LIMPOPO BASIN PERMANENT TECHNICAL COMMITTEE LBPTC
REPÚBLICA DE M I OÇAMUE B Q
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC)
WORKSHOP REPORT AND PROCEEDINGS First Stakeholder Consultation Workshop
Protea Hotel The Ranch, Polokwane (South Africa) 09 to 10 November 2010
Botswana Mozambique South Africa Zimbabwe
With support from International Cooperation Partners:
Report Prepared By:
Barbara Tapela and Felicidade Massingue
Regional Coordination By:
Daniel Malzbender Barbara Tapela
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC)
Workshop Report and Proceedings
Stakeholders Strategy Workshop Protea Hotel The Ranch, Polokwane (South Africa)
09 – 10 November 2010
Participants of the LIMCOM stakeholder participation workshop
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD ...... 6
AGENDA ...... 7
PARTICIPANT LIST ...... 9
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...... 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 11
1.0. SESSION ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 13
1.1. OPENING OF WORKSHOP ...... 13
1.2 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF WORKSHOP/OVERVIEW OF WORKSHOP AGENDA 13
1.3. OVERVIEW OF ROADMAP DEVELOPMENT: FIRST STAGE ...... 14
1.4. PLENARY DISCUSSION ...... 15
2.0. SESSION TWO: FINDINGS OF NATIONAL STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION APPRAISALS 15
2.1. KEY FINDINGS - BOTSWANA ...... 15
2.2. KEY FINDINGS - MOZAMBIQUE ...... 16
2.3. KEY FINDINGS –SOUTH AFRICA ...... 17
2.4. KEY FINDINGS - ZIMBABWE ...... 17
2.5. PLENARY DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS ...... 18
3.0. SESSION THREE: KEY NATIONAL VERSUS TRANSBOUNDARY ISSUES ...... 19
3.1. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS FROM DAY ONE ...... 19
3.2. DISCUSSION PAPER: STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN LIMPOPO BASIN ...... 20
3.3. GROUP EXERCISE I: KEY ISSUES FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION ...... 23
3.4. PLENARY REPORT AND DISCUSSION ...... 23
4.0. SESSION FOUR: INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND MECHANISMS ...... 25
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 4
4.1. DISCUSSION PAPER: LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN LIMPOPO BASIN ...... 25
4.2. GROUP EXERCISE II: INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN THE LIMPOPO BASIN ...... 26
4.3. PLENARY REPORT AND DISCUSSION ...... 26
4.3.1. GROUP 1 REPORT ...... 26
4.3.2.GROUP 2 REPORT ...... 29
4.3.3. SYNTHESIS OF DISCUSSION ...... 32
5.0. SESSION FIVE: LIMCOM ROADMAP CONTENT AND STRUCTURE ...... 32
5.1. BACKGROUND PAPER: PRINCIPLES OF STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT ...... 32
5.2. LIMCOM ROADMAP: KEY CONTENT AND STRUCTURE ...... 35
5.2.1. PLENARY DISCUSSION ...... 36
6.0. WAY FORWARD: ROADMAP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS PHASE TWO ...... 38
7.0. WORKSHOP CLOSURE...... 38
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS…………………………………………….40
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 5
FOREWORD
This report presents a concise record of proceedings of the First Stakeholder Consultation Workshop on a Roadmap for Stakeholder Participation in the Limpopo Basin. The workshop was held from 09 to 10 November 2011 at the Protea ‘The Ranch’ Hotel in Polokwane, South Africa. The workshop was the 3rd Stage of Phase 1 of the LIMCOM Roadmap process (Phase 2 will lead to Strategy development). The workshop was preceded by an Inception Phase (1st Stage of Phase 1) and a National Stakeholder Participation Appraisal Phase (2nd Stage Phase 1). Objectives of the workshop were to present key findings from national-level Stakeholder Participation Appraisals (SPAs); identify and discuss key issues and institutional mechanisms for up-scaling existing stakeholder participation in Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) from national to transboundary level; and develop a draft methodology and process for the next stage of the Roadmap development process.
The Regional Coordinator and National Facilitators provided technical input and facilitated the workshop, while outputs were largely derived from contributions to group work and plenary discussions by stakeholders who participated in the workshop. The workshop drew twenty (20) participants from Botswana, Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe, representing stakeholders from government, water authorities and the LIMCOM secretariat (see List of Participants on Page 8 of this Report). Representatives of the Progressive Realization of the Incomati Maputo Agreement (PRIMA) and the Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM) representatives were also invited but could not attend due to an overlap of work plans.
The workshop was supported by International Cooperation Partners, namely the German Government (BMZ) through InWEnt and GTZ in delegated cooperation with UK Aid and the Australian Government Aid Program. InWEnt has supported the LIMCOM Secretariat since 2006, thereby drawing from its work in the fields of "stakeholder participation in river basins" in the SADC region, particularly the Orange-Senqu and Ruvuma River Basins.
Documentation of this report follows the sequence of events during the workshop as shown in the Agenda (Page 7 of this Report).
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 6
Agenda for Stakeholders Strategy Workshop 9th – 10th November 2010 Polokwane – South Africa Day 1: 9 November 2010 Time Activity Presentation/Facilitation 13:30 – 14:00 Registration LIMCOM Sec 14:00 – 14:15 Welcome and opening remarks Host country representative/ LIMCOM-ES 14:15 – 14:30 Background and purpose of Kulthoum Omari workshop/overview of workshop agenda 14:30 – 14:45 Overview of Roadmap development 1st Daniel Malzbender stage (activities carried out/ products) 14:45 – 15:30 Plenary discussion Kulthoum Omari 15:30 – 16:00 Tea/coffee break 16:00 – 16:15 Key findings - Botswana Kulthoum Omari 16:15 – 16:30 Key findings - Mozambique Felicidade Massingue 16:30 – 16:45 Key findings – South Africa Mashudu Mathelemusa 16:45 – 17:00 Key findings - Zimbabwe Emmanuel Manzungu 17:00 – 17:30 Plenary discussion Kulthoum Omari End of day 1
Day 2: 10 November 2010 Time Activity Responsible 08:00 – 08:30 Summary of key points from Day 1 Daniel Malzbender 08:30 – 09:00 Presentation of stakeholder participation Barbara Tapela discussion paper 09:00 – 10:00 Key issues (transboundary vs national) Group work 10:00 – 10:30 Report back & discussion Mashudu Mathelemusa 10:30 – 11:00 Tea/Coffee Break 11:00 – 11:30 Legal/institutional framework for Daniel Malzbender stakeholder participation in the Limpopo Basin 11:30 – 13:00 Institutional mechanism for stakeholder Group work participation in the Limpopo basin 13:00 – 14:00 Lunch 14:00 – 15:00 Report back & discussion Daniel Malzbender 15:00 – 15:15 Principles of strategy development Emmanuel Manzungu (content/ structure) 15:15 – 16:00 LIMCOM Roadmap (key content & Emmanuel Manzungu structure) – plenary discussion 16:00 – 16:15 Tea/Coffee 16:15 – 16:30 Way forward – Roadmap development Daniel Malzbender process stage 2 16:30 – 17:30 Plenary discussion Daniel Malzbender 17:30 – 17:40 Closing Host country representative/
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 7
LIMCOM-ES End of Workshop
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 8
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Surname Name E-mail Address
Antia Felismina [email protected] Binns Rebecca [email protected] Jorge Felicidade [email protected] Kalaote Kalaote [email protected] Malzbender Daniel [email protected] Manzungu Emmanuel [email protected] Mathangwane Bogadi [email protected] Mathelemusa Mashudu [email protected] Mawere Gilbert [email protected] Molefi Tracy [email protected] Muchineri Wensley [email protected] Nditwani Tendani [email protected] Obakeng Obolokile [email protected] Omari Kulthoum [email protected] Qwist-Hoffmann Peter [email protected] Rapotsanyane Michelle [email protected] Rosen Tommy [email protected] Sitoe Sergio [email protected] Sousa Olinda [email protected] Tapela Barbara [email protected]
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 9
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ARAs Regional Water Administrations (Mozambique) ARA-Sul Southern Regional Water Administrations CC Catchment Council (Zimbabwe) CMA Catchment Management Agency (South Africa) CSOs Civil Society Organizations DNA National Directorate of Water (Mozambique) DWA Department of Water Affairs GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit ICPs International Cooperation Partners IEC Information Education and Communication InWent Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management IWSD Institute of Water and Sanitation Development LBPTC Limpopo Basin Permanent Technical Committee LIMCOM Limpopo Watercourse Commission MDGs Millennium Development Goals MLGLH Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing MMEWR Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Resources MOA Ministry of Agriculture NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations OKACOM Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission RALES Responsible and Legal Entities RBOs River Basin Organisations SADC Southern African Development Community SAP Strategic Action Planning SCC Sub Catchment Council SPA Stakeholder Participation Appraisal SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats TDA Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis WDM Water Demand Management WUC Water Utilities Corporation ZAMCOM Zambezi Watercourse Commission ZINWA Zimbabwe National Water Authority
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 10
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
The LIMCOM ‘Stakeholder Participation Roadmap’ process seeks to promote stakeholder participation in the management of water resources in the transboundary Limpopo River Basin. Stakeholder participation is firmly established in SADC Legal and Policy framework for transboundary water management to which the LIMCOM countries subscribe. Article 7(2)c mandates LIMCOM to advise Member States on the scope and nature of stakeholder involvement in basin planning and management. Predicated on these institutional frameworks, LIMCOM (LBPTC) tasked itself with developing a Roadmap for stakeholder participation for the Commission. The process of Roadmap development is split into two (2) phases.
Phase 1 (this phase) has involved stocktaking and situation analysis to establish a baseline to characterize and analyse the basin context, existing institutional arrangements for stakeholder participation, stakeholders, stakeholder platforms and current practices; with a view to determining a possible way forward or “roadmap” for the next phase. Phase 2 is envisaged to entail Strategy development.
Phase 1 has run from September to November 2010, with four National Facilitators (one per country), one Regional Coordinator and one Technical Back-stopper. The methodology adopted included a mixture of desk-top research and in-field rapid Stakeholder Participation Appraisals (SPAs). Methods used in the latter included consultations and interviews with identified key stakeholders. Project outputs have included the following:
Four National Stakeholder Participation Appraisal reports (one per country)
Summary discussion paper on national SPAs (the basin perspective)
Discussion paper on legal and policy framework for stakeholder participation for the Limpopo basin
E-library
Preliminary basin-wide Stakeholder Database Content of SPA reports have consistently included the following sections: Socio-economic context of water use; Institutional arrangements for stakeholder participation; Rapid Stakeholder Participation Appraisal (interests/ influence); and Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) analysis of current stakeholder participation landscape.
LIMCOM Stakeholder Participation Workshop
Objectives of the LIMCOM Stakeholder Participation Workshop, which was held in Polokwane (South Africa) from 09 to 10 November 2010, were to:
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 11
Present and discuss results from Phase 1 of Roadmap development; Identify LIMCOM ‘Priority Issues’ for Stakeholder Participation; Brainstorm possible institutional structures for stakeholder participation in the basin; Develop a draft outline for the LIMCOM Stakeholder Participation Strategy; and Brainstorm possible approach for Phase 2 All the above objectives were met. Based on results of national SPAs and technical inputs by the coordination and facilitation team, workshop outputs included: Identified and prioritized key issues, Outlined options for institutional mechanisms of up-scaling existing stakeholder participation from national to transboundary level, and Drafted outline of proposed Strategy. Identified transboundary priority issues for stakeholder involvement included (a) Disaster management/ early warning; (b) Transboundary pollution/ water quality and (c) Basin planning/ water allocation. The proposed Strategy outline is captured below:
PROPOSED STRATEGY OUTLINE 1. Background and Introduction
2. Characteristics of the Limpopo basin 3. Strategic Goal 4. Principles underpinning the strategy
5. Focus areas: - Disaster management/ early warning - Transboundary pollution/ water quality
- Basin planning/ Water allocation 6. Strategic objectives, outcomes, outputs 7. Budget and financing
8. Implementation plan - Institutional set-up - M&E framework
- Communication plan (9. Annex: Logical Framework)
Conclusion
Rapid SPAs completed in Phase 1 will form the basis for further Strategy development. The draft outline for a LIMCOM Stakeholder Participation Strategy has been developed. A Proposal for Phase 2 (Strategy development) has been made, with a view to presenting a full draft Stakeholder Participation Strategy to a LIMCOM meeting to be held in May 2011. Importantly, the LIMCOM Stakeholder Participation Workshop has recognised the principle that stakeholder participation activities need to be embedded into an overall LIMCOM work programme. ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 12
WORKSHOP REPORT AND PROCEEDINGS
1.0. SESSION ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1. OPENING OF WORKSHOP
The workshop was officially opened by Tendani Nditwani (Host country representative) and Sérgio Sitoe (LIMCOM secretariat). For familiarization before the start of the business, participants were given time to introduce themselves.
