WP3: Characteristics of local government involvement in IWRM in SADC

1
WP3 Characteristics of local government
involvement in IWRM in SADC

• Symposium Water for local needs
• The contribution of Local Governments to IWRM
• Kopanong, 9 and 10 July 2007

2
Principles guidelines
Aims to consider all relevant aspects in managing
and developing water resources
An idea A philosophy An approach
IWRM
CONCEPTUAL
OPERATIONAL
IWRM Institutions
IWRM Practices
LogoWater Project (SADC)
Relations
Application (Tools)
Water Environment
Local govt
1. What is the current situation? 2. Where do we
want to take it?
Mandates Functions Operations Culture Capacity Tra
deoffs
Motivation
3
The SADC IWRM framework

• SADC Protocol on shared water courses
• Guideline for transboundary water management
• Lacks enforcement powers
• Government level co-operation, local govts
  excluded
• Joint water commissions
• Specific to basins and participating countries
• Only true internally driven/funded co-operation
• National interests tend to override
• Local governments seldom mentioned

4
The SADC IWRM framework

• SADC Water Division
• Co-ordinates regional water initiatives
• Inadequate capacity
• Donor dependency
• Global water partnership
• Regional focus, country level operation
• Not accountable to SADC
• Exclusive club

5
Local govts in SADC

• Local governments types
• Metropolitan areas (Jburg, Maputo, etc), gt mil.
  People
• Medium to small towns (200 000 500 000 pop.)
• Municipalities (lt100 000 pop) micro towns
• Rural district authorities
• Local authorities
• Traditional leadership
• (boundary disputes, which one for Logowater)

6
Local govts in SADC

• Local governments functions
• Provision of services (water supply, electricity,
  sanitation, etc.)
• Often in conjunction with other players
• Administration of local bye-laws
• Collection of local taxes
• Setting local policies
• Administering national government programs

7
Local govts in SADC

• Constitution and authority
• Elected independent officials
• Means politics override
• Government appointees
• No local decisions
• Traditional authority
• Limited to ceremonial customary roles
• (sector organisations, business interests)
• E.g. the mines

8
Local govts IWRM institutional framework
Policy Laws
IWRM Institutions
National governments
Service
Local governments
Water/environmental Resource base
9
Water sector reforms regional level

• Collective decision making under regional
  framework (SADC water sector, The Water Protocol,
  GWP initiatives, etc.)
• National govts as building blocks but countries
  at different stages (reform, economic, systems,
  laws)
• Hydrological boundary (instream waters)
• Donor support/agenda
• Principles
• Centrality of riparian rights, Good
  neighbourliness, Regional development, Sharing of
  benefits, National sovereignty

10
Impact of reforms on IWRM operations

• Water accepted as a cross cutting issue for
  development
• New water laws and regulations (national
  regional)
• Closer regional co-operation (and platform for
  conflict resolution)
• Para-national water management institutions
• ZAMCOM, LIMCOM
• Raised stakeholder awareness and participation
• National Steering committees
• Buy-in initiatives (workshops, studies)

11
Water sector reforms in country

• Decentralised, hierarchial organisations for
  water governance
• Devolution of authority to river basin
  institutions (catchment councils)
• BUT not necessarily powers and resources
• General water management principles upheld
• unity of the hydrological cycle, stakeholder
  participation, equity in access, gender,
  efficiency in use, sustainability
• BUT countries at different levels of
  implementation
• In most cases role of LGs not specified

12
In country water sector reforms Zimbabwe example
Level
Composition
Execution
Policy/Allocation
??
Ministry of Water??
NSCs??
Transboundary
ZINWA Board
CC representatives Govt officials
ZINWA
National
Catchment Manager
Catchment Council
SCC representatives
Catchment
Sub-Catchment Council
ZINWA Officers
Local
Sector representation
13
THE DILLEMA

• National IWRM institutions do not dovetail with
  transboundary basin institutions
• catchment boundaries are confined to national
  political boundaries
• Result is a disconnect between the transboundary
  structure and the local IWRM institutions leaving
  local governments with no ENTRY POINT and
  national governments with TOTAL CONTROL

14
Local government reforms in country

• Decentralisation of functions, centralisation of
  power authority
• Central authority retains policy formulation,
  regulation and enforcement, standardisation
• Creation of new institutions (and repackaging of
  old ones)
• Drivers of reform
• deteriorating service, overlap of govt depts,
  donor influence, politics (getting rid of
  colonial setups)

15
Impact of reforms on LocGov operations

• uncertainty and conflict over areas of
  jurisdiction (spatial and functional)
• ultra powerful political individuals
• Ambiguity of laws policies (water, environment
  and local govt)
• Enforcement paralysis
• Integration dilemma
• Internal depts, sector functions, national
  institutions, IWRM institutions
• How to manage transition?

16
General position of LocGov IWRM in SADC

• IWRM or WASH
• Most (urban) locgov see IWRM as WASH
• Locgov are supply oriented (to serve the
  community)
• LocGov focus on usable water not the water
  cycle.
• LocGovt not sure of their role in IWRM
  initiatives
• No common platform among locgovs for
  participation in IWRM
• Miss opportunity to direct IWRM initiatives

17
Observations on locGov and IWRM in SADC

• River basin organisations do not specify the role
  of local governments in their operations
• National governments sideline local governments
  in regional/national IWRM institutions
• Sector instruments are often at variance with
  legislation relating to IWRM
• IWRM institutions and locgovts often collide on
  matters of jurisdication
• No strategies for financing and implementing IWRM
• Co-ordination and communication remains
  problematic
• Engagement by Locgov retains a national
  character
• IWRM not in LocGov training syllabus

18
Basin specific observations - Zambezi

• Inter country co-operation is achieved under the
  ZAMCOM Treaty but operations still directed by
  the ZACPRO6 project and ZRA
• Water resources development determined by
  hydropower potential ( flood risk)
• Discussion moving more towards sharing benefits
• Stakeholder participation promoted through the
  NSCs
• But govt role too pronounced
• Local governments not given special attention
• Nor do they seek one

19
Basin specific observations - Limpopo

• Basin development is not uniform
• Basinwide organisation still in its infancy
  (LIMCOM)
• Numerous CB initiatives but few (Logowater)
  targeting locGovs
• Riparian local govts have different problems and
  approach IWRM differently depending on location,
  development and size
• Flooding in Xai Xai, quality issues in Tswane,
  scarcity in Bulawayo
• Local authorities have co-operated outside IWRM
  guidelines (Beitbridge Musina)
• Downstream upstream antagonisms clear
• National interests are overriding

20
Basin specific observations - Orange

• Most developed basin in Southern Africa
• Inter-country agreements
• Interbasin transfers
• Dominated by S. Africa
• Basinwide organisation in place and functional

21
Some conclusions on Loc Govt IWRM

• Water sector reform in SADC has resulted in IWRM
  institutions at different spatial and governance
  levels
• But not necessarily targeting Loc govts
• The diversity in basins and countries in terms of
  size development and culture means it is still
  too early to give general characterizations of
  the basins in SADC.
• The role of locgov not specified in IWRM
  initiatives and institutions
• Either local govt or IWRM
• LocGovs have no mandate for IWRM
• Locgovs obsessed with WASH and WRM not IWRM
• No triggers and motivation for locgov to take up
  IWRM
• Loc Govs remain political creatures responsive to
  political imperatives not IWRM principles.
• Challenges opportunities
• capacity issues, financing IWRM, relations with
  IWRM institutions, stakeholder participation,