Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 32 (2007) 1237–1245 www.elsevier.com/locate/pce IWRM in developing countries: Lessons from the Mhlatuze Catchment in South Africa N. Funke *, S.H.H. Oelofse 1, J. Hattingh, P.J. Ashton, A.R. Turton CSIR-Natural Resources and the Environment, P.O. Box 395, Pretoria 0001, South Africa Available online 3 August 2007 Abstract The paper analyses and discusses the concept of integrated water resources management (IWRM) and its application in South Africa. The central characteristics of IWRM are discussed and another feature, good governance, is highlighted as being crucial for effective IWRM. The paper focuses on those features that distinguish water management challenges in developing countries from those experienced in developed countries (where most of the current definitions of IWRM originated). The case study discussed in this paper, the Mhlatuze Catchment in South Africa, was selected as being representative of a catchment situated in one of the country’s 19 water management areas (WMAs) where attempts are being made to implement IWRM. The available evidence indicates that three sets of reasons are responsible for the failure to achieve full implementation of IWRM in the Mhlatuze Catchment. First, the national custodian of water resources – DWAF – continues to experience severe internal (technical capacity) problems that hinder its efforts to successfully manage the Usutu to Mhlatuze WMA (of which the Mhlatuze Catchment forms a part) as a unit. Secondly, while IWRM is, on paper, a key part of national policy, the concept has not been fully accepted and practiced by local water managers. Thirdly, a range of institutional challenges persist because there is insufficient alignment and cooperation between the policies of different government departments and the practices of different water use sectors that impact on water. Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Developing countries; Governance; Integrated water resources management (IWRM); Mhlatuze Catchment; South Africa 1. Introduction Today the world’s freshwater resources are under increasing pressure due to population growth, increased economic activity and associated increases in pollution caused by waste discharges. However, at the same time, a combination of social inequity, economic marginalisation and lack of poverty alleviation programmes forces millions of impoverished people to eke out an ever more precarious existence from the sparse and diminishing soil and forestry resources, using a variety of practices that have increasingly negative impacts on water resources. A lack of effective pollution control measures has resulted in a progressive deterioration in water quality that has adverse * 1 Corresponding author. Tel.: +27 (0)12 841 2024. E-mail address: nfunke@csir.co.za (N. Funke). Formerly Assistant Director (Industries) DWAF. 1474-7065/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.pce.2007.07.018 influences on water usability, has a detrimental effect on human health and hampers the functioning of aquatic ecosystems. In addition, one-third of the world’s population live in countries that are under medium to high water stress; this figure is expected to grow to two-thirds by the year 2025 (Global Water Partnership, 2000). At the Second World Water Forum in 2000 at The Hague, the current water crisis facing the world was attributed primarily to ‘‘poor’’ or ineffective governance and water resources management practices (Turton et al., 2007). In the past, social and economic development and resource management plans have tended to be fragmented and uncoordinated, and have been implemented in a top– down manner by sectoral institutions whose legitimacy and effectiveness are now increasingly being questioned by society. In addition, earlier, purely technocratic approaches to problems in the water sector that did not take proper account of the intricate social, economic and 1238 N. Funke et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 32 (2007) 1237–1245 political nature of water resources management continue to prevail in many countries, with increasingly unfortunate consequences for the societies concerned (Global Water Partnership, 2000). What then might be a more effective approach to deal with the global crisis in water governance? Despite differing opinions about the most appropriate way to manage water resources at local and international scales, the philosophy and principles of integrated water resources management (IWRM) have been widely accepted and adopted as offering the most sustainable solution to this problem. Not only can the successful implementation of IWRM prevent human health, economic and environmental losses that might impede development and frustrate poverty reduction efforts, but the participative processes comprising ‘‘good’’ IWRM can also help developing countries to achieve the millennium development goals (MDGs). Key features of the MDGs are the need to address poverty, gender equality and health issues, while also striving to attain environmental sustainability (Jonch-Clausen, 2004). It is evident from several published accounts (Turton et al., 2007; Biswas, 2004) that, despite its promising potential, it is difficult to implement IWRM effectively. Also, different implementation efforts have yielded limited successes to date. This paper explores the reasons behind this by examining precisely what the IWRM concept entails, identifying the practical limits to its implementation (especially in a developing country context), and reviewing critiques that have been raised against IWRM. Against this background, the paper then discusses the Mhlatuze Catchment in South Africa, an area where IWRM is being implemented but is still facing serious challenges and constraints. The demands for water in this catchment exceed the available supplies and an increasing number of activities – including agriculture, mining and industrial development – are competing for the available water. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of the lessons that have been learned from attempts to implement IWRM in the Mhlatuze Catchment. 