Globalizing Integrated Water Resources Management - Springer Link

Water Resour Manage (2008) 22:1241–1257 DOI 10.1007/s11269-007-9223-7

Globalizing Integrated Water Resources Management: A Complicated Option in Southern Africa Claudious Chikozho

Received: 17 November 2006 / Accepted: 22 October 2007 / Published online: 30 November 2007 # Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Abstract There is empirical evidence to show that global water resources management paradigm shifts, guided by neo-liberal principles, have played a significant role in the emergence of the integrated water resources management school of thought. In turn, this school of thought has guided most water sector reforms in Southern Africa. Using case studies from South Africa and Zimbabwe, the paper explores the structural influence of integrated water resources management discourses and mainstream development theories promoted at the global level on developing economies. It further explores the utility of the integrated water resources management framework at the local levels. The paper goes beyond theory and articulates some of the key processes that took place in the Mazowe catchment in Zimbabwe and the Inkomati catchment in South Africa where the water reform programmes were piloted. Some insights on the application of neo-liberal principles in the water sectors of Southern African countries begin to emerge from the paper. Keywords Globalization . Neo-liberalism . Poverty . Stakeholder participation . Institutions . Integrated water resources management

1 Introduction Since the mid 1990s, water sector reform discourses have been gaining more visibility in the Southern African region. Zimbabwe and South Africa completed the process of rewriting their water policy and legislation in 1998. The integrated water resources management (IWRM) framework that has been guiding these water sector reforms stresses, inter alia, comprehensive river basin management, stakeholder participation, treating water as an economic good, water demand management and sustainable use of water resources. At the same time, documents that outline the water sector reforms in Zimbabwe and South Africa emphasize the need to correct historical imbalances in ownership of the means of C. Chikozho (*) Department of Urban Management (UMMP), Ethiopian Civil Service College, P.O. Box 5648, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia e-mail: [email protected]

1242

C. Chikozho

production. They also stress the need to address poverty among the mostly rural communities. This paper explores the concepts of globalization and IWRM in relation to their applicability to the Southern African region. The paper analyzes the key drivers for water sector reform in Southern Africa, the nature and direction of these reforms, the effects that the reforms can have on the institutional set-up and performance of the water sector. Finally, and perhaps more importantly, the paper asks questions relating to the prospects for successful North–South policy transfer as both local and international agencies and actors attempt to transform the water sector in Southern Africa. It is argued in the paper that the real challenge is not constituted in attempts to implement idealized and comprehensive forms of IWRM as defined at the international level. The challenge lies in the formulation of specific programmes and projects designed to address on-the-ground problems in ways that enhance resource sustainability whilst creating more livelihood opportunities for the poor. This is an approach requiring the capacity to ‘think outside the box’ and to question some of the basic assumptions that underpin IWRM thereby generating new ideas (Lankford et al. 2007). This enables the identification or creation of solutions that work in country specific contexts and then developing the confidence to implement them. Thus the paper contributes to the debate on IWRM by proposing an approach that focuses more on the real felt needs of communities at the grassroots level than just accepting principles articulated at the international level as they are. The paper relies on information from published sources, conference presentations, and research papers from various institutions to interrogate the interplay between neo-liberal forces and IWRM in Southern Africa and identify some of the outcomes. The paper also draws lessons of experience from the Inkomati catchment in South Africa and the Mazowe catchment in Zimbabwe to further explore the applicability of IWRM in specific developing country contexts. These water reforms were tried out first in these two catchments before being implemented in the rest of the respective countries. Therefore, these pilot projects provide interesting lessons on the implementation of water sector reforms in Zimbabwe and South Africa. The paper makes use of three key IWRM variables to build a case for water sector reforms that take into account the realities of the socioeconomic circumstances of Southern African communities. These variables are institutional reconfiguration through decentralization processes, ensuring equitable access to water, and increasing stakeholder participation.

2 Globalization and IWRM Discourses Most scholars and development practitioners who have grappled with the task of defining ‘globalization’ and demonstrating its impacts in various countries tend to view it as a pervasive and influential process where technological, economic, ecological, cultural and military trends are extended to the entire globe (Stiglitz 2002; Hurrell and Woods 2000; Galbraith 2002; Wade 2001). The Netherlands Development Assistance Research Council (RAWOO) define globalization as an increase in interconnectedness among nations of the world, a process, the power and momentum of which are derived from growth in market capitalism and technological advances in communication (RAWOO 2000). It is neither possible nor desirable to comprehensively cover ‘globalization’ within the confines of this paper. It suffices to state that while most of the debate on globalization concerns the economic dimension of this complex process, the phenomenon also has social, political, cultural and ecological dimensions.

Globalizing integrated water resources management

1243

The significance of globalization in the context of Southern African water reforms is that the state seems to be losing national control and the ability to determine and implement policies of its own (RAWOO 2000). For a long time, development practitioners and theorists have assumed the independence of governments in making water policy at the national levels. What happened beyond national borders was the domain of foreign policy ministries and diplomats. Clearly, such assumptions are no longer tenable in an environment where the tentacles of globalization and neo-liberalism are reaching far and wide. While the state is still important, its role is presently being redefined in the context of globalization (Lim 2005). Powerful international players such as the World Bank, the Global Water Partnership and some United Nations Agencies have either supported or advocated institutional reforms whose backbone is the IWRM framework. The reforms that ensue drastically alter the relationships between the state, civil society and other factors of production. As the case studies will demonstrate, in Southern Africa, IWRM faces serious complexities on the ground ranging from clashes with existing institutional forms and customary practices to financial and technical capacity difficulties. The envisaged changes have not been easy to realize on the ground and the water management regime has remained largely unchanged. It is crucial for researchers and practitioners to begin to interrogate the appropriateness of IWRM as the dominant water resources governance paradigm in this region.

