RESEARCH DISCUSSION PAPER Number 18 June 1997 ______
An Approach to Sustainable Water Management Using Natural Resource Accounts: the Use of Water, the Economic Value of Water, and Implications for Policy
Glenn-Marie Lange1 ______
______1 Institute for Economic Analysis, New York University
Directorate of Environmental Affairs Ministry of Environment and Tourism Private Bag 13306 Windhoek, Namibia
This series of Research Discussion Papers is intended to present preliminary, new, or topical information and ideas for discussion and debate. The contents are not necessarily the final views or firm positions of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism. Comments and feedback will be welcomed.
Abstract
A Natural Resource Accounting project is currently underway to document the status of the nation’s resources and their current economic use. Accounts for water constitute a major component of the Natural Resource Accounts (NRA) since water is the limiting resource for economic development in Namibia, as it is for much of Southern Africa. The NRA include both stock and use accounts for water, as well as related environmental statistics. In order to design development strategies that are sustainable over the long run, it is essential to know the full value of this scarce resource. This is especially important for a resource like water which is used throughout the economy and must be managed to achieve sometimes conflicting economic, social, and political objectives.
A comparison is made of user fees, costs of delivery, and the economic contribution of water in different sectors of the economy as a first step toward estimating the opportunity cost of water. As in many countries, government-provided water is heavily subsidized, especially in agriculture. An analysis of two of the largest and most heavily subsidized users of water -- commercial crop irrigation and rural subsistence production -- has important implications for agricultural policy and rural development strategy. Further development of the opportunity cost approach to water pricing would greatly enhance policy analysis. There is also a need for similar, coordinated work to be carried out in other countries in Southern Africa in order to design strategies for sustainable management of resources, like water, which transcend national boundaries.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Glenn-Marie Lange is team leader of the Natural Resource Accounting Programme of the DEA funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under Delivery Order No. 36 of Contract No. DHR-5555-Q-00-1085-00. I would like to thank Martin Harris, Acting Deputy Director of the Planning Section of the Directorate of Water Affairs at the time of this work, who provided a great deal of assistance and insight without which this work could not have been done. Because of his extensive professional experience I was able to fill many gaps in the available data. I would also like to thank DJ Motinga (NEPRU) for excellent research assistance, Martin Fowler (Planning Directorate, MAWRD) for advice regarding agricultural use of water, and JI Barnes (DEA) for his valuable comments and advice. The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of partners or sponsors. The cover artwork was done by Helga Hoveka.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction: Water in the Namibian Natural Resource Accounts 1
2. Data Sources and Methods 3
3. Status of Namibia’s Water Resources 4 3.1 Groundwater 5 3.2 Perennial surface water 9 3.3 Ephemeral surface water 11
4. Annual Use and Economic Contribution of Water 13 4.1 Annual use of water by sector 13 4.2 Economic contribution of water by sector 16
5. Water Pricing Policy, Delivery Costs, and Subsidies 19 5.1 Water tariffs and delivery costs 19 5.2 Irrigated crop production 21 5.3 Rural development strategy and water use in communal areas 22
6. Policy Implications: Sustainability of Current Patterns of Water Use 23 6.1 Ecological sustainability 23 6.2 Economic sustainability 24
REFERENCES CITED 26
Appendix: Derivation of the Use Accounts for Water 29
Tables Table 1: Stocks of Groundwater, Perennial Surface Water, and Ephemeral Surface Water, 1980 to 1993 7 Table 2: Water Use by Boreholes Under DWA Management Experiencing Long-Term Depletion in 1993 8 Table 3: Deviation of Annual Rainfall from Long-Term Average Rainfall, 1980 to 1994 13 Table 4 Use of Water by Source and Sector in 1993 15 Table 5: Distribution of Water Use by Natural Source, institutional Source, and Using Sector in 1993 16 Table 6: Economic Contribution of Water by Sector in Namibia, 1993 17 Table 7: Water Subsidies by Sector as a Percent of Capital and Operating Costs in 1993 20 Table A1: Use of Water by Source and Destination in 1990 30 Table A2: Water Requirements for Livestock 31 Table A3: Water Use for Crop Irrigation in Commercial and Communal Areas, 1990 and 1992 33
iii Table A4: Water Use by Mines According to Alternative Sources in 1990 and 1993 35 Table A5: Water Used for Fish Processing in Walvis Bay, 1990 to 1993 35 Table A6: Water Use for Tourism in 1990 and 1993 37 Table A7: Water Use for Transportation in 1990 and 1993 37 Table A8: Water Use by Industry, Commerce, Services and Government in the Central Area in 1991 38
Figures Figure 1: Average annual rainfall in Namibia, 1914 to 1994 2 Figure 2: Water use by natural source and institutional source in 1993 6 Figure 3: Annual runoff of perennial rivers, 1980 to 1993 10 Figure 4A Annual runoff of major ephemeral rivers, 1980 to 1993 12 Figure 4B: Annual storage of major dams, 1980 to 1993 12 Figure 5: Use of water by sector, 1993 14
iv 1. Introduction: Water in the Natural Resource Accounts
With a population of about 1.6 million, Namibia is one of the world's most sparsely populated countries. It is sub-Saharan Africa's driest country; roughly 80% of its 842,000 square kilometres consist of desert, arid, and semi-arid land (Brown, 1994). Rainfall is quite low, ranging from less than 50mm to more than 700mm a year with a long-term average of about 320mm per year, less than the minimum amount considered necessary for dryland farming (400mm a year). Rainfall is not only low but extremely variable over much of the country and droughts are a common occurrence (Figure 1). In addition, Namibia’s high temperatures result in high rates of evaporation of rainfall; it is estimated that only 1% of annual rainfall contributes to groundwater recharge and only 2% is retained in reservoirs (DWA, 1991a).
Namibia is highly dependent on its natural resource base -- mining, agriculture, fishing, and wildlife-based tourism -- and water is the single most important constraint to development. Consequently, water management policy is a critical component of Namibia’s development strategy. At independence in 1990, Namibian society was marked by vast inequalities of income, wealth, and access to natural resources. Two very different and separate economies had developed: the so-called communal sector in which the majority of the people were restricted to a disproportionately small land area and practised subsistence agriculture, and a commercial economy based on export-oriented mining and freehold agriculture controlled by a minority. The highly skewed distribution of income and access to resources has resulted in uneven population pressure on land and water; the pressure is most severe in communal areas where there has been historic under-investment in water infrastructure and population is growing very rapidly. In 1990, it was estimated that only 50% of the rural population had access to a reliable source of safe drinking water. Urban areas have been well-supplied with safe water, though access is limited for low-income groups (National Planning Commission, 1996).
Water use has grown rapidly over the past 25 years, from about 25 million cubic metres in 1970 to 88 million cubic metres in 1993 (bulk water supply only; Ashley et al., 1995). There is concern that water supplies are running short and are not being used sustainably: water tables have sunk and fossil water is being extracted in some areas. Increasing harvesting of ephemeral surface water diverts water from downstream users and may have negative effects on ecosystems, vegetation necessary for livestock and wildlife, and recharge of groundwater. At the same time, water is wasted through losses in the distribution network due to poor maintenance, and low water prices have discouraged water conservation measures by end users.
Potential new sources of water include desalination of sea water and long-distance water carriers to tap international rivers. Both measures are very expensive and may have negative environmental impacts. Despite having reached the limits of many domestic sources of water, water demand will continue to grow as the economy and population, especially the urban population, grow. Competition for water will intensify. In this context, it is essential to carefully examine current patterns of water use and the influence of various policies on water demand. The design of sustainable development strategies requires an understanding of the full social value of water and an assessment of the tradeoffs among competing economic activities.
1
2
In the past, natural resources were exploited with little planning for the provision of future income. The Government of Namibia has now undertaken the construction of Natural Resource Accounts (NRA) as a step toward sustainable management of its resources.
The NRA water accounts can assist in the analysis and design of development strategies that are sustainable by providing the following information:
1. The present state of water management. How is water currently used in the economy? What is the economic contribution of water use in each sector? To what extent is water use subsidized in each sector? What is the opportunity cost of water use by each economic sector? Does the current pattern of water use and infrastructure development represent the best use of scarce water and financial resources?
2. Future water use and management. What are future water demands likely to be? How do policies in other sectors--e.g., agriculture, trade, rural development, and energy--affect the demand for water? Using appropriate policy and technology, can all the development objectives be met? If not, what are the economic tradeoffs and how can priorities be established?
In this paper, the NRA are used to explore the first set of questions concerning the present state of water management. This analysis provides the basis in the next stage of the work on NRA for addressing the second set of issues, evaluating alternative water management strategies for sustainable development. The paper begins with a discussion of the Namibian NRA and data sources for water, followed by an overview of the status of Namibia’s water resources, based on the NRA stock accounts for water. Section 3 provides a detailed analysis of the water use accounts for the benchmark year for NRA, 1993. The analysis examines patterns of water consumption, the economic contribution of water use in each sector of the economy, and the subsidies received by each sector (based on an analysis of user charges and delivery costs). Finally, policies affecting water use for commercial crop irrigation and subsistence production, the two largest and most heavily subsidized water-using sectors, are examined in detail. The paper concludes with the implications of the analysis for policy in agriculture and rural development, and a discussion of the direction of analysis in the future.
2. Data Sources and Methods
The Namibian NRA generally follow the United Nation’s SEEA (System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounts) approach (United Nation, 1993), though strongly influenced by the Norwegian system (Alfsen, 1996; Alfsen et al., 1987) with its emphasis on compilation of a detailed physical database and the integration of NRA with economic models for policy analysis. In addition to water, the NRA constructed for Namibia include livestock, fisheries, land, land degradation, wildlife, and minerals.
The NRA for water consist of stock and use accounts; supplementary information is also compiled to help assess the status of the resource. The stock accounts are constructed, where possible, for
3 the period 1980 to 1993. The use accounts are constructed for 1993, the most recent year for which detailed information was available. (See the Appendix for a discussion of the construction of the use accounts.) In order to represent both natural and socio-economic characteristics associated with the use of water, six categories of water are distinguished, combinations of natural sources (three types) and institutional sources (two types). Accounts representing the annual use of the six categories of water are constructed for nineteen economic sectors, two categories of households, and a government sector.