1.2 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF WORKSHOP/OVERVIEW OF WORKSHOP AGENDA
Facilitator: Kulthoum Omari
The facilitator remarked that the First Stakeholder Consultation Workshop on a Roadmap for Stakeholder Participation in the Limpopo Basin was the result of a process initiated and driven by member states through the Limpopo Watercourse Commission (LIMCOM) and with the help of International Cooperation Partners (Ices). The Regional Coordinator and four National Facilitators had provided important services in coordinating and facilitating the Roadmap development process. However, it was essential that the process was not “consultant driven” but was instead owned and directed by the basin states at all times. For that reason, the workshop carried forward an overall approach that emphasized close cooperation (communication, exchange of ideas, information sharing) with the basin states (through LIMCOM) and Ices throughout the Roadmap development process.
Roadmap development was taking place within an already well-developed SADC regional legal, policy and institutional framework. In light of challenges, such as increasing demand of water, environmental degradation and climatic change, it was critical that the Roadmap be tailored to the needs of the basin, basin states and stakeholders, with a view to achieving economically, socially and environmentally sustainable outcomes. The Roadmap should therefore be well-integrated into the regional institutional framework and regional guidelines for stakeholder participation in transboundary river basins. It was also important for the Roadmap to comply with both the legal and policy commitments the basin states have made at regional level. Roadmap development within this workshop should not be about “international blueprints”. Rather, the Roadmap needed to reflect region-specific needs and conditions as well as regional knowledge and expertise. Many participants in this workshop had had experience in working within the SADC Region and Limpopo basin, which would prove useful to the identification of issues, development of institutional mechanisms and thinking about a principled approach and structure for the Roadmap for Stakeholder Participation. In addition to such knowledge and expertise, workshop facilitation would provide insights garnered from national-level Stakeholder Participation Appraisals (SPAs), reviews of theoretical and experiential literature and practical experience with similar
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 13
processes elsewhere. Such insights would provide valuable background resources for the task ahead in this workshop. The facilitator proceeded to outline workshop objectives.
For Day One of the workshop, objectives were to: Report back on activities carried out, key findings and outputs of national SPAs; Discuss key findings of national SPAs; and Summarize the key findings.
Objectives for Day Two were to: a. Identify and discuss key issues for a basin-wide stakeholder participation roadmap and strategy, with a focus on implications of up-scaling from national to transboundary levels; b. Discuss the existing legal and institutional framework for stakeholder participation and identify possible institutional mechanisms for a basin-wide Roadmap and strategy for stakeholder participation c. Decide key content and structure of a LIMCOM Strategy for Stakeholder Participation; and d. Explore possible approach to next phase of the Roadmap development process.
The two days’ workshop agenda (Page 7) was presented and agreed up on. With regard to the methodology for the workshop, a participatory approach involving presentations followed by group or plenary discussions was adopted.
1.3. OVERVIEW OF ROADMAP DEVELOPMENT: FIRST STAGE
Facilitator: Daniel Malzbender
An overview of the project activities carried out and respective outputs was presented. Firstly, the facilitator highlighted activities carried out during preparatory Phase Two namely: (I) National Rapid Stakeholder Participation Appraisals; (ii) Development of a preliminary basin-wide Stakeholder Database and (iii) Compilation of a baseline E-library for LIMCOM website. With regard to outputs, the presentation pointed out that major outputs of Phase Two of the project included: National SPAs for Botswana, Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe; A discussion paper summarizing and analyzing key findings from national SPAs from a basin-wide perspective; A discussion paper on national and regional legal and institutional frameworks for stakeholder participation in the Limpopo basin; A baseline e-library, which LIMCOM will further develop; and A preliminary Stakeholder Database, which LIMCOM will further develop
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 14
1.4. PLENARY DISCUSSION
During and after the presentation, participants had the opportunity to appreciate and comment on the first versions of the e-library and stakeholder database. These first versions, which were developed in MS Excel format, would be handed over to database development experts for the necessary follow up.
2.0. SESSION TWO: FINDINGS NATIONAL STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION APPRAISALS
National Facilitators presented key findings on SPAs of each country. Presentations focused mainly on four key areas, namely: (i) Socio-economic context of water use; (ii) Institutional arrangements for stakeholder participation; (iii) Stakeholder participation appraisal (interests/ influence); (iv) SWOT analysis of current. Overviews of key findings are outlined in Sections 2.1 to 2.4 below.
2.1. KEY FINDINGS: BOTSWANA
Presenter/Facilitator: Kulthoum Omari
A number of institutional frameworks provide a basis for broadening and strengthening stakeholder participation in transboundary management of Limpopo basin. The constitution of Botswana embraces a liberal democratic system of governance, which enshrines the principle of participation. Vision 2016 recognizes the importance of stakeholder participation through the goal to achieve ‘an open, democratic and accountable nation’. This goal recognizes the role that the Kgotla and traditional leaders play in the democratic process and governance. The goal also recognizes that the Kgotla provides a strong base on which to build a decentralized democracy, which must be extended down to the level of community. Botswana has taken steps to reform water related law and policies. The Draft Water Policy, which currently guides water resources management in the country, represents an on-going shift away from the old centralized water management framework.
Although key planning frameworks and policies indicate that Botswana recognizes, in principle, the need for stakeholder participation, a major failing is the lack of legally-binding instruments to enforce the principle of stakeholder participation in natural resources management as a whole and water resources management in particular. Hence, for policy to be enforceable, legislation will have to be enacted to strengthen stakeholder participation.
Currently, water resources management is centralized. The Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Resources (MMEWR) assumes regulatory functions and administers the national
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 15
water policy. Within the ministry two water supply units namely, the Department of Water Affairs (DWA) and the Water Utilities Corporation (WUC), are responsible for policy implementation. The WUC is the sole provider of water and DWA is the lead agency in water resources planning. In some situations, such as in the livestock and agricultural sector, water provision is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture (Moa). The Moa constructs small dams in farming areas used for livestock and assists syndicates (user groups). Currently, the District Councils under the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing (MLGLH), oversee the management of waste water and sanitation. By contrast, there is an absence of strong local level traditional leadership in water management and the LIMCOM process as a whole. Direct stakeholder participation can be better facilitated if decision-making is decentralized. Stakeholders are more likely to be committed to LIMCOM initiatives if they are involved in planning and preparation.
2.2. KEY FINDINGS: MOZAMBIQUE
Presenter/Facilitator: Felicidade Massingue
Participation of beneficiaries in water resources management in Mozambique is still a very limited experience, but is gaining momentum due to widespread of ARAs. The ARAs have the mandate to establish organisms for stakeholder participation in water resources management and development issues.
The legal framework as provided for in the Water Act is sufficiently adequate to ensure the involvement of interested parties in water resources management, particularly at the basin level, however limited to the operational management in line with competencies of the ARAs. It does not expressly regulate participation of interested parties in the strategic management of water resources.
Evolution of the vision on the involvement of interested parties in water resources management is visible in policy and legislation. In general, they convey a modern vision of participation of interested parties in water resources management. They provide an effective involvement of interested parties in planning, decision making and implementation, and giving them powers of monitoring and evaluation over the State Executive Bodies.
Transboundary water management in the country is viewed as being important, especially due to the fact that Mozambique is downstream of almost all the international river basins, including Limpopo basin.
As a downstream basin state, many of the issues pertaining to the conservation and management of LRB within the IWRM context are directly affected by upstream basin states. In this respect the ratification, accession and effective implementation of international agreements should be viewed as a priority. Mozambique has long recognised ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 16
this need and has signed numerous conventions that could assist in securing the countries entitlements to water resources.
Despite the existence of a strong and sound internal policy framework for the continued development and implementation of IWRM, many issues are beyond the national jurisdiction. Even with the appropriate national tools Mozambique may not be in position to fully ensure sustainable conservation, management and development of its catchments. International agreements therefore represent one of the key opportunities to realizing sustainable IWRM. The problem with many of these agreements is that they do not yet incorporate the necessary legal mechanisms to ensure equitable distribution and compliance, relying heavily on negotiated settlement and the good will of the parties.
2.3. KEY FINDINGS: SOUTH AFRICA
Presenter/Facilitator: Mashudu Mathelemusa
Institutional arrangements in South Africa are in place for implementation of public participation. The issue of public participation is enshrined in legislation in the form of the Constitution, Acts, policies, strategies, plans and programmes. Legislation also encourages South Africa to take part in regional and international organizations, and has signed agreements on nature and natural resources management.
With regard to stakeholder participation in the basin the following findings were made: • Department of Water Affairs (DWA) is currently the South African representative in LIMCOM; • The LIMCOM process has full governmental support; • Legislation and policies are in place to regulate water resource management issues in the country; • South Africa has ratified relevant international agreements; • Existing public participation programmers, stakeholder forums and transboundary platforms (.e.g. transfrontier parks) can provide support to LIMCOM initiatives.
Although national-level legal and institutional frameworks, structures and procedures for stakeholder participation are in place, there remain challenges to effective implementation and many existing stakeholder structures are not operational.
2.4. KEY FINDINGS: ZIMBABWE
Presenter/Facilitator: Emmanuel Manzungu
Although Zimbabwe had not yet ratified the SADC Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourse and the LIMCOM Agreement, government had accepted, in principle, these frameworks and had already made significant advance towards signing both. Consequently, the lack of ratification by Zimbabwe was not be construed as a threat to the LIMCOM process. ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 17
In the case of Zimbabwe, the Roadmap needs to be contextualized within the prevailing biophysical and socio-economic circumstances as well as efforts that have been made towards ensuring stakeholder participation at the national level. In particular, the poor performance of the economy, due to political decline between 2000 and 2008, has resulted in a very difficult operating environment that is characterized by endemic poverty and hyperinflation. Despite this, the country put in place IWRM-based water policies and pieces of legislation that were underpinned by a number of ratified international environmental agreements and conventions that promoted sustainable development.
The Water Act and the ZINWA Act were the main pieces of legislation that framed the water reforms process (that was geared to achieve equity) in general and stakeholder participation in particular. Once the law was in place, stakeholder platforms namely, catchment and sub- catchment councils were established as early as six months to a year after the new water law was promulgated. Within these platforms, all identified stakeholders could participate in the management of the country. However, these new institutions faced numerous challenges and vital lessons were learnt.
Challenges included problems related to poor identification of stakeholders, ineffective representation arrangements, and weak individual and institutional capacity. There was also lack of representation of primary water use in stakeholder platforms, such that it was mainly government departments that constituted the bulk of secondary stakeholders. Communities living in and affected by transfrontier parks, for example, were not included probably because their interests were seen to relate to land issues rather than water. Research institutions were also not privy to the proceedings at sub-catchment and catchment level although they had a strong research presence in the area. Emerging socio- economic classes, courtesy of land reform programme, also posed significant challenges, as did poor linkages between the lower and higher levels of the institutions were another problem. Hydrologic-based boundaries were found to be operationally too big as far as concerns of local people were involved. This was worsened by the fact that the new stakeholder institutions and water management boundaries were little known compared to long established administrative structures and boundaries. Stakeholders suggested that the framework for stakeholder participation should include administrative boundaries such as villages, wards and districts. Stakeholders felt that there was lack of information regarding what transpired at the LIMCOM level and the Mzingwane catchment Council and its four sub-catchments. This resulted in the suggestion that stakeholders in the basin should be represented at the basin level by the chairman of the council. In general, however, there were more positive than negative factors as far as stakeholder participation is concerned.
2.5 PLENARY DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS
Plenary discussion followed presentations on the four national SPAs. Concerns raised and discussed include:
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 18
(i) The level of participation of Stakeholders in the LIMCOM process: The facilitator clarified that this is one of the issues that LIMCOM has to address. In fact it is a rationale of group discussions. The summary of the discussion held on this issue indicated clearly that during the group work participants should think on the definition of stakeholder from the point of view of LIMCOM process.
(ii) Role of media in the LIMCOM process: The participant agreed that media play an important role at the community level, particularly in terms of raising awareness in water related issues. However this group of stakeholders has to be involved in water resources management and not only when there are problems. They are willing to take part of the process but the challenge is that there are not specialized in water related issues. It was also indicated that during the group discussion it is important to think on how to bring media to the LIMCOM process.
(iii) Clarification on whether the Mzingwane Stakeholder’s participation strategy includes the transboundary issues: In response, Zimbabwe delegates explained that the strategy was merely a national process with no provision for transboundary issues. The Mzingwane catchment Council has the mandate to deal with national issues, however a common good practice in Zimbabwe is that people are educated to consider the effects of their activities downstream.
(iv) From the national SPA presentations it appears like all the stakeholders forum in the four countries are consultative bodies. To which extent can they play a more participative role in decision making process?
Zimbabwe clarified that the Mzingwane catchment council has the mandate to manage water resources in the Limpopo basin. This signifies that they make decision on water resources development and planning.
For Mozambique, Olinda de Sousa (Director of ARA-Sul) clarified that the ARA is part of the Limpopo basin committee, so, the decisions made at the committee level are quite mandatory for ARA-Sul.
For Botswana the challenge is that there are no stakeholder forums in place.
