LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION...

LIMPOPO BASIN PERMANENT TECHNICAL COMMITTEE LBPTC

REPÚBLICA DE M I OÇAMUE B Q

ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO

WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC)

WORKSHOP REPORT AND PROCEEDINGS First Stakeholder Consultation Workshop

Protea Hotel The Ranch, Polokwane (South Africa)

09 to 10 November 2010

Botswana Mozambique South Africa Zimbabwe

With support from International Cooperation Partners:

Report Prepared By: Barbara Tapela and Felicidade Massingue Regional Coordination By: Daniel Malzbender Barbara Tapela

ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM (CURRENTLY LBPTC) 1 -

ROADMAP FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION FOR THE LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION – LIMCOM

(CURRENTLY LBPTC)

Workshop Report and Proceedings

Stakeholders Strategy Workshop

Protea Hotel The Ranch, Polokwane (South Africa)

09 – 10 November 2010

Participants of the LIMCOM stakeholder participation workshop


TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD ........................................................................................................................ 6

AGENDA ............................................................................................................................. 7

PARTICIPANT LIST ............................................................................................................... 9

GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ............................................................. 10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 11

1.0. SESSION ONE: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 13

1.1. OPENING OF WORKSHOP ........................................................................................... 13

1.2 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF WORKSHOP/OVERVIEW OF WORKSHOP AGENDA 13

1.3. OVERVIEW OF ROADMAP DEVELOPMENT: FIRST STAGE ............................................ 14

1.4. PLENARY DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 15

2.0. SESSION TWO: FINDINGS OF NATIONAL STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION APPRAISALS 15

2.1. KEY FINDINGS - BOTSWANA ...................................................................................... 15

2.2. KEY FINDINGS - MOZAMBIQUE .................................................................................. 16

2.3. KEY FINDINGS –SOUTH AFRICA .................................................................................. 17

2.4. KEY FINDINGS - ZIMBABWE ....................................................................................... 17

2.5. PLENARY DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS ............................................. 18

3.0. SESSION THREE: KEY NATIONAL VERSUS TRANSBOUNDARY ISSUES .......................... 19

3.1. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS FROM DAY ONE ............................................................... 19

3.2. DISCUSSION PAPER: STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN LIMPOPO BASIN .................. 20

3.3. GROUP EXERCISE I: KEY ISSUES FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION .......................... 23

3.4. PLENARY REPORT AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................... 23

4.0. SESSION FOUR: INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND MECHANISMS ............................ 25


4.1. DISCUSSION PAPER: LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR STAKEHOLDER

PARTICIPATION IN LIMPOPO BASIN ........................................................................... 25

4.2. GROUP EXERCISE II: INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR STAKEHOLDER

PARTICIPATION IN THE LIMPOPO BASIN .................................................................... 26

4.3. PLENARY REPORT AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................... 26

4.3.1. GROUP 1 REPORT .................................................................................................... 26

4.3.2.GROUP 2 REPORT .................................................................................................... 29

4.3.3. SYNTHESIS OF DISCUSSION ..................................................................................... 32

5.0. SESSION FIVE: LIMCOM ROADMAP CONTENT AND STRUCTURE ................................ 32

5.1. BACKGROUND PAPER: PRINCIPLES OF STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT ............................. 32

5.2. LIMCOM ROADMAP: KEY CONTENT AND STRUCTURE ............................................... 35

5.2.1. PLENARY DISCUSSION ............................................................................................. 36

6.0. WAY FORWARD: ROADMAP DEVELOPMENT PROCESS PHASE TWO ........................... 38

7.0. WORKSHOP CLOSURE. ............................................................................................... 38

APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS…………………………………………….40


FOREWORD

This report presents a concise record of proceedings of the First Stakeholder Consultation Workshop on a Roadmap for Stakeholder Participation in the Limpopo Basin. The workshop was held from 09 to 10 November 2011 at the Protea ‘The Ranch’ Hotel in Polokwane, South Africa. The workshop was the 3rd Stage of Phase 1 of the LIMCOM Roadmap process (Phase 2 will lead to Strategy development). The workshop was preceded by an Inception Phase (1st Stage of Phase 1) and a National Stakeholder Participation Appraisal Phase (2nd Stage Phase 1). Objectives of the workshop were to present key findings from national-level Stakeholder Participation Appraisals (SPAs); identify and discuss key issues and institutional mechanisms for up-scaling existing stakeholder participation in Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) from national to transboundary level; and develop a draft methodology and process for the next stage of the Roadmap development process.

The Regional Coordinator and National Facilitators provided technical input and facilitated the workshop, while outputs were largely derived from contributions to group work and plenary discussions by stakeholders who participated in the workshop. The workshop drew twenty (20) participants from Botswana, Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe, representing stakeholders from government, water authorities and the LIMCOM secretariat (see List of Participants on Page 8 of this Report). Representatives of the Progressive Realization of the Incomati Maputo Agreement (PRIMA) and the Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM) representatives were also invited but could not attend due to an overlap of work plans.

The workshop was supported by International Cooperation Partners, namely the German Government (BMZ) through InWEnt and GTZ in delegated cooperation with UK Aid and the Australian Government Aid Program. InWEnt has supported the LIMCOM Secretariat since 2006, thereby drawing from its work in the fields of "stakeholder participation in river basins" in the SADC region, particularly the Orange-Senqu and Ruvuma River Basins.