The information about water in this report was compiled from many documents, published and unpublished, mainly provided by the Directorate of Water Affairs (DWA), Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development. Information about stocks for water, the tariffs charged and the delivery costs were obtained from official statistics of DWA; economic data used to calculate the economic contribution of water in each sector were obtained from the annually published national accounts prepared by the Central Statistics Office (CSO, 1996a). These data required little, if any, adjustment and are considered reliable. The data sources are provided in the relevant sections of this paper.
The use accounts for water, however, posed a problem because even the fairly extensive information available from DWA did not cover all water use, and did not provide the detailed information necessary for the NRA and this study. For example, information about the natural source of water for each end user is not compiled by DWA, and there were often no official statistics about rural water use. In addition, there were problems of classification of users. Because NRA are intended to create a database for integrating environmental information into economic analysis, particularly at the macroeconomic level, it is necessary to use the same classification for end users of water as the national accounts use for economic activities. The DWA has its own classification scheme, mainly based on water points, so a number of adjustments and estimates were made to the available data about water use so that they would conform to the required classification. These estimates relied heavily on advice from Martin Harris, formerly of the Planning Unit of DWA. Advice regarding agricultural water use was also provided by Martin Fowler of the Planning Directorate of the Ministry of Agriculture. Thus, the detailed use accounts for water may not be as accurate as other data used in this paper. However, there is a high degree of certainty that there are no potential discrepancies large enough to substantially affect any of the results reported here. The derivation of the use accounts is provided in the Appendix to this paper.
3. Status of Namibia’s Water Resources
Water is supplied from three natural sources: groundwater, perennial surface water, and ephemeral (or seasonal) surface water. Water from these sources varies in terms of location, renewability, quality, and reliability. The share of annual water use from each source will vary from year to year in response to annual rainfall. Groundwater is found throughout the country and accounts for about half of Namibia’s annual water use. Perennial surface water is supplied by the rivers which flow year-round and form the northern and southern boundaries of Namibia. Ephemeral surface water is supplied by rivers within the country that only flow after especially long rains. Perennial and ephemeral surface water accounted for 27% and 22%, respectively, of Namibia’s annual water use in 1993 (Figure 2).
4
Two different institutions were established to deliver water to end users, bulk water supply and rural water supply, which account for 43% and 57%, respectively, of Namibia’s water use (Figure 2). Bulk water supply relies on relatively large-scale dams, transport, and storage technology and delivers water mainly to urban areas and commercial agriculture. Rural water supply utilizes relatively small-scale, localized means for collection (mostly boreholes in rural areas) and does not generally transport water over large distances. While all of bulk water is provided by the government, rural water supply is partly the responsibility of the government and partly provided by users at their own expense under some supervision by the government. The latter accounts for 39% of all water use and include commercial livestock and part of commercial crop production, diamond mining and part of other mining, and part of tourism facilities.
The stock accounts for water along with some supplementary information can be used to assess the status of Namibia’s water resources. Groundwater is characterized by great uncertainty over the extent of reserves, the problem of depletion, and conditions of groundwater recharge. Surface water, both perennial and ephemeral are characterized by a high degree of annual variability due mainly to variations in rainfall.
Groundwater Groundwater is often the cheapest and most reliable source of water for much of Namibia's dispersed population since it can be tapped at the point of use and it is not directly dependent on annual rainfall. It is especially difficult and expensive to measure groundwater in Namibia since it occurs in many different aquifers of different shape and size throughout the country. In addition, the quality of groundwater, measured, for example, in terms of saline content, also varies a great deal from one aquifer to another. No comprehensive information about the total volume of groundwater is available. Estimates have been undertaken in the central area of Namibia for selected aquifers under the administration of the bulk water supply in 1992 (DWA, 1993b, 1993c; reported in Table 1, column 1). Efforts to improve and expand estimations of groundwater sources are currently underway, but are unlikely to provide a comprehensive figure in the near future.
Since groundwater supplies over half of all Namibia's water, the possibility of depletion is a serious concern. The lack of information about groundwater stocks poses a problem for setting rates of abstraction that are sustainable and for assessing the extent to which Namibia may be depleting its groundwater. However, it is prohibitively expensive to measure and continuously monitor the stock of groundwater. As a result, DWA has developed another method to estimate sustainable rates of abstraction, based on monitoring the water tables of all the boreholes under its jurisdiction. Estimated sustainable use is defined as that rate of abstraction which maintains the level of the water table over the expected cycle of rainfall (a precise number of years constituting an expected cycle of rainfall and recharge has not been established for each borehole). In addition, new boreholes are subject to pump tests to estimate the rate of recharge. In practice, rates of abstraction which result in a water table
5
6
Table 1. Stocks of Groundwater, Perennial Surface Water, and Ephemeral Surface Water, (millions of cubic metres) 1980 to 1993
Perennial Surface Water Ephemeral Surface
Annual Runoff of Major Rivers Water Ground Annual Annual Dam Orange Zambezi Kwando Okavango Kunene Water Runoff Storage
1980 na 3,583 41,633 1,732 5,035 1,561 64 241 1981 na 3,308 23,686 923 5,105 1,980 73 164 1982 na 1,125 23,157 837 3,907 2,868 86 105 1983 na 1,592 25,595 869 9,408 11,156 437 157 1984 na 932 28,555 880 5,375 6,594 481 277 1985 na 2,200 28,996 913 4,629 7,238 367 417 1986 na 2,731 31,916 929 4,239 4,165 215 378 1987 na 21,885 28,988 787 5,393 4,191 775 471 1988 na 10,897 49,953 1,026 5,820 5,085 755 461 1989 na 2,415 19,887 1,064 4,370 4,582 161 335 1990 na 3,534 31,483 795 3,882 3,863 275 303 1991 na 2,800 17,613 661 6,607 7,404 58 184 1992 938 600 34,941 785 3,228 1,840 222 252 1993 na 1,298 24,011 844 2,998 2,516 286 293
na: not available Notes: Annual runoff of perennial surface is reported for recording stations. These cannot be summed since some rivers feed into others. Data about groundwater available only for selected aquifers in the Central Area of Namibia in 1992; these figures are fairly representative of the groundwater stocks in that area in earlier years. Ephemeral surface water estimates are based on data from the major rivers, but not all rivers.
Source: column 1 (DWA, 1993b, 1993c), columns 2-8 (DWA, Hydrology Division, 1995a, 1995b). which falls continuously over five years without recovery during periods of reasonable rain are considered to be unsustainable rates of water use.
Table 2 shows groundwater sources currently considered to be subject to depletion. Of the 87 million cubic metres of bulk water supplied in 1993, 14% came from groundwater stocks considered to be experiencing serious, long-term depletion (as evidenced by continuously falling water levels in boreholes without recovery for five or more years). The seriousness of depletion of groundwater is determined by the availability of alternative sources of water and the numbers of users served by the groundwater source. Much of the coastal region is affected, which includes important urban and tourist centres (Swakopmund and Walvis Bay), mining (uranium), and industry (fish processing).
There is, however, a great deal of uncertainty concerning the severity of depletion of groundwater stocks assessed in this way. Namibia's highly variable rainfall can result in long periods of a continuously falling water table followed by a one-time rainfall event which
7 Table 2. Water Use by Boreholes Under DWA Management Experiencing Long-Term Depletion in 1993 (thousands of cubic metres)
Water Use Location
A. Very serious depletion problem Usakos 163.4 Khorixas 1,246.7 Windhoek airport 85.7 Swakopmund/Coastal region 8,493.1 Otjiwarongo town 1,662.2 stock off-takes 26.8 Subtotal 11,677.9
B. Moderately serious depletion problem Uis mine 89.3 town 127.9 stock off-takes 43.8 Kamanjab 42.0 Tsumkwe 51.4 Kalkfeld 43.3 Otjimbingwe 81.1 Schlip 94.9 Tses 66.7 Subtotal 640.4
Total 12,318.3
Note: Very serious refers to those locations for which no readily available alternative supply exists. Moderately serious refers to those locations for which either an alternative source can be found, or there are a relatively small number of users.
Source: Location of boreholes from personal communication with Martin Harris of DWA. Water use for these boreholes obtained from (DWA, 1995).
recharges an aquifer. Under such circumstances, it may be more appropriate to assess depletion not on an annual basis, but on the basis of the rainfall cycle normal for the area, which could be five years, twenty years, or even longer. Continuous abstraction of groundwater over this time may be justified, subject to an evaluation of other environmental factors including:
- an extremely low rate of recharge from annual rainfall (estimated at about 1% of rainfall)
- the existence of sandy aquifers which are subject to collapse when sufficient water is extracted, preventing full recharge even with sufficient rainfall
8 - the potentially negative impact on downstream users (ecosystem and human communities) of extensive draw-down of groundwater, even when the aquifer is recharged to its previous level by periodic heavy rainfall.
- the potential change over time in the ability to achieve recharge from heavy rainfall due to changes in the environment, e.g., siltation of riverbeds.
There is not enough information at this time to determine the appropriate cycle for most aquifers. Given the potential for permanent damage to the capacity for groundwater storage due to mismanagement, this situation warrants close monitoring.
Groundwater provided by rural water supply is also experiencing depletion in some areas. Unfortunately, rural water supply, which accounts for about 70% of groundwater use, has not been subject to the same degree of monitoring as bulk water supply. Not only are there no records about water tables of the boreholes, but, in many instance, there are no reliable estimates of the rates of abstraction from boreholes. Though all boreholes are required to be registered, it is likely that there are a significant number of boreholes which have not been registered, and consequently are not subject to monitoring. A monitoring program is being put into place, but it will take a number of years before this program will yield information which can be used to estimate sustainable rates of groundwater abstraction for the rural water supply.
Perennial Surface Water Perennial rivers are those which do not dry out during the year. Nevertheless, the volume of all perennial rivers is subject to considerable variation over time (Figure 3). There are no water storage dams on the perennial rivers, though there is a dam used to generate hydroelectric power. While a river is by definition a flow rather than a stock, it is useful to distinguish the amount of river water potentially available in a given year from the amount actually used. The amount potentially available, measured as annual runoff for each major river, is included in the stock accounts of the NRA at this time (Table 1, columns 2-6).
