A Comparative Study of Rural Water Governance in the Limpopo Basin

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RURAL WATER GOVERNANCE IN THE LIMPOPO BASIN PINIMIDZAI SITHOLE A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of the Western Cape Institute for Poverty Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS) Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences University of the Western Cape Supervisors: Dr Mafaniso Hara, Dr Barbara van Koppen, and Prof Bill Derman September 2011 1 KEY WORDS Hydraulic Property Rights Creation Integrated water resources management Institutions Water governance Informal and formal arrangements Multiple water uses Power and discourse Gender Infrastructure investments Access rights Water resources Catchment management institutions Rural development 2 ABSTRACT A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF RURAL WATER GOVERNANCE IN THE LIMPOPO BASIN D Phil Thesis, Institute for Poverty Land and Agrarian Studies, Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, University of the Western Cape In this thesis I examine and explore whether and if Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) inspired water reforms respond to- and address the diverse realities of women and men in informal (and formal) rural economies of Sekororo, South Africa and Ward 17 in Gwanda, Zimbabwe which are both in the Limpopo basin. South Africa and Zimbabwe, like other southern African countries, embarked on IWRM- inspired water reforms, culminating in the promulgation of the National Water Acts in 1998, four years after the attainment of South Africa’s democracy in 1994 and 18 years after Zimbabwe attained independence in 1980. I argue that the adoption of IWRM, which emphasises second generation water issues such as demand management, water quality, environmental flow requirements etc, and not the development of water infrastructure, begs the question whether such reforms can make a meaningful contribution to the development agenda in countries where, during apartheid and colonialism, the water rights (among other rights) of millions of blacks were compromised because of unjust legislation and skewed underinvestment in water infrastructure. I explore the emerging contradictions between the post-apartheid and post-independence water legislation (and related policies) on the one hand, and the rural realities of informal water use on the other by employing the ‘hydraulic property rights creation’ to analyse how people, as individuals and/or as groups, assert rights over water, and how such claims become legitimised through multiple arrangements. The negotiability/flexibility concept was used to analyse how resource rights and access are negotiated and contested in view of changing conditions and contexts within informal systems in the two study sites. Discourse theory was utilised to unpack and illuminate the ways in which power is 3 multi-locational and normalised in networks of everyday life, regulating social practices and relationships; while the multiple water use approach (MUS) was instrumental in addressing the limitations of sectoral segmentation of water as productive or domestic use by recognising that people’s water needs are integrated and are part and parcel of their multifaceted livelihoods, and that the necessity to better meet both women’s and men’s multiple water needs is a main driver for integration within the water sector itself. The multiple water use approach concept addresses the issues of gender as well. For methodology and methods, the study mainly drew upon social science contributions from rural sociology and anthropology, through historical analysis, to document and analyse hydraulic infrastructure investments based on literature reviews, archival and textual analyses, interviews, surveys and participant observation. Results indicate that state funding on water infrastructure development was biased towards formal irrigation, which caters for a small proportion of the rural population. There are dynamic investments in hydraulic infrastructure in Sekororo and Gwanda financed through private investments and NGO support. Poor management of public- owned and managed, domestic and productive water schemes have become important catalysts for local investments in water infrastructure. Results also show that there are a number of local level institutional arrangements that govern access to water sources in communal areas. These vary depending on the source (man-made or natural), ownership (privately owned or communally owned), yielding capacity and the purpose for which the water will be used. Traditional leaders, elected leaders and the relevant water point committees tend to complement and compete with each other as institutional pillars in enforcing rules of access and use. Results also indicate that water reforms, in their current form, ignore the development of adequate water infrastructure to harness water resources for social and economic development for rural small-scale users; without access to water/infrastructure, there is nothing to manage for rural small-scale users, hence, the focus and agenda of catchment management institutions tend to only cover the interests of large-scale water users and uses. 4 The study concludes that the informality of institutions and property rights in rural water governance seems to facilitate flexibility to allow for resource sharing, which is a common feature in the two study sites, where property rights overlap in both time and space with different degrees of intensity being applied in the management of different portions of the hydraulic landscape. We also conclude that permit systems as individual water rights based on an administrative act completely ignore existing uses and arrangements while favouring the administrative-proficient, and entail explicit discriminatory conditions with high transaction costs. The study further concludes that there is no service improvement for taxes imposed on water users and uses. Another conclusion is that customary systems have a holistic approach to water development and management in the use of multiple sources for multiple domestic and productive uses in both Sekororo and Mzingwane; hence overcoming counterproductive sectoral boundaries in services delivery while opening up new opportunities for women and men. The study also concludes that single purpose and resource-specific institutions such as catchment management institutions are not practical and relevant for managing water resources at the local informal level where people use multiple institutions and sources. It also concludes that without denying the gender and age hierarchies and potential ethnic-based exclusions in customary arrangements, and the power plays; self-supply and investment is still the main form of water provision for the rural poor and poorest. Finally the study concludes that there is need to support infrastructure for small-scale water users and uses. 5 DECLARATION I declare that A Comparative Study of Rural Water Governance in the Limpopo Basin is my own work. All other sources, used or quoted, have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references. This thesis has not been submitted for a degree at another university. PINIMIDZAI SITHOLE September 2011 Signature Supervisors: Dr Mafaniso Hara (University of the Western Cape, South Africa) Dr Barbara van Koppen (International Water Management Institute, Southern Africa Office, Pretoria) Co-supervisor: Prof Bill Derman 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My special gratitude and words of thanks go to my supervisors Dr Mafaniso Hara, Dr Barbara van Koppen and Prof. Bill Derman. Their guidance, encouragement and support were most valuable during the course of my studies. I extend a word of gratitude to the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and the Volkswagen Foundation for their financial support which made this study possible. Special mention goes to the people of Sekororo in South Africa and Manama in Zimbabwe for their cooperation and moral support during fieldwork. To my research assistants, Jacindah Mohlala, Shirley Kgohloane, Gladness Mohuba, David Moagi, Prudence Ncube and Malvern Zikhali, I am most grateful. To all those I did not manage to mention by name whose contributions I greatly appreciate, please accept my gratitude. 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS KEY WORDS ................................................................................................................................ 2 ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... 3 DECLARATION ........................................................................................................................... 6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................................................... 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................................................. 8 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES .................................................................................................... 13 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................... 13 LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................... 13 ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH CONTEXT AND AGENDA ......................................................................................................

Load more