3. Groundwater Needs Assessment – Okavango-Cubango River Basin

GROUNDWATER NEEDS ASSESSMENT

OKAVANGO-CUBANGO RIVER BASIN

Benjamin Mapani UNIVERSITY OF NAMIBIA

AND WATERNET

February 2012

Acronyms

DWA - Department of Water Affairs DWAF - Department of Water Affairs and Forestry TBA - Transboundary aquifer OBSC - Okavango Basin Steering Commission TDA - Technical Diagnosis Analysis SAP - Strategic Action Plans ITF - Institutional Task Force BTF - Biodiversity Task Force HTF - Hydrology Task Force

Table of Contents Acronyms ...... 2

1. Introduction ...... 4

2. Objectives ...... 7

3. The basin and its water management ...... 8

3.1. Bio-physical conditions ...... 8

3.2. Socio-economic conditions ...... 12

3.3. Hydro-geological conditions ...... 15

3.3.1. Transboundary aquifers ...... 16

3.4. Water governance framework for OKACOM ...... 18

3.4.1. Groundwater governance framework ...... 20

4. Interviews ...... 20

5. SWOT analysis ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.

5.1. Strengths ...... 24

5.2. Weaknesses ...... 24

5.3. Opportunities ...... 25

5.4. Threats ...... 25

6. Conclusions ...... 26

7. Recommendations ...... 27

8. References ...... 29

Appendix 1 Table of basic data for the L/R/ABO

Appendix 2 Transcripts of interviews

1. Introduction

The Okavango River basin and delta comprises three riparian states of Angola, Botswana and Namibia. The basin consists of rivers that flow from the Angolan highlands into the Okavango delta in Botswana. The delta area was once part of a large lake called Makgadikgadi that dried up in the Holocene times and is now an essentially endoheic basin in common with other sections of the East African Rift (McCarthy and Metcalfe, 1990). The area is mostly inhabited by subsistence farming communities and large scale tourist operators, especially so in Botswana and Namibia. The actual Okavango River Basin area is quite extensive, including the Omatako basin in Namibia, which traditionally has not been treated as part of the Okavango basin for economic, social, and administrative reasons. The basin is jointly being managed by the Okavango- Cubango River Basin Commission (OKACOM), which was created when the three riparian states signed an agreement on its creation on 15th September 1994.

The relative distribution of area for each riparian state is given in Table 1, below. Table 1 also shows the actual administrative district for each of the riparian states.

Table 1. (Source: OKACOM 2010 Annual report, Maun, Botswana)

The area of concern for this needs assessment is shown in figure 1, below. Despite the presence of major river systems in this area, several communities live quite far from these water sources, and ground water is their main source of water. These settlements are shown on the map in figure 2a and 2b. This has to do with both cultural and later historical reasons, especially the last civil war in Angola, that necessitated large communities to move next to major highways and major settlements where there was security.

Figure 1. The map of the Okavango-Cubango River Basin. The stippled area is the inactive part of the basin, which is not covered in this report.

Rural water supply has been a major challenge in most African countries. It is estimated that the continent has close to 250 000 hand pumps, and half of them are non-operational (Harvey and Reed, 2006). This goes to show how programmes of rural water supply have become continuous action sectors. In the Okavango-Cubango river basin, this aspect of water supply has been attempted by Angola (1957-1961, Morais, 1997), and in Namibia (1994 up to present). In Namibia, some areas that are close to the “Golden Highway”, the B8 (Figure 2b, in blue) are supplied by tankers. This means of water supply is neither

5 permanent nor reliable, and is testimony to the need of groundwater supply via boreholes that can be community managed.

The major industrial activities in the basin are found in the growing towns of Cuangar, Cuando, Kubango, Calai, and Menongue in Angola and Grootfontein and Rundu in Namibia, and Maun in Botswana. In the region between Rundu and Divundu (Figure 2b), the Government of Namibia has introduced irrigation schemes along the Okavango river, where commercial agriculture is currently being practiced.

The Okavango River basin has about 600 000 inhabitants, living in an area of 260,379 km2, most of whom live in the rural areas. 54% of the population is in Angola, 36% in Namibia and 10% in Botswana.

Figure 2a. The northern part of the Okavango-Cubango basin in Angola, showing major settlements and national parks and reserves. (Map source: Map Studio,2011).

Figure 2b. Map showing some of the major settlements and communications in the Botswana-Namibia and southern Angola part of the Okavango Basin (Map source: Map Studio, 2011).

2. Objectives

The immediate objective of the needs assessment is to assess the present framework, experiences, and capacity for GW management in selected L/RBOs in the Okavango- Cubango River Basin and identify shortcomings for integrated groundwater management as part of integrated and transboundary water resources management (ITWRM). Furthermore, the objective is to develop targeted and prioritized recommendations for enhancing the capacity of L/RBOs for integrated GW management in the basins, based on consultations with the L/RBOs.

This work is part of the ongoing efforts by the riparian states and the international community to strengthen the L/RBOs as main actors in national and transboundary water resources management in Africa.

The Specific objectives of the study are:

(1) to understand how Groundwater water resources are managed in the basin, identify current initiatives that are being undertaken by the River Basin Commission on Groundwater, (2) To document current capacity in groundwater resources management and collaboration being undertaken by the Riparian states, (3) To produce a SWOT analysis for the basin.

3. The basin and its water management

3.1. Bio-physical conditions

(a) Geographical, physical and hydrological context

The Okavango delta river basin lies within three riparian states, Angola, Botswana and Namibia. The Okavango river has its source in southern Angola, near Huambo, and then flows in south-easterly direction until it reaches the town of Rundu on the Namibia-Angola border (Figure 2c). It then flows easterly for about 200 km, marking the border between Angola and Namibia. Then at Bagani (Divundu) it turns south-easterly again, crossing into Namibia for about 23 km then finally into Botswana where it ends into the inland delta known as the Okavango Delta. The delta has what is known as an active and inactive zones, these are shown in figure 2c below. The active zones of the delta are perennially filled with water, whereas the inactive parts only get flooded during the wet season.

The Okavango river rises in Angola as the Cubango, then on the Namibia-Angola border it becomes the Okavango. The main tributaries of the Cubango-Okavango River are the Cutchi

8 and Culela in Angola; as the Okavango, the Cuito and the Omatako become the most important tributaries (Figures 2a and 2b). Other smaller ephemeral streams are the Ncamasere, Xaudum and the Eiseb.