3 Basic Principles of IWRM The Global Water Partnership (GWP) has provided one of the most widely accepted definitions of IWRM. GWP (2002) defines IWRM as a process which promotes the coordinated use of water, land, and related resources in order to maximize the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems or compromising the availability of these resources to future generations. Cardwell et al. (2006) consider IWRM as a coordinated and goaldirected process for controlling the development and use of river, lake, ocean, wetland, and other water assets. It is an approach that requires consideration of the interactions among different natural resource elements, such as ecology, hydrology, and geomorphology; among different disciplines, such as economics, engineering, and biology, and among different institutions, including district level, provincial, state, and non-governmental (see Fig. 1). A salient point emerging from these aspects is that IWRM can be considered as a desirable process for which practitioners should determine the most relevant goals, focusing integration at local, regional, and national levels. It also provides a very comprehensive and promising framework for sustainable resource management. Cardwell et al. (2006) point out that the use of the term IWRM by the United Nations Development Programme emphasizes a broad perception of water having ecological, natural resources, and social and economic aspects. The emphasis is to enlarge the perception of the role of water; a broader perception of the multiple roles of water resources will thus lead to integration across objectives such as social, economic, and environmental, if not time, institutions and space. As attractive as it is, the IWRM framework has already had its fair share of criticism and controversy based on both theory and practice. For instance, Biswas (2004) criticizes the concept for its vagueness and failure to provide specific programmatic recommendations. Mukhtarov (2006) shares the same view when he points out that IWRM is defined in quite general terms and might be difficult to interpret for practical purposes. Even the definition

1244

C. Chikozho

• Decentralizing water resources management to the catchment as the smallest complete hydrological unit of analysis and management.

• Using a systems approach that recognizes the individual components in a catchment as well as the linkages between them, and that a disturbance at one point in the system will be translated to other parts of the system.

• Full participation by all stakeholders through creation of new institutional arrangements. • Promotion of equitable access and allocation of water resources. Enhancing the role of women and other disadvantaged groups in water management.

• Initiating capacity building programmes for various stakeholder categories. This includes education and • • • • •

awareness-raising about water; information resources for policy making; regulations and compliance; and basic infrastructure. Ensuring availability of information and the capacity to use it to make policy and predict responses e.g. information on hydrological, bio-physical, economic, social and environmental characteristics of a catchment The recognition of water as an economic good: full-cost pricing complemented by targeted subsidies. Creation and maintenance of an enabling environment through appropriate policy and institutional arrangements. Adoption of the best existing technologies and practices. Reliable and sustained financing.

Source: GWP (2002) Fig. 1 Key aspects of IWRM

provided by the GWP does not specify what aspects of management to coordinate. Therefore, while IWRM provides a language to describe river basin management in fairly holistic terms, it does not readily generate the necessary responses to deal with specific problems (see Lankford et al. 2007). A possible explanation for failure of IWRM is that many ideas and policies are being transferred from the international arena long before they have proven themselves empirically, taking various non-intended forms of transfer (see Mukhtarov 2006). In Western countries where success has been achieved, it has been the result of gradual adaptation of existing management activities to tackle real problems such as the setting and monitoring of water quality objectives; the statutory consultations of water managers and local stakeholders on planning applications and regional strategic plans; targeting of investment programs on local priority issues; the issuing and policing of permits or temporary notices to control activities posing a risk to water use; and, the regular development of ostensibly ‘participatory’ integrated catchment management plans (Lankford et al. 2007). Another controversial feature of the IWRM framework is that it urges government to retreat from the frontiers of development planning by reducing the size and costs of its activities in the water sector, deliberately shifting from a supply-orientation to a demanddriven approach, and improving efficiency in water use through application of the user-pays principle (see Derman and Nhira 1997). Policies and legislation are subsequently revised to suit the emerging water governance regime and new catchment-based institutional structures are put in place. But there is sufficient evidence from the Asian Tigers’ experiences demonstrating that national transformation processes can succeed with full involvement of the state (see World Bank 1989; Castells 1992; and Krugman 1992). These countries were far from paragons of laissez-fairism and, instead, were highly dynamic economies in which the states played an active role to ensure high levels of accumulation, technology absorption and conquest of foreign markets (Mkandawire 2001). Closer analysis of the IWRM framework also reveals the negative effects of policy standardization and formulation at the international level, marketing and promotion of policy transfer from the top downwards (Mukhtarov 2006). In this model, a network of international agencies, water experts and professionals collude to redefine the water resources management agenda in ways that promote transfer of neo-liberal oriented water


1245

policy prescriptions across the world. As a result, much of the IWRM decision-making prescriptions tend to ignore the social, cultural and political context, as well as the historical aspects within which these are embedded (Ashton et al. 2006). Efforts to improve water management and allocation may be ineffective or even produce effects opposite from those intended, unless grounded in a good understanding of diverse social and cultural institutions that shape access to water, environment, economic activities, and other conditions (Bruns and Meinzen-Dick 2005). This also means that there is no one best way to improve the water sector in developing countries. The best route to better water management depends on where you are starting from and carefully assessing the options available for improving the situation. Failure to take this into account can easily reap poor results. Currently, one finds that despite widespread acceptance of the principles of IWRM, the reality on the ground remains typically one of business as usual (Moriarty et al. 2004).