2. A critical discussion of IWRM 2.1. Contents and criticism In 2000, the Global Water Partnership published a widely cited and critiqued manual on IWRM, which emphasised the need for a common understanding of IWRM and called on water resource managers to ensure that IWRM is implemented effectively (Global Water Partnership, 2000, p. 22). This manual also presented the following definition of IWRM: ‘‘IWRM is a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximise the resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems’’ (Global Water Partnership, 2000, p. 22). Arguably the most prominent feature of this definition is the call for coordination; in other words, the integration of both natural and human systems amongst themselves and with each other, in a way that allows a balance to be attained between resource use and resource protection. Attaining a balance between resource use and resource protection also features prominently in South Africa’s new water legislation, which aims to redress the current legacy of unequal access to water resources and sanitation that still faces the country (RSA, 1998). While the definition appears to be sufficiently comprehensive and takes account of the different dimensions that need to be involved in efficient water resources management, it has also been criticised as being impractical. Two examples of these critiques are discussed below. Biswas (2004) states that, on the surface, the Global Water Partnership’s definition of IWRM appears to be broad, all-encompassing and impressive. However, he then points out that ‘‘lofty phrases’’ have little practical importance for either present or future water management practices, as these do not help water planners or managers to solve problems in the water sector. Ultimately, Biswas considers the IWRM concept to be ‘‘unimplementable’’ because of the difficulty in integrating the actions of different sectors such as water and energy. While integration is certainly not easy to achieve, noticeably due to a lack of institutional capacity (Van der Zaag, 2005), it seems unfair to label the process as ‘‘unrealisable’’, since this implicitly advocates a return to the situation where the different water-related sectors work independently of each other. Previous water resource management practices were unsuccessful because they lacked effective integration; this failure led to the near-universal adoption of the IWRM philosophy as an attractive alternative. Does it not make sense to at least strive towards an ideal with obvious merits, even if this will be difficult to attain? Van der Zaag (2005) underlines this point by stating that the adoption of IWRM ‘‘is not only an option, but a must’’, even though succeeding in doing so seems to be a very ambitious task. The reason why the adoption of IWRM is so important is because systematically pursuing IWRM constitutes a path of short-term risk that leads to longterm security, which supports the current and future environmental and developmental needs to manage water resources in a holistic manner. The European Union’s internal review of EU-funded water research projects between 1994 and 2006 agrees with Biswas (2004), stating that it is not advisable to uncritically embrace the current definition of IWRM as it is ‘‘narrow, incomplete and unchallenging’’ (Gyawali et al., 2006). According to the EU report, the danger of an imperfect definition lies in the fact that it tempts water resource managers to carry on as before and simply label existing practices as IWRM, assuming that this is what they have always engaged in. However, no alternative definition is offered. Instead, the EU report proposes an alternative name for IWRM, namely ‘‘Constructively Engaged N. Funke et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 32 (2007) 1237–1245 Integrated Water Resources Allocation and Management’’ (CE-IWRAM). The term ‘‘constructive engagement’’ implies that the process must involve inputs from government, the private sector and civil society, and must also be gender sensitive. The strong focus on water allocation is also the logical result of the water reform process in an increasingly water-scarce world, this is particularly relevant for the Southern African region and South Africa, and highlights the need to acknowledge the political nature of all water allocation processes. This suggestion emphasises that it is important for IWRM to start working in practice, with a strong focus on the constructive engagement of relevant actors, as well as a realisation that water allocation is an integral part of this politicised process. With reference to the case study in this article, it is also important to ensure that different government and non-government actors cooperate in order to implement South Africa’s water reform, which, by virtue of the fact that it is to a large degree focused on redress, is highly political in nature. Valid as these criticisms may be, it should be noted that there is no unambiguous and universally accepted definition of IWRM. In addition, it is important to realise that a clear definition on its own cannot and does not provide sufficient guidance to enable a concept to be implemented successfully. Concepts and definitions must first be unpacked and debated; this should lead to the development and production of guidelines and implementation manuals. Practical implementation can only take place after this process has been concluded. Given the lack of a single definition of IWRM, it is helpful to examine the Dublin Principles, which form the core of IWRM, in order to better understand the key issues that define IWRM. The wide acceptance of the Dublin Principles prompted a relatively gradual shift away from more traditional ‘‘hard’’ engineering approaches that focused predominantly on supplying sufficient water to meet demands, to a more integrated planning approach that incorporates both conventional and non-conventional options for reconciling water supply and demand, including water conservation and demand management measures (Turton et al., 2007). The four Dublin Principles state that: 1. Fresh water is a finite and vulnerable resource, essential to sustain life, development and the environment. 