Relief

As shown in figure 3 below, the relief of the Okavango basin varies greatly, from high relief in Angola (from near the source in Huambo to the Namibian border, near Rundu (circa 1000 km of river length)) and then flattens out in a meander river system from Rundu to near Maun in Botswana (660 km of river length). The implication is that most of the groundwater flow direction would be towards the Namibia border from Angola. Although this pattern is not exactly followed, but it holds true for the high relief part of Angola (Bereslawski, 1997).

Climate and implications for recharge

The climate in the Okavango basin is tropical and the rainfall averages 450 mm per annum, a third of the rainfall is mainly recorded in the Angolan side of the basin. Rains are mainly controlled by the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone. The months of December-February, the temperatures can reach a maximum of 40° with a humidity of 50-80%. Between March-May, the temperatures reach a maximum of 30°, with a cool nights, whereas the in June-July the temperatures are lower with maximums of up to 25° and cold winters. In Between September-November the temperatures creep up to 40°. Recharge implications from the rainfall averages is skewed towards the Angolan side. Approximately 60% of the water balance is lost in transpiration; another 40% is lost via evaporation (36%) and 2% is recharged to groundwater aquifers. Another 2% is lost as outflows into Lake Ngami.

However this water balance is very roughly calculated and needs refining.

Figure 2c. Okavango River and delta basin, showing the major parts affected by the annual flood in dark brown (www.okacom.org)

Wildlife

The Okavango basin has a wide variety of wildlife that includes the African Bush Elephant; the plain zebra; African buffalo; hippopotamus; giraffe; black rhinoceros; white rhinoceros; chachma baboon; lechwe; topi; blue wildbeest; nile crocodile; lion; cheetah; leopard; brown hyena; spotted hyena; greater kudu; sable antelope; warthog and wild dog. All these animals depend on the lush vegetation and water resources in the delta and the river course.

Birds are numerous, and the following are common, fish eagle; crested crane; lilac breasted rocker; hammerkop; ostrich; sacred ibis; weavers and sparrows. Among many commodities are fish; these include tiger fish; tilapia; and cat fish.

Figure 3. Relief of the Cubango-Kavango river basin from Huambo in Angola to Maun in Botswana.(Source: OKACOM Annual Report, 2010).

(b) Transboundary Groundwater basins, users/uses conflicts

There is no comprehensive study that has been done on groundwater resources of the whole Okavango basin. A few studies have been done in the Linyanti-Chobe basin including the Linyanti-Katima Mulilo area by the Department of Water Affairs (DWA, Namibia) in collaboration with BGR (Germany). As such no major issues of groundwater supply can be reported; however it can be emphasized that there is a great demand for groundwater in this area; specifically in areas not serviced by perennial streams (see figure 2).

Every year close to 11 000 000 000 000 litres of water flow into the delta as the input water balance; out of which 60% is lost to transpiration; 36% to evaporation; 2% to occasionally flows into Lake Ngami in Botswana and 2% percolates into groundwater aquifers. This implies that the delta can flush out a major proportion of saline salts. In the work done by DWA and BGR (2007), it is evident that at least three types of

aquifers are present in the Linyanti-Chobe groundwater aquifers; consisting of an upper saline to slightly fresh aquifer; a middle fresh water aquifer and a lower freshwater or saline in some places saline aquifer. The control over whether the aquifer is saline or fresh depends on the geology.

The users of groundwater in this region are generally village communities, who use traditional wells subject to contamination. Currently, another section of the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry, the department of Rural water supply has installed handpumps on the Namibian side of the basin. On the Angolan side, most of the residents of the basin depend on hand dug wells (Bereslawski, 1997), and the river systems which are perennial. These users’ need of domestic water, though not in large quantities, but is critical to their well being and decent livelihoods. A lot of pans occur on the Angolan side and ponds, some which are found in Namibia and Botswana as well (DWA, 1991). Only recently have tourist lodges and new commercial farms sprung up on the Kavango river, who use water for tourism and irrigation purposes. Despite these developments, no water use conflicts have been recorded.

(c) Stakeholder involvement Stakeholder involvement in the basin is currently being actively promoted by OKACOM. However the basin committees are either not fully managed or still manned by few personnel who cannot adequately handle the issues, both from a technical point of view and managerial point of view. For this reason, stakeholder involvement is rather weak in the basin. In the SADC region, most countries notably Zimbabwe and South Africa have established locally run River Basin committees (Braune and Xu, 2011).

3.2. Socio-economic conditions

The socio-economic conditions of the Okavango-Cubango River Basin could not be more diverse. One of the main reasons the commission was vreated is precisely to tackle

12 issues of poverty, improve access to clean water and adequately address sanitation issues, improve livelihoods and enhance economic growth through use of the resources found within the basin. On the Angolan side are to be found some of the dire situations of poverty, communities have very little access to clean water and sanitation (Morais, 1997). Most communities live by susbsistence farming, fishing and selling of crafts. From the author’s fact finding mission to the region in December 2011, it was found that, most of the people use water from pans and shallow dug wells. The number of hand pumps per capita in Angola is the least in the basin. These traditional wells are subject to contamination due to the shallow water table of the upper Kalahari sand aquifer. These hand dug wells account for over 90% of the water supply in the Angolan part of the basin (Bereskowski, 1997; Marais, 1997). The people here grow rain fed crops and keep livestock, forming the base of their economy. It must be stressed that local basin committees are yet to take root on the Angolan side, and community participation is not yet realised. Tourism is slowly picking up, but can not be compared to the sister states of Botswana and Namibia. In Botswana, the communities can be grouped into two, the San and the Bantu speakers (see above). The San people have been part of this basin, wandering from Namibia into Botswana and vice versa. Their lot is still no better at this stage, although the government has been trying to encourage them to mordenise.

Figure 4. Kavango women carrying water from a community borehole, along the B6 Highway.

Botswana, perhaps of the three riparian states has a much more advanced tourist industry in the basin, followed by Namibia. In 2011 alone, revenues from tourists emanating from the basin accounted for close to P1 billion (Mmegi online, www.mmegi.bw), how much of this trickles into the community is not known. It may be worth noting that Zimbabwe had an excellent model of the so called “CAMPFIRE PROGRAMME”, where tourist revenues from a particular area were shared almost at 50%-50% with the local communities. In Botswana, as far as the author is aware, no such schemes are in practice. Such a practice would enhance the stakeholder participation by local communities. The Batswana speaking groups are relatively well off, and can not be compared with their counterparts in Angola.

