Kat Valley since 1997, with the aim of building capacity to engage in water resource management practice and to build local water management institutions as required by the National Water Act (Motteux, 2002; Burt et al., in press). In 2000 CRG researchers helped local water users to initiate a catchment forum called the Kat Valley Catchment Forum (KVCF) and to transform the Kat River Irrigation Board into the Kat River Water User Association (KRWUA). Both bodies came into being in 2000. They have very different membership and status. The KVCF is a voluntary forum which has no legal status and is not formally recognised by DWAF. Its membership comes from the more marginalised people who lived in the former homeland of Ciskei, In 1994, when the area was reincorporated into South Africa most people had no legal access to land, they relied on the river for their domestic water and lacked the technical and financial capacity to engage in productive irrigation farming. They were not part of any formal water management structure. Through the KRCF they hoped to give their communities a greater voice. In contrast the KRWUA is recognised as a legal entity by DWAF. It resulted from the transformation of the former Kat River Irrigation Board that controlled the use of water stored in the Kat Dam (Burt et al., in press). The board comprised the white commercial irrigators who farmed in the lower areas of the catchment. Transformation to the KRWUA meant that membership was extended to all water users in the catchment, including not only white commercial farmers, but also black commercial farmers who had managed farms for the Ciskei parastatal Ulimicor, small-holder farmers, domestic water users and the local municipality of Nkonkombe (EC127).
Each of these groups, as well as representatives from the Catchment Forum, is represented on the WUA management committee.
Figure 1. Time line of the Reserve process for the Kat River
After the KRWUA had been given legal status in December 2000 it was envisaged by the CRG that the KRWUA would be required to review water allocations in the valley so that, firstly, productive water use could be extended to those areas that had gone out of production when they were incorporated into the state of Ciskei and, secondly, rural and urban water supply and sanitation could be upgraded. Before any new water developments take place, however, the law requires that the Reserve is determined. In anticipation of DWAF initiating a Reserve study for the Kat, a meeting was held in May 2001 with a wide range of stakeholders from the Kat valley, including local DWAF representatives. It became clear in this meeting that there was need for capacity development around the Reserve at all levels, from CF members upwards to regional DWAF employees. The Catchment Forum members made a specific request for the CRG to run a number of focused workshops with their members so that they could better understand the Reserve. Fourteen workshops were run in different villages throughout the upper Kat. These workshops also gave the CRG the opportunity to learn more about how the village residents valued different resources associated with the Kat River. In December 2001 a CF workshop was held at which the group work-shopped a Management Class for the Kat River as a capacity building exercise.
By 2003 no moves had been made by DWAF to instigate a Reserve study for the Kat as it was not seen to be a priority catchment. In order to move the process forward, one of the Kat commercial farmers put a proposal to the Institute for Water Research at Rhodes University that they should submit a proposal to the WRC (South Africa) for funding to develop a stakeholder driven Catchment Management Plan (CMP) that would include both a Reserve study and a water allocation plan. The Institute for Water Research (IWR), together with the consultancy group Water for Africa (previously IWR Source to Sea), had a good record of carrying out Reserve studies on behalf of DWAF for rivers throughout South Africa. The WRC agreed to fund the three year project ‘A stakeholder driven process to develop a catchment management plan for the Kat River’, starting in March 2004. This project had two main strands - the technical component that focused on the Reserve and a participatory component that focused on stakeholder involvement, capacity building and meeting the needs of different water users through a process of negotiation. The technical Reserve study ran through 2005. The results were disseminated to stakeholders and incorporated into the negotiation process through 2006 and the final recommendation was sent to DWAF in January 2007. One year later the RDM office of DWAF forwarded their recommendation to the Minister and a workshop on implementing the Reserve was held with Kat water users in August 2008. Despite various delays in the process, the Kat may be one of the first rivers for which the Reserve is officially implemented. The remainder of this paper will highlight some of the main processes and constraints that led to this eventual outcome.
3. THE TECHNICAL RESERVE STUDY
The process of recommending the Ecological Management Class and the Reserve for the Kat was a technical exercise carried out by specialists, many of whom had little to no connection with the people in the Kat Valley. The only exception was Professor Rowntree who acted as the geomorphological specialist.
Although the project’s social facilitation team were invited to attend site visits so as to get a better idea of the procedure, time and cost constraints hindered the integration of catchment stakeholders into the process at this stage.