3.0. SESSION THREE: KEY NATIONAL VERSUS TRANSBOUNDARY ISSUES
3.1. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS FROM DAY ONE
Facilitator: Barbara Tapela ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 19
The second day of workshop started with recap and summary of the main issues discussed on Day One. These issues included: Variation in stages of water sector reforms (e.g. Botswana ongoing); Variations in legal provisions for stakeholder participation – Most of them are consultative structures; Variations in stakeholder platforms; Variations in current practices; Similarity in complexity of stakeholders
Amid such varied basin-wide landscape, LIMCOM would need to ensure effective stakeholder participation.
Other issues emerging from Day One sessions were included: The fact that enabling legislation is there but implementation lagged behind; The need to clarify the distinction between national and transboundary issues; Implications of Zimbabwe’s non-ratification of Revised SADC protocol and LIMCOM Agreement; Potential roles for traditional authorities, who have been identified as currently playing important roles in engaging local level communities; Media engagement (“How to engage the media?”); Power imbalances within stakeholder platforms/forums; The fact that existing forums were more consultative than representative, except in Zimbabwe.
Regarding Zimbabwe’s ratification of the Revised SADC Protocol and LIMCOM Agreement, a senior Zimbabwean delegate informed the workshop that LIMCOM and Zambezi Watercourse Commission (ZAMCOM) protocols had already been taken to parliament to seek ratification. It was expected that the ratification of the documents would soon follow.
3.2. DISCUSSION PAPER: STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN LIMPOPO BASIN
Presenter/Facilitator: Barbara Tapela
A discussion paper entitled “Towards Effective Stakeholder Participation in the Transboundary Management of the Limpopo River Basin” was presented by Barbara Tapela. The presentation began by highlighting the locus of ‘stakeholder participation’ within Article 7 and specifically Section 7.2 of the LIMCOM Agreement. The presenter pointed out that a detailed overview of the institutional frameworks (policy, legislation and guidelines) for stakeholder participation would be presented in the next session. Following this, the
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 20
presentation raised issues relating to involving a multiplicity of identified stakeholders, with diverse interests ranging from local to transboundary levels. Questions asked included:
How to deal with such complexity in designing LIMCOM Roadmap/Strategy?
In broadening stakeholder participation to include all valid stakeholders ranging from sub-national versus transboundary level: What is the ‘lowest appropriate level’? (Or: How small is ‘beautiful’?)
A key question raised was:
Should the LIMCOM Roadmap for Stakeholder Participation be viewed in terms of a discontinuity or continuity between sub-national and transboundary levels? In other words, should stakeholder participation be conceived as focused at the transboundary level OR should stakeholder participation be conceived as cutting across multiple layers and sectors of transboundary water management? The latter embraced all levels as part of a nested and integrated watercourse management system, while the former narrowed Limo’s attention to issues of transboundary significance.
According to the facilitator, the manner in which this question was answered would give indication of how ‘effective participation’ was or needed to be conceptualized within LIMCOM. Definition of what constituted effective participation ultimately depended on LIMCOM’s vision, mission, goals and objectives, as well as awareness and common understanding within LIMCOM of need for and nature of stakeholder participation. Notwithstanding LIMCOM’s prerogative, theory and international best practice provided indicators of what could constitute ‘effective’ stakeholder participation. These indicators were outlined (Refer to Power Point Presentation in Appendix 1). While awareness of indicators was important, there was a need to also recognize challenges to operationalizing participatory approaches (i.e. “the softer but harder issues”). These included achieving a balance between interests of powerful and less powerful stakeholders, building trust and confidence in the process and going beyond participation as a ‘goal’ to participation as a ‘means’. The facilitator proceeded to distinguish between different forms of participation, using a Typology of Participation. A key point here was that various forms of participation were applicable to different contexts and types of stakeholders. For example, it was common practice for participation to increase with successive stages of a process. Hence, although ‘consultation’ was not a relatively high level of participation, it was appropriate for certain transboundary water management initiatives and stages of processes, while for others, such as implementation of infrastructure development projects, more active forms of participation by affected communities was more appropriate. Predicated on genuine
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 21
commitment and recognition of the importance of involving stakeholders in transboundary water management, effective participation was therefore largely context-specific.
The presentation proceeded to synthesize, compare, contrast and analyze findings from national-level SPAs. The facilitator used a transboundary diagrammatic ‘snapshot’ or overview of existing institutional arrangements, stakeholder platforms/forums and current practices. A key point emerging from the analysis was that provisions, structures and practices of stakeholder participation varied among the four riparian countries. Mozambique’s River Basin Committees provided platforms for stakeholder consultation, while South Africa’s Catchment Management Agencies (CMAs) and Zimbabwe’s Catchment and Sub-Catchments Councils (CCs and SCCs) provided forums for active stakeholder participation, and Botswana’s ongoing water sector reforms had yet to carve out definitive roles for stakeholders within proposed inclusive water management structures. In up-scaling stakeholder participation from national to transboundary water management, therefore, LIMCOM needed to consider questions regarding how to: Ensure effective communication and information dissemination? Create and/or develop appropriate stakeholder forums or platforms? Build and/or strengthen capacity of stakeholder platforms and practices? Define requisite institutional interfaces and channels of interaction?
Workshop participants responded by seeking clarification on the LIMCOM snapshot diagram, and this was provided. Issues for clarification included the positioning of traditional governance (i.e. the ‘Kgotla’) in IWRM and transboundary water management in Botswana. One participant felt that the Kgotla should be shaded dark blue because it is a stakeholder platform though not specific for water issues only. The facilitator pointed out that the Kgotla was actually shaded light blue but much of the colour was lost in projection of the power point presentation. The rationale for the lighter shade was that currently, the Kgotla was formally not legally recognized as a water management structure although recommendations had been made to that effect by the Revised National Water Master Plan of 2007.
A point raised by another participant was that in Zimbabwe, stakeholders such as Water User Associations (WUAs), District Local Government, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) were consulted by CCs and SCCs, but in effect their participation was not sanctioned by law. For that reason, such structures needed to be distinguished from responsible and legal entities (RALEs) in the water sector, perhaps using a different shade or colour. This point was noted.
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 22
3.3. GROUP EXERCISE I: KEY ISSUES FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION
Participants randomly formed two groups, each with mixed representation from all four riparian countries. The groups were assigned the following tasks: 1. Identify key transboundary issues for which engagement of stakeholders at transboundary level is essential
2. Prioritize three issues that you think should be engaged first in the roll-out of LIMCOM stakeholder participation activities
Technical advice was two-fold. Firstly, that it was essential for a transboundary stakeholder participation strategy to deal with transboundary water management issues and not with water management issues that can be resolved at national level and do not necessarily require engagement of stakeholders at transboundary level. Secondly, that a potential approach to prioritization would be to start with short term immediate issues and, later on, build in longer term issues.
3.4. PLENARY REPORTS AND DISCUSSION
Facilitator: Daniel Malzbender
After an hour of group discussion participants joined the plenary to present and discuss results from the group work. Table 1 outlines key issues and priorities identified by the two groups. The two groups have prioritized more or less the same issues (not necessarily in any order of importance) namely: • Early warning for disaster management • Pollution monitoring • Basin plans
After the first group’s presentation, the discussion centred on how to address national issues that could have cumulative effect on the transboundary level. An example of such an issue was a scenario of numerous small-scale abstractions of water within a localized watershed, whereby the combined effect of such abstractions could have transboundary ramifications on downstream riparians.
The discussion also sought to clarify differences between transboundary water ‘quality’ and ‘pollution’. Workshop participants acknowledged that water quality and transboundary pollution can be treated under water quality in general, although the rationale behind the separation of two is that water quality issues can be regarded as largely national while transboundary pollution needs coordination between countries.
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 23
Table 1 Key Issues and Priorities for which Engagement of Stakeholders at Transboundary Level is Essential
Key issues for transboundary consideration
Group 2 Group 1
Transboundary water pollution Early warning for disaster management: information sharing and dissemination Transboundary water quality Funding (for development of appropriate means of communication and information dissemination, and to develop a common communication framework adapted to LIMCOM needs) Transboundary droughts and floods Water allocation between countries Transboundary water related diseases, such as Water quality (and pollution) cholera Major infrastructure development, which Framework of action for stakeholder participation impacts on environmental flows (not necessarily a stakeholder issues but one that guides participation) Lack of coordinated basin development planning Three priorities
Coordinated basin development planning LIMCOM work plan &framework Disaster management Water allocation at transboundary level Transboundary water pollution Early warning, for disaster management
A third issue discussed was the role of stakeholders in basin planning and coordination, for example, with regard to Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and Strategic Action Planning (SAP). The general consensus was that since planning cycles go through different stages of a process, approaches to stakeholder engagement could be based on issues being discussed in each stage of the planning process. For example, in the drafting of the LIMCOM Roadmap for Stakeholder Participation, key stakeholders for active participation could include the Limpopo Basin Permanent Technical Committee (LBPTC), water and related departments and other selected agencies. The bulk of key stakeholders, including water users and intermediary stakeholders such as NGOs and CSOs, could participate in lower degrees, such as by being informed and/or consulted about the process.
A point was made that prioritization did not necessarily imply a sequencing of participation. The gap between planning and implementation meant that stakeholder participation could occur with respect to specific immediate issues, such as transboundary pollution control and disaster management.
After the second presentation, discussions revolved around a number of concerns, including the question of appropriate protocols and/or channels for raising issues picked up during monitoring. In particular, the question sought views on whether or not appropriate channels would be national structures or LIMCOM.
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 24
Regarding the prioritized issue of a LIMCOM programme or framework of action, questions were raised whether the envisaged LIMCOM work plan would be a pre-condition for stakeholder engagement or stakeholders should be engaged to develop the work plan? The first response to this question was that LIMCOM should develop a plan, ideally engaging stakeholders in work plan development. A second response was that such an approach would not be practical, due to financial and time constraints. Botswana delegates reacted by saying that in Botswana, no basin plan could be developed without engagement of water utilities. Technical input on this issue was that it was important to bear in mind that there were various stages during a process to develop a basin plan, and that for each stage relevant stakeholders needed to be identified and engaged with, depending on issues under discussion. Technical input was also that international best practice showed that stakeholder participation tended to increase in successive stages of a process, and this was not contradictory to good governance. While the initial planning stage could begin with a narrower base of actively participating stakeholders (the majority participating in less active ways, e.g. by being informed or consulted), active involvement of a greater number of stakeholders needed to take place early enough in the process, to foster ownership and legitimacy. The conclusion was that LIMCOM could not develop a basin plan without engagement of stakeholders. The process of involving stakeholders entailed costs and was time-consuming but needed to be done properly. In the final analysis, it was a matter of prioritizing what needed to be done.
From the foregoing discussion, the general consensus was that LIMCOM has a mandate to develop a preliminary plan and later on engage stakeholders for discussion and follow up. Given that the LIMCOM Agreement provided a framework that member states had agreed upon, engagement of stakeholders could be structured as a step-by-step process.
4.0. SESSION FOUR: INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND MECHANISMS
Presentation/Facilitation: Daniel Malzbender
4.1 DISCUSSION PAPER: LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN LIMPOPO BASIN
The objective of this session was to examine the legal and institutional framework for stakeholder participation in transboundary management of the Limpopo basin. The presentation began with a brief overview of the basin profile and specification of Limo’s primary objective and mandate with respect to stakeholder participation. This was followed by outlines of regional frameworks for participation and the LIMCOM Agreement. A comparative analysis of existing national level stakeholder participation structures and institutional arrangements was then presented, with focus on the effectiveness, inclusiveness, harmonization and implementation opportunities, weaknesses, opportunities and constraints. The conclusion highlighted that although the IWRM-based legal and
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 25
institutional framework was largely in place (or, in the case of Botswana, well underway) and although organizational structures had been established at different levels, a key challenge remained the discrepancy between legislative requirements and actual capacity to implement stakeholder participation activities on the ground.
4.2. GROUP EXERCISE II: INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN THE LIMPOPO BASIN
The two participant groups re-convened and were asked to address the following:
Topic: Institutional mechanisms for stakeholder participation in the Limpopo Basin
Scenario Outline There is a wide range of organizations at national and transboundary level with responsibilities in the management of the Limpopo water resources, each organization with a different mandate.
Task 1 Develop an organizational diagram for what you think is the best possible stakeholder engagement mechanism in the Limpopo basin
Task 2 Briefly elaborate the mandate/role with respect to stakeholder participation that you see for each organization (type of organization) in you diagram.
After one-and-a-half (1½) hours of group discussion, participants joined the plenary to present and discuss results of group work.
4.3. PLENARY REPORTS AND DISCUSSION
The two groups presented their conceptualizations, in the form of organizational diagrams, for what they envisaged to be the best possible stakeholder engagement mechanism in the Limpopo basin. These presentations are set out below.
4.3.1. GROUP ONE REPORT
The group had begun by adopting a decision that since LIMCOM could not easily change existing institutional arrangements for IWRM, the group had to work with these in constructing an organizational diagram (Figure 1).