In Namibia, the socio-economic dynamics are diverse in the basin. The government has instituted a rural water supply programme, where areas where hand pumps had been installed and are broken, are supplied by water tankers. This approach though is not ideal. However the government has made considerable efforts in installing handpumps in several local communities, especilally those along the Trans-Caprivi Highway (Figure 4). Most communities that have their homesteads farther away from perennial streams, have in the

14 past depended on shallow wells and ponds for their livestock. These people, now have common water points, at least 60% of them in the Namibian side (Figure 4). Most of the population is still mostly subsistence, but their lot is much better than Angola, as they have access to schools and medical help. Tourism is another economic activity, but the people running these large facilities are exogenous to the region, the locals have in places put up camping sites and small guest houses. The tourism potential is high, but has not been well exploited as is the case in Botswana. The towns in the river basin, like Maun, Rundu, Cuangar, Kubango and Calundo have fairly well developed sanitation and water reticulation systems. It’s the rural communities who require service in the area of water supply and sanitation, and groundwater is best suited to fill that gap.

3.3. Hydro-geological conditions

The hydrogeological conditions in the Okavango-Cubango River basin change drastically from northwest to south east. In Angola, the geology of the aquifers is dominated by granitic, gneissic, schists and quartzite crystalline aquifers in the areas around Huambo. As one moves to the southeast towards Namibia, glacial deposits and unconsolidated deposits of the Kalahari Formation become important (Bereslawski, 1997). Perrenial rivers and streams from which water is pumped in some parts of Angolan part of the basin is supplied to communities, but further away from the streams, hand dug wells called “cacimbos” are the main suppliers of water. In the period 1954-1973 the colonial government had put some boreholes for the communities, but now most of them are defunct (Bereslawski, 1997). No new campaign has been attempted again since then, and this implies that a really new study on groundwater supply, quantification and usage needs to be done in the Angolan part of the basin. In Angola the aquifers that have been studied in the past (1954-1973) are mainly crystalline aquifers and glacial tills, with reasonable permeabilities of up to 10-20 l/hr and up to 0-100 m or 60-221 m deep in crystalline basement (Morais, 1997, Bereslawski, 1997). In the Namibian part of the basin, the Kavango river and its associated tributaries from Angola are the only perennial streams, all tributaries emanating from Namibia are

15 ephemeral. This means that people who live in the Omatako, Eiseb sub basins all depend on groundwater for their livelihoods. The aquifer architecture between Angola-Namibia-Botswana where the Okavango leaves the border and enters Botswana is much more complicated. According to DWA reports from 1991, there exists areas of low water table, which are of concern. The unconfined Kalahari aquifer can be up to 60 m depth and is very vulnerable to pollution from nitrates and fertilisers. These aquifers are quite productive, from 1 m3 per hour up to 70 m3 per hour. Then there occurs another aquifer, at much deeper level, which is currently not exploited heavily, that ranges from 90-450 m, up to 60 Ωm and is believed to be a fresh water bearing aquifer. This aquifer does not appear on the IGRAC (2005) and SADC TBA map (DWA-BGR, 2004). This is believed to be the lower Kalahari aquifer. The upper Kalahari aquifer, in places, has a high sodium-sulphate chemistry, which makes the water to fall into group B-type of the Namibian classification system. In Botswana, the Ncamasere and Xaudum are also ephemeral. Communities in this part of the basin, inclusive of the Eiseb as it enters Botswana also depend on ground water. The aquifers described for Namibia-Angola, apply here as well.

3.3.1. Transboundary aquifers

The IGRAC (2005) TBA map for southern Africa is a good start (Figure 5), as it indicates the widely known aquifers. Aquifers 9 and 10 apply to this study. However aquifer 10, can be broken into two well studied aquifers, separated by the Kwando river.

These aquifers, 9 and 10 form the major water supply source for the communities in the southern part of the basin. Aquifer 10, can have three sub-aquifers to the east, and two well studied aquifers to the west. However, these aquifers are yet to be fully quantified, i.e., the parameters and amount of water is not completely done. The DWA’s studies were limited to areas where a need for water was expressed. A basin wide study is yet to be completed across the basin as a joint study.

As stated in the previous section, the communities currently utilise the Upper Kalahari Aquifer, which is shallow and amenable to hand dug wells. In some areas where schools and clinics have been built, the Lower Kalahari Aquifer has been accessed. This is much more secure from athropogenic contamination.

Figure 5. Transboundary Aquifers of southern Africa ( after IGRAC, 2005).

Figure 6. Transboundary river basins in SADC with their associated aquifers (after Braune and Xu, 2011).

3.4. Water governance framework for OKAKOM

Water governance for OKACOM is enshrined in its protocols and agreements, notably that of 1994.

This agreement is all encompassing and gives the commission some wide ranging responsibilities. At the core of the agreement is to accomplish “ a coordinated and

18 sustainable regional water resources development, while addressing legitimate social and economic needs of each of the riparian states (www.okacom.org/okacom.htm)

The 1994 OKACOM Agreement gives it legal responsibility to;

• Determine the long term safe yield of the river basin

• Estimate reasonable demand from the consumers

• Prepare criteria for conservation, equitable allocation and sustainable utilisation of water

• Conduct investigations related to water infrastructure

• Recommend pollution prevention measures

• Develop measures for the alleviation of short term difficulties, such as temporary droughts

• Address other matters determined by the Commission

In early 2007, OKACOM reviewed its organizational structure to bring it in line with the Revised SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourses, and gave the OBSC formal status and recognized it as a permanent and formal internal body of OKACOM with defined functions, roles, responsibilities as well as operational procedures.

Figure 7. Diagram of OKACOM organisation (source: OKACOM website: www.okacom.org)

OKACOM has a commission, made of six (6) high level civil servants from each riparian state (Figure 7). The commission oversees the Secretariat, which has OKASEC (Okavango- Cubango River Basin Secretariat). The secretariat has permanent and seconded employees (Figure 7). Working with the Secretariat is the OBSC (the Okavango-Cubango River Basin Steering Committee), made of technocrats and experts in various field. The OBSC oversees the Task Forces, that actually implement programmes in the basin. As the structure shows, there is no dedicated Task Force for groundwater in OKACOM. As such, groundwater was not an immediate priority when OKACOM was formed. It is now loosely falling under the Hydrology task force, whose bulk work is surface water and the delta.

The advantage of OKACOM is that its technical staff, are the employees of its Riparian states and feed into the OKACOM structure. This gives OKACOM a leverage to have planning meetings that have input directly from Riparian states, and there exist no competition per see between OKACOM hydrology task force and Riparian states hydrology departments.