4 The Inkomati Water Management Area, South Africa South Africa is a water scarce country with an average rainfall of 450 mm per annum (DWAF 2003). The population is estimated at 48 million of whom 70% reside in rural areas. The country has a history that reflects profound inequities in the distribution of both land and water across different races. Thirteen percent of the population owns 87% of land (Cousins 2000; Moriarty et al. 2004). Gaps in access to water appear even wider. 95% of water for irrigation is primarily used by large-scale commercial farmers, while smallholders have access to the remaining 5% (Versfeld 2003). These inequities have serious implications for the success of the water sector reforms. Thus, the focus of the reform is driven by the need to redress the inequities of previous political dispensations, coupled with the urgent need to ensure that sufficient supplies of wholesome water continue to be made available to meet the rapidly growing needs of communities that are fueled by increased rates of urbanization and industrialization (Basson et al. 1997). As part of the reforms, the country has been divided into 19 water management areas (WMA). The Inkomati WMA is situated in the northeastern part of South Africa (see Fig. 2). According to Pegram and Bofilatos (2005), the Catchment Management Agency (CMA) in South Africa is expected to become the key water resources management body within a highly contested water institutional environment. Irrigated agriculture is the most important economic activity and the main consumer of water in the Inkomati basin (Woodhouse and Hassan 1999). Certain areas in the catchment, such as the Nkomazi region, are considered over-allocated and no more water allocation licenses will be granted (Brown and Woodhouse 2004). Limited water supplies are, therefore, preventing socioeconomic development and the expansion of commercial agriculture and water supplies for disadvantaged communities. This makes water allocation a sensitive and politically charged issue with the result that disputes and conflicts between sectors and users have been increasing in recent years. Such a scenario also provides the appropriate grounds for implementation of IWRM principles that promote multi-stakeholder dialogue processes. After several years of strategizing and stakeholder engagement at the national level, the Inkomati CMA was finally established in March 2004. A Board of 14 people was established composed of representatives from most of the different water user groups and interests in the basin. These included players from the agricultural sector, forestry, mining, industry, tourism, recreational fishing, local and provincial government, traditional leaders, water user associations, water services providers and other interest groups. This representation tries to take into consideration the needs of the relatively

1246

C. Chikozho

Fig. 2 Water management areas in South Africa. Source: Department of Water Affairs and Forestry 1999

marginalized groups in the broader process of water resources planning, utilization and development. The process of establishing the Inkomati CMA has faced several challenges and these provide important lessons for IWRM processes. Brown and Woodhouse (2004) point out that commercial farmers and irrigation boards are in a potentially strong negotiating position to influence the future direction of CMAs because they possess the most detailed knowledge of water use. Debates regarding water pricing for instance have generally been dominated by the better informed commercial farmers while community representatives could not contribute much. For commercial farmers, the important issues focus on how the reform addresses security of tenure for the water in their dams and how the reform affects their investments in agriculture. Rural farmers are interested in first getting water for domestic purposes and then moving on to small-scale irrigation activities. Representatives from networks such as the Mpumalanga African Farmers Union are disempowered because they do not have the capacity to feed information back to their sectors. “How do you expect a person without resources to feedback to people? To feedback to people, you need communication networks....First of all, he has no car, how does he go to places, arrange meetings and call people together?” (Anderson 2005 quoting a member of the Inkomati CMA board). In addition, some representatives attended meetings to obtain the transport compensation or free lunch provided by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF). “Some will actually get to the meeting and from the start of the process up to the end, they never open their mouths to speak. They just go, sit, eat, claim money, and go home. And you wonder if these people actually represent the interests of the communities” (Anderson 2005, quoting a member of the Inkomati CMA


1247

board). It is essential to find ways of levelling the playing field in order for all stakeholders to contribute to the decision-making process. Power dynamics among the different actors should be analyzed in order to gauge the potential imbalances. Getting the right people to effectively represent different sectors is a huge challenge and will only be achieved if resources are placed into expanding the capacity of organizations such as the Mpumalanga African Farmers Union (Pegram and Bofilatos 2005). Additional resources are also required to strengthen water user associations in the region (Geldenhuys 1997). Some of the stakeholders are suffering from ‘participation fatigue’ and may not be willing to attend and participate in more discussions regarding the CMA. Engaging these stakeholders will require additional effort and resources (Anderson 2005). The concept of ‘participation fatigue’ has not yet been widely explored in IWRM discourses and may require further attention. The stakeholders in the Inkomati have participated for over seven years and the amount of direct tangible benefits the previously disadvantaged get from the process is not readily visible. This paper posits that the longer people participate without realizing any tangible benefits, the faster they are likely to grow weary of the participatory process. Despite several years of stakeholder engagement, indications are that public awareness programmes in the Inkomati CMA process were not very effective. In a survey of CMA awareness commissioned by the DWAF and involving ten focus groups with six to eight representatives from black populations, respondents had no knowledge of the CMA (Brown and Woodhouse 2004). Therefore, more resources should be committed to awarenessraising programmes. Getting the diverse parties to effectively represent their constituencies means much more than bringing them to various meetings. It requires special skills to facilitate their participation, to empower and engage them in the discussions. The use of highly technical terms during the stakeholder meetings, for instance, often disempowered stakeholders from poorer less informed backgrounds. “Sometimes they will put figures and calculations on the screen and black communities will go out without understanding anything. Even other communities will go out without understanding anything and then people just get frustrated” (Anderson 2005, quoting a member of the Inkomati CMA board). The meetings often consisted of presentations from consultants and DWAF officials regarding the draft CMA proposal. The meetings did not provide enough opportunity for two-way communication from consultants to stakeholders. One tribal authority member felt that they “did not have permission to speak,” while an emerging commercial farmer complained that “they did not have time to listen to stories....If they come to us they bring their own agenda” (Anderson 2005, quoting a member of the Inkomati CMA board). The important lesson for IWRM is that facilitation of collective action activities in Southern Africa must be sensitive to the background of different stakeholders. There is need to bridge the gap between different cultures. Conventional formal western type of meetings may not meet the needs of all sectors and opportunities must be created to discuss issues in a more informal space lest the process becomes highly abstract, artificial, and of little value to some of the previously disadvantaged groups. Another challenge relates to the need to share vital data and information such as statistics on quantities of available water for allocation in the basin. Lack of transparency on such issues during the Inkomati CMA establishment process created tensions among stakeholders as each sector blamed the other for water scarcity and over-abstractions. Lack of transparency on actual water scarcity in areas such as the Nkomazi district had the potential to engender distrust among the stakeholders. Without trust, collective action can easily fail. In addition, it is important to encourage the representatives to start conceptualizing the