A hierarchical diagram was put forward. At the highest level, the group considered that LIMCOM would play an overarching role in coordinating the transboundary management of Limpopo watercourse. The implementation arm of LIMCOM would comprise a Secretariat and a number of technical Task Teams. Secretariat roles included Strategic Planning and
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 26
Management, Financing, Planning & Contracting Party Coordination. Identified Task Teams included the following:
• Disaster Management Task Team, which would deal with issues pertaining to floods, drought, water-related diseases, transboundary pollution;
• Water Resources Management Task Team, whose focus would be on issues of Water Demand Management (WDM), Water Allocation and Water Quality and Pollution control;
• Information, Education and Communication (IEC) Task Team IEC, which would handle issues relating to Information, Education and Communication; and
• Legal task Team, which would address legal issues around transboundary cooperation.
Figure 1 Group One: LIMCOM Institutional Organization for Stakeholder Participation
LIMCOM
THE COUNCIL
SECRETARIAT
TECHNICAL WING
LEGAL BASIN PLAN DISASTER MGT POLLUTION (e.g. Floods) Task Team Task Team Task Team Task Team
BASIN-WIDE STAKEHOLDER PLATFORM
BOTSWANA MOZAMBIQUE SOUTH AFRICA ZIMBABWE
Stakeholders Stakeholders Stakeholders Stakeholders
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 27
Task Teams were envisaged to be a critical link between LIMCOM and stakeholder structures and therefore located at a level below LIMCOM but above the basin-wide forum. The forum, which could possibly be named ‘Limpopo Basin Wide Forum’, would constitute a key stakeholder platform whose primary role would be Outreach regarding LIMCOM. While membership and modalities of the forum would be decided at country level, its composition would mainly comprise Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), who would engage directly with stakeholders at grassroots levels of the LIMCOM hierarchy. The basin-wide forum would have an Observer Status in LIMCOM.
4.3.1.1. Discussion of Group One Report
Workshop participants responded with a number of questions, comments, technical inputs and advice to group one. The list below captures some of the responses.
Group awareness of Legal Task Team’s focus on cooperation rather than conflict appreciated.
Clarity sought on differentiation between pollution control under Water Resources Management Task Team and under Disaster Management Task Team. Group Answer: The former deals with normal day-to-day operations around transboundary pollution control and water quality issues. By contrast, the latter deals with ad hoc events whereby pollution and water quality issues reach crisis levels and thus require emergency action as opposed to ‘business-as-usual’ operational activities.
Question: Do basin wide forum members who are at senior government levels sit as observers in LIMCOM or can they play other roles? Group Answer: They can be called upon ad hoc to act as technical advisers, or alternatively, can be appointed as permanent technical advisers, according to Article 7 of the LIMCOM Agreement.
Question: How does a vertical linkage work that starts at the bottom with stakeholders, then somewhere along the line takes process away to CSO/NGOs, which then link up with LIMCOM? Is that a desirable arrangement? Group Answer: The basin wide forum for stakeholders is what members of the group agreed upon at a later stage, that they could be meeting at least once a year if funding is available and who could participate (limited number) as observers at council meetings.
Question: Who is responsible for day-to-day management of stakeholder participation within LIMCOM? Group Answer 1: Discussion was too short to
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 28
effectively interrogate this issue. Group Answer 2: Day-to-day management is an operational function, beyond scope of LIMCOM… (misunderstanding clarified below)
Further question: This [i.e. foregoing question] is not about day-to-day management at operational level. Rather, question refers to LIMCOM’s coordination role, for example, who will manage the Stakeholder Database for early warning of disaster? Who will manage information dissemination and communication? Group Answer: Members of the 4 Task Teams are expected to be members from riparian states, who are knowledgeable or experts in those specific areas.
4.3.2. GROUP TWO REPORT
Group Two, in similar fashion to Group One, began by taking a group decision to work with existing institutional arrangements in formulating an organizational diagram (Figure 2). The group was quick to point out that the suggested structures would not be permanent fixtures, but would adapt their composition according to issues at hand. For example, under each permanent Task Team could be sub-task teams that would be temporary and issue based, which would incorporate, for example, technical expertise, as necessary.
LIMCOM was seen to be the possible overarching institutional structure located at the highest level of the hierarchy for Limpopo transboundary water management. This view echoed that of Group One. However, with regard to the next level below LIMCOM, Group Two deviated from Group One. Whereas Group One saw technical Task Teams occupying the level below LIMCOM, Group Two envisaged LBPTC as possibly occupying that level. However, Group Two did not provide any specific notion of what type of structure LBPTC would be, but pondered possibilities of this Committee acting as a Secretariat, temporary Technical Advisory Council or High Level Technical Committee for LIMCOM. Below LBPTC or similar new structure, there would be Task Teams, which would effectively implement LIMCOM activities. Cited examples of such teams included:
Disaster Management Task Team, which would deal with issues pertaining to floods, drought, water-related diseases, transboundary pollution;
Legal Task Team, which would address legal issues around transboundary cooperation; and
Stakeholder Task Team
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 29
Figure 2 Group Two: LIMCOM Institutional Organization for Stakeholder Participation
LIMCOM
Secretariat
LBPTC
FLOOD LEGAL Stakeholder task team
Task Team Task Team
BOTSWANA MOZAMBIQUE SOUTH AFRICA ZIMBABWE
Stakeholders Stakeholders Stakeholders Stakeholders
Water users
While in essence notions of the first two technical Task Teams were congruent to thinking by Group One, a key variation was that Group Two added an innovative stakeholder structure among task teams. This was the “Stakeholder Task Team”, which would be composed of stakeholder representatives from all four riparian states. Representation in this task team would include representatives of Departments of Water Affairs (DWA/DNA) and catchment level stakeholder institutions. At the bottom rung of the LIMCOM hierarchy would be the broader group of water users, who are primary stakeholders. By virtue of their positioning at the junction between coordination and operational levels, Stakeholder Task Team roles would be to coordinate stakeholder activities at the national level and to communicate issues, such as pollution, water quality and disaster, LIMCOM (above) and broader groups of water users (below).Group Two envisaged roles of water users in general to include, on the one hand, raising awareness and proposing solutions and/or actions and, on the other hand, complying with basin plans and sustainable water use practice requirements. Modes of participation by water users were not specified.
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 30
4.3.2.1. Discussion of Group Two Report
Workshop participants responded with a number of questions, comments, technical inputs and advice to group one. These are captured in the list below.
Question: In your conceptualization, would LBPTC be co-opted to replace LIMCOM, but perhaps within LIMCOM Agreement as the Council, which can set up ad hoc Task Teams?
Question: Will LIMCOM, through Task Teams, hire permanent Secretariat personnel to manage day-to-day Stakeholder Participation activities, for example database management, communications and information dissemination?
Group Answer 1: Day-to-day management does not need permanent staff.
a. Tech Input(DBM): Unless LIMCOM has permanent staff, implementation might grind to a halt.
b. Group Answer 2(after clarification of question): Right now LIMCOM has not rationalized structures, but recommendations can be accepted, as per need, regarding permanency of staff. For now, staff is seconded from government departments to LIMCOM to ensure continuity, although this is not guaranteed as such staff can change institutional affiliation. LIMCOM will engage with issue when time comes.
c. Comment from Group 1: Group 1 agreed about the need for permanent staff in the secretariat.
d. Tech Input (DBM): If LIMCOM waits until crisis or need becomes pressing, then there are bound to be problems. It is advisable to have a concrete decision on permanency of staff from the outset, during strategy formulation.
e. Tech Input(PQ): Regarding issues of permanency of staff, given that Stakeholder Participation needs to be imbedded in all aspects of transboundary water management by LIMCOM, there is a need to think about organizational structure from the outset, and flesh out the composition, roles and procedures. Hence, issue of permanency of staff will need to be addressed early on. Such decision will inform the TOR for LIMCOM structures.
f. Group Answer 3: At the moment, driver of day-to-day processes has to be a person from within existing government structures, but in future, with
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 31
adequate funding and other resources, there may be a dedicated (permanent) person within the secretariat.
Question: Having a Stakeholder Task Team… What does it mean, since other Task Teams also seem to involve stakeholders? Technical Input(EM): There is a distinction. The Stakeholder Task Team is the stakeholder structure, while the others are technical Task Teams.
4.3.3. SYNTHESIS OF DISCUSSION
Facilitator: Daniel Malzbender
Both organizational diagrams are not different, in essence. Both have stakeholder participation. Taking examples of disaster management, planning, legal and other issues, there is a need for stakeholders to play active roles in such issues. However, regarding sustenance of effort, reality suggests that ultimately government has the responsibility for ensuring implementation. If stakeholder structures are given a huge implementation role, the process will founder. Hence, a decision about mode of participation might be that stakeholders will participate by consultation, which is relatively a less active level. Such participation might suffice and in fact contribute [by proxy] to effective implementation by LIMCOM. A critical point therefore is that the implementation team (including, for example, the Secretariat, Task Team and/or Technical Permanent Committee) needs to be permanent to ensure continuity.
Technical Input (PQ): Best practice internationally indicates that observer groups, such as coalitions of NGOs and similar, with seats on River Basin Organization (RBO) structures and processes, give adequate voice to stakeholders and stakeholders feel they do have a stake in decision making, planning and other activities. Group 1 alluded to observer status. However, are stakeholder perceptions not yet mature in Southern Africa, such that such status is generally viewed as inadequate?
Response from a participant: Reason for failure to effectively implement stakeholder participation is not so much a lack appreciation of observer status for stakeholders, but rather a need for implementation to be firmly entrenched within governments.
5.0. SESSION FIVE: LIMCOM ROADMAP CONTENT AND STRUCTURE
5.1 BACKGROUND PAPER: PRINCIPLES OF STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 32
Presenter/Facilitator: Emmanuel Manzungu
The facilitator began by acknowledging that the presentation was largely based on personal experiences in facilitating the development of the SADC Regional Strategic Action Plan on Integrated Water Resources Development and Management (2005-2010) and Mzingwane Stakeholder Participation Strategy (2010-1015). He informed workshop participants that the aim presentation would be to provide insights into steps and processes that go into developing a strategy. He also stressed that the discussion was not a theoretical discussion and therefore no effort would be made to adhere to strict textbook definition of terms.
The facilitator explained that in essence a strategy is a plan of what needs to be achieved, how that will be undertaken with what financial, material and human resources, and over what time frame. A strategy is put in place to bring to reality an existing policy and is therefore not developed in a vacuum. Firstly, as an action plan, it differs from a policy, which sets out the destination of what is being undertaken. Secondly, as an action plan, a strategy is also different from a long term strategy, which is about the elements of the direction of desired change. Thirdly, a strategy differs from an operational plan, which is about tasks that need to be done, such as an annual plan. Furthermore, he stated that strategy is usually undertaken over a period of five (5) years, which is short enough not to lose sight of what needs to be done or what is happening and long enough to allow reasonable action to be performed. A strategy document should be seen as a management tool rather than a souvenir. The number of critical elements to any strategy document depends on the history of the organization for which the strategy is being developed. As a general rule a strategy is lean document that is not clattered with technical jargon, verbosity. It is a shared document. All details if needed must be in appendices. Lastly, a strategy should ideally be a distillation of feeder technical reports, which could total more or less one hundred (100) pages, from which a thirty (30) to fifty (50) page strategy document is produced.
The facilitator proceeded to outline the step towards drafting a strategy. These were the vision and mission, focus areas and strategic objectives, outputs and outcomes, activities, logical framework, budget and financing, and implementation plan(see Appendix 1 for power point presentation). This section focuses on the First Step towards drawing up a Strategy, which is formulation of a vision and mission.
Vision and Mission:
A vision is a visualization of where an organization sees itself in years to come and is about becoming unique in a chosen field of operation
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 33
A vision statement is a vivid idealized description of a desired outcome that inspires, energizes and helps to create a mental picture of your target.. It is about dreams and hopes and answers the question: WHERE DO WE WANT TO GO?
A mission (statement) is the purpose of an organization which guides the actions of an organization and includes socially meaningfully and measurable criteria and answers the questions WHY DO WE EXIST?
The vision and mission are presented together; the vision statement is shorter than the mission statement.
In some cases the vision and mission together form the goals of the organization where both are merged together although goals are long term aims that define accomplishment of the mission.
Where there is an overall vision and mission for the organization it is not desirable for a unit to have its own vision and mission in which case the unit can have a strategic goal.
The question is where does one get the vision and mission? Should be based on the organisation‘s larger picture or what is already happening. It should draw from existing policies etc. For example the RSAP-IWRM draws from the politico-economic framework (SADC vision and mission) and makes reference to development framework (RISDP).
The vision and mission of the stakeholder participation strategy must make reference to the Protocol on Shared Watercourses, Regional Water Policy and Regional Water Strategy.
There must be a demonstration of how pertinent development needs will be addressed e.g. MDGs… the vision and mission must be seen as leading to certain outcomes.
The development of the vision and mission must ideally be a participatory process, which is true for the entire strategy.
To this end those that entrusted to write the strategy should reflect the consensus of the different stakeholders.
Sometimes core values are also given which indicate the ethics that bind and guide the organization.
