Eden & Central Karoo Drought Disaster
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EDEN & CENTRAL KAROO DROUGHT DISASTER 2009 -2011 “THE SCRAMBLE FOR WATER” REPORT July, 2012 Disaster Mitigation for Sustainable Livelihoods Programme Stellenbosch University Funded by: STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY REFERENCE NUMBER: LG 10/2011/2012 REPORT NAME: Eden and Central Karoo Drought Disaster 2009 -2011: “The Scramble For Water” AUTHOR(S): Holloway, A., Fortune, G., Zweig, P., Barrett, L., Benjamin, A., Chasi, V. and de Waal, J. REPORT STATUS: Final DATE: 20 September 2012 Submitted on behalf of the Disaster Mitigation for Sustainable Livelihoods Programme by: PROVINCIAL DISASTER MANAGEMENT CENTRE The authorised representatives of the Western Cape Provincial Disaster Management Centre, listed below, hereby acknowledge this independent drought disaster assessment report for the Eden and Central Karoo district municipalities. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Study overview This study, commissioned by the Provincial Disaster Management Centre (PDMC) of the Western Cape, seeks to provide a comprehensive review and analysis of the Western Cape drought disaster that affected the Eden and Central Karoo Districts between 2009 and 2011. Specifically, the research team was required to: conduct a comprehensive post-event study and analysis of the January 2009-January 2011 Western Cape drought produce a comprehensive written report reporting the findings of the study, including examination of technical and engineering interventions that alleviated its severity identify further research gaps and opportunities for studies on droughts, floods and water security, that could be incorporated into a 5-year strategic drought management plan. This research was directed and guided by the PDMC’s Directorate: Disaster Operations, through the leadership of the Deputy Director, Recovery. As with previous successful post-event studies, the research team worked closely with the PDMC to formulate a Project Steering Committee and to finalise the research methodology. During the course of the project, SU/DiMP met regularly with the Project Steering Committee to ensure satisfactory progress monitoring and to timeously address implementation concerns. 2. Methods Used Although the study terms of reference specifically refer to a two-year drought (from January 2009-January 2011), the research team was required to extend the time-frame back to 2007. This was due to evidence gathered from meteorological data and field research which indicated that proximal drought-risk factors could be traced as early as November 2007. The spatial and temporal scales of the drought, along with its diverse rural and urban impacts, necessitated a complex research methodology. The research team acknowledged the importance of an approach that was sufficiently robust to accommodate both quantitative measures of rainfall deficit at district and municipal scale as well as ‘knock-on’ social consequences over time. Therefore the resulting methodology incorporated a wide range of data sources, as well as qualitative and quantitative research methods. The research process involved complex data-handling owing to the disparate datasets provided by six municipalities and two provincial departments. To address the need for in-depth local analysis, the research team applied a ‘sentinel site’ methodology for three localities. Specifically, the towns of George, Beaufort West and Uniondale were identified as sentinel sites for differing drought exposures and impacts. Respectively located in the southern, northern and eastern areas identified as drought-affected, each represented a different livelihood zone and drought risk profile. A more detailed examination of rainfall, water consumption and risk management measures was undertaken for each site. An extensive process was undertaken to collect, compile and integrate the indirect and direct impacts that were identified as drought-associated. This was undertaken through in-person and telephonic interviews, as well as through the detailed review of drought reports provided by government and nongovernmental informants. Although the research team compiled numerous anecdotal reports of hardship and loss consolidated information on livestock losses or diminished crop yields was, regrettably, difficult to source. All farms that were allocated agricultural relief were geo-referenced to municipal scale to show the spatial distribution of assistance for agriculture between 2009 and 2011. Primary data were collected through semi-structured interviews, and focus group discussions in the affected areas. Altogether, this involved more than 80 interviews and discussions in the field followed by telephone calls to a diverse range of stakeholders. In this way, causal chains of impact became evident, providing deeper insights and clearly illustrating the interconnectedness of impacts and the knock-on consequences of the water crisis over time and space. This was illustrated by the livelihood impacts sustained by seasonal farm workers who, due to reduced labour needs in drought-affected orchards, moved to towns, seeking casual work and food relief (refer Glossary and Section 6.7). 3. Study Conclusions 3.1 A period of extreme dryness, with sustained low rainfall for +/- two years The period 2008-2011 was reflected in exacting meteorological, hydrological and agricultural drought conditions across the Eden and Central Karoo District Municipalities. These were evidenced by measurable reductions in rainfall, stream flow, groundwater levels and vegetation cover. These reductions were also not limited to a single annual cycle, and spanned at least two to three years. Unfortunately, the drought coincided with the global economic recession, whose impacts were most intense in 2008 and 2009, and which constrained the range of options available to manage the drought and its consequences. Despite the duress sustained in the course of 2009-2011, the research team identified remarkable accomplishments achieved in the course of the drought response operation. However, the drought also revealed numerous deficiencies in water resource management, highlighting gaps to be addressed. 3.2 An impressive response by stakeholders - despite late detection of declining water availability The 2009-2011 drought emergency generated a huge, complex operation by civil society, national, provincial and local governments that spanned two district municipalities and that secured R 572m for wide-ranging relief activities. It was also supported by five separate local disaster declarations. The effectiveness of the response to the drought was enabled through the establishment of two multi-stakeholder mechanisms as well as the availability of experienced disaster management expertise at district and provincial centres. Similarly, the involvement of competent personnel in technical departments at provincial and municipal levels was essential, along with access to updated monthly climate, agricultural and water risk management information for timely decision-making. The development and application of a water crisis risk rating mechanism in 2009 was central to the effectiveness of the drought emergency response over time and across multiple municipalities. The Provincial Department of Agriculture supported drought-stressed farmers, in cooperation with Agri-SA, and secured R 76.9m for relief. Unfortunately, due to the late finalization of DAFF’s Framework for Drought Aid on 23 December 2010, the first phase of fodder relief did not commence until February 2011. At the time this drought study was concluding (May 2012), R 26.9m had been expended, primarily for fodder relief, although not all recipients approved for relief assistance had redeemed their allocated vouchers. 3.3 A costly response, exceeding R 500 million The 2009-2011 operation resulted in R 572.04m being allocated for drought response. Of this, R 495.0m (86.5%) was directed to improving urban water supply infrastructure, while R 76.9m (13.44%) was allocated for agricultural relief. Altogether, the National Treasury provided R 287.2m, or 58.0% of all funding for municipal water supply infrastructure. This was complemented by municipal co-funding, estimated cumulatively to be R 89.3m (18% of total costs). PetroSA’s contribution added a further R 92.5m (18.7% of total expenditure), specifically for Mossel Bay. Smaller amounts from the Regional Bulk Infrastructure and Municipal Infrastructure Grants totalled R 24.2m, while the Eden District Municipality contributed R 1.8 m, primarily for awareness raising. Although Mossel Bay received the largest National Treasury allocation for all municipalities (R 108.5m), Hessequa farmers were allocated the highest amount of agricultural assistance (R 14.3m). While the allocation of substantial funding (R 495.0m) to expand urban water infrastructure addressed urgent water supply imperatives, this contrasted sharply with the very modest financial support released for agricultural risk management (R 76.9m). In Box 1 below, an experienced water engineer questions the disparity in the funding allocation, and contrasts the availability of skilled expertise available for agricultural risk management, with that in well- resourced municipalities. Disparity in Capital Funding “The drought converted to official disaster status, resulted in substantial capital being released for capital works for municipalities. This was essentially a capital contribution to the Industrial Water and Domestic Water use sectors. Contrary to this, no capital investment was released for agricultural use, e.g. for the construction of infrastructure