2. Water development and management should be based on a participatory approach, involving users, planners and policy-makers at all levels. 3. Women play a central part in the provision, management and safeguarding of water. 4. Water has an economic value in all its competing uses and should be recognised as an economic good. The first principle acknowledges that the world’s freshwater resources are both finite and vulnerable, and calls for the establishment of an inclusive institutional frame- 1239 work that takes account of all characteristics of the hydrological cycle (as well as its interaction with other natural resources and ecosystems). This would enable the coordination of human economic, social and political systems, which create demands for water, determine land uses and generate water-borne waste products. However, while definite benefits can be gained from integrating the management of natural and human systems, and taking account of the effects that different human activities have on the environment, the task of operationalising and implementing this approach in practice represents an enormous challenge (Global Water Partnership, 2000). In most countries, this would require a comprehensive reform of all water legislation as well as a greater alignment of policies and improved cooperation between different government departments and affected stakeholders. This is particularly difficult in developing countries which often lack sufficient institutional and technical capacity to achieve the desired objectives. Similar problems were identified as presenting obstacles to the successful implementation of IWRM in the Mhlatuze Catchment, as discussed in more detail below. The second principle requires the effective engagement of all stakeholders in the decision-making process because water is a subject that affects the lives and livelihoods of everyone. Governments therefore have the responsibility to create suitable mechanisms for stakeholder consultation at all spatial scales – at national, river basin and community levels – and need to enhance the capacity of marginalised groups to participate (Global Water Partnership, 2000). Clearly, it is necessary to achieve effective stakeholder participation in the water management process, especially when highly political and controversial actions, such as water re-allocation, have to be taken. This currently is and will become an increasingly prominent issue in the South African context as the National Water Act calls for the redress of past inequities in terms of access to water resources and the benefits derived from such access (Republic of South Africa, 1998). However, ensuring that all stakeholders are actively involved in decisionmaking processes is a huge challenge at best and, at worst, may be impossible to realise. In practice, ensuring that ‘‘everyone’’ gets to have their say in decision-making processes is the central challenge facing government (Hall, 2007). The third principle relates to the importance of involving women in decision-making with the realisation that women play a key role in collecting and safeguarding water for domestic and, in many cases, agricultural use. At the same time, the principle recognises that in many societies, women have a much less influential role than men do when it comes to decision-making relating to water resources. Therefore, there is an urgent need to explore different mechanisms for increasing the participation of women in decision-making and other activities related to IWRM (Global Water Partnership, 2000). While it is important to change practices based on gender discrimination so as 1240 N. Funke et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 32 (2007) 1237–1245 to enable women to be included in decision-making processes, this will require a radical shift in many traditional perceptions of the roles of women. Therefore, this complicated challenge may take a long time to be met successfully. The fourth principle refers to the value of water as an economic good. Here it is important to point out that whilst the ‘‘value’’ of water should be recognised to enable the rational allocation of water as a scarce resource, charging for water means applying an economic instrument in order to influence people’s behaviour towards conservation (Global Water Partnership, 2000). While it is logical and important to attach value to a scarce resource in order to prevent it from being used unwisely or wastefully, water resources, and the ecosystems that surround them, have always had value attached to them because they are recognised as providing important goods and services to society. However, the question of charging money for water is still a thorny issue in many parts of South Africa. South Africa’s citizens have a constitutional right to sufficient water to provide for their basic human needs (25 l per day), after which they are expected to pay for any additional water they may use. Over the years, many poorer urban communities have either adopted a culture of non-payment (which arose as a form of protest against the former apartheid government) or simply do not have the money to pay the fees that are charged. People in rural areas who previously had no reliable supply of potable water or formal sanitation systems also do not take kindly to the idea of paying for these services. While the four Dublin Principles raise important arguments about the shortcomings of how water resource management used to be (or still is) conducted, their implementation in the form of IWRM will be a complicated process that will likely only be realised in the longterm. Turton et al. (2007) support this point by stating that nearly a decade after IWRM approaches were first adopted by water resource managers, there is little evidence to suggest that all or even most of the potential benefits of IWRM have been realised. The situation in developing countries is of particular concern here. Those countries with mature or long-standing democracies tend to be more conducive to IWRM as they tend to have a strong and well-established base of multidisciplinary specialists who engage in management and other actions. In contrast, the same high levels of capacity and development are seldom found in developing countries that have had independent, democratic systems of government for less than 25 years (Turton et al., 2007). 