The Kat River Reserve Determination study was carried out by Water for Africa who undertook to determine the Ecological Water Requirements (EWR). The main stem of the Kat River below the Kat Dam was divided into three resource units represented by the sites EWR1-3 (Figure 2). An Intermediate Reserve study was carried out for each of these sites. A desk-top study was carried out for a fourth site (EWR4) located on the Balfour tributary. The three sites EWR1-3 represent the different biophysical and socio-economic divisions of the catchment. EWR1 represented an area that has a relatively high rainfall (MAP 600 mm), has perennial flow under natural conditions and comprises part of the area that was incorporated into Ciskei. Although much of the riparian land had been scheduled prior to 1980, most of irrigation infrastructure fell into disrepair after being abandoned by white commercial farmers. EWR2 lies lower down the catchment where the rainfall is lower. Citrus is the main irrigated crop grown in this area which comprises a mix of white commercial farms and farms that were taken over by the Ciskei parastatal Ulimicor, managed by black managers who in 1998 took ownership. EWR3 represents the lower section of the catchment which is the most arid (MAP c.300 mm) and probably experienced very low to no flow on occasions under natural conditions. It is farmed largely by white commercial citrus farmers. Reliance on the river for goods and services other than irrigation water is greatest in the area represented by EWR1. People living in this area have a high dependence on river resources, including the direct use of river water for domestic needs.
A summary of the results of the Reserve determination is shown in Table 1; full details are given in Louw &
Koekemoer (2006). The Recommended Ecological Category (REC) is highest in the upper resource unit (B) and declines downstream. The percentage requirement for the Reserve reflects this declining status and the naturally lower flows downstream. The ecological importance and sensitivity (EIS) of the Kat River in quaternary catchment Q94B (EWR site 1) was considered to be high, due to various criteria that included:
Figure 2. The Kat River catchment. EWR sites and demarcated Water User Association (WUA) voting regions. The voting regions represent different socio-political groupings (Upper Kat - predominantly former
Ciskei, Middle Kat - white commercial scheduled farmers, Lower Kat - white commercial unscheduled farmers).
• The presence of the threatened fish species Sandelia Bainsii and the possible presence of the Cape parrot, for which the river corridor forms a migration route
• The marginal and instream vegetation are in a good condition;
• The presence of a high diversity of habitat types.
A yield analysis was carried out as described by Mallory and Hughes (2005). This study was required to show whether or not the ecological Reserve requirements could be met and whether there was surplus water available for further allocation to water users. From a historical yield analysis of the system it was concluded that under the current operating conditions there is surplus yield of 9.5 million m3/a available from the Kat River Dam, once current irrigation needs are satisfied. This would enable most of the formerly scheduled land in the upper Kat to be brought back into production.
Table 1. Recommended Reserve for the Kat River as forwarded to the Minister
Location
Resource class (Recommended Ecological Category)
Natural MAR
(million m3/annum) % MAR
EWR1 (Q94B) B 26.43 34.18
EWR2 (Q94D) C 47.40 31.1
EWR3 (Q94F) C 65.17 27.1
4. BRINGING LOCAL WATER USERS INTO THE RESERVE PROCESS
Previous work with the KRCF had aimed to develop an understanding of the ecological Reserve and to identify the environmental goods and services that were provided to catchment residents by the Kat River and which the Reserve aims to protect (Burt et al. in press). The 2001 workshops were in response to the formalisation of the WUA as a body with legal status in December 2000 and the anticipation that the Reserve would be determined at an early date in order to allow the WUA to move forward in the water allocation process. The Reserve was only determined in 2005, so although awareness around the Reserve had been raised with water users in the Upper Kat, it was necessary to revisit the process. A review of previous work on environmental goods and services was completed and a repeat series of workshops carried out to raise awareness and capture environmental goods and services that were perceived as important by catchment residents (Fox, 2006). This exercise was followed by a workshop with a wide range of stakeholders from within and outside the catchment which had the aim of developing a consensus vision that could guide the Minster’s decision regarding the Management Class for the Kat River. The report from this workshop was sent to the RDM office of DWAF together with the report from the Reserve study.
Survey of Goods and Services
The people living in the upper parts of the Kat River and its tributaries are those who are most dependent on the goods and services provided by the river ecosystem (Fox 2003, 2005). Lower down the catchment commercial agriculture and urban development increase and the water itself becomes the main economic resource. The research on goods and services therefore focused primarily on the needs of people living in the Upper Kat (Figure 2). Nonetheless it was recognized that commercial farmers and urban dwellers also have connections to the river ecosystems so a smaller sample of water users in the Middle and Lower Kat (Figure 2) was included in the survey. The research used two approaches. The first was based on a review of reports of previous research in the Kat Valley. The second was field research in the Kat Valley that aimed to gather further information on river related ecosystem goods and services and to help people relate this to the need for water resource protection.