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 34
The vision and mission statements are displayed in visible places to remind the personnel of the organisation as well as inform outsiders what makes the organization.
However, the vision and mission must not end up being a decoration.
Other points highlighted by the facilitator were that the Strategic Goal should express the vision and mission, and not go off tangent to add more content, otherwise a strategy loses focus. Outcomes could include participation as a goal or a means and achievement of MDG goals, for example. Core values of LIMCOM related to the quality of how things will be done, and these would form the Ethics and Principles underpinning the organizational ethos in terms of stakeholder participation. Prioritization of objectives was emphasized as important. Strategic objectives were to be viewed not as stand-alone items but logical in sequence. Outputs related to what was within power of strategy to achieve. For that reason, outputs were distinct from outcomes, which are beyond the realm of the strategy. Milestones needed to be stated, and they could also become a management tool for monitoring achievement of objectives. A strategy had to specify the activities and resources required for achievement of outputs, such as human, material, financial and other resources. Indicators for verification of achievements were requisite, and such indicators needed to be very specific. The implementation plan was most effectively structured in logical framework.
5.2 LIMCOM ROADMAP - CONTENTS OF STRATEGY DOCUMENT: PLENARY DISCUSSION
Facilitator: Emmanuel Manzungu
Regarding the content and structure of a strategy document, the facilitator stated that a strategy essentially had three main elements of Strategic Development or Planning, namely, Context, Process and Content. A strategy also: 1. Required resources, such as finance and human capacity; 2. Had a definite Time Frame; 3. Was based upon existing policy and documents; 4. Was an Action Plan for these, specifying limited time frame (normally five years). Such time is reasonable planning time for foreseeable achievements; 5. Was a management tool, rather than a souvenir; 6. Should not be clattered with technical jargon; and 7. Should be lean (compact) and readable, with details appended for further reference.
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 35
5.2.1 PLENARY DISCUSSION
Workshop participants were invited to ask questions about the foregoing presentation. For guidance, clarification was made that the facilitation team expected that by the end of the day, delegates should have indicated what was required in terms of a possible strategy for stakeholder participation. For example, facilitators needed to know if the outlined approach to strategy formulation (i.e. outlined in this session’s presentation) could broadly be what LIMCOM envisages, and if so, could that be a starting point for Roadmap development? Further guidance was that priority issues, such as pollution and early warning of disasters, were doable within the strategy time frame. Hence, such priorities could feature as key focus areas and objectives within the initial strategy document. In the interests of progress with the discussion, the plenary was asked to decide, for practical purposes, whether or not a time frame of five (5) years was reasonable to LIMCOM, or if a possible time frame should rather be ten (10) years. The plenary was also asked to share their views on when planning time should begin. Further technical guidance was that envisaging the time frame would involve thinking along the lines: “In ….years, this is where LIMCOM wants to be at”. Responses were as follows:
Firstly, there was consensus among workshop participants that a strategy time frame of five years was reasonable, and that the time frame of the initial strategy would be from Jan 2012 to Dec 2016. Secondly, participants agreed that a starting date in early 2012 would be appropriate. A senior delegate from Zimbabwe added that such time frame would ensure that the strategy started with sufficient lead-in time (at least three months) after Zimbabwe had ratified the LIMCOM Agreement, which was acceptable. Technical input was that, given that the Strategy document is envisaged to be completed by May 2011, a start date of strategy implementation could not, in any case, be realistically before early 2012. The one year time lag would allow for necessary preparations for implementation, such as sourcing of funding, institutional rationalization and other activities.
From the foregoing discussion, as well as previous plenary and group work sessions, a draft framework for the content of the LIMCOM Stakeholder Participation Strategy was developed (Box 1). This framework, as well as other outputs from the workshop, collectively contributed to the development a draft methodology and process for the next stage of the Roadmap development process (See Executive Summary on Page 10).
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 36
BOX 1 LIMCOM STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION STRATEGY: CONTENT AND STRUCTURE
(Draft)
1. Background and Introduction
2. Characteristics of the Limpopo Basin
3. Strategic Goals
4. Principles underpinning the strategy
5. Key Focus Areas (herein not in any order of priority; to be decided upon by LIMCOM)
a. Early warning/disaster management
b. Basin Planning
c. Transboundary pollution/water quality
6. Strategic objectives, outputs and outcomes
7. Overview of Strategy (Graphical presentation)
8. Budget and financing
9. Implementation plan (longer than 5-year time frame)
a. Monitoring and evaluation framework
b. Communication Strategy/Plan c. Institutional set up
Appendix Generalized Logical Framework, with indicators, resources and activities (including mention of sub-strategies/plans)
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 37
6.0 WAY FORWARD: ROADMAP DEVELOPMENT AND PROCESS PHASE TWO
Facilitator: Daniel Malzbender
The facilitator introduced the session by recalling that, according to project TOR, the envisaged date for presentation of the final Strategy for approval was May 2011. In the facilitator’s understanding, a drafting team would be established, which would work under the guidance of LIMCOM or other delegated structure. The Drafting Team would work at national levels, get technical input on issues requiring clarification and flesh out how process will unfold, among other tasks. The Drafting Team would finalize the Strategy document, present it and LIMCOM would either endorse or make comments for revision then endorsement.
Regarding the way forward, the facilitator asked the plenary to what extent stakeholders were envisaged to be involved in the development of the strategy itself? The facilitator pointed out that decisions would need to be made regarding the following modes of stakeholder engagement:
National consultations only; and/or
Participation in Technical Workshop
A suggestion (PQ) was that the first question should perhaps be: Is it necessary to take the process further, or is existing output sufficient? One participant responded that it was odd that this question should be asked in this particular platform (i.e. plenary session), since the present workshop participants did not have the mandate to take such a decision, and South Africa was not represented in the session. A further suggestion was therefore that the facilitation team had done its work, according to TOR, and further proposal and discussion on way forward should be presented to the commission tomorrow. All participants conceded to this. The decision therefore was that arrangements would be made for the Regional Coordinator to present a proposal regarding the Way Forward for Roadmap / Strategy Development at an LBPTC meeting scheduled to take place in the same venue on the next day (11 November).[NB: The Regional Coordinator presented a summary of the workshop proceedings and outputs to the LBPTC meeting on Thursday 11 November 2010 (see Executive Summary on Page 10).
7.0 . WORKSHOP CLOSURE
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) representative, Peter Qwist-Hoffmann, gave initial closing remarks and thanked the Regional Coordination and National Facilitation team for work done. To quote, he stated, “From the start their work has been of high professional
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 38
standard.”LIMCOM Interim Executive Secretary, Sérgio Sitoe, gave the vote of thanks to all participants and the National Facilitation team. In his words, “The project facilitation team was recommended by the national focal points, and did not disappoint”. Sitoe also commended the Regional Coordination team for a job well done. With these words, the LIMCOM Interim Executive Secretary formally declared the workshop closed.
ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 - Page 39
2010/11/05
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
Water resource use – key aspects LIMCOM Stakeholder Participation Roadmap Limpopo- Botswana eastern part of the country
(hardveld)- active erosion and frequent climate National Stakeholder Participation Appraisal extremes Botswana Approx 69% of population lives in the basin SA (22), Zim (10) and Moz (7) Key findings Water use Urban water supply- 60% (eg Gaborone Dam, Shashe and lower Shashe, Bokaa, Molatedi) Kulthoum Omari Rural water supply- 12% Irrigation- 20% Mining 9%
Socio-economic issues of relevance subsistence arable farming and rearing of Urban water supply livestock- relies on rainfed agriculture for Eg Gaborone, Francistown- are major users of livelihoods water resources of the basin, supplying industries Commercial farming- Tuli Block- and towns and cities along the Limpopo river Largest and fastest growing in the basin- increase Crop and livestock agriculture, game farming population and tourism This is in line with the new Water Policy Formal employment rural population in the basin Game reserves From groundwater abstraction, however, GW not Tourism taken into account during river basin planning 65% derives livelihood from agriculture Fuel wood and Phane collection & crafts
Institutional and Legal Arrangements for stakeholder participation Draft Water Policy Botswana constitution embraces principle of Guided by three principles- equity, public participation efficiency and sustainability. Vision 2016- Pillar ‘open, democratic and Sustainability promotes management of water accountable nation’. Recognizes the role that the resources at the lowest appropriate levels Kgotla and traditional leaders play in the through a participatory approach. democratic process planning, management and water to be based NDP 10- Defines governance, way a society sets on integrated catchment management and manages its development process through approaches that encourage conjunctive use & mobilizing, using and coordinating all available promote public awareness resources in the public, private and civil society Supports the establishment of WRC- Multi sectors sector council that manages water
1 2010/11/05
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
National Water Master Plan- Access to water will be given in the Main planning document for WRM. following order of priority: Recommends IWRM in water planning, which (i) the basic requirements required for human include broad stakeholder participation. consumption; Botswana subscribes to the principle of (ii) the environment to ensure sustainable stakeholder participation foundations for supporting the national However, policy by itself is not binding interests; followed by statutorily and only tends to provide the (iii) agricultural and livestock, commercial foundation for administrative purposes. and industrial applications. lack of implementing binding instruments that enforce the principle of stakeholder participation.
Current practice for stakeholder participation Summary of main findings Central government (DWA) and WUC has Water resources management is the the largest responsibility in water resources domain of Central government- has the management largest responsibility Absence of strong local level traditional Local level leadership in water management and the Dikgosi important anchor in the Botswana LIMCOM process as a whole democratic system. Associations such as Tuli Block Farmers & command respect and influence among their Small scale farmers associations exist- but followers, limited participation in national planning Dikgosi have lost their powers over the years, processes in water management particularly in natural resources management
Final stages of the water sector reform process- Opportunities addressing the multiplicity and overlap of institutions in water resources management. The International Water’s Unit which Draft Water Policy and WRC-membership coordinates the activities of all River Basin (government, civil society, private and research Organisations organisations) The IWRM project - on going Lack of local level stakeholder institutions The existence of a Kgotla system- a viable, within the river basin basic community structure which can also lack of a policy which explicitly calls for be used to strengthen stakeholder stakeholder participation at all levels of participation in water resources water resources management. management
2 2010/11/22
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
LIMCOM Stakeholder Participation Roadmap I. Introduction Include 4 countries
In Mozambique: •Located southern part of the Country National Stakeholder Participation Appraisal •19.3% of the Basin In Mozambique = Mozambique approx. 79 900 Km2
•Climate: semi-arid; dry and hot Key findings •Rainfall: 890 mm (coast) – 300 mm interior. Felicidade Massingue
I. Introduction Water resources Total annual runoff generated in the country: 400 Mm3 Three main tributaries: (1)Nuanedzi (Zimbabwe) – Northern part of the Limpopo river; (2) Changane (close to the border with Zimbabwe) – enters limpopo close to the mouth in Xai-Xai; (3) Elephants (From South Africa) – enters limpopo downstream Massingir reservoir The river extends 561 Km over a gradient of approx. 1.03/km from Pafuri to Indian Ocean (river mouth in Xai-Xai town)
III. Water resource use – key aspects IV. Socio-economic issues of relevance Population: 1100000 (Census 2007). Most Important legislation - Water Act 1991 & of the population concentrated along main water policy 2007: infrastructures such as roads and markets Satisfaction of human water consumption needs (PRIORITY); Agriculture is the main activity; Fishing, Improvement of sanitation (promotion of health and livestock keeping, trading, manufacturing hygiene education) and service industry.
Efficient use of water for economic development; Tourism is very important – Large parks including Transfrontier Management Water for conservation of the environment areas): Limpopo, Banhine and Zinave parks
1 2010/11/22
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
Institutional Arrangements for Current practice for stakeholder stakeholder participation participation
Mozambique legal framework establishes: NWC – Ministries: Public Works and National Water Council (NWC) : Ministers of the Housing; Health, Agriculture; Fisheries; relevant ministries Coordination of Environmental Affairs; Technical water Committee: National Directors of the relevant ministries at technical level Tourism & Energy Important functions with key tasks to support ARA-Sul- UGBL – Limpopo Basin Committee the water sector (CBL) an consultative body for the director of ARA- South Difficult to get together a group of ministers to discuss water issues in regular basis –
different agendas Districts wards: Advisory councils (traditional authority or family elders) Weak intersectoral coordination
Summary of main findings: Current practice for stakeholder Stakeholders participation Government institutions - all relevant CBL: comprised by UGBL (president); civil institutions at national, provincial, district society, government institutions, private and local level: sector (medium and large commercial agricultural enterprises or representatives) and water users. Play important role as policy makers Advisory councils - traditional authorities or family elders: management and safeguarding traditional habits as well as resolution of different sorts of problems at community level (e.g. domestic, social conflicts).