2.2. The importance of good governance in IWRM Governance is defined by Turton et al. (2007) as ‘‘the process of informed decision-making that enables tradeoffs to be made between competing users of a given resource so as to mitigate conflict, enhance equity, ensure sustainability and hold officials accountable’’. In this view, governance is seen both as a process, that involves a num- ber of distinct elements, including decision-making about contentious issues, and as a product, where effective IWRM is the product of good governance. Governance structures also play an important part in the form of the institutional framework that underpins IWRM. The Global Water Partnership (2000, p. 33) places particular emphasis on the three pillars of IWRM. The first is the enabling environment (linked by Turton et al. (2007) to governance as a process), comprising the national, provincial or local policies and legislation that enable all stakeholders to play their respective roles in the development and management of water resources. In addition, this includes the environment and mechanisms, including information and capacity building, that are created to enable and facilitate stakeholder participation. Also of importance are the institutional frameworks through which policies, strategies and legislation can be implemented, as well as the management instruments that enable these institutions to do their job (Jonch-Clausen, 2004). Whilst an appropriate legal framework must be in place to achieve IWRM, the real challenges lie in the successful implementation of IWRM. Are governments in developing countries capable of performing all the crucial functions that the IWRM framework requires of them? Unfortunately, this is often not the case due to shortages of economic, technical and human resources. Tropp (in press) lists three sets of issues that define the new, less technocratic and more decentralised form of governance in the water sector. First, Tropp (in press) recognises that politics form part of the problem as well as the solution. Politics and trade-offs can therefore not be avoided when making hard decisions that deal with water resources allocation among various sectors and user groups. This is particularly relevant when it is necessary to re-allocate water after a country’s water law has been modified to make it more amenable to IWRM, or, as in the case of South Africa, to address past inequities. Secondly, Tropp (in press) identifies the critical need to develop additional capacity at all levels. This is linked to the overall philosophy of IWRM, which calls for the adoption of more socially orientated approaches. In the water management sector, greater attention needs to be paid to the development of diversified and multidisciplinary knowledge and related capacities linked to managing people and processes, with particular emphasis on the need to develop mediation skills. Thirdly, Tropp (in press) focuses on the need to look beyond the water sector when governance reforms are instituted. Only when an effective country-wide governance system is in place, will the necessary participation, transparency and other positive features be present and work efficiently. Once again, this relates to the array of problems that insufficient capacity and inefficient governance processes and structures may pose for countries with relatively young democracies, such as South Africa. Because such problems also hamper the ability of these countries to implement IWRM, it is logical that IWRM processes will only be able to function successfully N. Funke et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 32 (2007) 1237–1245 in the water sector if governance processes are working well. Tropp (in press) also emphasises the need to include water issues in the broader national and international processes of trade, stability and democratisation so as to increase the chances of achieving the international water targets by developing inclusive water development networks. 2.3. IWRM in developing countries According to the Global Water Partnership (2000), there is no universal blueprint for IWRM and while certain basic principles can achieve universal buy-in, their realisation and effective implementation depends on the nature, character and intensity of water problems, human resources, institutional capacities, relative strengths and characteristics of the public and private sectors, cultural setting, and natural conditions present in individual countries. Ashton (2007) raises an interesting point that can be linked to the arguments around the differences in IWRM in developed as opposed to developing countries. He states that the European Union (EU) has presented a set of five principles of good governance, which, according to EU countries, is all that is necessary to maintain good governance systems in Europe. These are openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence, all of which can be closely linked to the overall philosophy of IWRM and its close and necessary link to governance. However, in an African context (and possibly also in the context of developing countries elsewhere) the situation becomes more complicated as there are additional factors that hamper the achievement of good governance. These are low levels of literacy and lack of familiarity with technical terminology, widespread poverty as a result of inequalities in terms of access to resources and finance and a lack of familiarity with democratic processes, often accompanied by mistrust of unfamiliar representatives and self-appointed ‘‘leaders’’. With regard to water reform in particular there also appears to be a gap between