The survey showed that local people use the river for a wide variety of resources. The water in the river is essential for washing, drinking, irrigation and livestock. It is an important place to collect fuel wood, harvest cultural species, wild fruits, building materials (including reeds), medicinal plants and fish. Many of the plants also have forage value. Local resource users use a range of non-living resources including gravel, sand, clay and stones for a variety of uses such as building. The river has a high cultural value as seen especially in the spiritual importance of sacred pools. Figure 3 shows the relative importance of different resources from the river identified by workshop participants from the upper Kat.
Informants saw many positive effects of a healthy river. The most important one is the good quality water that it provides, especially as most of the villagers don’t have easy access to taps. As one informant stated, their lives and children’s lives are therefore not at risk if the river is healthy. The second benefit identified by informants is their physical health and they also feel happy. They also believe that there are economic benefits as it will attract tourists to the area. The animals and fish that rely on a healthy river will increase and, lastly, it becomes easier to wash clothes as stains will not be left on them.
Informants mentioned many negative affects that occur because of a degraded river. The most commonly mentioned effect is the prevalence of water borne diseases such as cholera, diarrhoea and rashes that results from the poor water quality. Related to this a big concern was the risk to their health. Somebody stated that if there were no alternatives people would start dying. Another impact related to their culture is that the ancestors would leave a degraded river which has negative ripple effects on their health and well being. In addition, because the river is unattractive, informants lose interest in the river, both to visit it and also to care for it. As two informants stated, people do whatever they want. Consequently, if the river is already degraded and an animal dies in it, there is little incentive to remove it. Cultivation practices are also affected because the poor water quality affects crop production and consequently people are less inclined to plant crops. Plants and animals, including livestock, are also negatively impacted.
The survey also sought to find out what class of river was desired by local residents. In general there was a strong desire for a high quality river that would continue to provide clean water and resources with value to households. Although it was apparent that many of the group’s responses showed an understanding that the availability of different resources is linked to resource quality, in terms of both flow and water quality, there was also some conflation between ecological and social values. Informants saw the river and associated ecosystem services as being important to their cultural and economic well being, but they did not always understand the difference between the present ecosystem and the natural ecosystem. Some of the available goods are only there because the ecosystem is changed from natural (increased sand, bamboo, plantations, possibly some fish species). This means that a river that offers the most goods (but possible not the most services) may be a moderately impacted river.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Cape willow wild spinach umsolo sacred pools ipereipse trees thatching grass umhlonyane reeds fuel wood bamboo fish sand water
score
Figure 3. The fourteen most important resources identified by workshop participants. Umhloyane, ipereipse and umsolo are medicinal herbs.
In conclusion, a healthy river was defined by local Xhosa people as one that has flowing, clean, good quality water, healthy vegetation, many useful and accessible resources and is protected. A healthy river has many positive effects that benefit the community. In comparison, a degraded river is unfenced, has dirty, poor quality water that carries disease, low flows, and little vegetation. This kind of river has many negative features that affect their spiritual, cultural, emotional and physical well being. This, coupled with the fact that the local rural Xhosa’s livelihoods are strongly dependent on many useful resources that are obtained from the river, helps one understand why the villagers would prefer a high class river. In addition, many of the resources have cultural and spiritual values and are thus harder to substitute if they were to diminish because of a degraded river.
Respondents from other parts of the catchment, including the tourism sector, the municipality and white commercial farmers, also expressed a desire for a river that maintained a high degree of naturalness, but recognised that this may be unrealistic given the heavy water use for irrigation.
Finding a Common Catchment Vision
Finding a common vision for managing a catchment and its water resources is an important step in achieving a sustainable long term catchment management plan. A vision of the Kat catchment was needed, firstly, to guide the KRWUA committee in developing a catchment management plan for the Kat Catchment and, secondly, to assist the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry in deciding on the Management Class of the river in a way that benefits all users as well as the river. Although determination of the ecological Reserve is largely a technical exercise carried out by specialists external to the catchment, the final decision on the Management Class needs to take account of the needs of people who use the river and its water. Where local residents are strongly dependent on ecosystem goods and services there is a greater justification for a high level of environmental protection. Previous research in the catchment (Burt et al. in press; Fox, 2006) confirmed the high value put on the river ecosystem by local people. Furthermore, if the environmental flows that constitute the Reserve are to be effective in protecting the environment, it is important that water users understand the purpose of the Reserve, how it relates to protection of resources on which they depend, and the possible impacts that it might have on water allocation.