1248

C. Chikozho

basin as a whole and see beyond the small part of the river that they are riparian to in order to make integrated management possible. The water reform documentation for South Africa makes it very clear that the intention to redress past imbalances through new policies and legislation is there. Schreiner and Van Koppen (2001) argue that the 1998 Water Act of South Africa is not only widely recognized as the most comprehensive water law in the world, but also stipulates, clearer than elsewhere, that water is essentially a tool to transform society towards social and environmental justice and poverty eradication. But then the social, economic, and political environment across much of the country does not enjoy quite the same state of readiness for change to match the policy and legislative reconfiguration. There are still huge disparities and inequities amongst previously disadvantaged communities which stifle their participation in processes such as CMA establishment. It will take some time and a lot of resources targeted at capacitating and empowering the previously disadvantaged groups in order for them to meaningfully participate in the CMA establishment process.

5 The Mazowe Catchment, Zimbabwe The water reform process led to the division of Zimbabwe into seven major hydrological zones known as river catchments, including the Mazowe catchment. It lies in the northeastern part of the country and stretches across the border into Mozambique (see Fig. 3). The total area for the Mazowe catchment is about 39,000 km2 which is roughly 10% of the total area of Zimbabwe. When the Mazowe catchment was chosen as one of the pilot catchment planning project areas, its express mandate was to interpret the principles of IWRM, discuss them and contribute to the formulation of new water legislation for the country. In addition, principles essential to the reform were supposed to be converted into specific action plans that would

Fig. 3 Zimbabwe catchments. Source: Hydrology Department, Zimbabwe (2000)


1249

be tried and tested in the Mazowe catchment before they could be replicated elsewhere. This process started in 1996 and by April 1997, the catchment could boast of at least some clearly defined institutional structure that was beginning to operate and spearhead the reforms. The catchment council and sub-catchment councils had already been put in place and were holding meetings every month to discuss the reform process. They also held workshops to publicize and clarify some of the issues pertinent to the reform process. A study carried out in the Mazowe catchment by Chikozho and Latham (2005) found out that about 88% of people in the rural areas are not willing to pay for the water. Their norms, values and customary practices have taught them, over time, that ‘water belongs to God’, a ‘free-for-all’ resource that should not be sold. This has serious implications for the national water policy and legislative reconfiguration. It will be quite difficult to implement the formal water right system in the communal and resettlement areas because the people are used to relying on their own customary informal water use and management practices. Therefore, it is in the rural areas of Zimbabwe where the ‘water is an economic good’ principle (a cornerstone of IWRM) clashes with realities on the ground. Workshops held to discuss water allocation principles in the Mazowe catchment in 1999 amply demonstrated this belief and other challenges. The belief is however, not confined to the Mazowe catchment only, it is a widespread belief among communities of Zimbabwe in other catchments (see Bolding 1997; Chikozho and Latham 2005; Derman and Hellum 2003). The reform programme documents clearly state that water will not be sold because it is a public good vested in the President. Users will only have to bear the costs of waterworks construction and other administrative costs involved. But to the ordinary person in the communal areas, paying for these costs can easily be misconstrued as paying for water because the people do not have the culture of treating water as an economic commodity. This is one cultural dimension of water in Zimbabwe that the reform will have to grapple with before success is attained. For some time, the Mazowe catchment council debated and eventually agreed that the proportional water allocation system was the best for the catchment. They organized workshops to introduce the proposed water allocation system to the communities and other stakeholders as part of the reform program. Insights presented below are from workshops held in the Nyadire and Nyagui sub-catchments in October 1999. Views and feelings presented at these workshops are a general reflection of views expressed by people in the other sub-catchments where similar workshops were held. The duration of the meetings varied between two and three hours. Representatives from the catchment council and the Department of Water Development took turns to explain what the proportional water allocation system meant. At the workshops, participants were a mixed group of white large-scale commercial farmers, catchment and sub-catchment council members, Rural District Council officials, government officials, ordinary members of the public and traditional leaders. Active participation appeared largely skewed in favor of the commercial farmers who seemed to quickly grasp the water allocation system issues raised. The communal farmers’ participation was mainly limited to seeking clarification and trying to understand what their role was supposed to be during the workshop. For commercial farmers, the important issues concerned how the reform would address security of tenure for the water in their dams and how the reform would affect their investments in agriculture. The official response to this was that improved access to storage facilities and proportional re-allocation of water across the board in times of scarcity would ensure ‘a little bit of water for everyone’. All would be equal before the law. The same would apply to water surpluses. These would be shared equitably and all permit holders