Summary of main findings: Summary of main findings: Stakeholders Stakeholders Large and Medium Commercial Urban and Rural communities: all communities farmers: residing within the basin; High water usage Low water usage; low level of education; not represented in the LBC; needs articulated by local government, municipalities or Represented in the LBC (interested in water traditional authority resources management) Smallholder / subsistence farmers: less than 10 ha High technical capacity land (most <1 ha): organized into associations (membership number unknown) High influence in policy (they have tha Have no legal personae, most associations started with capacity to articulate their need assistance from NGOs Low water usage Industry / tourism: as commercial Not represented in LBC farmers but do not get involved in water Low influence, low technical capacity resources management
2 2010/11/22
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
Summary of main findings: Summary of main findings: Stakeholders Stakeholders Environment and conservation areas: Catchment Management Agencies special group stakeholders with specific Water management and water supply needs and water use. agencies Represented through relevant institutions Not for Gain Organizations (Environment; tourism institutions; Religious organization (Mozambique Environmental NGOs) Christian Council) TFCA entry point for LIMCOM process Management of Natural disasters
Academic and Research Institutions Media: not involved in WRM. It is an important group for awareness raising
Summary of main findings: Key issues Summary of main findings: Key issues
Legal framework makes adequate Participation of stakeholders in WRM provision for stakeholders participation through river basin committees Mozambique ratified almost all relevant The river basin committee defined to instruments for transboundary water include government institutions, water resources and biodiversity management users, civil society and other interests Top – down approach to involve The basin committees are considered to stakeholders: ARA-Sul has a mandate to be a consultative body for the ARA (to create river basin committee what extent the decisions made at the committee level are implemented by ARA?)
Summary of main findings: Key issues There is no equilibrium of representation in the basin committee: Commercial water users dominate the committee. Small scale water user not represented
3 2010/11/05
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
LIMCOM STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES OF RELEVANCE ROADMAP
South Africa occupies 45% of the basin, with Levuvhu/Letaba, Limpopo, Crocodile West/Marico and Olifants WMAs are affected Limpopo, North West, Mpumalanga and Gauteng Provinces National Stakeholder Participation Appraisal Home to 10.7 million people and has a strong diversity of rural versus urban population. South Africa Capital cities and largest urban population centers are Johannesburg, Pretoria, Polokwane, Thohoyandou, and Witbank. ±70% of the basin is rural area Although South Africa is generally economically stable, there are a Key findings lot of poverty stricken communities along the basin- especially in Limpopo Province Main spoken languages are Limpopo Basin are Setswana, Sesotho, Xitsonga and Tshivenda; Afrikaans spoken by white Mashudu Mathelemusa
SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES OF RELEVANCE WATER RESOURCE USE – KEY ASPECTS CONT.
The climate ranges from dry savannah and hot dry steppe to cool temperatures (0°C in winter to 40°C in summer) The National Water Act introduced the concept of Reserve, which refers to both an ecological reserve in terms of retaining a minimum Rainfall is highly seasonal and unevenly distributed (95% occurring level of instream flow to ensure ecosystem sustainability, and that of between October and April) a human reserve, which refers to the quantities of water necessary Flooding and droughts are common in the basin and impact on to meet basic human needs. Water uses were categorized into: irrigation Schedule 1 uses: water used for domestic purposes Backlog on water and sanitation services in rural communities, General Authorisations (non-transferable): covers water uses in specific people using raw water for basic needs without proper purification geographical areas or for particular purposes that are deemed to have a low impact Reported cases of preventable health related diseases Existing Lawful Uses (ELUs): uses that were actively taking place within two Changes in lifestyle, increased industrial and mining developments, years of the new National Water Act being promulgated and which were and non compliance lead to overstressed resources and water recognised as lawful under the previous legislation quality challenges Water use licences: covers all other uses.
Agriculture, mining and tourism major contributors to the economy Non compliance to waste management procedures contribute to resources pollution
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE CONSTITUTION ACT No. 108 OF 1996 STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION
. Constitution (Act No. 108 of 1996) Constitution promulgate for the right of people to an environment . National Water Act-1998 (No. 36 of 1998) that is not harmful to their health or well-being have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future . National Water Policy generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that prevent pollution and ecological degradation . Water Services Act (No. 108 of 1997) promote conservation and secure ecologically sustainable . development and use of natural resources while promoting National Environment Management Act (No.107 justifiable economic and social development of 1998) is also clear in terms of people having the right to access to information that is held by the state and/or another person and that . Promotion of Access to Information 2 of 2000 is required for the exercise or protection of any rights. (PAIA)
1 2010/11/05
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
NATIONAL WATER POLICY THE NATIONAL WATER ACT NO. 36 OF 1998 (NWA)
The National Water Policy promotes the responsibility for the NWA was developed to redress the inequalities of the development, apportionment and management of available water resources to be delegated to a catchment or regional level in such a past and in line with the Constitution. NWA: manner as to enable interested parties to participate. deals with water resources management The policy promotes the development of women in relation to water recognizes that water belongs to all people in South Africa, and management as traditional custodians of natural resources in the the need for equitable distribution of water. rural areas, and suffer most from degradation of water and other natural resources. Promotes stakeholder participate in water resource management It encourages empowering, educating and communicating with Promotes the management of water resources at the lowest women through access to information, by education and on simple possible level through the establishment of Catchment water purification procedures, Management Agencies (CMAs) and Water User Associations Encourages women to work through water committees, and (WUAs) ultimately in catchment management agencies Ensures that through institutions the public participate and is involved in water resource management decision making.
WATER SERVICES ACT NO. 108 OF 1997 WATER SERVICES ACT NO. 108 OF 1997
Services are supported and implemented through a 5 year Integrated Water Services Act deals with water services i.e. Development Plans (IDP) required from municipalities, and developed through stakeholder participation and involvement. Water and sanitation portable, drinkable water and sanitation that is projects and services are some of the projects that go into the IDPs. supplied by municipalities to households and Stakeholders that are involved in the IDP process are: Municipality: The IDP guides the development plans of the local municipality other municipal water users. Councillors: The IDP gives councillors an opportunity to make decisions based on the needs and aspirations of their constituencies Communities and other stakeholders: The IDP is based on community needs and priorities. The Act supports the right of access to basic National and Provincial sector Departments: Many government services are delivered by provincial and national government departments at local level -for water and sanitation supply necessary to secure example: police stations, clinics and schools. Municipalities must take into account the programmes and policies of these departments. The departments sufficient water and an environment not harmful should participate in the IDP process so that they can be guided how to use their resources to address local needs. to human health or well-being.
NATIONAL WATER RESOURCE STRATEGY (NWRS) NWRMS CONT.
NWRS is developed to achieve the principles of the NWA. Educating and creating awareness among stakeholders: Continuously public consultation processes to ensure that the public, especially HDI, is aware and Summary off strategy gazetted to ensure stakeholder participation in the have an understanding on WRM issues and challenges, through establishment development process of stakeholders representative groups and forums in water management areas. For the National Water Strategy to be implementable it advocates for Public Participation through: The Water Education Programme (20/20 Vision for Water Programme): Capacity Building and expertise among practitioners: A Water Encourages learner at schools to develop water value and life skills by Sector Capacity Building Strategy Task Team is established to focus on implementing projects on water related issues, to promote water literacy and the competency needs of the water sector, to ensure that all role resource conservation among the public; integrate WRM in school curriculum players in the water sector have the necessary capacity to implement and into all departmental programmes water related policy and laws. The strategy focuses creating and developing people’s skills, knowledge and attitude, for them to support Communication: DWA provides information about its activities, programmes the development of infrastructure, institutions, knowledge and and plans, gather information about public concerns related to water issues, and obtain feedback about its performance through its communication strategy. DWA information management, and financial management for water also uses community visits, media coverage, media briefings, water week and resources management. promotional materials to communicate with its stakeholders and the public.
2 2010/11/05
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT ACT PROMOTION OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION 2 OF 2000 NO.107 OF 1998 (NEMA) (PAIA)
Promotes participation of all interested and affected parties in environmental governance Promotes capacity building and skills transfer for all people in order to This Act gives effect to the constitutional right of access achieve equitable and effective participation, esp. by HDI to any information held by the State and any information Promotes the interests, needs and values of all interested and affected that is held by another person and that is required for the parties are taken into consideration when taking decisions, including traditional and ordinary knowledge. exercise or protection of any rights; Promotes community wellbeing and empowerment through environmental Fosters a culture of transparency and accountability in education, environmental awareness, sharing of knowledge and experience public and private bodies by giving effect to the right of Promotes international environmental relations through international access to information environmental instrument deals with, for example, dissemination of information related to the instrument and reports from international Actively promotes a society in which South Africans have meetings, initiatives and steps regarding research, education, training, effective access to information to enable them to more create awareness and capacity building, and ensuring public participation. fully exercise and protect all of their rights
CURRENT PRACTICE FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION CURRENT PRACTICES CONT.
Institutional arrangements and mechanisms for public There are water forums in different sectors and participation are in place and clear about stakeholder participation. communities, and political will and involvement The issue of stakeholder participation is enshrined in the in the form of water committees. Constitution and supported by Acts, Policies, Strategies, At a transboundary level, there are existing Plans and Programmes conservation transfrontier parks that South Africa ratified international agreements stakeholders participate. South Africa participates in international organizations Stakeholder participation in water resources There are databases of interested and affected management is implemented through institutions i.e. stakeholders from government information CMAs and WUAs systems and government departments.
CHALLENGES REGARDING CURRENT CHARACTERIZATION OF IDENTIFIED PRACTICES STAKEHOLDERS
Lack of resources to facilitate participation (especially Government: National finance) Provincial Local Lack of stakeholders’ capacity to effectively participate Water Providers: Parastatals Lack of immediate benefits for stakeholders Local Water Resources Management CMAs Frustration of stakeholders by too much bureaucracy WUAs from government agencies Water Committees Industries: Top down approaches Mining Agriculture Lack of enabling legislation and other enabling Tourism conditions Academic institutions Local community
3 2010/11/05
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS BRIEF ANALYSIS
Cooperation and support from the DWA Existing policies and legislation that regulate WRM issues Availability of the basin profile Existing ratified international agreements and participation in international organizations Institutional arrangements are in place There are other supporting public participation programmes/projects that are currently being implemented Government willingness to participate Accessible information on stakeholders There may not be a common interpretation of legislation and policies Part of the global community by different stakeholders Some existing forums may not be operational Existing database Slow updating of information e.g. changes in contact people within organizations and stakeholders group Need for effective stakeholder participation
4 2010/11/05
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
Context LIMCOM Stakeholder Participation Roadmap Water resources
Semi-arid to arid conditions: average rainfall -400 to 600 mm; High annual variability with a CV of about 40% National Stakeholder Participation Appraisal Surface water resources produced in the basin Zimbabwe estimated to be 0.54km3/year; 0.41km3 drains into the river at the border between Zimbabwe and South Africa, 0.13km3 enters Mozambique before flowing into the Key findings Limpopo Irrigable land is estimated at 70 00ha reduced to 10 900 ha because of water availability. Close to 4 000 ha have Emmanuel Manzungu been developed for irrigation
Context Context Water resources Main water use categories
Most of the water is stored in government dams. Main water uses include: This agreement water is available at government- -Primary water users –defined as water for basic needs determined prices and not just domestic for which no permit is required. Catchment councils can set the limit for primary water use There is limited groundwater and is mainly used for rural primary water use -Environment -UIM (Urban, industry and mining) Climate change is estimated to play a significant role in -Agriculture water availability -Recreation
Context Context Agricultural water use Agricultural water use
In agricultural water use the two main categories are 2. Subsistence-oriented livestock farming utilising bluewater users (river, dams, and groundwater) and communal resources (water and) grazing: herd size is greenwater users (rainfed crop and livestock husbandry variable; less amenable to commercialisation, contains including wildlife). the majority of the national herd
The above informs the following sub-categories: 3. Small scale/medium commercial rainfed cropping: 30 1. Subsistence-oriented rainfed crop farming in ha (not common because of aridity) communal and resettlement areas: less than 12 ha arable with communal grazing 4. Small/medium commercial livestock production: averaging 1 000 ha accommodating 40 herd of cattle
1 2010/11/05
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
Context Context Agricultural water use Socio-economic issues
5. Large scale commercial irrigated cropping: above 20 There is widespread poverty in the area, commercial ha and include communal irrigation water use is not an issue for the majority of the population 6. Large scale commercial ranching: over 2 000 ha
The economic status in the country has negatively Categories 4 to 6 pay for water used, applies to intensive affected water resources planning and development production systems such as pen fattening, dairy schemes. Category 2 escapes paying water fees because of the location of the activities. Livestock particularly cattle has high carbon footprints!
Context Context Institutional Arrangements for stakeholder Institutional arrangements for stakeholder participation participation
Policy and legal context Stakeholder platforms 1. An enabling legislation: Water Act and ZINWA Act 1. Catchment and sub-catchment councils established some 10 years ago 2. A supportive policy framework that supports IWRM exists 2. The Mzingwane Catchment Council and its four subcatchments is operational) 3. Policy and legislation promote stakeholder participation 3. The Mzingwane Catchment Council has a stakeholder 4. The country is signatory to regional and international participation strategy in place (2010-2015) agreements –that directly or indirectly support stakeholder participation in natural resource management
Context Institutional arrangements for stakeholder Findings participation
The stakeholder platforms are based on the Progress to date understanding of a stakeholder as any person under the Regular elections for stakeholder representatives jurisdiction of a catchment and subcatchment council Meetings are regularly convened who has an interest in water.