All perennial rivers originate outside of Namibia and form international boundaries between Namibia and its neighbours. Consequently, the amount of water actually available to Namibia each year is subject to international agreements among the countries sharing the perennial rivers. An agreement has been concluded with South Africa and agreements are under negotiation with other neighbouring countries. At present, Namibia does not use its full negotiated quota with South Africa because there is little development along the river and the cost of transporting water to high-demand areas is prohibitive. It is likely that this situation will change in the near future if new irrigation schemes or a proposed copper mine are established.
9
10
Ephemeral Surface Water The amount of ephemeral water in a given year depends on annual rainfall; in some instances there may be carry-over from a previous year stored in dams. For the NRA, three sets of information are collected about ephemeral surface water, the first is a stock account and the other two are supplementary statistics useful for understanding the stock accounts:
1. annual volume of water stored in a dam each year at the beginning of April (Figure 4; Table 1, column 8). April marks the end of rainy season and the time when DWA plans its water supply strategy for the next two years, i.e., DWA evaluates the ability of the dam to satisfy current rates of use should no rain fall over the next 24 months (adjusting for evaporation over that period).
2. annual runoff from the major ephemeral rivers (a measure of gross potential stock; Figure 4; Table 1, column 7).
3. annual rainfall and percent deviation from long-term average rainfall of roughly 200 meteorological stations throughout the country (Table 3).
While only dam storage can be considered an actual stock of water, the annual runoff of ephemeral rivers provides an important supplementary indicator of the gross potential addition to the stock of ephemeral water stored in dams. The stock will vary greatly from one area to the next based on the annual distribution of rainfall. Since the local availability of water is a critical factor for water supply and there is little infrastructure for moving water from surplus to deficit areas, the stock accounts are compiled separately for each of the major dams. The annual runoff is largely determined by the amount and distribution of rainfall. Rainfall data are provided for roughly 200 meteorological stations operating over the period 1915 to 1994. For the sake of brevity, they are reported here only for the years 1980 to 1994. These stations are organized according to veterinary district (to facilitate use with livestock and land accounts) and an average rainfall is calculated for each district.
11
12
Table 3. Deviation of Annual Rainfall from Long-Term Average Rainfall, 1980 to 1994
Percentage Deviation from Year Rainfall Long-Term Average (millimetres)
1980 197.2 -39% 1981 219.2 -32% 1982 215.7 -33% 1983 313.4 -2% 1984 269.0 -16% 1985 340.1 6% 1986 268.7 -16% 1987 338.3 5% 1988 387.0 21% 1989 287.4 -11% 1990 336.7 5% 1991 255.8 -20% 1992 277.3 -14% 1993 341.4 6% 1994 138.8 -57%
Long-Term Average 321.1 (1915-1994)
Source: compiled from unpublished database of the Weather Bureau.
4. Annual Use and Economic Contribution of Water
Annual Use of Water by Sector Of the 200 million cubic metres of water used in 1993, agriculture accounts for 61%, households another 22%, mining 11%, and the remaining 6% is divided among all other sectors (Figure 5, Tables 4 and 5). Urban households comprise only 29% of the population, but consume more than three times as much water as rural households. Bulk water supply primarily supports urban households and commercial agriculture (irrigation), which together account for 72% of bulk water. Other commercial, urban-based activities in manufacturing and service sectors, though accounting for a small share of total water use in the economy, are also supported by bulk water supply. Only the bulk water supply system has the infrastructure (dams and water transport infrastructure) to utilize ephemeral water extensively. Ephemeral water accounts for about 50% of bulk water; most of the rest is provided by groundwater, and less than 5% is provided from the perennial rivers. Rural water supply, not surprisingly, supports rural-based activities: agriculture, some mining, and rural households. Most of the water is obtained from groundwater sources (54%) or from the perennial rivers (45%), especially along Namibia’s northern border where most of the rural population lives. Less than 1% comes from ephemeral rivers.
13
14 Table 4. Use of Water by Source and Sector in 1993 (millions of cubic metres)
All Sources Ground Perennial Surface Ephemeral
Total Bulk Rural Total Bulk Rural Total Bulk Rural Total Bulk Rural
Agriculture 146.2 35.2 111.1 69.1 5.6 63.4 48.9 1.9 47.1 28.3 27.7 0.6
Livestock 39.1 7.5 31.6 36.5 5.6 30.8 2.6 1.9 0.8 0 * 0
Crops 107.1 27.7 79.5 32.6 0 32.6 46.3 0 46.3 28.3 27.7 0.6
Communal 34.8 7.5 27.3 16.0 5.6 10.3 18.8 1.9 17.0 0 0 0
Livestock 17.0 7.5 9.5 14.4 5.6 8.7 2.6 1.9 0.8 0 0 0
Crops 17.8 0 17.8 1.6 0 1.6 16.2 0 16.2 0 0 0
Commercial 111.4 27.7 83.7 53.1 0 53.1 30.1 0 30.1 28.3 27.7 0.6
Livestock 22.1 0 22.1 22.1 0 22.1 0 0 0 0 * 0
Crops 89.3 27.7 61.6 31.0 0 31.0 30.1 0 30.1 28.3 27.7 0.6 Crops exc own usea 64.6 27.7 36.9 6.3 0 6.3 30.1 0 30.1 28.3 27.7 0.6
Fisheries 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mining 21.7 4.4 17.3 20.3 3.0 17.3 0.9 0.9 0 0.5 0.5 0
Diamonds 13.6 0 13.6 13.6 0 13.6 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other mining 8.1 4.4 3.7 6.7 3.0 3.7 0.9 0.9 0 0.5 0.5 0
Manufacturing 5.0 5.0 0 3.5 3.5 0 0.2 0.2 0 1.3 1.3 0
Fish Processing 0.7 0.7 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Other Manufacturing 4.3 4.3 0 2.8 2.8 0 0.2 0.2 0 1.3 1.3 0
Services 5.2 5.0 0.2 3.6 3.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0 1.5 1.4 0.1
Utilities 0.3 0.3 0 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0
Construction 0.7 0.7 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0
Trade 0.7 0.7 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0
Hotels/Restaurants 1.1 0.9 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.2 0 0 0 0.4 0.3 0.1
Transportation 0.8 0.8 0 0.7 0.7 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0
Communications 0.2 0.2 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
FIREB 0.6 0.6 0 0.4 0.4 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0
Self-owned housing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Social services 0.8 0.8 0 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.2 0
Households 44.7 34.7 10.0 28.2 22.6 5.7 5.3 1.7 3.6 11.2 10.4 0.7
Rural 10.0 0 10.0 5.7 0 5.7 3.6 0 3.6 0.7 0 0.7
Urban 34.7 34.7 0 22.6 22.6 0 1.7 1.7 0 10.4 10.4 0
Government 2.3 2.3 0 1.5 1.5 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.7 0.7 0
Total 225.1 86.6 138.5 126.2 39.6 86.6 55.7 5.0 50.7 43.3 42.0 1.4
Total exc. own-usea 200.4 86.6 113.8 101.4 39.6 61.8 55.7 5.0 50.7 43.3 42.0 1.4
* negligible amount.
a It is assumed that commercial farmers use some water for irrigation of crops for own use. This amount has never been substantiated and is not included in discussions that follow. See Annex for further discussion. Note: May not sum due to rounding
Source: author’s estimates based on sources discussed in Appendix.
15 Table 5. Distribution of Water Use by Natural Source, institutional Source, and Using Sector in 1993 (in percent)
Institutional Source Natural Source
Total Ground Perennial Ephemeral Bulk Rural
Communal Agriculture 17% 16% 34% 0% 9% 24% Commercial Agriculture 43 28 54 65 32 52 Mining 11 20 2 1 5 15 Manufacturing 2 3 0 3 6 0 Services 3 4 0 3 6 0 Rural Households 5 6 6 2 0 9 Urban Households 17 22 3 24 40 0 Government 1 1 0 2 3 0 Total 100 100 100 100 100 100
Percent of Total 100 51 27 22 43 57
Source: calculated from Table 4.
Commercial agriculture uses a great deal more water than communal agriculture (43% and 17%, respectively) and most of the water used by commercial farmers is for irrigated crop production. Crop irrigation accounts for about 40% of all water used in Namibia. Livestock is far more important economically than crop agriculture and uses only half the amount of water used for crop irrigation (39 million cubic metres v. 82 million). Because the livestock industry is extensive (livestock subsist on natural pasture rather than animal feed), animals need to be moved constantly and need dispersed sources of water, so this sector mainly uses groundwater, accessed through boreholes at established watering points. Most irrigated farming occurs in the commercial sector using ephemeral water provided by bulk water supply. The government has established several irrigation schemes in the communal sector to promote rural development. These schemes, located in population centres in the north, rely almost entirely on perennial rivers.
Economic Contribution of Water by Sector The NRA are linked to the national economic accounts through use of the same classification of economic activities. This makes it possible to calculate two measures of the economic contribution of water use by sector: 1) each sector’s value of output per cubic metre of water input, and 2) the value-added generated per unit of water input in each sector. (The value of household use of water cannot be calculated in this manner.) The value of sectoral output per cubic metre of water input ranges from less than N$1 in commercial crop farming to over N$1,000 in services; the value-added generated ranges from a low of N$4.5 per cubic metre of water in subsistence agriculture to more than N$740 per cubic metre in service sectors with an economy-wide average of N$47.3 (Table 6). The resource-based sectors show a mixed performance in terms of water use. Agriculture generates very low value-added per cubic metre of water used. Value-added in mining is around the average for the economy (N$40)
16 Table 6. Economic Contribution of Water by Sector in Namibia, 1993
N$ of Output N$ of Value- Output Value-Added 3 3 Sector 6 6 per m of added per m of (10 N$) (10 N$) water input water input
Agriculture 793 561 6.5 4.6 Commercial agriculturea 617 405 7.1 4.7
Livestock 580 na 26.2
Crops 14 na 0.2
b Communal agriculture 176 156 5.0 4.5
Mining 1,880 862 86.6 40.0 Diamond mining 1,137 609 83.6 44.7 Other mining 743 253 91.7 32.0
Manufac turing 2,006 656 403.6 132.0 Fish processing 530 316 757.1 451.4 Other manufacturing 1,476 340 345.7 79.6
Services 5,311 2,807 1,018.6 538.3 Hotels/Restaurants (Tourism) 296 129 258.7 112.7 Transportation 680 245 871.8 314.1 Other services 4,335 2,433 1,317.7 739.6
Non-Agricultural Sectors 14,419 7,013 375.0 182.4
All Producing Sectors 7,574 95.1 47.3
Gross Domestic Product 8,860 44.3 a The subsectors Livestock and Crops do not sum to the total because of a small amount of own- account construction included in this sector. b Communal agriculture cannot be disaggregated at this time. na: not available. The national accounts do not disaggregate agricultural value-added between livestock and crop production. Note: Blanks indicate that the figure cannot be calculated. Electricity and construction are included in services. The value of government and household use of water cannot be calculated in this way.