3.4.1. Groundwater governance framework

There exists no approved groundwater governance framework within OKACOM, instead the plans and actions of riparian states programmes on groundwater feed into the OKACOM structure. The weakness of this approach is that some states are much more advanced than others, for instance, Angola lags behind, whereas Botswana and Namibia are ahead in groundwater management in their states. If OKACOM had its own implementing experts, the basin would have been studied at the same time. The advantage of the current groundwater set up is that there is no duplication of duty between OKACOM and the Riparian states.

4. Interviews

The interview process was initiated both by e-mail and telephone calls. A suggestion was given to OKACOM HQ communications secretary (Ms Monica Morrison) to visit the OKACOM HQ, but it was reported to the author by the respondent that it was not an

20 opportune time. The respondents at the Ministry of Agriculture (all who are listed below) were all agreable and the author travelled to interview them. No responses were received from Botswana and Angola, though the Angolan respondents responded by saying that they were not competent enough to undertake the interview (Carlos). An alternate person was suggested, but he never replied.

What came out of the interviews were two clear issues. The first is that the technical scientists/geohydrologists who sit on he OKACOM OBSC were all satisfied with the way the commission is operating, although the need for more empirical data on groundwater was stressed. The people who are not on the commission working at DWAF(Namibia) felt that there was a need for more direct sharing of information between OKACOM and the Ministry in Windhoek.

The other aspect that came out was the fact that OKACOM had initially started as an organisation to deal with surface water, environment, biodiversity, livelihoods of the communities along the river and the delta, in addition to socio-economic development of the basin. Groundwater was therefore initially not a big priority. From the author’s point of view, this was more of the fact that the first people to sit on the OBSC were non hydrogeologists, whose knowledge of groundwater was poor and inadequate.

Current steps being undertaken appear to be in the right direction.

Table 1. People who have been interviewed

No Titl Name Position Intervie Representatio Email Telephone . e w n/ schedul organisation ea 1 MS Monica Communications 1 OKACOM HQ [email protected] +26768000 Morriso Secretary, Some g 23 n OKACOM questio ns

answer ed by e- mail 2 Ms Laura Water Resources 2 OKACOM [email protected] + Namen and Environment country v.na e Specialist, representative OKACOM , Namibia, DWAF 3 Ms Winnie Geohydrologist 3 OKACOM kambindaw@mawf. +26461208 Kambin and OKACOM country gov.na 7167 da Technical Task representative Member , Namibia- DWAF 4 Mr Greg Hydrogeologist, 4 Namibia- [email protected] +26461208 Christel DWAF DWAF ov.na 7089 is Similar interview given to OKACOM 5 Ms Aina Chief 5 Namibia- [email protected] +26461208 Iileka Hydrogeologist, DWAF .na 7102 DWAF

(a) Collaboration with Riparian states Collaboration at RBO level is very good within OKACOM. However there is no collaboration in the groundwater sector, on for example having a uniform data collection mechanism, a uniform database and so forth. Each country collects its own data in its own form. The difficulty of language between the Anglophone and lusophone components is a major hurdle, that requires the translation of documents. This is yet to be done by OKACOM.

(b) Groundwater data management and sharing

Each riparian state keeps its own data. However, according to the interviews, it was possible to obtain data from another state. The experience of the author probably sums it all up, that it is not easy to obtain nor share data between these riparian states, though a protocol on data sharing actually exists.

In an interview conducted with Ms Laura Namene, who works for the OKACOM Okavango Basin Steering Committee, on the 4th of November 2011; it was revealed that OKACOM has very little capacity in Groundwater management. There is also not much capacity in hydrology in general as the commission normally engages experts to investigate specific problems. However OKACOM is building a knowledge base on a “tripartite” basis; that is each riparian state has an organ of government, e.g., the Department of Water Affairs in Namibia, which feeds into the OKACOM secretariat and steering committee. The steering committee is encouraging the peoples of the basin to engage in irrigation, aquaculture, tourism and domestic farming. The Strategic Action Plan for the OKACOM secretariat and Steering Committee is not yet complete. There are no actions planned yet for groundwater activities or research; as such this is a very crucial area for which not much data exists at OKACOM level, except as exists in the individual riparian states. This appears to be a weakness, bust seeing that it has a very lean secretariat, without technical personnel, it is unlikely to be resolved in the near future.

The strength at the moment is that the River basin generates 50% of the income needed to run it, whereas the other 50% is externally derived through SIDA. It is not known for how long this arrangement will last.

5.0 SWOT Analysis

4.1. Strengths

The main strengths of OKACOM lie in it being one of the RBOs formed by the common agreement between states; as such the sourcing of information and the way it should be shared by the states is incorporated in the “data sharing protocol”. If this protocol is executed, all data common to the riparian states can easily be pooled together in a common database accessible by OKASEC.

OKACOM is well positioned as a platform for knowledge sharing, management and even more effective as a platform to source donor funding for all three states. This strength has already been well utilized in the current projects being undertaken by OKACOM in basin. This platform for accessing resources is a major advantage when it comes to solving common problems.

OKACOM has the advantage and major strength that they can pool their human resources and tackle common challenges. However this strength can further be enhanced by allowing the people sitting on the ITF, BTF and HTF task forces to make reciprocal visits to riparian states and be acquainted with how individual states capture, manage and store data. This could lead to a common data platform which OKACOM currently is proposing through its SAPs.

4.2. Weaknesses

The communication on the ground between the stakeholders and OKASEC and OKACOM in general, is a weakness that can be addressed and improved. However, OKACOM with its TDA has identified the setting of basin committees. Again such programmes will require substantial funding to kick start them.

The other weakness is the inability to keep capacity. As stated earlier, government experts from the riparian states are the ones who sit on the OKACOM task force committees. Hence when a particular state fails to keep capacity in its hydrogeology/geohydrology sectors, OKACOM suffers as well. OKACOM has no technical permanent staff to implement its programmes. Its programmes are implemented by experts from the riparian states or consultants who are engaged to accomplish a particular task on behalf of the commission.

One other weakness derived from the interviews is the nature of exchange of information between experts in a particular government department who sit on OKACOM task forces or the OBSC with their respective peers and supervisors in the particular department in their respective ministries.

The issue of language was mentioned by one of the interviewees as a weakness; since to share information, documents must be in a language in which they can be understood. Documents in portuguese, need translation to English and vice versa. This process is slow and expensive.

Lack of certain equipment and manpower to address certain groundwater issues in the basin. This means that certain tasks will have to be done by consultants even when they can be done by staff who sit on OKACOM OBSC and task forces.

4.3. Opportunities

OKACOM being an RBO that was formed at the request of the riparian states, it has a grand opportunity to address issues that affect the people of the river basin. there is very good rapport within the commission between the riparian states.