overhauling water resources management and applying new legislation, strategies and institutions in practice as the latter is a task the exceeds the budgets and human resource capacities of most SADC states (Swatuk, 2005). Also, it is important to note that many of Africa’s problems (and those of other developing countries) have unique local characteristics which may make it difficult for a ‘‘transplanted’’ solution to work. Particular care must therefore be taken to ensure that both the IWRM principles and the specific practices that are implemented in an African country (or any other developing country) take sufficient account of local conditions if they are to be sustainable and effective in the long-term (Ashton, 2007). In addition, findings of social-science oriented scholarship on water management in the Southern African region, in particular published in three special issues of Physics and Chemistry of the Earth (Swatuk, 2005) have shown a predominant similarity in experience with regard to attempts 1241 at the implementation of IWRM and water demand management (WDM) in practice. It appears that difficulties with regard to water reform reflect the largely political nature of the reform process, such as proposing a profound re-alignment of decision-making power in already fragile, underdeveloped states. Thus, in order to achieve sustainable, equitable and efficient water use in the Southern African region, it is important to reflect on the political nature of these activities and, if necessary, to reconsider the basic assumptions and ideologies driving the reform process. 2.4. Obstacles to implementing IWRM in South Africa Against this background on the general nature of IWRM, as well as its merits, flaws and limits to its successful functioning and implementation, it is important to consider IWRM in South Africa as a whole before examining a particular case study. There are several reasons why IWRM is very necessary in South Africa. Water is not equitably distributed in South Africa, its availability is highly variable over time and, due to the relatively low average rainfall, large parts of the country are water-scarce. Furthermore, historical patterns of industrial and agricultural development as well as politically motivated social engineering have resulted in a mismatch between locations of concentrated demand for water and the available water resources. These physical and historical conditions provide an enormous challenge to realising sustainable social and economic development while redressing the inequalities caused by past political policies (Görgens et al., 1998). In addition to reasons why it is necessary that IWRM should be implemented in South Africa from a climatic, political and historical perspective, people in South Africa have participated in a national democratisation process and now feel a growing need to participate in and contribute to decision-making processes. Whilst this may be partly as a result of their lack of trust in, and the lack of legitimacy of, previous delivery systems and social services, it is also important for people to be drawn into the planning and management aspects to ensure that their concerns and requirements are met and that they receive appropriate delivery of resources (Görgens et al., 1998). Local community participation can also provide an important source of information, experience and ideas that could lead to practical, relevant, achievable and acceptable solutions to waterrelated problems. Another benefit to involving local communities in water resource management is that they often possess a particular knowledge of a resource – known as indigenous knowledge – which can help to generate new options when it comes to environmental protection, including proper water resource use and management (Dungumaro and Madulu, 2003). 1242 N. Funke et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 32 (2007) 1237–1245 Continued fragmentation in the national approach to water resource management represents a particular problem for the effective implementation of IWRM in South Africa. While water and land both fall under the broader concept of natural resources and are inextricably linked to one another in terms of the way in which use of the one impacts on the other, South African environmental, water and land-use legislation and administration are administered by separate line function government ministries. Despite the comprehensive reforms of South Africa’s water and environmental law, this fragmentation is likely to persist into the foreseeable future. While the Constitution of 1996 classes water management and certain landuse-related activities such as mining, energy and land affairs as central government competencies, other landuse-related activities, such as agriculture, nature conservation and the environment are considered to be provincial competencies. In fact, South Africa’s Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) has little effective control over land-use activities beyond forestry and certain aspects of mining and solid waste disposal (Görgens et al., 1998). Against this background, it is instructive to review the situation in the Mhlatuze Catchment to determine the extent to which IWRM is functioning successfully, despite the national obstacles to implementation that were identified above. 3. The Mhlatuze Catchment This section, detailing the challenges, constraints and successes of the implementation of IWRM in the Mhlatuze Catchment, is based on verbal evidence that was collected from interviews with selected Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) officials working in the Mhlatuze Catchment, as well as written evidence in the form of reports that discuss the state of water resource management in the area. The location of the Mhlatuze Catchment within South Africa is shown in Fig. 1. 