By the middle of 2006 a decision concerning the Management Class for the Kat was deemed to be imminent because the findings of the technical ecological Reserve study had been submitted to DWAF. Whatever class was decided for the Kat would impact the quantity of water available to be allocated to users. It was therefore important that water users understood the relationship between the Reserve and protection of the water resource and its implications for their catchment vision. With this in mind, a workshop was held to which a wide range of stakeholders both from within and without the catchment were invited. The workshop, entitled Finding our Vision for the Kat Catchment, was held on the 31st August 2006 at the Katberg Hotel, who provided their conference venue at a greatly reduced cost. The workshop was hosted by the CRG from
Rhodes University and the KRWUA and facilitated with the help of Spirals Trust.
The visioning process took place in two stages, a Catchment Forum workshop and the broader stakeholder workshop. Once an agreement had been reached with the KRWUA about the need for a catchment-wide workshop, the Catchment Forum was approached to see if they would like their own workshop prior to the main meeting. The aim of this workshop was to give the forum members an opportunity to prepare for the main workshop so that they could make a more meaningful contribution. This workshop was held on 2nd August 2006. Forum members nominated eight members to attend the broad stakeholder Visioning workshop to represent their vision. The Katberg workshop was attended by a wide range of stakeholders representing different water users, the Nkonkombe Municipality, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (National Office), but not the regional office of DWAF. The workshop focused on developing a vision that balanced the environmental, social and economic needs of the Kat Catchment.
The Catchment Forum Workshop
A preparatory workshop was held with the Catchment Forum (KRCF) for the following three reasons. Firstly, research into multi-stakeholder platforms has identified the need to provide additional assistance to certain groups before they become involved in broader stakeholder meetings (Burt J, et al., 2006). Secondly, the KRCF consists of representatives of some eighteen villages in the catchment. As the people in these villages are by far the most economically disadvantaged in the catchment, it was important to give the KVCF the opportunity to think about and develop a vision that responds to the direct needs of these villages. Lastly, if all KRCF representatives from all eighteen villages had attended the main Visioning workshop, they would have overwhelmed proceedings. For this reason the CRG asked the KVCF to nominate a few well informed representatives with the mandate to represent the forum at the workshop and to take the KRCF’s vision with them.
BOX 1
Vision statement of the Kat River Catchment Forum
We, the Kat River communities, acknowledge that the Kat River environment is our wealth. Our social, economic and cultural life depends on it. To make sure that we keep this environment healthy we took a decision that every member of the community participate in making sure that it is protected for us and for the future generations.
The preparatory workshop was attended by eighteen participants from eleven villages in the Kat valley. The workshop focused on developing a vision that brought together concerns around social, economic and environmental issues. The first part of the meeting was therefore set aside for feedback on the ecological Reserve and environmental goods and services. Participants were then divided into three groups, each group being asked to come up with a vision for the catchment that related to a different aspect of IWRM:
social, economic and environmental. These three visions were then considered together to come up with an integrated vision (Box 1). This vision shows a clear concern for protecting the river resource, and an acknowledgement that this was the responsibility of the local community.
Environmental concerns were brought out clearly in the visioning exercises. There was also a strong promotion of developments that would increase the well-being of the community - hospitals, improved nutrition and access to clean water were prioritised. Agricultural activities that would lead to local industry were also seen as important. Tourism was recognised as a key economic activity from which more people could benefit. Upgrading roads and transport facilities were seen as fundamental to supporting all these developments.
All workshop participants actively engaged in the activities and discussions. Eight delegates were elected who would be given transport to the Katberg Visioning workshop; others were invited to attend, but they would have to make their own way there. Twelve KRCF members actually attended, indicating the strong commitment of this group to being involved in catchment management activities.
The Katberg Visioning workshop
The Katberg Visioning workshop was open to all water users from the Kat and other people who had concerns about catchment management issues. Up to this point we had worked closely with the KRWUA management committee on developing the catchment management plan through the WRC project, and with the KVCF through other research projects. The Katberg workshop was an opportunity to bring together a wider stakeholder group, to inform them of the project activities and to get their active involvement.
Invitations were sent to all identified water users on the KRWUA database via the post, email and by dropping off invitations in most village in the Kat Valley, at the Department of Agriculture’s office in Balfour and at the local municipality in the town of Fort Beaufort. Both English and Xhosa versions were distributed.