A water dialogue is evident, illustrated by a draft The regulations identified the stakeholders who over catchment outline plan and stakeholder participation time were found to be limited. strategy
Inclusion of traditional leaders has increased legitimacy
2 2010/11/05
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
Findings Findings
Operational problems Opportunities 1. Stakeholder representatives are not really There is a need to harness opportunities such representatives for a variety of reasons -Involvement of local government in transfrontier parks -Research presence in the basin 2. Lack of finances for the new institutions -Similar endeavours e.g. Capnet -Involvement of local government in catchment and 3. High transaction costs have been a problem subcatchment councils -Widening secondary stakeholders who come in as 4. Capacity deficits among many stakeholders observes without voting rights
Findings Findings
Strategic problems/threats 5. Revival of old Department of Water Development with 1. LIMCOM is yet to be ratified parallel structures to ZINWA
2. The Revised Protocol not yet ratified 6. Land issue to do with people settled in transfrontier parks 3. No known mechanism that links catchment council to LBPTC/LIMCOM 4. Research not well incorporated.
Findings Findings
Attempts to rectify the problems The stakeholder participation strategy has been 3. Making use of the district level as an intermediate level produced which seeks to broaden and deepen to organise stakeholders participation by:
1. including stakeholders left out the process especially 4. Incorporating water issues that matter to communities primary water users, rainfed farmers, and new groups of farmers, women (a gender quota now exists)
2. Establishing water users associations
3 2010/11/05
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
Conclusions Conclusions
1. A legal and policy framework at both the national and 4. The Mzingwane stakeholder participation strategy is a regional level exists vehicle to address shortcomings
2. However there is a need to address Protocol and 5. There is a need to harness opportunities LIMCOM ratification 6. There is a need to minimise weaknesses and threats. 3. Stakeholder platforms are operational but need to address shortcomings of representativeness at local and basin level
4 2010/11/22
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
Recap of Day One Variations in stages of water sector reforms (e.g. Botswana ongoing) LIMCOM Stakeholder Participation Roadmap Variations in legal provisions for stakeholder participation Variations in stakeholder platforms Variations in current practices Recap of issues from Day One Similarities in complexity of stakeholders Amid such landscape, opportunities have to be found for effective participation…
Issues raised Issues raised
Enabling legislation is there, but Traditional authorities do/can play implementation lags behind. important role in engaging local level communities. Need to clarify distinction between national and transboundary issues. How to engage the media Zimbabwe’s non-ratification of Revised Power imbalances within stakeholder SADC protocol and LIMCOM Agreement: platforms/forums implications. Existing forums are more consultative than representative, except in Zimbabwe.
Key Questions for SP Roadmap In upscaling from national to transboundary water management, how does LIMCOM: Ensure effective communication and information dissemination? Create/develop appropriate stakeholder forums or platforms? Build and/or strengthen capacity of stakeholder platforms and practices? Define requisite institutional interfaces and channels of interaction?
1 2010/11/22
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
LIMCOM Stakeholder Participation Roadmap LIMCOM Agreement: Article 7 Sub-section 7.2: The Council shall advise Contracting Parties on the Towards Effective Stakeholder Participation Extent to which the inhabitants in the territory of each of the Contracting Parties Discussion concerned shall participate in the planning, utilization, sustainable development,
protection and conservation of the Barbara Tapela Limpopo and the possible impact on social and cultural heritage matters.
Key Challenge: Dealing with Complexity Key Issue: Sub-national vs Transboundary
Stakeholder Participation Appraisals in the four Should LIMCOM Stakeholder Participation be LIMCOM countries indicate a multiplicity of viewed in terms of a discontinuity or continuity stakeholders with diverse interests, ranging from between sub-national and transboundary levels? local to transboundary levels. Is it “stakeholder participation at transboundary How to deal with such complexity in designing level”? OR LIMCOM Roadmap/Strategy? Is it “stakeholder participation in transboundary What is the „lowest appropriate level‟? water management”? OR How small is „beautiful‟? Latter embraces all levels as part of a nested and integrated watercourse management system.
Defining “effective participation”... Effective stakeholder participation… Widens the base of available knowledge, Depends on LIMCOM vision, mission, goals and expertise and information to identify relevant objectives… transboundary issues and solutions, resulting in Also depends on awareness and common better substantive outcomes. understanding within LIMCOM of need for and Increases the likelihood that values and priorities nature of stakeholder participation. of stakeholders and the public will be included, thus improving credibility and public support for Theory AND international best practice provide decisions and projects. indicators of what could constitute „effective‟ Increases transparency in decision-making and stakeholder participation. projects, hence enhancing legitimacy of decisions and projects. Provides for early warning of potential challenges.
1 2010/11/22
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
Effective stakeholder participation… Effective stakeholder participation… Creates a sense of empowerment and Enhances cooperation and provides social responsibility among stakeholders. potential to build consensus and avoid Builds capacity of civil society to conflict. participate meaningfully in water Improves transboundary water governance. management and project implementation. Creates public ownership of decisions and Educates the public about transboundary project goals and activities, increasing the water issues and solutions, increasing the likelihood of successful implementation likelihood of sustainable behaviours. and overall sustainability of outcomes. Enhances accountability in decision Minimizes costs and delays due to public making related to transboundary waters. and stakeholder opposition.
Reality check! Softer but harder issues Typology of Participation
Balancing interests of powerful and less Passive participation powerful stakeholders. Participation in information giving Building of trust and confidence in the Participation by consultation process. Participation for material incentives Going beyond participation as a „goal‟ to Functional participation participation as a „means‟. Interactive participation Self-mobilisation/active participation
Policy Environment Practical Applications Commitment by governments AND How do we move from awareness of what officials to promoting stakeholder constitutes effective participation to participation. practical strategies and application? Strong legal basis for stakeholder No blue print. Basin-specific situations and participation at national levels experiences vary, and innovation is Alignment of national legal provisions for therefore key. stakeholder participation among However, there are certain critical factors transboundary basin or aquifer states. that underpin effective stakeholder participation. Institutional support (incl. financial support)
2 2010/11/22
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
Minimum requirements for effective participation Stakeholder Platforms Effective communication and information exchange Purposeful between all relevant role-players; Long-lived Appropriate legal and institutional frameworks for stakeholder participation in transboundary basin Properly resourced management and establishment of partnerships between Statutory basis governments and civil society; All stakeholders have the necessary capacity to Integrative and coordinating meaningfully interact and contribute to decision-making Participatory on matters relating to the management of the basin; Institutional interfaces at all levels are clearly defined Politically supported and functioning channels of institutional interaction are Nested structures established.
LIMCOM End of Session BOTSWANA ZIMBABWE MOZAMBIQUE SA DWA DWA DNA DWA
ZINWA ARA-Sul Consult Active Participation Mzingwane Limpopo Basin CMAs CMC Management Unit (UGBL) Water Allocation Interactive Participation Consultation Water Boards Sub- River Basin Committees Resources catchment Councils Councils
Consultation Kgotla WUAs, District Water Users WUAs, (Trad.governance)? Local Govt, other Other structures? NGOs/CSOs Advisory Councils water Trad. leadership (Trad.governance) users
3 2010/11/05
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
LIMCOM Stakeholder Participation Roadmap Agenda
Limpopo River Basin Legal Discussion Paper Regional Level Basin Level LIMCOM 09 November 2010 National Level Conclusion
Limpopo River Basin Regional Overview
Shared by the four SADC Member States Botswana All Limpopo River basin states are SADC members Mozambique South Africa Zimbabwe SADC Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses 1986 - Limpopo Basin Permanent Technical Committee (LBPTC) Regional framework agreement Established first joint cooperation platform involving all four basin states Botswana, Mozambique and South Africa have 2003 - Agreement to Establish the Limpopo Watercourse Commission ratified (LIMCOM Agreement) Cooperation strengthened Zimbabwe has not yet Three countries already ratified the agreement Remaining country in advanced stage of ratification No direct stakeholder participation provisions Entry into force expected soon
Regional Overview Regional Overview
Regional Water Policy (RWP) and Regional Water Strategy (RWS) Regional Water Policy Regionally agreed policy guidelines on water resources management Product of participatory and consultative process involving diverse Inform implementation of Revised Protocol and water related stakeholders development plans Multi-level state, non-governmental, academic, private and community-based Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISDP) sectors Regional Strategic Action Plan (RSAP) Long-term policy and strategy for management of transboundary Both contain provisions on stakeholder participation in watercourses transboundary water management Aims to reduce water-related conflicts
Acknowledges opportunities for cooperation and regional economic growth through common heritage of shared watercourses
1 2010/11/05
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
Regional Overview Regional Overview
Regional Water Policy Regional Water Policy Recognises constraints on effective management and Anchored upon a number of SADC pronouncements:
development of regional water resources: SADC Declaration and Treaty - calls for a shared future, within a regional community, that will ensure economic well-being, improvement of standards of living, Regional Strategic Action Plan (RSAP-IWRM) - integrated water resource freedom and social justice, peace and security development and management „to develop, promote and facilitate best practices regarding effective Southern African Vision for Water, Life and Environment - aims at “equitable and participation by various individual and institutional stakeholders in water sustainable utilization of water for social and environmental justice, regional resource development and management, including women, youth and other integration and economic benefits for present and future generations” disadvantaged groups‟ Revised SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourses – „”to foster closer cooperation 2 RSAP projects: for judicious, sustainable and coordinated management, protection and utilization of Promotion of Public Participation in Water Resources Development and shared watercourses and advance the SADC agenda of regional integration and Management poverty reduction” Skills Training for Policymakers, managers and practitioners to support stakeholder participation
Regional Overview Regional Overview
Regional Water Policy requires: Regional Water Strategy
Participation and cooperation in planning, development, management of shared watercourses Similar to RWP ito stakeholder participation but adds: Harmonisation of national policy and legislation Promotion of linkages between the water sector and other sectors‟ Regional public has access to information on water infrastructure institutions at all levels development Acceleration of establishment and strengthening of shared SWCIs Stakeholder participation in decision-making processes - emphasis on vulnerable communities Recognition of environment as a and legitimate water user in its own Chapter 10 deals with stakeholder participation in IWRM, including: right Promotes capacity development such participation
mainstreaming Chapter 10 deals exclusively with stakeholder participation and Gender capacity building Effective networking and collaborative partnerships Water management and development at all levels shall be based on a participatory approach
Regional Overview Basin Level
SADC Guidelines for Strengthening River Basin Organisations Number of international agreements relating to Stakeholder Participation Limpopo River Basin
None contain specific provisions on stakeholder Establishes procedures to assist RBO‟s with implementing participatory processes participation Requires: Careful planning ito stakeholder participation frameworks Joint management of the Basin provides opportunities Strong communication and outreach for sustainable development and overcoming Stakeholder consultation resources constraints Collaboration
Provide LIMCOM with potential interventions and considerations/methods for Has been progressive strengthening of the legal effective implementation framework
2 2010/11/05
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
Date Agreement Signatory States 1964 Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Republic of Portugal. Republic of Portugal in regard to rivers of mutual interest and the Cunene River Scheme.