3.1. Background information The Mhlatuze Catchment is one of five catchments forming the greater Usutu to Mhlatuze water management area (WMA); most of the WMA lies within KwaZuluNatal, with the northern part located in Mpumalanga Province. Parts of this catchment are relatively water-rich, with annual rainfall as high as 1500 mm per year – these are located mainly to the east of the Drakensberg escarpment. Elsewhere in the catchment, rainfall declines rapidly to about 600 mm per year. This is the case in the north-central area near the Lebombo Mountains, which are waterscarce. Potential evaporation varies between 1300 and 1500 mm per year. Several conservation areas of high importance are located in the WMA, such as Lake St Lucia which is a World Heritage Site, as well as the HluhluweUmfolozi and Mkuzi game reserves (DWAF, 2003). Economic activities in the WMA are very diverse and include commercial forestry, irrigation (mainly sugar cane), and rain-fed cultivation, as well as urban and industrial development that is concentrated at the towns of Richards Bay and Empangeni. Export-orientated industries are also located close to the deep-water harbour facilities at Richards Bay. Coal mining used to be a prominent activity in the upper part of the WMA, but most coal mines are now inactive. In its place, extensive mineralsands mining operations now occur in the coastal dunes where Richards Bay Minerals is a leading producer of titania slag, high purity pig iron, rutile and zircon (DWAF, 2003). The Mhlatuze Catchment (a sub-area of the WMA) is the economic hub of the entire WMA and contains a large number of industries and the world’s largest coal-export terminal. The water requirements for the catchment are considerable as the different water use sectors (mining, agriculture, industry and domestic) all require substantial amounts of water. Although the catchment has sufficient water to meet all requirements at present,2 the available resources have been over-allocated; this means that compulsory licensing and stricter control of all water uses will be needed to rectify the situation. This licensing process has already been initiated and the process will also help to redress inequities as well as finalise the Reserve3 in the catchment (DWAF, 2004). It is uncertain how much water will be used in the Mhlatuze Catchment in future as demand is currently driven by industrial development which is difficult to predict in the long-term. This delicate situation requires flexible management plans so that water managers will be able to cope with sudden increases in the demands for water without retarding development. This is especially important because the current water allocations make no allowance for any industrial, urban or other expansion. Also, no water is available for further allocations to the rural areas or equity schemes unless major new infrastructure development takes place. Despite the major developments in the Mhlatuze Catchment, water quality is generally good, most probably due to the fact that most urban and industrial effluent is discharged via pipelines to the sea. Impacts on the marine environment could thus become a problem in future. The mining of coastal dunes for heavy minerals north of Richards Bay also presents a pollution threat, particularly to local groundwater systems (DWAF, 2004). 2 The water supply in the catchment is augmented by transfer schemes from the Umfolozi and Thukela rivers. Without these additional water ‘‘imports’’, the available supplies would be well below the volumes needed. 3 The ecological component of the Reserve refers to that portion of streamflow quantity and quality that must remain in rivers to meet basic human needs and to ensure the sustainable healthy functioning of aquatic ecosystems. Only a part of the remaining water can practically and economically be harnessed as usable yield for off-channel use (DWAF, 2003). N. Funke et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 32 (2007) 1237–1245 1243 Fig. 1. Map showing the location of the Mhlatuze Catchment within the Usutu to Mhlatuze water management area in South Africa (map adapted from DWAF, 2003). 3.2. Institutional background The South African government, and more specifically DWAF, has adopted an IWRM approach that currently consists of a gradual devolution of certain management functions to established catchment management agencies (CMAs) at WMA level. At present, CMAs have been proclaimed for seven of South Africa’s 19 WMAs; the remaining 12 CMAs will be promulgated over approximately the next decade. Each CMA is expected to progressively develop a catchment management strategy (CMS) for the protection, use, development, conservation, management and control of water resources in its particular WMA, in alignment with the national water resource strategy. Until such time as a CMA has been formally established in a WMA, however, the regional offices of DWAF will continue to manage the water resources of their respective areas. Internal strategic perspectives (ISPs) have been developed to provide a framework for DWAF’s water management actions until such time as the CMAs become fully operational. This will help to ensure consistency when dealing with requests for new water licences, and informing water users about how the department intends to manage water in particular areas of concern (DWAF, 2004). The internal strategic perspective for the Usutu–Mhlatuze WMA (DWAF, 2004) contains a section devoted to the importance of IWRM for South Africa. This underlines DWAF’s commitment to manage water with the full understanding of its importance for social and economic development. Quite ambitiously, DWAF also identifies the need for integration between water-related programmes and policies of DWAF as well as the plans and programmes of all other role players in the management areas. There is a particularly important need for the CMAs to develop sound relationships with a range of stakeholders from different sectors. The overall aim of implementing IWRM is, through good governance and stakeholder participation, to enable water managers to ‘‘use our precious water resources to assist us in poverty eradication and removal of inequity’’ (DWAF, 2004). 