Source: Author’s calculations based on (Central Statistics Office, 1996a) for economic data and Table 4.
and, not surprisingly, diamond mining generates a higher return than the mining of other resources. Fish processing and tourism -- both potentially high- growth sectors -- generate a relatively high return on water input, N$451 and N$113, respectively.
17 Within agriculture, the value-added generated per cubic metre of water used is fairly similar for communal and commercial agriculture, N$4.5 and N$4.7, respectively. This similarity is unexpected, given the very different management strategies and economic objectives of the two agricultural sectors (see Lange et al., 1997 for analysis of the livestock industry in Namibia). The similarity results from the following: 1) the success of the Central Statistics Office (CSO) in measuring non-market, subsistence output which dominates the communal sector (pushing up the value-added per unit of water input for communal agriculture)
2) the very low economic return on water input to crop farming which dominates water use in commercial agriculture (pushing down the value-added per unit of water input for commercial agriculture).
The value of subsistence agriculture is often underestimated in national accounts since very little passes through formal economic markets, especially in many developing countries in which it may account for a significant share of agricultural production. Non-market production from livestock consists of meat, milk, eggs, manure, draught power for farming, and hides (Benhke and Scoones, 1992). The national accounts include estimates for the value of meat, milk, and eggs, but not for the value of the other commodities. Other subsistence production represented in the national accounts includes wild and cultivated plants, fruits, nuts, fish, and firewood. Additional non- marketed products not currently represented include thatching, wood for construction, medicines, and other materials from wild sources (Richardson, 1997). An agricultural census, special surveys, and the household income and expenditure survey may improve estimates of the value of subsistence production in the future.
Some crops are grown under irrigation while others are rainfed; however, the national accounts do not distinguish these two forms of crop production. Ideally, to calculate the value of output or the value-added per unit of water input for agriculture, the value of rainfed crops should be excluded. Since the economic data do not permit the exclusion of rainfed crops, the value of output and the value-added per unit of water input for agriculture reported in Table 6 is overestimated for both commercial and communal sectors.
The agricultural sector includes both livestock and crop agriculture. Unfortunately, the national accounts distinguish output for these two subsectors but not value-added, so their relative values-added per cubic metre of water input cannot be calculated. Nevertheless, a comparison of the value of output per cubic metre of water input for these subsectors provides a good indication of the likely relative magnitudes of their values-added. In the commercial sector, the values of output per unit of water input for livestock and for crops differ by two orders of magnitude, N$26.2 and N$0.2, respectively. Crop farming uses nearly three times as much water as livestock (65 million and 22 million cubic metres, respectively) but generates output with a value only 2% that of livestock (N$14 million and N$580 million, respectively). The difference would be even greater if rainfed crops were excluded from crop production. The data do not allow calculation of these figures for communal agriculture at this time.
It would also be useful to measure sectoral employment per unit of water input, as an indicator of the social impact of water use in each sector. For example, while the apparent economic value of water use in agriculture is low, agriculture plays a critical role in providing employment in rural
18 areas where there are few alternative sources of livelihood. Most of Namibia’s rural population relies on subsistence agriculture and wage employment in agriculture is estimated at 33,000 (CSO, 1996b) which is roughly 7% of the labor force. Unfortunately, data about employment by sector are not available for 1993; the most recent data are for 1991.
5. Water Pricing Policy, Delivery Costs, and Subsidies
Water tariffs and delivery costs Despite the scarcity of water in Namibia, no user of water provided by the government pays the full financial cost, operating plus capital costs (Table 7). Total subsidies to bulk and rural water supply amounted to N$ 67.3 million in 1993. Furthermore, no user pays the full social cost of water, even those rural users who obtain water at their own expense.
The tariffs charged for water and the costs of providing water vary enormously among economic sectors. Tariffs for bulk water in 1993 averaged N$ 0.66 per cubic metre with a low of N$0.015 in agriculture for irrigation (Directorate of Water Affairs, 1995). The average tariff for all users, excluding irrigation, was N$0.95 per cubic metre of water and ranged from a low of N$0.27 for a rural community to a high of N$1.27 for one of the mines. In most areas, the same tariff is applied to all users, regardless of how much water they consume. Windhoek has introduced a stepped-pricing system and a slightly stepped tariffs are also applied at the main irrigated farming site, Hardap.
Given the highly dispersed population, water is often quite expensive to supply, especially in rural areas. For bulk water supply, operating costs per cubic metre range from a low of N$0.12 to N$30.02 in some rural areas; capital costs range from N$0.02 to N$62.04; the average operating and capital costs were N$0.96 and N$1.38, respectively (Directorate of Water Affairs, 1995). The average total costs (operating plus capital costs) were N$2.34 per cubic metre, considerably higher than the average non-agricultural tariff of N$0.95 and two orders of magnitude more than the agricultural tariff.
As a result of the gap between the costs of providing water and the tariff, the average subsidy to users of bulk water supply in 1993 was 17% of operating costs and 71% of total costs (operating plus capital costs). Among the users of bulk water supply, crop farmers are the most heavily subsidized, paying only 21% of operating costs and only 4% of total costs. Urban households, part of mining, and transportation (mainly airports) also receive subsidies of both operating and total costs. Tariffs for other sectors cover or exceed the operating costs, though these sectors accounted for less than 4% of total water use in 1993 (other manufacturing, other services, fish processing and tourism). These sectors are also among those which generate the highest value- added per unit of water used. The total subsidy for bulk water supply was N$37.3 million in 1993. The effective subsidy is actually higher when failure to collect tariffs is also taken into account.
19 Table 7. Water Subsidies by Sector as a Percent of Capital and Operating Costs in 1993
SUBSIDY AS PERCENT OF COSTS
% of Total Costs % of Operating Percent of Total Sector (Capital plus Costs Only Water Use Operating)
Agriculture
Commercial Livestock (own supply) - - 11
Commercial Crops
From bulk water supply 79 96 14
Own supply - - 19
Communal Livestock
From bulk water supply 6 64 4
From rural water supply 100 100 5
Communal Crops (rural water supply) 100 100 9
Mining
Diamonds (own supply) - - 7
Other mining
From bulk water supply 19 71 2
Own supply - - 2
Manufacturing (from bulk water supply)
Fish Processing -13 69 *
Other Manufacturing 0 59 2
Other Services (from bulk water supply except where noted)
Hotels/Restaurants (Tourism)
From bulk water supply -12 21 1
Own supply 0 0 *
Transportation 20 64 *
Other Services 0 59 2
Households
Rural (rural water supply) 100 100 5
Urban (bulk water supply) 14 67 17
Subsidy by Source
Bulk water supply 17 71 42
Rural water supply 100 100 19
Own supply - - 39
Cost of Subsidy (millions of Namibia dollars)
Bulk water supply N$37.3
Rural water supply N$30.0
Total N$67.3
* less than 1% -: A blank indicates no subsidy because water is supplied by user, not government. Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.
Source: author’s calculations based on (DWA, 1995) and Table 4.
20
Until recently, tariffs have been charged only for customers of bulk water supply; there was no user charge for water supplied under the government’s rural water supply scheme so users of rural water supply received a 100% subsidy. Because water supply to rural communities was undertaken out of concern for social justice, little attention was paid to cost and only very rough estimates of the cost of rural water supply are currently available, though a program has been put in place to begin to begin to track these costs. The government’s annual operating budget for rural water--the effective subsidy cost--amounts to N$30 million.
Recognizing the importance of user charges that more closely reflect costs, the government introduced a new pricing policy which aims at “full cost” recovery. Under this policy, tariffs for bulk water were raised in 1995 (by an average of 30% while costs rose by about 10%) and tariffs are gradually being introduced for rural water users. However, full cost recovery is defined as recovery of operating costs and does not take into account either capital costs or any social costs that may be incurred. Omission of capital costs is appropriate in cases where water demand can be met with existing infrastructure which has already been paid for, but may be less prudent when massive new investments are required, as is the case with Namibia. Omission of capital costs can distort decision-making regarding alternative water supply strategies. For example, water conservation measures may appear less advantageous than relatively capital-intensive measures, like a long-distance pipeline or large-scale desalination plant, if the capital costs of the alternatives are not taken into account.
Even a pricing policy based on recovery of both operating and capital cost does not always reflect the full social costs of water use. There may be external costs associated with the depletion of fossil groundwater or the loss of surface water for downstream use. Because groundwater is a common property resource, its depletion can generate external costs in the form of reduced groundwater available for neighboring users. The full economic cost of using water must reflect the opportunity cost that measures the lost revenues from alternative uses. For example, a dam on a seasonal river to support crop irrigation will reduce grazing downstream; the diversion of perennial river water for irrigation will reduce electric power generation at a downstream hydroelectric plant.
Despite the shortcomings, the introduction of prices that cover operating costs is a step toward providing users a more appropriate signal about the scarcity of water and an incentive to conserve water. Several sectors already meet or exceed this pricing objective; tariffs for most other sectors would not require a large increase to meet this objective. However, two sectors would experience considerable difficulty in paying the operating costs and bear closer scrutiny:
- bulk water supply to commercial farmers for irrigation
- rural water supply to communal sector livestock farming and households
Irrigated Crop Production in the Commercial Sector
Commercial farmers provide between 30- 50% of Namibia’s demand for cereals, depending on the annual rainfall (Fowler, 1996). All of Namibia’s wheat and a smaller share of its white maize are grown under irrigation, as well as some of its fruits and vegetables. Commercial crop irrigation,
21 which accounts for 14% of all water use, receives a water subsidy far above the economy-wide average. Since commercial farmers generally constitute a relatively well-off minority which was historically privileged at the expense of the majority of the population, it is not clear that the larger social good is served by the continued expenditure of public revenues to subsidize this activity. Under current irrigation practices, farmers would not be able to pay the full costs of water and remain profitable. An economic analysis of the introduction of improved, more water-efficient sprinkler irrigation technologies found that the water savings, ranging from 14-17% (Food and Agriculture Organization, 1977 quoted in Directorate of Water Affairs, 1994), would be too small to make full-cost pricing of water affordable to farmers.