1250

C. Chikozho

would gain more water depending on the size of their permit allocations. A participant from the RDC pointed out that the issue of security and storage remained fundamental in all discussions on equity. As far as he was concerned, the proposed system changes nothing because those with dams or money to build dams still have a comparative advantage over those in communal areas who have no hope in hell of ever building one. We may think we are changing the system but we are bringing it back in another way. This is cosmetic change. Now we say those with dams must be given surplus water, where is the change then. (Chikozho and Latham 2005) Other villagers were interested to know who would be responsible for building dams in communal areas and if they would be allowed to store their water in big dams owned by commercial farmers living adjacent to the villages. The answer to this was that individuals would be expected to build storage facilities for themselves rather than waiting for government to do it for them. This response clearly dampened the enthusiasm of communal area farmers present and indicated that perhaps their participation in water allocation discussions was not really relevant. The marked difference between the concerns of commercial farmers was highlighted by some of the communal area representatives who raised concerns with regards to the fundamental right to water for subsistence purposes. They wanted to know whether the reforms would address domestic water requirements particularly in times of scarcity. Would it be possible for them to access water in the dams that belong to commercial farmers so that they counter periods of severe water scarcity? Commercial farmers were eager to impress upon everyone that water on commercial farms was ‘private’ water regardless of the circumstances since the dams belonged to individuals or syndicates of commercial farmers. This is a potential source of conflict that has often emerged in times of drought in the Mazowe catchment and other parts of the country. At the Nyadire sub-catchment workshop, Chiefs present indicated that they were not sure why they were invited to the meeting on this particular day especially given that they had not been formally part of the water reform process right from the beginning. They stated that most people did not know what water permits are all about and that this meeting was the first time that they were being introduced to such issues as well as being asked to participate actively. One of them stated that, “as far as water is concerned, most people follow the ways of their forefathers and are not aware that this or that particular type of water use is illegal” (Chikozho and Latham 2005). The chiefs and headmen in the workshop could not conceptualize and understand the idea that water could be ‘allocated’ and they even found it amusing that anybody could talk about paying for water from the Nyadire River. This was expressed in statements such as: “We cannot share what is flowing, how do we plan or manage what is not there?” With respect to the proportional water allocation system, most of the participants did not see the relevance of discussing sharing of water that they either did not have or did not see. They felt that they could only talk about the small section of the river that they lived riparian to and not discuss water allocation in the whole catchment of the Mazowe which is 39,000 km2 big. They also felt that they could not discuss ‘water allocation’ when they did not have dams in their respective areas to capture and therefore, ‘allocate’ the water. One participant said: We are wasting time discussing what should happen tomorrow when we have nothing and are unlikely to see these plans materializing. How can you buy a maternity dress


1251

for a woman who is not yet pregnant? How can you yoke the bull before the rains come? You should build dams in rural areas first before you can talk about water allocation.(Chikozho and Latham 2005) It became apparent that, to most of the participants, the discussion was too abstract and irrelevant. The polarity between modern water management concepts and traditional worldviews regarding water also became very apparent. The participants did not see the possibility of water conflicts emerging in their area since they have conciliatory dispute resolution mechanisms that they have been using since time immemorial. They also did not agree with the idea that water should be paid for except in certain specific circumstances. One chief stated and the rest of the participants strongly agreed: This water that you want permits for, this water you want us to pay for, who is making it, who is its owner? This water in the Nyadire River has been flowing along the Nyadire River for many centuries, can we really start fighting for it among ourselves now, why would I want a permit for water that is flowing through? (Chikozho and Latham 2005) Given these kinds of sentiments, it will be quite some time before IWRM principles are widely respected in the rural areas of Zimbabwe.

6 IWRM and Rural Poverty in Zimbabwe and South Africa In South Africa, most of the available water resources have already been allocated to sectors like agriculture, mining, industry and urban needs such that there is very little room for further exploitation of the resource. New users have to compete for the available water with well entrenched users. Irrigated agriculture is the key user, taking up 72% of the available resource (Versfeld 2003). The government has been trying its best to provide basic minimum supplies of water to the rural poor and this effort is continuing. But about eight million South Africans still do not have access to safe drinking water. Poverty is concentrated among the designated groups, particularly black Africans. According to a 1999 Household survey, 74% of the poor live in rural areas and 62% of the rural population is poor. The history of water and land ownership in Zimbabwe is almost identical to that of South Africa in the sense that it reflects the deep-seated racial divide between blacks and whites. In Zimbabwe, 4 500 white farmers owned approximately 40% of farming land in 1998 whereas in South Africa, white commercial farmers and corporations continued to own the largest share of farm land (over 75%). Consequently, the broad frameworks for the water and land reform processes initiated in both countries are almost identical. A significant difference, however, relates to the pace of the reforms and the corresponding finer configurations. South Africa launched a slow-moving water reform programme that saw only one CMA being established between 1998 and 2005. Zimbabwe launched a faster water reform process that saw catchment management agencies being established throughout the country within a period of 2 years beginning from 1998. In terms of poverty assessments, by 1995, a Zimbabwean national poverty survey classified 88% of communal people as being poor, with female-headed households having higher prevalence of poverty (CSO 1998). Since that time, poverty has increased in both extent and depth due to the overall decline of the economy. Since 1980, a dominant feature of the Zimbabwean government water policies and programmes in the rural areas has been a focus on community boreholes or deep wells. The water and sanitation programme implemented in the 1980s is often cited as a success case.