It was decided not to advertise through the newspaper or local radio. Funds were limited and previous research had shown that putting an advert in a newspaper will not necessarily ensure broad public participation (See Burt et al., 2006). Participants often do not understand why they should be involved or the purpose of their involvement. It was thought that money would be more effectively spent by making personal contacts with people and distributing invitations at key localities.
A number of key water user groups who had not yet been actively involved in the process were identified: the Municipality, Doubledrift Nature Reserve and the Manager of a Heritage/Tourist initiative. These groups were approached directly by a CRG researcher, who organised a personal interview, introduced the project to them, explained the purpose of the workshop and gave people the opportunity to ask questions about the KRWUA and the project as a whole. Through this exercise the local Councilor from the IDP office attended the workshop; although the other two people could not attend they had been made aware of the process.
The manager from Double Drift Nature Reserve attended the Reserve Implementation workshop at a later date.
As with all workshops in the Kat Valley, a key logistical problem was providing transport for participants who did not have personal funds to pay for a taxi. For this reason it was agreed to provide transport only for those eight KRCF delegates who had been chosen at the KRCF workshop. Local farmers provided additional transport.
An agenda was planned that would include both informative presentations and activities that would help the participants to understand important concepts, would facilitate interaction between the different water users and give them the space to develop their own vision for the catchment. The resulting vision for the catchment was a reflection of the participants’ concerns with respect to environmental, economic and social needs.
There was a prevailing sense that social concerns were a high priority, that economic activities that provide employment support social welfare and that a healthy environment was not only important to those people living in the Kat directly dependent on river resources, but also as the support base for tourism, an income and employment generating activity. The final vision can be seen in Box 2. The vision developed through these workshops was later used as a basis for negotiating water allocation principles. The vision report was also forwarded to the RDM office of DWAF as part of the Reserve documentation.
BOX 2
Vision statement from the broad stakeholder workshop (Kat River WUA, Kat River CF members and other stakeholders)
Our vision is to maximize sustainable agricultural development and tourism towards wealth creation and health for all, while at the same time striving to maintain and improve the ecological integrity of the catchment. A managed catchment will lead to a better environment for sustainable social and economic development. "Health, wealth and wisdom"
5. IMPLEMENTING THE RESERVE
Reserve documentation was prepared by the RDM office of DWAF and forwarded to the relevant authority in January 2008. Water for Africa were appointed by DWAF as the responsible agent to implement the Reserve in the Kat. A workshop was held with KRWUA members and other local stakeholders, including a representative from the regional DWAF office, in August 2008. The CRG were invited to facilitate this meeting. The workshop had two aims. The first was to inform water users in the Kat River about Reserve implementation in the Kat Catchment. Topics discussed included water use, water availability, Ecological Flow Requirements and possible models for implementation. The second was to discuss concerns and confirm information about present water use and possible future water allocations.
The Reserve implementation process is based on the notion that the Reserve is part of an overall management plan that integrates the Reserve with the needs of other water users. Operating rules for water allocations are developed that comprise a set of guidelines that control water use in times of shortfall. These rules are expressed as curves that consider the effects of a shortfall on different users in terms of their health, social well being and economics. An example is given in Figure 4. A set of operational rule curves for the Kat River were developed by the workshop participants. These rules will be incorporated into the model for operating water releases from the dam. The aim is to train a local water user to run this model so that decision making rests with the local community.
QuickTime™ and a decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Figure 4. Example of operating curves (provided by Stephen Mallory, Water for Africa)
6. REFLECTION ON THE PROCESS
South Africa’s water legislation represents a brave attempt to protect water related ecosystems, but there has been slow progress in implementing the policies and new water management structures due to lack of clear guidelines as to how to turn policy and the law into practice on the one hand and lack of capacity at all levels of management or governance. In particular regional managers struggle to put the act into practice.
Our experience in the Kat was that there is much good will among water users encouraging them to respect the various aspects of the law, but frustration due to the lack of clarity and obfuscation that has resulted in long delays in implementation. There was often a lack of guidance from regional DWAF officials because they themselves were working in a rapidly changing implementation environment. This is well illustrated by the process of determining and implementing the Reserve. Eight years after the KRWUA was gazetted, the Reserve is in its final stages of implement. Despite this long process, the Kat Reserve is only the third in the country to reach the stage of implementation.