In addition to extensive water subsidies, commercial crop farming has received other subsidies. Major cereal crops produced in Namibia have received substantial protection from cheaper imports: the price of white maize is about 20% higher than it would be in the absence of trade protection and wheat between 10% and 23% higher (Fowler, 1996). The government has set food self-sufficiency as a medium-term economic objective in the First National Development Plan, 1995-2000 (National Planning Commission, 1996). Such a policy will require continued, or perhaps even higher levels of trade protection (as production is extended to more marginal areas with a higher cost of production), as well as additional water and water subsidies. The government’s food policy must be viewed against global and regional pressures toward trade liberalization, as well as competing demands from other sectors for government support. The possible curtailment of import protection will reduce farm profitability and further reduce the ability of farmers to pay the full cost of water.
One alternative strategy for this sector would be to change the crops grown under irrigation from primarily low-value cereal crops to higher-value fruits and vegetables. Many fruits and vegetables can utilize irrigation methods that are extremely water-efficient: citrus and grapes are estimated to require 44% and 36% less water, respectively, under drip irrigation compared to current methods of irrigation. Further analysis will be carried out in future work to determine if a switch to higher- value crops combined with improved irrigation systems would make full-cost water pricing possible. If irrigated crop agriculture is found to be profitable under these conditions, policies need to be designed to encourage these changes.
Rural Development Strategy and The Communal Sector
Water is supplied at no cost to the communal areas for domestic use and for subsistence farming. This policy has been driven by a desire to address the historical inequality of access to resources and the inequality of living standards. Though the rural population constitutes 70% of the population, it accounts for only 22% of annual water use, 5% for domestic purposes and an additional 17% for agriculture. At the time of Independence only 50% of the rural population had access to reliable sources of safe drinking water (within 2.5 kilometres of the home). The government is committed to increasing access to 80% of rural households by 2010 (National Planning Commission, 1996).
Water policy is one component of a rural development strategy based on bringing basic services (not just water, but also education, health care, marketing and financial services, etc.) to the rural population. Given Namibia’s low carrying capacity and highly dispersed population, it is extremely expensive to provide services to all rural households. Many rural households earn only
22 a minimal subsistence living and rely on pensions and remittances from family in urban areas (Adamchak, 1995; Central Statistics Office, 1996b). They could not afford to pay the full costs of water.
A number of rural development schemes have been initiated based on irrigated crop farming. These agricultural schemes are particularly costly and have so far proven unable to pay even their operating costs (for an evaluation of the scheme at Etunda, see Low, 1996). In part, this is due to the emphasis on the production of low-value cereal crops which do not generate enough revenue to pay for water. Not only do cereal crops generate lower incomes per hectare irrigated and per cubic metre of water input than other crops, but they also generate lower levels of employment. Consequently, the emphasis on cereal crops reduces the effectiveness of these development schemes in alleviating rural unemployment and poverty. Alternative crops would generate higher incomes and employment (though extensive transportation and marketing infrastructure would be needed). For example, citrus generates more than 20 times as much income per hectare as maize (N$17,200 v. N$780) and grapes generate 47 times as much income as maize. Citrus production requires 340 person-days per hectare and grapes require 1,150 person days while maize generates employment of only 20.5 to 44.5 days per hectare (Fowler, 1996).
Furthermore, the opportunity cost of using water for the Etunda irrigation scheme was not taken into account in the planning stage. Not only is the Etunda project unable to cover its operating costs, but it results in losses to other sectors of the economy. The Etunda irrigation scheme is up- river from the hydroelectric power generation plant at Ruacana. The use of water for irrigation reduces the water available for electricity production, reducing revenues for Nampower and affecting Namibia’s international trade in electricity.
6. Policy Implications:Sustainability of Current Patterns of Water Use
Given the economic objectives outlined in the First National Development Plan (National Planning Commission, 1996), water demand is likely to increase by nearly 20% from 1993 to 2000 in the absence of water conservation measures (preliminary estimates by the author). Sound water policy is critical and needs to be examined from both an ecological and an economic perspective.
Ecological Sustainability
Ecologically, growth of water demand under current practices raises serious challenges. Groundwater supplies about 62% of rural and urban household water requirements and 85% of the water for communal area livestock. These users together account for roughly one-third of total water use and constitute the fastest growing users of water as well. Groundwater depletion, already a concern in selected areas of Namibia, is likely to worsen because of the recent drought. Drought diminishes the amount of surface water available, which increases the use of groundwater while at the same time reducing the recharge of groundwater sources.
Plans to increased utilization of the perennial rivers are raising international concerns. The major new irrigation schemes under consideration are mostly located along the perennial rivers which
23 form Namibia’s boundaries with neighboring countries. Any increase in irrigated production will draw increasingly on these international sources of water which other countries in the region also rely on. Other major development projects, such as the proposed development of a large copper mine on the Orange River which forms Namibia’s southern boundary with south Africa, will also increase pressure on international sources of water. It will be a challenge to preserve a year-round flow of water adequate to maintain the fragile river ecosystem while meeting the water needs of both South Africa and Namibia.
Desalination is an ecologically sound, if expensive, alternative being developed for sensitive coastal areas but major urban population centers are looking to the construction of a water carrier from a perennial river, shared with neighboring countries, to provide a new, more reliable source of water. There has been no integrated impact analysis of regional water use in Southern Africa, though the countries are growing so rapidly that all are looking to international waters for supply in the future. In the absence of coordinated analysis and planning of water sharing among the countries, it will be difficult to avoid serious environmental impacts, or even political conflict, in the long term.
Economic Sustainability
To consider the economic dimension of water policy, two categories of users should be distinguished: those sectors which could pay full costs of water supply and remain profitable under current practices, and those sectors which could not afford to pay the full cost of water. The first category of water users includes mining, manufacturing, and service sectors as well as all but the poorest households. These sectors account for about one-third of water use and there is no reason not to institute higher water tariffs in these sectors in order to recover a greater share of the total costs of water delivery. A survey of manufacturing and service sectors indicated that the price of water would not have an impact on their business decisions since water costs were a very small share of total costs (personal communication with Directorate of Water Affairs staff, 1996).
Regarding the second category of water users, those who cannot currently afford to pay the full cost of water, one must ask whether continued water subsidies represent the best use of the government of Namibia’s scarce revenues. From a purely economic point of view, the inability to pay the full cost of resource inputs like water represents an inefficient use of society’s resources. A reallocation of resources out of such activities into those which can generate income sufficient to pay the full cost of water (or any other inputs needed for production) would bring about an economic improvement. However, the subsidy of some users needs to be assessed in terms of the contribution of such water use to broader social objectives, such as equity and the generation of employment in rural areas.
The commercial crop farming sector should be assessed mainly on economic grounds. Major changes would be needed for this sector to become economically viable without subsidies and any reduction of subsidies would result in a very difficult period of adjustment. It is possible that the introduction of higher-value crops combined with water conservation measures would make irrigated farming profitable with full cost recovery, but further study of these options is needed. Decisions about water pricing need to be coordinated with other policy decisions which affect agriculture, such as trade liberalization. Policies are needed to assist in a transition to agriculture which is more sustainable both ecologically and economically.
24
It is a widely-supported position that the population of communal areas merits assistance to help reduce the sizeable inequality of income and access to resources in Namibia. This analysis raises concerns about the most effective means to provide that assistance, recognizing that there are tradeoffs inherent in any development strategy: the more money the government spends on one program, the less it will have to spend on others. The current rural development strategy provides water at great expense for activities which are not economically sustainable and may not make the greatest contribution toward reducing rural poverty. Analysis indicates that, at the very least, the kinds of crops under irrigated cultivation needs to be more closely examined in terms of the impact on rural poverty. An example of an alternative development strategy would be the promotion of more rapid growth of regional towns where infrastructure and services like water as well as education, health, and other social services could be provided more cheaply. This policy would then have the advantage of increasing the financial resources available for additional development projects and might allow the government to improve the standards of living of a greater number of people.
No sector of the economy pays the full private costs of water, even under the new system of tariffs, and there is little information about the real social cost of water. Regardless of whether Namibia’s development objectives for specific sectors are primarily economic, or a combination of economic, political and social factors, a better understanding of the scarcity value and opportunity cost of water would improve the ability to assess alternative development strategies. A couple of alternatives to current policies in commercial agriculture and rural development were mentioned to illustrate shortcomings of current policy. Additional, realistic alternatives need to be identified and evaluated in a multi-sectoral framework that takes into account the full range of development objectives and the sectoral strategies for achieving them. This multi-sectoral analysis, for which NRA are ideally suited, will help reveal the opportunity cost of resource use and provide the basis for identifying sustainable development strategies.
Namibia is now undertaking the institutionalization of NRA and has assumed a leadership role in NRA in the Southern African region. An initial workshop was held to discuss a regional strategy for developing environmental accounts. One key element of the strategy is to link the construction of NRA with their use for macroeconomic policy analysis and planning. A second important element was the adoption of a common framework and a common set of definitions for NRA so that the NRA will be comparable among the different countries and, consequently, will be appropriate for addressing regional resource management issues. This is especially important for water management since all countries in the region rely on international sources of water. The construction of similar water accounts for Namibia’s neighbors will make it possible for Namibia to explore alternative domestic water strategies, taking the regional consequences more fully into account.
25 References Adamchak, D. 1995. Pensions and household structure of older persons in Namibia,” in Southern African Journal of Gerontology. Vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 11-15.
Alfsen, K. 1996. Environmental accounting: some comments based on experiences from Norway. Paper presented at Conference on Environmental Accounting in Theory and Practice, International Association for the Review of Income and Wealth, March 5-8, 1996, Tokyo.
Alfsen, K., T. Bye and L. Lorentson. 1987. Natural Resource Accounting and Analysis, The Norwegian Experience, 1978-1986. Central Bureau of Statistics of Norway: Oslo. 67pp.