The quest to use the experts within riparian state’s groundwater departments to feed information into OKACOM structures is a wonderful opportunity to synchronize programmes between states and OKACOM. This would also implies that there is the opportunity to pool expertise together if they choose to when approaching TBA solutions. This is important as groundwater is one resource that can be accessed from across the border of another country.

4.4. Threats

From documentation and interviews conducted, it has become apparent that the main threats to the thriving of the RBO (OKACOM) are:

(i) lack of human capacity expertise to actually implement all the OKACOM programmes; (ii) lack of organisational structures on the ground to actually ensure that the stakeholders become the owners of the programmes of OKACOM. Most

programmes are initiated at the top, and instituted at the lower level. There are some programmes that need that approach, however groundwater requires a strong stakeholder ownership approach. Thus establishment of river basin committees in the states would be a step forward. Although as indicated above, OKACOM has begun this process, the lack of expertise means that there are few, in some places only one person in a basin committee. These basin management committees (BMC) need qualified or people who have an appreciation of what is required in the basin. (iii) Finances: currently the riparian states are funding the RBO at 50%, and this is not sufficient to actually initiate basin scale programmes. However, the sourcing of funds from donors, has ensured that some programmes/projects can actually take place. (iv) The Unconfined Kalahari Aquifer (Upper Kalahari Aquifer) is the main aquifer being accessed by the population that utilises groundwater. This aquifer is mainly made of Kalahari Formation made of unconsolidated to lithified Kalahari sands and the fractured calcrete aquifer. These two aquifers can easily be contaminated, such that a programme of identification of vulnerable parts of the aquifer needs to urgently be put in place.

5. Conclusions

Transboundary aquifers (TBA) are more difficult to manage than aquifers found within the states. The approach by RBOs to govern these TBAs is the best approach. In this current study the following conclusions can be made:

(a) there is a need for continued capacity building among all the three riparian states. (b) This follows in the findings that Angola, of the three states has the least studied aquifers on their common borders. This will need addressing. (c) The way information is fed into OKACOM will require substantial financial additional resources in order to bring to fruition the 1994 OKACOM agreement ideals.

(d) Common projects running in the RBO are a good way to strengthen capacity and data capture and management formats of similar architecture. (e) There is need for detailed studies to characterise the groundwater aquifers in the RBO, especially in Angola as well as in both Botswana and Namibia as these aquifers have been investigated piece meal. When the actual quantities are known and the quality, planning for supply will be easily carried by the RBO. (f) It is clear that OKACOM will for the next foreseeable future depend on external funding for its own programmes as the riparian states only fund the organisational expenses of the commission. (g) Data sharing among the riparian states need to be improved. This is clearly not well addressed currently.

6. Recommendations

The management of TBA still poses a big challenge to riparian states. Among the problems are the language barrier between Angola and the other two english speaking states. Most documents in Angola and data are in portuguese. Specialist translation of documents would need to be done from english to portuguese and vice versa for Botswana and Namibia. The other problems are capacity, especially so in Angola. Angola still lags behind in the data acquisition even at a lower level of aquifer identification. Thus it is recommended that

(a) Monitoring, data and knowledge generation requires capable technical people who can actively participate in these activities. The way OKACOM operates, through country representatives who represent their countries at the OBSC and who sit in various task forces (see figure 4) would ensure smooth running of programmes would it not have been for the lack of manpower. It is clear from the desktop literature review done that there has been very little work done in the Angolan side of the basin since the early 1970’s. Thus there occurs a large knowledge gap. Work done on the delta in Botswana is mainly in the biodiversity and environmental aspects

than groundwater. In Namibia, groundwater studies were last done in the early 1990’s, and a few specific projects have been done, but not sufficient enough to warrant a good understanding of the groundwater situation. (b) Institutional and organisational aspects of TBAs are loosely knit via the OKACOM commission. Although current aspects of the legal framework encourages the joint working of three countries on one RBO, yet there are enforceable regulations. This is partly because this aspect of groundwater is handled more by departments within government, and RBO is a recipient of data collected by governments. Attempt to address transboundary aquifer management, analysis through SADC has been made by Botswana, Namibia. In terms of groundwater management and protection within OKACOM there are joint initiatives on the which was include the above mentioned OKACOM transboundary aquifer systems. (c) Financial Aspects of OKACOM are in two main categories. The first is that the OKACOM RBO is partially funded by the Riparian States, at 50%; mainly to cover day to day running of the secretariat in Maun. Donor funding accounts for the other 50%. Projects undertaken by OKACOM are donor funded, but driven by OKACOM via their TBAs and SAPs, who identify projects under their programme structure. From that point of view OKACOM is doing rather well. (d) It is recommended that capacity building be actively encouraged and that teams of all riparian states work on common projects jointly. This will enhance capacity across borders. This must be undertaken with vigourous training of young people in all three governments. It was clear from the Namibian side that there were very few hydrogeologists capable of handling the vast amount of tasks in monitoring, exploration and information generation and capture.

7. References

1. Bauer, P., Gumbricht, T., and Kinzelbach, W., 2006. A regional coupled surface/groundwater model for the Okavango delta. Water resources Research, 42, 15pp, doi.10.1029/2005WR004234. 2. Braune, E and Xu, Y. 2011. Transboundary Aquifer utilisation and management in Southern Africa. ISARM-SADC. Position paper for UNESCO Cluster Office, Harare, Zimbabwe. 3. Bereslawski, E., 1997. Geohydrology, Geology and soils of the Okavango River basin: Preparatory assessment study, Angolan Sector. Minesterio da Energia e Aguas, Luanda. 4. BIWAC, 2002. Groundwater and well and borehole Investigation in the Kavango and western Caprivi Region. 5. Bohensky, E., Reyers, B., van Jaarsveld, A.S. and Fabricius, C. (eds.) 2004. Ecosystem services in the Gariep Basin. SUNPRESS, Stellenbosch. 6. DWA, 1991. Groundwater Investigation in the Eastern Caprivi: Phase 1: Final Report, March, 1991. Report # 2400/6/92 Fle #12/1/2/15/2/2. 7. DWA-BGR, 2004. Groundwater Investigations in the Eastern Caprivi Region. Documentation Compendium, 2004 Drilling Campaign. 8. Harvey, P and Reed, R. 2006. Community-managed water supplies in Africa: sustainable or dispensable. Community Development Journal, volume 42, 365-376. 9. IGRAC, 2005. International Groundwater Resources centre, Transboundary aquifer map for southern Africa. UNESCO, Paris. 10. Map Studio, 2011. Southern Africa, Map. ISBN 978-1-77026-297-2. New Holland Publishing, South Africa. 11. McCarthy, T & Metcalfe, J., 1990. Chemical sedimentation in the semi-arid environment of the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Chemical Geology, volume 89, 157- 178. 12. McCarthy, T.S. and Metcalfe, J., 1990. Chemical sedimentation in the semi-arid environment of the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Chemical Geology, volume 89, 157- 178.