Will the Reserve be an effective means of protecting the water resource of the Kat? A number of factors suggest a positive outcome. Firstly the Kat is still an open system with some surplus water, so at least for the immediate future the Reserve will not overly restrict water use. Secondly, there is a significant proportion of the catchment’s population who rely on the river for a range of resources, and for whom the river has a strong cultural significance. Through its work with the KRCF that has been ongoing since 1997, the CRG has stressed the link between the ecological Reserve and the protection of these resources. The group’s experience with the KRCF is that it is a forum that holds a strong concern for the environment and has developed a good appreciation of the inter-linked nature of river resources and the interdependence between environmental, social and economic factors. Thirdly, the KRWUA does have the capacity to play a significant role in local water management. Its membership encompasses most water user groups in the catchment, most of whom are represented on its management committee. The management committee at least has a working understanding of the Reserve and its implications for water use. Awareness has also been raised among other water users in the catchment through activities such as the Vision workshop.
The Kat experience demonstrates that it is possible to bring local water users into water governance, including the implementation of the Reserve, but it has been a long process which has involved considerable commitment from researchers to promoting an ethic of participation, considerable funding from the WRC and an openness to embrace the process by the residents of the catchment. Without all these components success would have been unlikely.
7. REFERENCES
Burt, C.A., McMaster, A. and Rowntree, K.M. and Berold, R. (in press) “Local institutions for water governance: The development of a Water User Association and a Catchment Forum in the Kat River Valley, Eastern Cape.” WRC Project no. K8/673
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) & Water Research Commission (WRC) (1996) The
Philosophy and Practice of Integrated Catchment Management: Implications for Water Resource Management in South Africa. Water Research Commission report no. TT 81/96. Pretoria.
DWAF (2004) “National Water Resource Strategy.” Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Republic of South Africa, Pretoria.
Gorgens, A., Pegram, G., Uys, M., Grobicki, A., Loots, L., Tanner, A. & Bengu, R. (1998) Guidelines for Catchment Management to achieve Integrated Water Resources Management in South Africa. Water Research Commission. Report No. KV 108/98. Pretoria.
Fox, H.E. (2002) “A comparative cultural valuation of three rural landscapes in the Eastern Cape, South Africa.” Unpublished report, Environmental Science Department, Rhodes University, Grahamstown.
Fox, H.E. (2005) “The role of anthropogenic disturbance in the creation of a socio-ecological landscape.”
Unpublished MSc Thesis, Rhodes University, Grahamstown.
Fox, H.E. (2006) “Environmental goods and services of the Kat River”. Unpublished report, Catchment Research Group, Rhodes University
Louw, D. and Keokemoer, S. (2006) “Kat River Determination Study - Technical Component.
Ecoclassification and Ecological Water Requirement report: Final Draft.” Unpublished report to the Water Research Commission, Institute for Water Research, Rhodes University, Grahamstown.
Mallory, S. and Hughes, D. ( 2005) “Yield Analysis of the Kat River, Eastern Cape.” Unpublished report to the Water Research Commission, Institute of Water Research. Rhodes University. Grahamstown.
Motteux, N.M.G. (2002) Evaluating people-environment relationships: developing appropriate research methodologies for sustainable management and rehabilitation of riverine areas by communities in the Kat River Valley, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. Unpublished doctorate thesis. Rhodes University.
RSA (1998) “The National Water Act no 36 of 1998”. Government Gazette 19182, Government Printer, Republic of South Africa, Pretoria.
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author wish to acknowledge the support of the Water Research Commission who provided encouragement and funded the research discussed in this paper. We would also like to thank the various stakeholders in the Kat Valley who have worked with us for so many years. The Institute for Water Research and Geography Department at Rhodes University have provided logistical and administrative support.
A number of other researchers have also been part of the process. We acknowledge in particular the contributions of Mr Monde Ntshudu (Rhodes University), Dr Stefano Farolfi (Pretoria University), Ms Hlengiwe Gumede (Rhodes University), Mr Paul Vanderford (University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point), Ms Helen Brown (Sheffield University).
BIOGRAPHY
Professor Kate Rowntree was educated in the United Kingdom and received her PhD in 1998 through the Department of Civil Engineering at Strathclyde University. She lectured for six years at Kenyatta University College, near Nairobi, before joining the Geography Department at Rhodes University in 1986. Since then she has taught and researched a wide range of topics associated with water and land degradation. As Director of the Catchment Research Group, she has been project leader on a number of Water Research Commission projects concerned with applied geomorphology and catchment management and has acted as the specialist geomorphologist for a number of ecological Reserve studies. A key focus of a number of these WRC projects has been capacity building for water governance by local water users.