1244 N. Funke et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 32 (2007) 1237–1245 3.3. Reality check While national policies and statements of intent sound promising on paper, there is little evidence to indicate that IWRM is being implemented effectively in practice, particularly in the Mhlatuze Catchment. In particular, it appears that DWAF is not coping sufficiently well with the water quality problems in the catchment and while these currently are not severe, they have the potential to worsen with future development. Part of the problem may be due to the fact that water quality data for the WMA are scattered across several DWAF sub-directorates and regional offices (CPH Water, 2002). In addition, a representative of DWAF’s KwaZulu-Natal Regional Office (DixonPaver, 2006) has indicated that DWAF staff responsible for water quality management face serious challenges in the area because of staff shortages; staff members are overworked and do not have sufficient time to focus on the effective implementation of IWRM principles. In addition, problems of communication exist within DWAF as an organisation, and between DWAF and external actors, have hampered integration. While attempts are made to incorporate all stakeholders when conducting environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for new developments, the sheer volume of work that DWAF staff members have to deal with in the catchment makes it extremely difficult for DWAF to deal with all developments in an integrated way. The management structures within DWAF therefore have a direct impact on the department’s ability to identify and manage water quality issues, while the few available DWAF officials are only able to respond to various crises rather than planning, quantifying and monitoring the water quality situation of the WMA. This is the direct result of inadequate staffing and the fact that many DWAF staff members apply for employment elsewhere because they perceive that there is little opportunity to grow their careers within the department. The problem is accentuated by the fact that few new staff members are recruited to replace those who leave (CPH Water, 2002). With so many people leaving DWAF, the knowledge and experience that has been acquired over many years by more experienced staff members is lost to the organisation, and there is a lack of effective succession planning in key technical positions. This is particularly problematic because effective implementation of IWRM relies on the expertise of people with knowledge of the key problem areas in the WMA. There is also insufficient coordination between DWAF and other government departments when it comes to developing new initiatives such as the industrial development zone (IDZ) that has been planned for the Richards Bay area, and which forms part of the national macro-economic policy to develop South Africa’s manufacturing sector by encouraging investment in export-orientated industries, centred on beneficiation of the country’s mineral resources (Department of Economic Development KZN, 2006). While the IDZ is an important and promising endeavour for economic development and investment in the area, the increased industrial activity will impact adversely on water resources and the environment and this presents a fundamental problem to the successful functioning of IWRM. If IWRM is not implemented successfully at the planning stage, there is little hope of achieving integrated management in practice. In fact, the lack of integration at the planning stage coupled with the high turnover of technical staff in municipalities, as well as provincial and national government departments, a shortage of institutional memory and very little if any skills transfer and succession or retention plans, presents serious problems to the realisation of IWRM. Nevertheless, despite these obvious constraints to IWRM, there are positive indications that some elements of IWRM are working successfully in the WMA. According to a DWAF representative dealing with catchment management in the area (Reddy, 2006), various stakeholders and water users have become closely involved in establishing a CMA and good progress has been made in widening the participation base to include all relevant sectors of society. Despite this progress, however, there is still a backlog because traditional leaders and civil society have not provided full support, while local government structures are still under-represented. Therefore, while IWRM is starting to emerge in the Usutu to Mhlatuze WMA, DWAF should provide stronger leadership in the adoption of a united view on IWRM (Reddy, 2006). The absence of strong leadership from DWAF has resulted in various projects being conducted in an ad hoc and uneven manner, with inadequate cooperation between the different sections of DWAF and few inputs are received from other regions or government departments. Reddy (2006) has suggested that greater attention needs to capacity-building and empowerment could solve many of these problems, though he admits that mechanisms to realise this still need to be developed. 4. Conclusion This study has shown that IWRM practices in the Mhlatuze Catchment have begun to take shape but there is still a long way to go before effective IWRM is fully realised. This is due to a combination of factors. First, DWAF – the national custodian of water resources – is experiencing severe internal problems that hinder its role of successfully managing the WMA as a unit. Secondly, while IWRM is a key part of national policy on paper, it has yet to be ‘‘officially’’ accepted by water managers in practice. Water managers are either unaware of IWRM or are too preoccupied with daily crises to give it the attention that it deserves. Thirdly, a range of institutional challenges persist because there is insufficient cooperation between the different sectors and different policies that impact on water. It is not appropriate simply to expect that the creation of a CMA in the area will solve this problem. Instead, concerted efforts have to be made by DWAF to increase collaboration with other departments and stakeholders until such time as a N. Funke et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 