Ashley, C., H. Muller, and M. Harris. 1995. Population dynamics, the environment and demand for water and energy in Namibia. DEA Research Discussion Paper Number 7. September. Windhoek, Namibia: Directorate of Environmental Affairs. 37pp.
Behnke, R. H. And I. Scoones. 1992. Rethinking range ecology: implications for rangeland management in Africa. World Bank Environment Working Paper No. 53.
Biesenbach and Bandenhorst, Inc., Windhoek Consulting Engineers, Namibia Development Corporation. 1994. Identification and prioritisation of irrigation development opportunities on the Orange River. Report For the Ministry of Agriculture, Water, and Rural Development No. 2010- 03. Windhoek: Namibia.
Brown, C.J. 1994. Namibia's Green Plan. Ministry of Environment and Tourism: Windhoek, Namibia. 174pp.
Central Statistics Office. 1996a. National Accounts, 1980 to 1995. Government Printer: Windhoek, Namibia. 54pp.
______. 1996b. Living Conditions in Namibia: The 1993/1994 Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey. Government Printer: Windhoek, Namibia. 235pp.
Directorate of Water Affairs. 1990. Annual Report 1989-1990. Windhoek, Namibia: Ministry of Agriculture, Water, and Rural Affairs (MAWRD).
______. 1991a. Perspective on Water Affairs. Windhoek, Namibia: MAWRD. 63pp.
______. 1991b. Annual Report 1990-1991. Windhoek, Namibia: MAWRD.
______. 1992. Annual Report 1991-1992. Windhoek, Namibia: MAWRD.
______. 1993a. A Digest of the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Policy of the Government of Namibia. Windhoek, Namibia: MAWRD.36pp.
______. 1993b. Central Area Water Master Plan: Phase 1, volume 1. Windhoek, Namibia: MAWRD. Paged by alphabetical section.
26 ______. 1993c. Central Area Water Master Plan: Phase 1, volume 3. Windhoek, Namibia: MAWRD. Paged by alphabetical section.
______.1994. “Pre-Feasibility investigations of the Brukkaros Dam scheme.” Ministry of Agriculture, Water, and Rural Development: Windhoek, Namibia.
______. 1995. 1995/96 Projected Bulk Water Supply Costs and Tariffs, Annexures 1, 2, and 3. Unpublished.
Directorate of Water Affairs, Hydrology Division. 1995a. Hydrological review of the 1993/94 season. Windhoek, Namibia Ministry of Agriculture, Water, and Rural Affairs. 19pp. plus annexures.
______. 1995b. General hydrological conditions and characteristics of surface water schemes in Namibia. Windhoek, Namibia: Ministry of Agriculture, Water, and Rural Affairs. 10pp. plus annexures.
______. 1996. Unpublished database of boreholes drilled by location and year established. Windhoek, Namibia:Ministry of Agriculture, Water, and Rural Affairs.
DWA. See Department of Water Affairs.
Food and Agriculture Organization. 1977. Crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24. FAO: Rome. Quoted in (Directorate of Water Affairs, 1994).
Fowler, M. 1996. Food security and food self-sufficiency in Namibia: an attempt to see the forest for the trees. Draft unpublished paper, Directorate of Planning and Research, Ministry of Agriculture, Water, and Rural Development. 12pp.
Lange, G. 1996. Natural resource accounting in Namibia: representing depletion and degradation of water, land, and biodiversity in physical terms. Paper presented at Conference on Environmental Accounting in Theory and Practice, International Association for the Review of Income and Wealth, March 5-8, 1996, Tokyo. 37pp.
______. 1997. Final report: natural resource accounting in Namibia and Southern Africa.” Draft Final Report to USAID. 134pp.
Lange, G., J.I. Barnes, and D.J. Motinga. 1997. Cattle numbers, biomass, productivity, and land degradation in the commercial farming areas of Namibia, 1914 to 1995. Draft Research Discussion Paper, Directorate of Environmental Affairs, Ministry of Environment and Tourism: Windhoek, Namibia. March 1997. 29pp.
Low, A. 1996. Irrigated crop research priorities: questions raised by an economic evaluation of the Etunda Project. Paper presented at the Annual Planning Meeting of the Division of Plant Production, Ministry of Agriculture, Water, and Rural Development. Tsumeb, Namibia, 10-12 September. 11pp.
27 National Planning Commission. 1996. First National Development Plan. Government Printing Office: Windhoek, Namibia. In 2 volumes, 521pp. and 325 pp.
Richardson, J. 1997. The Economics of biodiversity conservation in Namibia. Draft Research Discussion Paper, Directorate of Environmental Affairs, Ministry of Environment and Tourism: Windhoek, Namibia.
United Nations. 1993. Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting. Studies in Methods, Handbook of National Accounting, Series F, No. 61. United Nations: New York. 182pp.
Weather Bureau, Ministry of Public Works. 1996. Unpublished database of rainfall in Namibia. Windhoek, Namibia.
28 APPENDIX. Derivation of the Use Accounts for Water1
Water use accounts consist of water supplied through bulk water supply and rural water supply from ground, ephemeral surface, and perennial surface sources to 20 economic sectors, two categories of households, and a government sector. There is no comprehensive information about water use that provides all the detail by origin and destination required for the NRA. Fairly detailed information about bulk water supply is available (from an unpublished database), but very little information is available for rural water supply. Even the information about bulk water supply is not available in a form that allows easy integration with economic data because use is identified by geographic location, called a water supply point. In some instances, a supply point can be directly associated with an economic use, for example, the water supply point, Windhoek airport, can be assigned to the Transportation sector. In other cases the relationship is not at all clear, for example, the water supply point for Windhoek city covers many different economic sectors as well as urban households and government.
A variety of different data sources and assumptions was used to compile water use accounts. The starting point was (DWA, 1991a) which provides a comprehensive estimate of water use by five major users of water from each of the three natural sources for 1990 (shown here as Table A1). It does not distinguish delivery by bulk and by rural water supply nor does the classification of users match the more disaggregated economic classification of the IO table. Despite these limitations, Table A1 was used as a guide for constructing detailed water use tables because it is the only comprehensive source of information available for any year. The figures of Table A1 are derived in part from official records of water use and in part on the basis of assumptions about sectoral water needs and are considered reasonably accurate.
The accounts for 1990 were used as control totals (with some adjustments discussed in this annex) and disaggregated to match the economic classification and the institutional classification of the NRA use accounts. The 1990 accounts were then updated for 1993 using official records and the assumptions used to construct the 1990 table of water use. The steps taken and sources used to produce the disaggregated 1990 table of water use and the estimated 1993 table are discussed in this section, organized by economic sector. The major sources of information include the Annual Reports of the Directorate of Water Affairs for various years (DWA, 1990, 1991b, 1992), a special report on water supply policy prepared for the First National Development Plan (DWA, 1993a), a two-volume Master Plan for the Namibia’s Central Area which includes the major cities (DWA, 1993b, 1993c), and unpublished worksheets which record the use and cost of water provide by bulk water supply in 1993 (DWA, 1995). These data sources are almost exclusively devoted to bulk water supply; little information is available about rural water supply at this time.
1Martin Harris, Acting Deputy Director of the Planning Section of the Directorate of Water Affairs at the time of this work, provided a great deal of assistance and insight without which this work could not have been done.
29
Table A1. Use of Water by Source and Destination in 1990 (millions of cubic metres)
Ephemeral User Perennial rivers Groundwater Total Rivers
Domestic 12.6 13.4 41.0 67.0
Livestock 3.7 * 60.3 64.0
Mining 2.0 2.5 7.5 12.0
Tourism - 0.3 0.7 1.0
Irrigation 39.7 33.8 31.5 106.0
Total 58.0 51.0 141.0 250.0
* negligible amount.
Source: (DWA, 1991a, Table 8, p. 14).
Agriculture Water use for agriculture encompasses four sectors which are distinct in terms of the technology used (including institutional characteristics) and the products: communal livestock, communal crops, commercial livestock and commercial crops. Only crops grown under irrigation are considered here; water use for rainfed crops is not estimated.
Communal and Commercial Livestock No official records are available about the amount of water used for watering livestock. In the official records of bulk water supply, (DWA, 1995), a few water supply points are defined as stock watering points but water use at these points combines both stock watering and water use for domestic purposes. Consequently, instead of relying solely on official records, a different approach was taken to estimate water use for livestock, based on the average daily water requirement per head of different kinds of livestock. Of course, livestock may consume more than the daily water requirement on some days and less on other days, but this method is considered by experts to provide a reasonably accurate estimate of annual water use. Total water use was estimated using this method for 1990 and then for 1993. Once total water use was estimated, additional steps were taken to, first, disaggregate water use by natural source and then disaggregate the water use by institutional source. The following steps and assumptions were used to estimate the disaggregated water use accounts for livestock:
30
1. Total Water Requirements for Commercial and Communal Sector Livestock. Total water requirements were estimated for commercial and communal sector livestock as the product of the water requirements per head for cattle, horses, donkeys, sheep and goats (Table A2) and the numbers of each type of livestock in communal and commercial areas (given in the NRA for livestock). The daily requirements used for these calculations are lower than those used in the calculations reported in DWA, 1991a and, consequently total water requirements are lower than reported in Table A1, but were chosen they were considered more realistic by experts. Total water required
Table A2. Water Requirements for Livestock
Sheep Cattle, horses, and Total and donkeys goats
Litres per day per head 30 9
Estimated water use in 1990 (millions of cubic metres)
Commercial livestock 12.4 11.7 24.1
Communal livestock 12.9 5.4 18.3
Total 25.3 17.0 42.4
Estimated water use in 1993 (millions of cubic metres)
Commercial livestock 12.5 9.6 22.1
Communal livestock 12.7 4.3 17.0
Total 25.2 13.9 39.1
Note: Figures may not sum due to rounding.
Source: Row 1: personal communication with M. Harris, DWA. Rows 2 and 3, author’s calculations based on data from the NRA for livestock and row 1.
for livestock was 42.4 million cubic metres in 1990 but only 39.1 million cubic metres in 1993, reflecting de-stocking that took place in response to a drought (Table A2).