13. Marais, E. 1977. Water resources Study of the South west Region of Angola. Universidade Agostinho Neto, Departmento de Geologia, Luanda. 14. Mmegi Online, 2012. Wildlife decline in Okavango Delta ignites tourism fears. www.mmegi.bw, issue 03 February 2012, retrieved 8th February 2012. 15. 16. OKACOM Agreement, 1994. Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Angola, the Government of the Republic of Botswana and the Government of the Republic of Namibia on the establishment of a Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM). Windhoek, 15th September, 1994.

17. Bauer, P., Gumbricht, T., and Kinzelbach, W., 2006. A regional coupled surface/groundwater model for the Okavango delta. Water resources Research, 42, 15pp, doi.10.1029/2005WR004234. 18. Bereslawski, E., 1997. Geohydrology, Geology and soils of the Okavango River basin: Preparatory assessment study, Angolan Sector. Minesterio da Energia e Aguas, Luanda. 19. BIWAC, 2002. Groundwater and well and borehole Investigation in the Kavango and western Caprivi Region. 20. Bohensky, E., Reyers, B., van Jaarsveld, A.S. and Fabricius, C. (eds.) 2004. Ecosystem services in the Gariep Basin. SUNPRESS, Stellenbosch. 21. DWA, 1991. Groundwater Investigation in the Eastern Caprivi: Phase 1: Final Report, March, 1991. Report # 2400/6/92 Fle #12/1/2/15/2/2. 22. Harvey, P and Reed, R. 2006. Community-managed water supplies in Africa: sustainable or dispensable. Community Development Journal, volume 42, 365-376. 23. Map Studio, 2011. Southern Africa, Map. ISBN 978-1-77026-297-2. New Holland Publishing, South Africa. 24. McCarthy, T & Metcalfe, J., 1990. Chemical sedimentation in the semi-arid environment of the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Chemical Geology, volume 89, 157-178. 25. McCarthy, T.S. and Metcalfe, J., 1990. Chemical sedimentation in the semi-arid environment of the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Chemical Geology, volume 89, 157-178. 26. OKACOM Agreement, 1994, Windhoek.

31 River Basin OKAVAGO

Major tributaries Cuito, Cubango, Kwando, Linyanti

Riparian states 1. Angola 2. Botswana 3. Namibia

Upstream riparian Angola, Namibia states Downstream Botswana, Namibia riparian states Total basin area 36 000 km 2 in Angola (km 2) 17 000 km 2 in Botswana 7 000 km 2 in Namibia Mean annual Inflow = 11 000 Million runoff (mill. M3/year M3/year) Outflow = 9 900 Million M3/year Total population (mill.) Riparian state Share (%) Share (%) Mean Average Primary Primary Major cities Protected areas, Major Transbou of basin of annual rainfall in land water uses in basin national parks in water ndary area population runoff riparian uses/cover in basin part basin part transfer conflicts (million basin part in basin part (Mill. pop.) scheme over M3/year) (mm/yr) part s rivers between states 1. Angola 60% 54 3 Million 1350-2000 Subsistenc Farming/do Cuchi, Mavhinga, metre e mestic use Menongue, Longa, Luengue, cubed agriculture Cuanga, Mucusso Calai 2. Namibia 12% 36 1 million 750-1000 National Farming/do Rundu, Caprivi game Metre park/Subsis mestic use Divundu reserve, cubed tence Mahango game, agriculture mamili national park reserve 3. Botswana 28 % 10 6-7 million 450- National Tourism/do Maun Moremi Wildlife metre 640mm park mestic reserve, Chobe cubed national park Year of formal recognition of 15 th September 1994 Lake/Basin Org. Primary mandate • Act as the technical advisor to the Contracting Parties on matters relating to the of Lake/Basin conservation, development and utilization of water resources of common interest in the Org. Okavango River basin

Type of . Lake/ River Basin Commission: River Basin Commission Lake/River Org.? (see /2/) . Technical Committee . Lake/ River Basin Authority Name of treaties or legally 1. "OKACOM Agreement" in 1994, in Windhoek, Namibia Between (states): Angola, Botswana and recognized Namibia. agreements governing water 2. _ "Organizational Structure for the Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission" _agreement of mgt. in the basin 2007, establishing the Secretariatt in Maun, Botswana. Between (states): _ Angola, Botswana and Namibia.

Appendix 2. Transcripts of interviews

OKACOM HQ Interview

Questionnaire for OKACOM Name: Ms. Monica Morrison Institution (if different from RBO): ______Function - please let us know your job title, role and main responsibilities: Title: Communications Secretary Role and responsibilities: Managing the OKACOM programme of work; coordinating actions decided upon by the Commission, fundraising, Secretarial functions for the Commission. How many years in present position: years Background education: Degree Country: Canada E-mail address: Monica Morrison Gender: Female:__X_ Male: Telephone number for possible follow up phone call: + Date of Interview: Interview performed by: Dr. Benjamin Mapani Place of interview: e-mail Or if done by telephone: ______

Questions:

1. Governance: a. What is the principal and legal role/mandate of OKACOM with respect to groundwater: i. To allocate GW: Yes □ No □ ii. To oversee GW mgt.: Yes X No □ iii. To monitor TBAs in basin: Yes □ No □ iv. To advise riparian states on issues related to GW: Yes X No □ v. To implement joint GW development projects: Yes □ No □ vi. Other. Specify: ______b. Does OKACOM have a staffed permanent Secretariat? Yes

c. Does the constitution/agreement establishing OKACOM specifically/explicitly address GW and groundwater issues?

d. If yes, how?

Appendix 2. Transcripts of interviews

e. Which water management instruments/schemes do you use? (e.g. management plans, action programs, monitoring and information systems, etc.)

f. To what extent is groundwater already considered in your water management structure and what actions/initiatives/programmes are you using to foster groundwater management within your organisation? (e.g. groundwater working group at OKACOM)

g. Do you collaborate with organisations/programmes/institutes/projects that have a groundwater component (African networks e.g AGWNET, WATERNET; policy decision makers (e.g. AU, AMCOW, AGWC, etc.) and international donors)?

h. Are you aware of the AMCOW work plan? If yes: Are there any activities you have taken on board due to the AMCOW work plan?

i. Do you know about the existence of the UN resolution on transboundary aquifers?