1971 Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Republic of Portugal. Republic of Portugal in regard to rivers of mutual interest, 1964- Massingirdam 1973 Boundary Treaty between the Republic of South Africa and the Republic of Botswana Republic of South Africa and the Republic of LIMCOM Botswana 1983 Joint Permanent Technical Committee (JPTC) established by the Government of the Republic of Republic of South Africa and the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Republic of Botswana concerning water matters of Botswana common interest Primary objective: 1986 Agreement Between the Government of The Republic of Botswana, the Government of Republic of Botswana, the People’s Republic of The People’s Republic of Mozambique, the Government of The Republic of South Africa Mozambique, the Republic of South Africa and Advise basin states on use, protection, preservation and management of and the Government of The Republic of Zimbabwe Relative to the Establishment of the the Republic of Zimbabwe water resources of the Limpopo River Basin Limpopo Basin Permanent Technical Committee
1988 Agreement relating to the supply of water from the Molatedi Dam on the Marico River made and Republic of South Africa and the Republic of Recognises that stakeholder involvement in broader basin management is entered into by and between the Department of Water Affairs of the Republic of Botswana critical for sustainable basin development & management. Bophuthatswana and the Water Utilities Corporation in the Republic of Botswana and the Department of Water Affairs of the Republic of South Africa In accordance with International trends and good practice 1994 Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Republic of Regional water-related policies and laws Republic of Mozambique for the Establishment of a Joint Permanent Commission for Co- Mozambique operation. 1996 Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Republic of Mandate includes advising member states on involving inhabitants in basin Republic of Mozambique on the Establishment and Functioning of the Joint Water Commission Mozambique management Tasked itself with developing a Roadmap for Stakeholder Participation 1997 Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Republic of Republic of Botswana for the Establishment of a Joint Permanent Commission for Cooperation Botswana
2003 Agreement between the Republic of Botswana, the Republic of Mozambique, the Republic of Republic of Botswana, the Republic of Mozambique, South Africa and the Republic of Zimbabwe on the Establishment of the Limpopo Watercourse the Republic of South Africa and the Republic of Commission. Zimbabwe 2008 Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Republic of Republic of Botswana on water supply across the border between Botswana and South Africa. Botswana
National Level Botswana
Stakeholder participation at national level critical to success of Generally no provisions for stakeholder empowerment basin-wide stakeholder participation (LIMCOM) Centralised decision-making structures LIMCOM does not have enforcement powers
Must act through national mechanisms Lack of stakeholder-based institutions to partner with state in Stakeholder participation exists at various levels in the different water management countries, but not always as intended by SADC because: Exception: Serowe • Lack of resources DWA engaged with stakeholders to manage water related conflicts with • Lack of stakeholder capacity to effectively participate communities in the area • Low motivation to participate (no immediate benefits perceived) Stakeholders participating effectively in water management e.g. water • high levels of bureaucracy allocation, pricing etc. • Limited empowerment from higher levels (top down approaches) It is possible • Lack of enabling legislation and other enabling conditions
Involving stakeholders at the managerial planning level could be beneficial
Mozambique Mozambique
Water Act provides for stakeholder involvement: National Directorate of Water (DNA) responsible for planning and supervision of water resources National Water Council (NWC) - advisory body for water Under DNA five ARAs (Regional Water Administrations) responsible for management of water resources at regional level management - comprised of multisectoral ministries ARAs boundaries correspond within country river catchments Technical Committee (TC) - same representation as above but Includes several basins close enough to expedite management and coordination with political authorities on a technical level Under each ARA are River Basin Management Units (RBMU) No non-governmental representatives above Under which are also locally-based Water Committees Manage water resources & collection fees at local level Regional Water Administration (RWA) – non-governmental stakeholders involved at implementation level
3 2010/11/05
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
Mozambique South Africa
Water Act provides for stakeholder participation at catchment and lower levels Traditional authorities/elders play an Catchment management agencies (CMAs) perform certain implementation functions Including active promotion of stakeholder participation
important role in managing traditional Constitution gives all people equal opportunities to participate Does not guarantee equal capacity to participate
water use Gaps present within stakeholder communities ito active participation capacity Different interests Large commercial farmers and industry command more knowledge, skills and institutional support Involving stakeholders at the decision and Rural communities and subsistence farmers not as well capacitated Greatest challenge for both government and civil society - mitigate this dominance without jeopardising economic growth generated by large stakeholders policy-making levels would be beneficial Are examples of CMAs undertaking grassroots initiatives to engage with rural stakeholders
Zimbabwe Zimbabwe
Water Act led to an increase in water stakeholder institutions - heavily dependent on donors Catchment and sub-catchment councils Unsustainable – largely disappeared when support was withdrawn because of political problems Stakeholders are diverse and representative Lack of financial resources and knowledge has resulted in poor stakeholder participation Catchment Councils & ZINWA are mandated to produce catchment plans in rural communities Use of English as medium of communication and emphasis by government on information in a participatory manner dissemination rather than communication has further alienated people Published so that public can comment Powerful stakeholder groups have sometimes hijacked the process of participation to meet Minister responsible for water approves plans once due process is followed their own agendas Process of establishing Sub-catchment Councils does not differ from that Generally legislation and policy are based on IWRM principles of catchment councils Led to creation of hydrologically-based water management institutions (sub-catchment Sub-catchment councils consist of elected representatives from all and catchment councils) stakeholder groups Stakeholder participation exists only at implementation level Basin boasts impressive history of water-related cultures and indigenous water management practices - some hypothesise that these can be up-scaled to basin level State has final say ito of all key policies and decisions Led weaknesses and ineffectiveness of stakeholder institutions at grassroots level
Conclusion
Trend in four countries - equate institutions‟ existence/non- THANK YOU existence to its ability to participate
Different countries report a variety of stakeholder empowerment interventions - tend to be isolated
Genuine desire to create stakeholder empowerment should underlie government actions
Process more likely to produce desired results
4 11/22/2010
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
Introductory Remarks
Strategy In the main this presentation is based on personal experiences in facilitating the development of: development: The SADC Regional Strategic Action Plan on Integrated Water Resources Development and Core Principles Management (2005-2010) Mzingwane Stakeholder Participation Strategy (2010- Emmanuel Manzungu 1015)
This is not a theoretical discussion; no effort is to adhere to strict textbook definition of terms
Introductory Remarks Introductory Remarks
In essence a strategy is a plan of what needs to be achieved, how that will be undertaken with what It is usually undertaken over a period of 5 years….which financial, material and human resources, and over what is short enough not to lose sight of what needs to be time frame. done or what is happening or long enough to allow A strategy is put in place to bring to reality an existing reasonable action to be performed. policy, it is not developed in a vacuum This presentation aims to provide insights into steps and It is an action plan and is different from processes that go into developing a strategy a policy which sets out the destination of what is A strategy document should be seen as a management being undertaken tool rather than a souvenir a long term strategy that is about the elements of the The number of elements, level of detail or emphasis that direction of desired change. is contained in any strategy is a function of the some an operational plan which is about tasks that need to critical elements to any strategy document depends on be done such as an annual plan the history of the organisation for which the strategy is being developed
STEPS TOWARDS A STRATEGY Introductory Remarks Vision and mission
As a general rule a strategy is lean document that is not A vision is a visualization of where an organization sees clattered with technical jargon, verbosity…. It is a shared itself in years to come and is about becoming unique in a document. chosen field of operation All details if needed must be in appendices A vision statement is a vivid idealized description of a A strategy should ideally be a distillation of feeder desired outcome that inspires, energizes and helps to technical reports…from 100 pages plus a 30-50 page create a mental picture of your target.. It is about dreams strategy document is produced. and hopes and answers the question: WHERE DO WE WANT TO GO? A mission (statement) is the purpose of an organization which guides the actions of an organization and includes socially meaningfully and measurable criteria and answers the questions WHY DO WE EXIST?
1 11/22/2010
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
STEPS TOWARDS A STRATEGY STEPS TOWARDS A STRATEGY Vision and mission Vision and mission
Mission The vision and mission are presented together; the To provide strategic expertise and co-ordinate the vision statement is shorter than the mission statement harmonisation of policies and strategies to accelerate regional integration and sustainable development Example through efficient productive systems, deeper co- SADC ‘s vision is to be reputable, efficient and responsive operation and integration, good governance, and durable enabler of regional integration and sustainable peace and security, so that the region emerges as a development competitive and effective player in international relations and the world economy In some cases the vision and mission together form the goals of the organisation where both are merged together although goals are long term aims that define accomplishment of the mission
STEPS TOWARDS A STRATEGY STEPS TOWARDS A STRATEGY Vision and mission Vision and mission
Where there is an overall vision and mission for the The vision and mission of the stakeholder participation organisation it is not desirable for a unit to have its own strategy must make reference to the Protocol on Shared vision and mission in which case the unit can have a Watercourses, Regional Water Policy and Regional strategic goal Water Strategy The question is where does one get the vision and There must be a demonstration of how pertinent mission? development needs will be addressed e.g. MDGs… the Should be based on the organisation ‘s larger picture or vision and mission must be seen as leading to certain what is already happening. It should draw from existing outcomes policies etc. For example the RSAP-IWRM draws from The development of the vision and mission must ideally the politico-economic framework (SADC vision and be a participatory process , which is true for the entire mission) and makes reference to development strategy framework (RISDP) To this end those that entrusted to write the strategy should reflect the consensus of the different stakeholders
STEPS TOWARDS A STRATEGY Vision and mission STEPS TOWARDS A STRATEGY Focus areas/Strategic Objectives
Sometimes core values are also given which indicate the A strategy cannot address all the issues no matter how ethics that bind and guide the organisation urgent they may seem The vision and mission statements are displayed in It is therefore important to implement some form of visible places to remind the personnel of the organisation prioritisation as well as inform outsiders what makes the organisation The priority areas (3-5) should form the focus areas of However the vision and mission must not end up being the strategies a decoration. From the focus areas are then developed the strategic objectives It is important that the strategic objectives are well linked logically and sequentially
2 11/22/2010
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
STEPS TOWARDS A STRATEGY STEPS TOWARDS A STRATEGY Outputs and outcomes Activities
Effort must be made to itemise what the strategy will For each output it is important to reflect on what activities achieve (outputs) and what it will lead in the wider need to be undertaken society (outcomes) Outputs are what a strategy is within its power to achieve The human and the material resources that are required while outcomes are desirable results in the society than should be defined the strategy can influence Milestones that indicate the level of performance towards the outputs must be spelt out.
STEPS TOWARDS A STRATEGY STEPS TOWARDS A STRATEGY Logical framework Budget and financing
It is important that the various elements of the strategy The cost of the various activities should be worked out are put together, namely: -The vision Standard budgeting techniques should apply -Mission -Outputs Financing of the strategy should be indicated; without a -Milestones financial plan the strategy is as good as dead -Activities The means of verification and important assumptions should also be indicated.
STEPS TOWARDS A STRATEGY STEPS TOWARDS A STRATEGY Implementation plan Contents of a strategy document
A good strategy is one which is being implemented Example: Mzingwane Catchment Council Stakeholder To this end an implementation plan should be produced Participation Strategy to cover such issues as: ______-Schedule of activities __ -Monitoring and evaluation plan including a mid term 1. Background and Introduction and end of strategy review 2. Characteristics of the Mzingwane Catchment Area -Communication strategy 3. Goal, strategic objectives, outputs and outcomes 4. Generalised logical framework 5. Implementation plan 6. Budget ______
3 2010/11/22
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
LIMCOM Stakeholder Participation Roadmap Stage 1 - Objectives
Preparatory work for development of Roadmap development process – stage 1 Roadmap document Overview of project activities and outputs National Rapid Stakeholder Participation Appraisal
Development of preliminary basin-wide Daniel Malzbender stakeholder participation database Compilation of E-library for LIMCOM web site
Project outputs Project outputs
National Stakeholder Participation Appraisal – Discussion note summarising key findings content from national SPAs (basin perspective) Socio-economic context of water use
Institutional arrangements for stakeholder participation Discussion note on (regional) legal Stakeholder participation appraisal (interests/ frameworks for stakeholder participation in influence) the Limpopo basin SWOT analysis of current stakeholder participation landscape
Project outputs
1st version e-library 1st version stakeholder database (basin- wide)
1 2010/11/22
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
LIMCOM Stakeholder Participation Roadmap – Phase 1 Overview Project origin
Project origin Stakeholder participation firmly established in SADC Legal and Policy framework for transboundary water Methodology management to which LIMCOM countries subscribe Project outputs Article 7(2) c mandates LIMCOM to advise Member States on the scope and nature of stakeholder Results of LIMCOM stakeholder involvement in basin planning and management participation workshop LIMCOM (LBPTC) tasked itself with developing a Roadmap for stakeholder participation for the Commission
Methodology Project outputs
Roadmap development split in 2 phases Four National Stakeholder Participation Appraisal reports Phase 1 – stocktaking/situation analysis (one per country) Phase 2 – Strategy development Summary discussion paper on national SPAs (the basin perspective Phase 1: Sept – Nov 2010 Discussion paper on legal and policy framework for Four National Facilitators (one per country) stakeholder participation for the Limpopo basin One Regional Coordinator & One Technical Backstopper E-library Mixture of desk-top research & in-field rapid stakeholder participation appraisal (consultations/interviews) Preliminary basin-wide stakeholder database
National SPA reports – content LIMCOM stakeholder participation workshop
Socio-economic context of water use Objectives: Institutional arrangements for stakeholder Presentation and discussion of phase 1 results participation Identification of LIMCOM “Priority Issues” for Stakeholder Participation Rapid Stakeholder Participation Appraisal (interests/ Brainstorming on possible institutional structures for stakeholder influence) participation in the basin SWOT analysis of current stakeholder participation Development of draft outline for LIMCOM stakeholder landscape participation strategy Brainstorming of possible approach for phase 2
1 2010/11/22
APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS
Proposed Strategy Outline LIMCOM stakeholder participation workshop
Identified transboundary priority issues for stakeholder 1. Background and Introduction involvement: 2. Characteristics of the Limpopo basin 3. Strategic Goal Disaster management/ early warning 4. Principles underpinning the strategy
5. Focus areas Transboundary pollution/ water quality - Disaster management/ early warning Basin planning/ water allocation - Transboundary pollution/ water quality - Basin planning/ Water allocation
Proposed Strategy Outline (ctnd) Conclusion
6. Strategic objectives, outcomes, outputs Rapid stakeholder appraisals completed and forms basis for Strategy development 7. Budget and financing Outline for LIMCOM stakeholder participation strategy 8. Implementation plan developed - Institutional set-up Proposal for Phase 2 (Strategy development) was made - M&E framework – aims at presentation of draft Stakeholder Participation Strategy to LIMCOM meeting in May 2011 - Communication plan Workshop recognised stakeholder participation activities (9. Annex: Logical Framework) need to be embedded into an overall LIMCOM work programme
THANK YOU
2