2. Total Water Use by Natural Source. To estimate total water use by natural source, the figures for total livestock water use for 1990 and 1993 in Table A2 were distributed among groundwater, perennial surface water, and ephemeral surface water in the same proportions as reported in Table A1. No ephemeral water is used for livestock.
31 3. Water for Commercial Livestock by Institution and Natural Source. As the first step to disaggregate water use by institutional source, it was pointed out by DWA staff that the commercial livestock sector supplies virtually all its own water from groundwater sources (except for a negligible amount where DWA's long distance water carriers cross commercial farms) so the entire commercial sector requirement was attributed to rural water supply from groundwater.
4. Water for Communal Livestock by Institution and Natural Source. The water used for communal livestock is provided partly by bulk and partly by rural water supply, from both groundwater and perennial rivers. The amount provided by bulk water supply in 1990 was obtained from the Annual Report (DWA, 1990) and the amount for 1993 was obtained from the figures for water use at stock watering points in (DWA, 1995). Bulk water was then split between ground and perennial surface water source according to information provided by M. Harris.
The balance of the water used for communal livestock is attributed to rural water supply. This rural water use was distributed between groundwater and perennial water as a residual: subtracting all the water use by natural source estimated in the previous steps from the control totals for water supply by source calculated in step 2.
Communal and Commercial Crop Agriculture Water use in this sector is limited to estimates of the amount of water used to irrigate crops. DWA (1991a) reports that 106 million cubic metres of water were used to irrigate 7,060 hectares in 1990 (Table A3), averaging 15,000 cubic metres of water per hectare, though this figure runs as high as about 20,000 cubic metres per hectare for some crops at Hardap, a major commercial irrigation scheme.
The irrigation schemes identified in Table A3 were identified as communal or commercial by experts in DWA. Bulk water supplied 30.6 million cubic metres in 1990 (DWA, 1990) and 27.7 million cubic metres in 1993 (DWA, 1995), all from ephemeral rivers and all of which went to the commercial sector (personal communication, Martin Harris). The remaining irrigation water, provided by rural water supply, was distributed among the three natural sources according to (DWA, 1991a and personal communication with Martin Harris).
The irrigation of commercial “stock farms” refers to estimated use of water on livestock farms for own-use crop production. Commercial farms are allowed to irrigate up to one hectare without registering with the government. It is assumed by DWA, but has not been verified, that roughly 2,150 hectares are under irrigation in this manner. The same number is assumed for all years. Since production from stock farms has never been verified and does not enter national accounts (subsistence production is estimated only for communal farms), this water use is separated from other commercial agriculture in the water accounts.
Except for figures for irrigation water provided by bulk water (DWA, 1995), there was little information about irrigation in 1993. An estimate of the total water used was made on the basis of the number of hectares under irrigation (from an unpublished worksheet provided by the Ministry of Agriculture) and the average water use per hectare calculated from the figures
32 provided for 1990. Unfortunately, the most recent year for which the land area under irrigation was available was 1992. Even the figures for 1992 were not as detailed as those for 1990; the geographic breakdown of irrigation schemes was not provided, though commercial and communal sectors were distinguished. The 1992 land figures were disaggregated according to the 1990 distribution of land under irrigation to estimate use of water by source. An estimated 81.9 million cubic metres of water were used for irrigation in 1992. For lack of more recent data, these figures were used for 1993 and were adjusted upward slightly to 82.4 million cubic metres according to (Ashley et al., 1995).
Table A3. Water Use for Crop Irrigation in Commercial and Communal Areas, 1990 and 1992 (millions of cubic metres)
1992 1990
Water Use by Source Commercial Areas Hectares Total Ground Ephemeral Perennial Hectares Water
Orange river 1,800 27.0 - - 27.0 1,681 25.2 Fish river (Hardap) 1,500 30.0 - 30.0 - 1,400 28.0 Auob river/Stampriet 610 9.2 9.2 - - 570 8.5 G-T-O 100 1.5 1.5 - - 93 1.4 Omaruru 60 0.9 0.9 - - 56 0.8 Subtotal 4,070 68.6 11.6 30.0 27.0 3,800 64.0
Communal Areas Okavango 700 10.5 - - 10.5 - - Caprivi 60 0.9 - - 0.9 - - Damaraland 60 0.9 0.9 - - - - Kaokoland 10 0.2 0.2 - - - - Owambo 10 0.2 0.2 - - - - Subtotal 840 12.6 1.2 - 11.4 1,190 17.9
Total 4,910 81.8 12.8 30.0 38.4 4,990 81.9
Stock farms 2,150 24.7 24.7 - - 2,150 24.7
Source: Figures for 1990 from DWA, 1991a and personal communication with M. Harris. Figures for 1992, personal communication with Martin Fowler, Ministry of Agriculture (for hectares under irrigation) and author’s estimates described in text.
Forestry and Fisheries Forestry is not yet included in either the national economic accounts or in the natural resource accounts. No information is available about any water use associated with this sector. No water use by fisheries is recorded; water use is considered so low in this sector as to be negligible.
33
Mining The mining sector is separated into two subsectors: diamond mining and all other mining. Diamond mining provides its own water and its water use has not been a subject of concern since diamond mining operations occur in a remote area with no competing or downstream users. This use of water is not included in any official estimates of water use. However, an estimate of annual water use in 1990 of 13.6 million cubic metres is given in (Biesenbach & Badenhorst, et al., 1994). For lack of data, the same figure is assumed for all years. Since there are currently no serious policy issues raised by the use of water for diamond mining this assumption provides a reasonable order-of-magnitude figure.
All other mines operate in less remote areas and, in some cases, e.g., uranium mining, may compete with other economic activities for limited water. There is no single comprehensive source of information about water use by the mining sector. Several sources were used. Spanning several years: (DWA, 1991a), (DWA, 1991b), (DWA, 1993c), and, for 1993, (DWA, 1995). Both (DWA, 1993c) and (DWA, 1991b) reported water use for individual mines; (DWA, 1991b) reports only use of bulk water, while (DWA, 1993c) reports bulk as well as some rural water in the Central Area of Namibia. These different reports provide a means to distinguish bulk and rural water supply and to distribute water by natural source. Again the starting point is the figure of 12.0 million cubic metres for 1990 shown in Table A1 provided by (DWA, 1991a). Pooling the data from other sources for that year so that all mines are covered provides a total of 11.2 million cubic metres in 1990 (Table A4), close to the total reported in (DWA, 1991a) of 12.0. Martin Harris provided information about the natural source of bulk water; the remainder was distributed to correspond to the control totals for mining of Table A1.
Information about water use for mining in 1993 is limited to bulk water supply, reported at 4.4 million cubic metres in (DWA, 1995). It was distributed among the natural sources based on information provided by M. Harris. Rural water supply for mining for 1993 was projected in (DWA, 1993c, Table C.5) to remain roughly constant from 1991 to 1993 at 3.7 million cubic metres. Under these assumptions, water use in 1993 is significantly lower in 1993 than in 1990. The main reason for this decline is the reduced output of the Rossing mine in 1993.
Manufacturing Manufacturing is disaggregated into two sectors: Fish processing and Other manufacturing. Water use by Fish processing is discussed in this section; water use by Other manufacturing sectors is discussed below in the section, Other commercial and Industrial sectors since the main data source for this sector combined service and industrial sectors.
Fish Processing Most of the on-shore fish processing occurs at Walvis Bay using ground water from bulk water supply (personal communication Martin Harris). Use of water for fish processing is reported for 1990 and 1991 and projected for 1993 in (DWA, 1993c). These figures are reported here in Table A5.
34 Table A4. Water Use by Mines According to Alternative Sources in 1990 and 1993 (millions of cubic metres)
1990
From 2 sources and a combined estimate Mine DWA, 1993c DWA, 1991b Combined 1993 Kombat - - - - Navachab 1.046 1.046 1.046 0.97 Okarusu 0.350 - 0.350 - Otjihase 0.392 0.392 0.392 0.40 Rossing 4.367 4.367 4.367 2.20 Tsumeb 3.360 - 3.360 * Uis 0.314 0.314 0.314 0.09 Rosh Pinah - 1.344 1.344 0.75
Rural water use not 3.70 identified by mine
Total 9.830 7.464 11.174 8.10
* negligible. -: not reported. Notes: (DWA, 1993c) reports both bulk and non-bulk water supply. The combined figure is obtained by pooling estimates from both sources.
Source: (DWA, 1991b, 1993c, 1995).
Table A5. Water Used for Fish Processing in Walvis Bay, 1990 to 1993 (thousands of cubic metres)
Year Water Use
1990 457
1991 387
1993 (estimated) 690
Source: (DWA, 1993c, Table B.3, page B-3).
Service, Other Industrial, and Institutional Sectors The major sectors discussed here are: Restaurants and hotels, Transportation services, Other commercial sectors, Industrial sectors, and Institutional sectors. The sector, Restaurants and hotels, is generally treated as the tourism sector in many data sources, though many tourism activities are left out, notably transportation. Except for Tourism, (DWA, 1991a) does not report water use by any of these sectors; these sectors are combined under the category domestic use
35 and other documents are required to determine how much of the water attributed to domestic use should be assigned to each of these sectors. Though the data for many of these sectors is poor, these sectors account for very little of Namibia’s water use, so an order-of-magnitude estimate is sufficient at this time.
Restaurants and Hotels (Tourism) Information about water use for Tourism is underestimated because only major tourist sites are covered in official records. For example, water use by hotels in major urban tourist destinations like Windhoek and Swakopmund are included in commercial use. Water used at the extensive system of tourist facilities in rural areas which supply their own water, mainly groundwater, is simply not measured. In addition, not all of the output of Restaurants and hotels is for tourists; there is a significant domestic demand for these services and the water needed to provide them. However, no additional information about this component of Tourism is available at this time.
Water use for Tourism of 1.0 million cubic metres was reported for 1990 by (DWA, 1991a), and includes both bulk and rural water supply. (DWA, 1991b) reports use of 0.82 million cubic metres of bulk water for major tourist centers in 1990. DWA (1993c) reports water use at tourist centers in Namibia’s Central Area which use both bulk and rural water, the latter attributed to Waterburg (Table A6). Bulk water use for major tourist sites in 1993 was reported at 0.92 million cubic metres. It is assumed that rural water use grew at the same rate as bulk water from 1990 to 1993, for an estimated total water use for tourism of 1.144 million cubic metres in 1993. The distribution by natural source was assumed to be the same in 1993 as it was in 1990.