2. Society/collaboration/inclusion:

a. What are the major uses of groundwater within the basin?

b. What are the main water challenges your basin/lake is confronted with? (e.g. groundwater pollution, (ground-) water shortage, institutional, etc.)

c. Are there great disparities between the water conditions and challenges in the riparian states? Also in the level of groundwater development and management?

d. Also in the level of groundwater development and management?

e. How is the exchange of knowledge/data and cooperation between the L/RBO and the riparian states’ water mgt. structures?

Appendix 2. Transcripts of interviews

f. Do you find the commitment of the riparian states to include GW on the political agenda sufficient?

g. Does this influence your functionality?

h. What are you doing to strengthen the participation of the riparian states? (e.g. are formal structures, like stakeholder forums, in place with clear roles and responsibilities in water resources management and in the decision making process, are regular meetings taking place, etc.)?

i. Do you exchange knowledge, experience with other RBOs?

3. Science/data/capacity building:

a. Is there a good understanding to which extent groundwater-surface water interaction determines water balance and water quality in your basin and across riparian territories?

b. Where are you in the process of managing TBAs (also fill in Table 4 for individual TBAs)? i. Identification □ ii. Delineation □ iii. Diagnosis □ iv. Conceptual/numerical model □ v. Allocation principles □ vi. Implementation of joint infrastructure projects□

c. Which data, if any, do you collect related to groundwater in the basin?

d. What data bases, information portals, and monitoring networks exist in your organization, where groundwater is (or could simply be) added?

e. What is the process/mechanism for data sharing with the riparian states’ national groundwater dept.?

f. How many hydrogeolgogists, or staff with hydrogeological background, are working in your organization? Are all allocated posts filled?

g. Do you find your present capacity (in terms of human and financial resources) sufficient to address groundwater management appropriately?

Appendix 2. Transcripts of interviews

h. How is prioritisation made in your organisation to meet the limited resources (e.g. human, financial, technical resources)?

i. What capacity building on groundwater is ongoing or planned?

j. What in particular is lacking regarding capacity on GW management

Country Representative, on OKACOM

Questionnaire for OKACOM Name: Ms Laura Namene Institution (if different from RBO): _DWAF/OKACOM______Function - please let us know your job title, role and main responsibilities: Title: Environmental and Water Resources specialist Role and responsibilities: Advice OBSC and Executive Secretary on IWRM in the basin and information and communication issues How many years in present position: 6 years Background education: Environmental Specilaist Country: Namibia E-mail address: [email protected] Gender: Female:_____X___Male:______Telephone number for possible follow up phone call: + Date of Interview: 17th November 2011 Interview performed by: Dr B.S. Mapani Place of interview: Windhoek Or if done by telephone: ______

Questions:

4. Governance:

a. What is the principal and legal role/mandate of OKACOM with respect to groundwater: i. To allocate GW: Yes □ No □ ii. To oversee GW mgt.: Yes □ No □

Appendix 2. Transcripts of interviews

iii. To monitor TBAs in basin: Yes □ No □ iv. To advise riparian states on issues related to GW: Yes x No □ v. To implement joint GW development projects: Yes □ No □ vi. Other. Specify: b. Does OKACOM have a staffed permanent Secretariat?

Yes, manned by an Executive Secretary, a communications and Information secretary and a Finance Officer

c. Does the constitution/agreement establishing OKACOM specifically/explicitly address GW and groundwater issues?

Not exactly, but the agreement can be read to include hydrogeology in “water resources management”.

d. If yes, how?

e. Which water management instruments/schemes do you use? (e.g. management plans, action programs, monitoring and information systems, etc.)

The Commission has a Steering Committee, that implements technical agreements between the riparian states.

Groundwater does not feature very much, but individual states in their boundaries have administrative rights and a scheme is available to share information through the steering committee.

The SADC groundwater unit in Gaborone is tasked to collaborate with the BASINS.

h. Are you aware of the AMCOW work plan? If yes: Are there any activities you have taken on board due to the AMCOW work plan?

Appendix 2. Transcripts of interviews

i. Do you know about the existence of the UN resolution on transboundary aquifers?

No.

5. Society/collaboration/inclusion:

a. What are the major uses of groundwater within the basin?

The dominant use is domestic, subsistence agriculture and tourism in Angola and Namibia; domestic and tourism in Botswana. To a smaller extent industry use in Angola and Namibia.

b. What are the main water challenges your basin/lake is confronted with? (e.g. groundwater pollution, (ground-) water shortage, institutional, etc.)

Main challenge is perhaps pollution from nitrate(livestock). But my colleagues in groundwater would know better.

c. Are there great disparities between the water conditions and challenges in the riparian states? Also in the level of groundwater development and management?

This is better answered by my colleagues in Geohydrology.

d. Also in the level of groundwater development and management?

Same as above

e. How is the exchange of knowledge/data and cooperation between the L/RBO and the riparian states’ water mgt. structures?

Unfortunately each state has its data base. There is no central data base yet for the RBO. The states can request information from their respective Ministries that deal with water.

f. Do you find the commitment of the riparian states to include GW on the political agenda sufficient?

Yes

g. Does this influence your functionality?

Appendix 2. Transcripts of interviews

The basin is well organised with the OBSC(Okavango Basin Steering Committee. This committee meets regularly to discuss all such items. These are solved as finances allow.

i. Do you exchange knowledge, experience with other RBOs?

Yes, but through SADC water sector in Gaborone.

6. Science/data/capacity building:

a. Is there a good understanding to which extent groundwater-surface water interaction determines water balance and water quality in your basin and across riparian territories?

My colleagues in the geohydrology would answer this one better.

b. Where are you in the process of managing TBAs (also fill in Table 4 for individual TBAs)? i. Identification x ii. Delineation □ iii. Diagnosis □ iv. Conceptual/numerical model □ v. Allocation principles □ vi. Implementation of joint infrastructure projects □

However OKACOM is currently undertaking certain steps to include Groundwater.

c. Which data, if any, do you collect related to groundwater in the basin?

My colleagues in Geohydrology will help you with that.

d. What databases, information portals, and monitoring networks exist in your organization, where groundwater is (or could simply be) added?

My colleagues in Geohydrology will help you with that.

e. What is the process/mechanism for data sharing with the riparian states’ national groundwater dept.?