32 (2007) 1237–1245 CMA can take over this function effectively. Fourthly, the involvement all stakeholders in decision-making processes is difficult in this predominantly rural area due to a lack of capacity to participate in consultative processes. From this case study of the Mhlatuze Catchment, it is clear that local attempts to implement IWRM in South Africa have to resolve several specific problems before IWRM will be able to work successfully in the long-term. This finding reinforces the view that the effective implementation of IWRM, specifically, has not so far been fully successful. South Africa has made remarkable progress in reforming its national water law – now regarded as one of the most progressive in the world – thereby providing the enabling environment to facilitate IWRM. The remaining challenge is to ensure that the two other pillars of IWRM – management and institutional capacity, both supported by good governance practices – are able to follow suit and become equally effective. While it is unlikely that IWRM will be fully realised in South Africa in the shortor even the medium-term, it is still an ideal that is worth aspiring to and attaining progressively through a series of gradual improvements to integrated water management structures and processes. Based on the findings reported in this paper, it is clear that DWAF must overcome its institutional problems. While this will require concerted long-term effort, it will have a dramatic positive impact on its ability to deal with the challenge of implementing effective IWRM across the different WMAs in South Africa. Also, it will be important to ensure that there is strong political support at all levels for the National Water Resources Strategy, which is South Africa’s national IWRM plan. This will help to strengthen the links between the relevant national and provincial government departments and agencies, as well as local authorities and, importantly, also put in place practical mechanisms to facilitate coordination between them. The successful implementation of such a strategy would also make it easier to deal with catchment-specific problems, such as those in the Mhlatuze Catchment that hinder the effective participation of some rural stakeholders in decision-making processes. References Ashton, P.J., 2007. The role of good governance in sustainable development: implications for integrated water resources management in Southern Africa. In: Turton, A.R., Hattingh, J., Maree, G.A., Roux, D.J., Claassen, M., Strydom, W. (Eds.), Governance as a Trialogue – Government-Society-Science in Transition. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 78–96. 1245 Biswas, A.K., 2004. Integrated water resources management: a reassessment. Water International 29 (2), 248–256. CPH Water, 2002. Water quality issues in the Usutu–Mhlatuze: Review of water quality status and issues in the WMA. Report Prepared for DWAF/DFIF Strategic Environmental Assessment. Department of Economic Development KZN, 2006. Brief about the Integrated Development Zone in Richards Bay. <www.kznded.gov.za/ Default.aspx?tabid=184> (accessed: 20 September 2006). Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF), 2003. Overview of water resources availability and utilisation. Report No. P WMA 06/000/00/0203. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF), 2004. Usutu to Mhlatuze water management area: internal strategic perspective. Report No. P WMA 06/000/00/0304. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria. Dixon-Paver, H., 2006. Personal communication about IWRM. 15 September 2006. Dungumaro, E.W., Madulu, N.F., 2003. Public participation in integrated water resources management: the case of Tanzania. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 28 (20–27), 1009–1014. Global Water Partnership, 2000. Integrated Water Resources Management. Global Water Partnership, Stockholm. Görgens, A., Pegram, G., Uys, M., Grobicki, A., Loots, L., Tanner, A., Bengu, R., 1998. Guidelines for catchment management to achieve integrated water resources management in South Africa. WRC Report No. KV 108/98. Water Research Commission, Pretoria. Gyawali, D., Allan, J.A., Antunes, P., Dudeen, A., Laureano, P., Fernandez, C.L., Monteiro, P.M.S., Nguyen, H.K., Novacek, P., Pahl-Wostl, C., 2006. EU-INCO Water Research from FP4 to FP6 (1994–2006): A Critical Review. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxemburg. Hall, A., 2007. Environmental governance in a global context. In: Turton, A.R., Hattingh, J., Maree, G.A., Roux, D.J., Claassen, M., Strydom, W. (Eds.), Governance as a Trialogue – Government-Society-Science in Transition. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 29–37. Jonch-Clausen, T., 2004. Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and Water Efficiency Plans by 2005 Why, what and how? Global Water Partnership, Sweden. Reddy, J., 2006. Personal Communication about IWRM in the Mhlatuze Catchment. 20 September 2006. Republic of South Africa, 1998. The National Water Act (Act No. 36 of 1998). Government of the Republic of South Africa, Pretoria. Swatuk, L., 2005. Political challenges to implementing IWRM in Southern Africa. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 30, 872–880. Tropp, H., in press. Water governance: trends and needs for new capacity development. In: Hattingh, J., Maree, G.A., Ashton, P.J., Leaner, J., Turton, A.R. (Eds.), Special Edition of Water Policy Journal on Ecosystem Governance. Turton, A.R., Hattingh, J., Claassen, M., Roux, D.J., Ashton, P.J., 2007. Towards a model for ecosystem governance: an integrated water resource management example. In: Turton, A.R., Hattingh, J., Maree, G.A., Roux, D.J., Claassen, M., Strydom, W. (Eds.), Governance as a Trialogue – Government-Society-Science in Transition. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, pp. 1–25. Van der Zaag, P., 2005. Integrated water resources management: relevant concept or irrelevant buzzword? A capacity building and research agenda for Southern Africa. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 30 (11–16), 867–871.