Transportation Use of water for transportation services is included in domestic demand in (DWA, 1991a). DWA (1993c) reports water use for major air and water transportation centers at 0.56 million cubic metres in 1990, but is an underestimate since it covers only the Central Area of Namibia. The use of bulk water for transportation activities in 1993 can be estimated in part from (DWA, 1995) in which separate water supply points exist for airports and for use at the port of Walvis Bay. The use by Portnet in Walvis Bay is combined with other uses of water in the area. However, (DWA, 1993c) provides a breakdown of users in Walvis Bay and it is assumed that in 1993, the use of water by Portnet is equal to that used in 1990. A breakdown of water use by natural source was provided by M. Harris.
Other Industrial and Commercial Sectors and Government DWA (1993b, 1993c) provides detailed information about water use from bulk water supply in 1991 for each town in the Central Area of Namibia (Table A8). The categories of water users include Industrial, Commercial, Institutional, Gardens, and Government. For the purpose of constructing the NRA flow accounts, the (DWA, 1993b, 1993c) category of industry is classified as Other manufacturing in the NRA use accounts. Commerce is split among the NRA service sectors excluding transportation, hotels and restaurants, and social services. In some instances involving small amounts of water, water use is reported for a combined category of industry and commerce. This combined category is assigned to the NRA commercial sectors. The category, institutions, is classified as services. Gardens refers
36 Table A6. Water Use for Tourism in 1990 and 1993 (millions of cubic metres)
1990 from two sources 1993 Tourist Site DWA, 1993c DWA, 1991b DWA, 1995
Etosha - 0.488 0.575
Others - 0.330 -
Daan Viljoen 0.043 - 0.065 Gobabeb 0.007 - 0.008 Gross Barmen 0.052 - 0.059 Von Bach Dam 0.022 - 0.026 * Waterburg 0.085 - 0.085 Ai-Ais - - 0.033 Hardap tourist resort - - 0.069
Total 0.209 0.818 0.920
-: not reported * not reported, assume same as in 1990 and 1991
Source: (DWA, 1991b, 1993c, 1995).
Table A7. Water Use for Transportation in 1990 and 1993 (millions of cubic metres)
Location 1990 1993 Rooikop airport 0.34 0.20 Windhoek airport 0.09 0.09 * Portnet (port authority of Walvis Bay) 0.13 0.13 Mpacha Airport na 0.13 Ruacana airport na 0.17 Ondangwa airport na 0.06
Total 0.56 0.78
na: not available * water use at Portnet in 1993 is not reported separately from total water use in the area; it is assumed that water use is equal to the amount used in 1990.
Source: 1990 from (DWA, 1993c pp. B-3 and B-6). 1993 from (DWA, 1995).
37
Table A8. Water Use by Industry, Commerce, Services and Government in the Central Area in 1991 (millions of cubic metres)
Commerce Public General Town Commerce Industry and Garden Institutions Other Government Industry s Grootfontein 0.087 0.582 0.815 Karibib 0.082 0.038 Okahandja 0.135 0.270 0.108 0.157 Omaruru 0.060 0.017 0.077 0.115 Otavi 0.018 0.011 0.166 0.032 Otjiwarongo 0.099 0.141 0.280 Outjo 0.080 0.037 0.027 0.038 Swakopmund 0.195 0.108 0.185 0.122 Tsumeb 0.071 0.141 1.036 0.463 Usakos 0.017 0.012 0.009 0.029 * Walvis Bay 0.012 0.341 Windhoek 2.039 2.936 Rehoboth 0.096 0.026 0.078 0.137
Total 2.849 4.605 0.142 1.275 0.930 0.351 1.373
* except fish factories and Portnet
Notes: a blank means no data was provided. For some towns, figures did not disaggregate commerce and industry Public gardens should be considered part of government. The category, General Government, does not include all water use by government, but it is not possible to determine what has been assigned to other categories at this time.
Source: (DWA 1993b, 1993c).
to public gardens and is assigned to government. It is not entirely clear from the report what is meant by the category called government in (DWA, 1993b, 1993c). Water use attributed to government in this report is considered to be far less than what is actually used by general government (personal communication with M. Harris), but no additional information is available at this time.
Since the Central Area accounts for 80% of manufacturing output and most service sector activities (DWA, 1993c), it can be treated as covering virtually all industry and commerce in Namibia. Given the lack of data for 1993 and the relatively small amount of water used by the manufacturing and service sectors (5% in total), a simple method was used to estimate the amount of water used in 1993. Water use per dollar of output (in constant prices) in 1991 was calculated for each economic sector. These “water input coefficients” were then multiplied by the 1993 levels of sectoral output (in constant prices) providing an estimate of water use for these sectors in 1993.
It is assumed that all manufacturing and services use bulk water. Water use for these sectors was similarly calculated for 1990 to assist in the calculation of domestic water use described in the
38 final part of this Annex. Water use was disaggregated by natural source according the following rules of thumb: generally, coastal areas use all groundwater, Tsumeb and Grootfontein in the north use mostly groundwater, Windhoek and remaining areas in the Central Area use roughly 90% ephemeral surface water and 10% groundwater (personal communication from M. Harris).
Domestic Use of Water The estimation of domestic use of water is divided into two parts: urban use from bulk water supply, and rural use mainly from rural water supply.
Urban Households All urban centers are supplied by bulk water supply. Some estimates of domestic use are reported for 1990 in (DWA, 1991b) and estimated for 1993 in (Ashley et al., 1995), but these reports are not very useful for the NRA accounts because domestic use is defined to include manufacturing, service, and government water use in addition to residential use. An alternative approach to estimating domestic, defined as only residential, water use was needed. Urban household water use was calculated by subtracting from total bulk water in 1993 (DWA, 1995) the use of water by all non-residential sectors that has already been estimated in previous sections of this annex. This water is distributed by natural source according to the average distribution for all bulk water: 65% groundwater, 30% ephemeral surface water, and 5% perennial surface water (personal communication, M. Harris).
Rural Households There are no comprehensive data about water use in rural areas. Based on periodic studies of specific villages, rural water use is estimated at 25 liters per person per day. Rural water use was calculated as the product of the average water use per person (in rural areas) and the rural population. Given the very crude method of estimation, water use was rounded up to the nearest million. Roughly two-thirds of the population lives in rural areas, for total rural water use of 9 million cubic metres in 1990 (total population 1.4 million) and 10 million cubic metres in 1993 (total population 1.6 million).
39 DIRECTORATE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Other Research Discussion Papers available in this series
Ashley, C. 1994. Population growth and renewable resource management: the challenge of sustaining people and the environment. DEA Research Discussion Paper # 1. 40pp
Ashley, C, Barnes, J and Healy, T. 1994. Profits, equity, growth and sustainability: the potential role of wildlife enterprises in Caprivi and other communal areas in Namibia. DEA Research Discussion Paper # 2. 25pp
Quan, J, Barton, D and Conroy, C (Ashley, C ed) 1994. A preliminary assessment of the economic impact of desertification in Namibia. DEA Research Discussion Paper # 3. 150pp
Northern commercial areas: Okahandja, Otjiwarongo and Grootfontein. 33pp Communal and commercial areas of southern Namibia 42pp. Northern communal areas: Uukwaluudhi. 35pp
Ashley, C and Garland, E. 1994. Promoting community-based tourism development: why, what and how? DEA Research Discussion Paper # 4. 37pp
Jones, BTB. 1995. Wildlife management, utilisation and tourism in communal areas: benefits to communities and improved resource management. DEA Research Discussion Paper # 5. 27pp
Barnes, JI. 1995. The value of non-agricultural resource use in some Namibian communal areas: a data-base for planning. DEA Research Discussion Paper # 6. 21pp
Ashley, C, Müller, H and Harris, M. 1995. Population dynamics, the environment and demand for water and energy in Namibia. DEA Research Discussion Paper # 7. 37pp
Barnes, JI and de Jager, JLV. 1995. Economic and financial incentives for wildlife use on private land in Namibia and the implications for policy. DEA Research Discussion Paper # 8. 21pp
Rodwell, TC, Tagg, J and Grobler, M. 1995. Wildlife resources in Caprivi, Namibia: the results of an aerial census in 1994 and comparisons with past surveys. DEA Research Discussion Paper # 9. 29pp
Ashley, C. 1995. Tourism, communities and the potential impacts on local incomes and conservation. DEA Research Discussion Paper # 10. 51pp
Jones, BTB. 1996. Institutional relationships, capacity and sustainability: lessons learned from a community-based conservation project, eastern Tsumkwe District, Namibia, 1991-96. DEA Research Discussion Paper # 11. 43pp
Ashley, C and Barnes, J. 1996. Wildlife use for economic gain: the potential for wildlife to contribute to development in Namibia. DEA Research Discussion Paper # 12. 23pp
Ashley, C. 1996. Incentives affecting biodiversity conservation and sustainable use: the case of land use options in Namibia. DEA Research Discussion Paper # 13. 21pp
Jarvis, AM and Robertson, A. 1997. Endemic birds of Namibia: evaluating their status and mapping biodiversity hotspots. DEA Research Discussion Paper # 14. 103pp
Barnes, JI, Schier, C and van Rooy, G. 1997. Tourist's willingness to pay for wildlife viewing and wildlife conservation in Namibia. DEA Research Discussion Paper # 15. 24pp
Ashley, C, Barnes, JI, Brown, CJ and Jones, BTB 1997. Using resource economics for natural resource management: Namibia's experience. DEA Research Discussion Paper # 16. 23pp
Lange, G, Barnes, JI, and DJ Motinga. 1997. Cattle Numbers, Biomass, Productivity, and Land Degradation in the Commercial Farming Sector of Namibia, 1915 to1995. DEA Research Discussion Paper # 17. 28pp
Lange, G. 1997. An Approach to Sustainable Water Management Using Natural Resource Accounts: the Use of Water, the Economic Value of Water, and Implications for Policy . DEA Research Discussion Paper # 18. 39pp
This series of Research Discussion Papers is intended to present preliminary, new, or topical information and ideas for discussion and debate. The contents are not necessarily final views or firm positions of the Ministry of Environment and tourism. Comments and feedback will be welcomed.