Appendix 2. Transcripts of interviews

Current discussions that involve riparian states “Action Plans” will incorporate all such mechanisms.

f. How many hydrogeolgogists, or staff with hydrogeological background, are working in your organization? Are all allocated posts filled?

No permanent member of the secretariat has a hydrological background. But the OBSC can delegate tasks to consultants.

g. Do you find your present capacity (in terms of human and financial resources) sufficient to address groundwater management appropriately? No

h. How is prioritisation made in your organisation to meet the limited resources (e.g. human, financial, technical resources)?

Through meetings of the OBSC.

i. What capacity building on groundwater is on-going or planned?

OKACOM will only be able to train its own personnel if the budget and funding becomes bigger than present. Currently member expertise through respective ministries is utilised.

j. What in particular is lacking regarding capacity on GW management

Finances and complete understanding of the Groundwater situation across all countries in the Basin is first required in order for us in the OBSC to address the pertinent issues.

Appendix 2. Transcripts of interviews

Reply from Chief Government Hydrogeologist: Namibia

Questionnaire for OKACOM Name: Aina Mutota Iileka Institution (if different from RBO): Department of Water Affairs. Function - please let us know your job title, role and main responsibilities: Title: Chief Hydrogeologist Role and responsibilities: Groundwater Management, groundwater monitoring, provide technical advice to all groundwater user’s on behalf of Government; assess and evaluate groundwater resources. How many years in present position: 1 year Background education: B.Sc Honours Country: Namibia E-mail address: [email protected] Gender: Female Telephone number for possible follow up phone call: +264 Date of Interview: 12th December 2011 Interview performed by: Dr Benjamin Mapani Place of interview: _Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry, Namibia.______Or if done by telephone:

Questions

Appendix 2. Transcripts of interviews

a. Do you share national groundwater data with the OKACOM? Does the OKACOM also share groundwater data from the other parts of the basin with your department?

There is a platform within OKACOM where parties can and do share information. Beside OKACOM there is also the JPTC where data is also shared.

b. What are the procedures and mechanism of data sharing and funding?

Data is kept by the respective state and when a need arise it is made available to those requiring it.

c. Are there joint programs and activities with the OKACOM in terms of groundwater management and protection?

OKACOM is presently carrying out many studies to this effect. There are many data gaps that still needs to be filled

d. In terms of national groundwater allocation, at what level are you required to obtain OKACOM approval? At the moment groundwater allocations are issued by the Water Apportionment Board.

e. Is the linkage to surface water flows, surface water quality and environment considered at all when you allocate groundwater both internally and in the transboundary situation?

In this region both surface and groundwater are intimately interlinked for the known shallow aquifers. Therefore this consideration has to be taken into account. But no hard figures exist across the Kavango river and delta. We would need data from both the Botswana and Angolan sides to do it well.

f. What is the formal relationship between your groundwater department and the country representative of the OKACOM?

The country representative works for us, in case of Winnie Kambinda. As for Laura Namene who is in environment, there is little exchange. For Winnie, the programmes of DWAF are in line with what OKACOM is doing or interested in doing. However the reporting could be improved between OKACOM and DWAF.

Appendix 2. Transcripts of interviews

Reply from OKACOM Country Representatives in the Riparian States: Namibia

Questionnaire for OKACOM Name: Ms. Winnie Kambinda Institution (if different from RBO): Namibia DWAF Function - please let us know your job title, role and main responsibilities: Title: Deputy Director and OKACOM Technical Task Member Role and responsibilities: Water resources management (national and transboundary) How many years in present position: 5 years Background education: Water and Environment Resources Management Country: Namibia E-mail address: [email protected] Gender: Female:___x_____Male:______Telephone number for possible follow up phone call: +264-61-2087167 Date of Interview: 12th December 2011 Interview performed by: Dr B.S. Mapani Place of interview: __Windhoek______Or if done by telephone:

Questions: a. What is your position in the principal government water management structure(s) in the riparian state where you reside?

I am a hydrogeologist, responsible for monitoring and management of groundwater resources. Part of my duties include looking for new resources of groundwater. b. Are decisions taken within these structures first ratified by the OKACOM board at HQ before they are implemented? The synergy between OKACOM and DWAF is different. OKACOM was formed by the riparian states and thus work plans of OKACOM are all in line with Riparian state work plans. OKACOM is simply an organisation that mobilises resources from the three riparian states and avoids duplication in TBAs. c. Do you find that groundwater management is strongly and adequately addressed and integrated into overall water management of your country?

Yes, as such Geohydrology Division is responsible for groundwater management, this eincludes looking for new groundwater resources in the country and DWAF are also involved in transboundary aquifer management, especially through SADC.

Appendix 2. Transcripts of interviews d. What is the level and effectiveness of cooperation between OKACOM and the national groundwater management authorities?

The cooperation is very good. The planning in OKACOM is in symmetry to our plans in DWAF, not all but most. e. Is there an operational protocol between OKACOM and the countries for GW data/information sharing?

No. But member states do work on behalf of OKACOM. So this data just needs to be pooled together. f. What are the procedures and costs involved in groundwater data sharing between the national groundwater management authority and OKACOM?

No costs are involved for information provided by countries to OKACOM. There is a data sharing protocol. However in the Biodiversity, Hydrological and Environmental task groups, the sharing of information to people outside OKACOM and the three Riparian states is censored. g. Do you acknowledge/value the work done by OKACOM in terms of groundwater management?

In a way, yes, the riparian states work for OKACOM. OKACOM gives the riparian states the platform to share information, have joint planning sessions and joint resource mobilisation and utilisation. However you should bear in mind that when OKACOM was formed, groundwater was not one of its main concerns. h. Are there cooperative activities between OKACOM and national groundwater authorities, for instance monitoring activities?

Yes. There are several projects that involve groundwater though not exclusively for groundwater only. These are SAREP (southern African Regional Environmental Programme, funded by USAID); the Water Audit programme; funded by FAO. i. What are your key concerns with regards to transboundary groundwater issues?

Lack of information for long term planning, for example, we do not know what Angola is doing; or what Botswana is doing; neither do the Angolans know what we are doing in the groundwater sector. Also quantitative data is still lacking in most of our aquifers in the border areas, for Angola and Botswana, and even within Namibia. j. How important, in your professional opinion, is the interaction between surface water and groundwater in terms of i) transboundary water balance and ii) transboundary water quality?

Appendix 2. Transcripts of interviews

Very important. The idea is to see if we could use groundwater to alleviate pressure on the river (Okavango).

Dr Greg Christelis, at DWAF, Namibia, said the data given to ORASECOM applies here as well in broad terms.