1252

C. Chikozho

Although some of the water from the boreholes and wells is used to water small vegetable gardens, there has never been more than a passing interest in providing water for productive uses. Instead, more attention has been paid to the construction of dams and capital-intensive formal irrigation schemes, with water supplied from the dams. Success in these schemes has been limited. While new water legislation promulgated in Zimbabwe and South Africa specifically sought to achieve equitable access to water, it also has related provisions that focus on compulsory licensing. These provisions require all water users to acquire licenses or permits. This enables the government to monitor water allocations and actual use. However, the provisions immediately raise serious questions and tensions regarding informal and small-scale water users. These questions have made licensing one of the most controversial aspects of the water reforms in South Africa and Zimbabwe. For those who already have water allocations in existing private and government irrigation schemes, it is not difficult to see the need to formalize that use. These users already have their hands on the bulk of the available water resources. It is those aspiring to access these water resources who face difficulties because once all available water has been licensed or permitted, it will be difficult to re-allocate it during the life span of a particular license or permit. It becomes difficult to see how the aspiring water user will be accommodated. Another dimension to the controversy concerns the fact that whilst all significant users of water must clearly register and license that use, it is neither possible nor desirable to register each and every water user in the country (Schreiner and Van Koppen 2001). It is also questionable whether licensing serves the cause of poverty alleviation or contradicts it in both South Africa and Zimbabwe. If a small farmer is irrigating 1 ha of land using 9,000 m3, would that farmer need to get a license or permit? The legislation in both countries allows for normal domestic use without getting a license but it remains unclear what constitutes ‘normal domestic use’. Because of the lack of clarity concerning the boundaries of commercial and domestic use, ‘compulsory licensing’ threatens to affect some small-scale productive uses of water at the household level. It is highly unlikely that many villagers will be able to comply with the licensing requirements. It is equally unlikely that the DWAF in South Africa and the Zimbabwe National Water Authority (ZINWA) will be able to enforce the requirements for licensing throughout the country. Enormous amounts of resources will be required to make this a reality. The issue of compulsory licensing is closely linked to the question of taxes and water pricing. The operators involved in establishing water user associations in South Africa are very worried about seeing water taxes being requested soon to small-scale users. Merle and Oudot (2000) highlight that most farmers in South Africa are still subsistence farmers for several reasons including family strategy and off-farm income sources, lack of market opportunities, lack of water, lack of skills, lack of land tenure security. This situation equally applies to the rural farmers of Zimbabwe. As a result most cannot afford to pay for any water. This has to be factored in as the water reform progresses lest the water charges become a disincentive to investments in water by the rural poor. Kirsten et al. (2000) point out that an important component in addressing rural poverty is the process of enabling black South Africans [and Zimbabweans] to become farmers in their own right and be part of the mainstream of the agricultural sector. But making the conditions for access to water more equitable and conducive for everyone (through policies and legislation) cannot, by itself, guarantee access to water for the poorer groups. It can only be one of the important factors that facilitate access to water. It requires a number of special actions which include access to capital, access to arable land, access to storage space for water, and access to essential infrastructure and other farming inputs. All these must be


1253

accessed within a friendly policy environment that facilitates meaningful and sustainable empowerment of the rural poor. With 83% of agricultural land previously in the hands of white farmers in South Africa and the majority of water for irrigated agriculture also controlled by white farmers and white controlled irrigation boards, it is obvious that access to land and water is crucial for reducing the inequality in economic opportunities and is therefore, a key cornerstone for the process of economic empowerment of previously disadvantaged farmers. In Zimbabwe, the water reforms so far have mainly been concerned with water for commercial purposes and not for domestic purposes. It is implied in the reform agenda that domestic water is no longer a priority. With the exception of land, which the people have now been given for free under the land reform programme, most of the necessary support systems for commercial utilization of water have not been a priority in the water reform. Thus, the small-scale and rural farmers already feel that the reform is misdirected in focusing on issues that do not directly mitigate their poverty. Instead, what these poor groups are being asked to do is to basically commit energy and effort into participating in a program that remains highly abstract and theoretical for them. For example, they are asked to grapple with issues such as how to measure water used, water allocation systems, meanannual-runoff, catchment planning and such other technical jargon which is irrelevant to their daily lives and also difficult for them to absorb. The sectoral divide between commercial and domestic water has serious implications in that the reforms are likely to make little sense to rural people who have to walk long distances to fetch water for drinking. Theoretically, the neo-liberal orientation of the principles behind the water sector reforms has led to the emergence of a subtle and disillusioning management–development dichotomy. Thus, the reforms neglect water for domestic purposes at a time when domestic needs should still be a priority for most people in the rural areas of Zimbabwe and South Africa. The question becomes whether or not the priority of the reform should only be limited to the sustainable management of existing water resources instead of developing new sources of water for the poor. For most rural communities in South Africa and Zimbabwe, any water development project needs not be confined to a single purpose. There are recent studies that demonstrate that rural and peri-urban communities can use water for multiple productive purposes to earn an income, such as gardening, field crops, livestock, brick making and so on. Yet in most cases, water sources, uses and users are not well integrated, thereby ignoring much scope for improvements in water use efficiency, livelihoods, and equitable water use (Meinzen-Dick and Van der Hoek 2001; Butterworth et al. 2004). There is an inherent contradiction between the water reform ‘equity’ rhetoric and commercialization of water use. On the one hand, there is widespread agreement that due to historical imbalances, some poorer groups were excluded from commercial use of water and that these historical imbalances must now be redressed. On the other hand, there is new emphasis on treating water as an economic good and cost recovery in water projects. If the commercialization agenda takes precedence, it is likely to act as a disincentive for the small-scale farmers who may not be able to afford the new water prices. As a result, the goal of achieving equity will be missed. There is need to start questioning whether the water reform agenda cannot be readjusted to include some systematic and targeted poverty alleviation projects for people in the rural areas. It would be very naive for anyone to assume that statements of intend regarding equitable access to water coming out of the water reform rhetoric and the reconfiguration of the water sector policies and institutions will be sufficient to enable better access to water for the rural poor when no attention is paid to several other factors of production that make the critical linkage between water use and poverty eradication more meaningful and possible.

1254

C. Chikozho

7 Discussion and Conclusion There are many challenges and complexities that IWRM faces when it comes to implementation and globalization of water reform strategies is an unsuitable bedfellow for implementation of IWRM in Southern Africa. Closing the gap between policy and realities on the ground is essential for success. This cannot be easily achieved through wholesale adoption of neo-liberal policy prescriptions from developed countries. As Shah et al. (2005) point out, the physical, social, institutional and economic conditions characterizing developing countries are totally different than those in the rich temperate zone countries, and also the objectives are usually completely different. Therefore, the ‘onesize-fits-all’ model of IWRM needs to be revisited so that it can be adjusted to suit countryspecific socioeconomic contexts. The case studies demonstrate that the need for new catchment-based institutional structures that coordinate water resource management is very real in IWRM programmes and the CMAs established in South Africa and Zimbabwe have the potential to play that role. While the CMA connects local communities to policy-makers, the policy-makers need to adjust the reform implementation strategies in such a way that social, economic and political interests and realities throughout the river basin are embraced. This provides a framework for addressing inclusion–exclusion discourses, taking into consideration the historical realities of the skewed economic regimes established during the apartheid era in South Africa and colonial era in Zimbabwe. This is a process that should be carefully orchestrated slowly in order to include all key stakeholders. Rushing the process does not help in the long-run. While stakeholder participation is vital in IWRM institution-building processes, certain preconditions must exist before effective operation of dialogue platforms can occur. Both the Mazowe and Inkomati catchment planning experiences demonstrate the need for comprehensive stakeholder analysis, meaningful and accountable representation, and the creation of voice for marginalized groups. The substance of participation must be clearly defined, particularly with reference to who is participating, in what way, what are the outcomes of the process, and are there any improvements that need to be made to the process. In both case studies, there are strong indications that powerful players such as large-scale commercial farming interests can easily dominate the process. A level playing field must be established for meaningful stakeholder engagement to occur. The implications of this stance are profound and have the potential to make the difference between rural democratic representation and exclusion of Zimbabwe and South Africa’s rural citizens from meaningful participation in governance systems. The world-views and perceptions of water as a free ‘god-given’ good pervade most of the rural communities in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Many societies believe that water has special cultural, religious and social values, which marks it out from other economic goods. In many cultures, goals other than economic efficiency influence the choice of water management institutions. Some religions even prohibit water allocation by market forces (see FAO 1995). Unfortunately, this ‘entitlement syndrome’ has been extended to water for other uses (including irrigation). This is a reality that the IWRM framework does not take into account and policy-makers have to consider when they implement the water reforms. There is need for a delicate balancing act between the demands for economic efficiency and the socio-political obligations. To view water merely as an economic good is a reductionist way to view a multifaceted resource. The coexistence of these multifaceted aspects of water is not being allowed by global discourses, which are privileging the economics paradigms over others. The irrationality of neo-liberal policy prescriptions which underlie the official reform processes in sub-Saharan


1255

Africa is typified by sidelining localized understandings of water resources management when most users at the local levels generally do not treat water as an economic commodity. It is quite apparent that in the rural areas of the Southern African region, most people do not have water rights in the legal sense of the term and it would be far-fetched to expect this situation to dramatically change in the short to medium-term because of the reforms. What the people have are primary and customary use rights which enable them to use water for a variety of purposes without paying (see Derman 2003). The mismatch between global prescriptions and local realities are likely to become more apparent as the reform implementation process unfolds. Flexibility is required for Southern African countries to adjust the reform model to their specific conditions. Both the case studies and the literature show that there is a very limited knowledge-base on practical ways for crafting effective water institutions (including water rights or permits) in developing countries. Most of the available literature concerns itself with the technical aspects of water allocation, distribution, pricing and the potential for ‘marketization’. In many cases, ideal water rights systems are introduced without adequately considering knowledge that can be obtained from existing formal and informal water use and management arrangements. Bruns and Meinzen-Dick (2005) argue that the approach treats water reform processes as if they are taking place on a blank slate in which the state holds all water rights and can unilaterally allocate those rights as it wishes. Yet in all cases some form of institutional arrangements for accessing and allocating water already exist and thus, the approach runs the risk of seriously disrupting existing institutions, worsening inequities and accelerating the pace of resource degradation. Imposing compulsory licensing, for instance, is not only likely to be extremely difficult and costly but also to delegitimize and disrupt existing access arrangements, without yielding any significant benefits. Therefore, a more gradual approach allowing clarification of rights in response to specific problems and local conditions offers one option for enabling effective river basin management. Clearly, there is a serious mismatch between the requirements for IWRM and realities on the ground in Southern Africa. More empirical research is needed to identify opportunities for linking local interests to national and global policy-making interests and ensure that the basic needs of basin communities are taken into consideration and their livelihoods improve. Such research should be conceptually grounded on the notion that water resources are politically contested and that any community-based initiatives, water management institutions, and policies should be a reflection of these political realities. In addition, the reduction of the state’s role in development planning and resource management seems untimely. The state cannot afford to remain a passive actor in a world in which forces of globalization threaten to erode the basis for that role. It needs to re-capture its critical role and ensure that the nation’s policy and water resource management institutional structures are sufficiently adapted to suit both local conditions and emerging global management discourses.

References Anderson AJ (2005) Engaging disadvantaged communities: lessons from the Inkomati CMA establishment process. Paper presented at the workshop on ‘African water laws: plural legislative frameworks for rural water management in Africa’, 26–27 January 2005, IWMI/NRI, Pretoria Ashton PJ, Turton AR, Dirk J, Rou DJ (2006) Exploring the government, society, and science interfaces in integrated water resource management in South Africa. J Contemp Water Res Educ 135:28–35 (December) Basson MS, Van Niekerk PH, Van Rooyen JA (1997) Overview of water resources availability and utilization in South Africa. DWAF Report No. P RSA/00/0197, Pretoria

1256

C. Chikozho

Biswas AK (2004) Integrated water resources management: a reassessment. Water Int 29(2):248–256 Bolding A (1997) Caught in the catchment: Past, present and future management of Nyanyadzi river water. In: Derman B, Nhira C (eds) Towards reforming the institutional and legal basis of the water sector in Zimbabwe. CASS, Harare Brown J, Woodhouse P (2004) Pioneering redistributive regulatory reform: a study of implementation of a catchment management agency for the Inkomati water management area, South Africa. Draft report Bruns BR, Meinzen-Dick R (2005) Frameworks for water rights: an overview of institutional options. In: Bruns BR, Ringler C, Meinzen-Dick R. Water rights reform: lessons for institutional design. IFPRI, Washington, DC Butterworth J, Moriarty P, Van Koppen B (eds) (2004) Beyond domestic: case studies on poverty and productive uses of water at the household level. IRC, Delft Cardwell EH, Cole AR, Cartwright AL, Martin AL (2006) Integrated water resources management: definitions and conceptual musings in. J Contemp Water Res Educ 135:8–18 (December) Castells M (1992) Four Asian tigers with a dragon head: a comparative analysis of the state, economy and society in the Asian pacific rim. In: Henderson R, Applebaum J (eds) State and development in the Asian pacific rim. Sage Publications, London Central Statistics Office (1998) Poverty in Zimbabwe. Central Statistics Office, Harare Chikozho C, Latham CJK (2005) Implications of customary law for implementing integrated water resources management in Zimbabwe: Considerations of Shona customary law as an institutional alternative. Paper presented at the workshop on African water laws: plural legislative frameworks for rural water management in Africa, 26-27 January 2005, Willow-Park Conference Centre, Johannesburg Cousins B (2000) Introduction: does land and agrarian reform have a future and, if so, who will benefit? In: Ben Cousins (ed) At the crossroads: land and agrarian reform in South Africa into the 21st century. PLAAS, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (1999) Government Gazette, October 1999 no. 20491 Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (2003) Catchment management agency establishment process guidelines. DWAF, Pretoria Derman B (2003) The incredible heaviness of water: water policy and water reform in the new millennium in Southern Africa. Michigan State University, Michigan Derman B, Hellum A (2003) Renegotiating water and land rights in Zimbabwe: some reflections on legal pluralism. Draft of paper prepared for presentation at the Conference on Remaking Law in Africa: TransNationalism, Persons and Rights Derman B, Nhira C (eds) (1997) Towards reforming the Institutional and legal basis of the water sector in Zimbabwe. CASS, Harare FAO (1995) Reforming water resources policy – a guide to methods, processes and practices. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 52, Rome Galbraith JK (2002) A perfect crime: inequality in the age of globalization. Daedalus, Winter Geldenhuys A (1997) The national water act: a short review. De Rebus, Pretoria, pp 58–61 (November) Global Water Partnership (2002) Tool-box for integrated water resources management: policy guidance and operational tools, version 1. GWP, Stockholm Hurrell A, Woods N (eds) (2000) Inequality, globalization, and world politics. Oxford University Press, UK Kirsten J, Perret S, Van Zyl J (2000) Land reform and the new water management context in South Africa: principles, progress, and issues. Paper prepared for a seminar of the natural resources management cluster and land policy thematic group. The World Bank, Washington, DC (27 September) Krugman P (1992) Toward a counter-revolution in development theory. In World Bank Economic Review Supplement (Proceedings of the Annual Bank Conference on Development Economics, pp 15–39 Lankford BA, Douglas J, Merrey DJ, Cour J, Hepworth N (2007) From integrated to expedient: an adaptive framework for river basin management in developing countries. Research Report 110, IWMI, Colombo Lim JJ (2005) On the role of the state in an increasingly borderless world. Globalization, volume 5, issue 1 Meinzen-Dick RS, Van der Hoek W (2001) Multiple uses of water in irrigated areas in. Irrig Drain Syst 15:93–98 Merle S, Oudot S (2000) Strategies, technical systems and socio-economic status of small-scale farmers in an irrigation scheme in the northern province, South Africa: diagnosis and prospects in a rehabilitation and transfer of management context. CIRAD-CEMAGREF Report Mkandawire T (2001) Thinking about developmental states in Africa. Camb J Econ 25(3):289–313 Moriarty PB, Batchelor CH, Smits SJ, Pollard JA, Butterworth J, Reddy B, Renuka B, James AJ, Reddy MYV (2004) Demands and entitlements: a framework for holistic and problem-focused water resources assessments. WHIRL Project Working Paper No. 10. (http://www.nri.org/whirl) Mukhtarov FG (2006) Integrated water resources management from a policy transfer perspective. Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy, Central European University, Budapest


1257

Pegram G, Bofilatos E (2005) Considerations on the composition of CMA governing boards to achieve representation. Paper presented at the workshop on African water laws: plural legislative frameworks for rural water management in Africa. Willow-park Conference Centre, Johannesburg (26–27 January) RAWOO (2000) Coping with globalization: the need for research concerning local response to globalization in developing countries. Rawoo, The Hague Schreiner B, Van Koppen B (2001) Catchment management agencies for poverty eradication in South Africa. Paper prepared for the 2nd WARFSA/WaterNet symposium: integrated water resources management: theory, practice, cases. Cape Town, pp 30–31 (October) Shah T, Makin I, Sakthivadivel R (2005) Limits to leapfrogging: issues in transposing successful river basin management institutions in the developing world. In: Svendsen M (ed) Irrigation and river basin management: options for governance and institutions. CABI and IWMI, London, pp 31–50 Versfeld D (2003) Water for livelihoods: bringing equity and opportunity to the rural poor in South Africa”. Paper presented at the international symposium on water, poverty and productive uses of water at the household level. Muldersdrift, South Africa, 21–23 January Wade R (2001) Global inequality, winners and losers. The Economist, p 72 (28 April) Woodhouse P, Hassan R (1999) Implementation of the national water act: catchment management agencies, interests, access and efficiency: Inkomati Basin pilot study. DWAF and Department of International Development, Pretoria World Bank (1989) Sub-Saharan Africa: from crisis to sustainable growth. World Bank, Washington, DC