Documentation of this report follows the sequence of events during the workshop as shown in the Agenda (Page 7 of this Report).


Agenda for Stakeholders Strategy Workshop 9th – 10th November 2010 Polokwane – South Africa

Day 1: 9 November 2010

Day 2: 10 November 2010

Time Activity Responsible 08:00 – 08:30 Summary of key points from Day 1 Daniel Malzbender

08:30 – 09:00 Presentation of stakeholder participation discussion paper

Barbara Tapela

09:00 – 10:00 Key issues (transboundary vs national) Group work

10:00 – 10:30 Report back & discussion Mashudu Mathelemusa

10:30 – 11:00 Tea/Coffee Break 11:00 – 11:30 Legal/institutional framework for

stakeholder participation in the Limpopo Basin

Daniel Malzbender

11:30 – 13:00 Institutional mechanism for stakeholder participation in the Limpopo basin

Group work

13:00 – 14:00 Lunch 14:00 – 15:00 Report back & discussion Daniel Malzbender

15:00 – 15:15 Principles of strategy development (content/ structure)

Emmanuel Manzungu

15:15 – 16:00 LIMCOM Roadmap (key content & structure) – plenary discussion

Emmanuel Manzungu

16:00 – 16:15 Tea/Coffee 16:15 – 16:30 Way forward – Roadmap development

process stage 2 Daniel Malzbender

16:30 – 17:30 Plenary discussion Daniel Malzbender

17:30 – 17:40 Closing Host country representative/

Time Activity Presentation/Facilitation 13:30 – 14:00 Registration LIMCOM Sec

14:00 – 14:15 Welcome and opening remarks Host country representative/ LIMCOM-ES

14:15 – 14:30 Background and purpose of workshop/overview of workshop agenda

Kulthoum Omari

14:30 – 14:45 Overview of Roadmap development 1st stage (activities carried out/ products)

Daniel Malzbender

14:45 – 15:30 Plenary discussion Kulthoum Omari

15:30 – 16:00 Tea/coffee break 16:00 – 16:15 Key findings - Botswana Kulthoum Omari

16:15 – 16:30 Key findings - Mozambique Felicidade Massingue

16:30 – 16:45 Key findings – South Africa Mashudu Mathelemusa

16:45 – 17:00 Key findings - Zimbabwe Emmanuel Manzungu

17:00 – 17:30 Plenary discussion Kulthoum Omari

End of day 1


LIMCOM-ES

End of Workshop


LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Surname Name E-mail Address

Antia Felismina [email protected]

Binns Rebecca [email protected]

Jorge Felicidade [email protected]

Kalaote Kalaote [email protected]

Malzbender Daniel [email protected]

Manzungu Emmanuel [email protected]

Mathangwane Bogadi [email protected]

Mathelemusa Mashudu [email protected]

Mawere Gilbert [email protected]

Molefi Tracy [email protected]

Muchineri Wensley [email protected]

Nditwani Tendani [email protected]

Obakeng Obolokile [email protected]

Omari Kulthoum [email protected]

Qwist-Hoffmann Peter [email protected]

Rapotsanyane Michelle [email protected]

Rosen Tommy [email protected]

Sitoe Sergio [email protected]

Sousa Olinda [email protected]

Tapela Barbara [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]





















Abbreviations and Acronyms

ARAs Regional Water Administrations (Mozambique)

ARA-Sul Southern Regional Water Administrations

CC Catchment Council (Zimbabwe)

CMA Catchment Management Agency (South Africa)

CSOs Civil Society Organizations

DNA National Directorate of Water (Mozambique)

DWA Department of Water Affairs

GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit

ICPs International Cooperation Partners

IEC Information Education and Communication

InWent Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung

IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management

IWSD Institute of Water and Sanitation Development

LBPTC Limpopo Basin Permanent Technical Committee

LIMCOM Limpopo Watercourse Commission

MDGs Millennium Development Goals

MLGLH Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing

MMEWR Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Resources

MOA Ministry of Agriculture

NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations

OKACOM Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission

RALES Responsible and Legal Entities

RBOs River Basin Organisations

SADC Southern African Development Community

SAP Strategic Action Planning

SCC Sub Catchment Council

SPA Stakeholder Participation Appraisal

SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

TDA Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis

WDM Water Demand Management

WUC Water Utilities Corporation

ZAMCOM Zambezi Watercourse Commission

ZINWA Zimbabwe National Water Authority


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

The LIMCOM ‘Stakeholder Participation Roadmap’ process seeks to promote stakeholder

participation in the management of water resources in the transboundary Limpopo River Basin.

Stakeholder participation is firmly established in SADC Legal and Policy framework for transboundary

water management to which the LIMCOM countries subscribe. Article 7(2)c mandates LIMCOM to

advise Member States on the scope and nature of stakeholder involvement in basin planning and

management. Predicated on these institutional frameworks, LIMCOM (LBPTC) tasked itself with

developing a Roadmap for stakeholder participation for the Commission. The process of Roadmap

development is split into two (2) phases.

Phase 1 (this phase) has involved stocktaking and situation analysis to establish a baseline to

characterize and analyse the basin context, existing institutional arrangements for stakeholder

participation, stakeholders, stakeholder platforms and current practices; with a view to determining

a possible way forward or “roadmap” for the next phase. Phase 2 is envisaged to entail Strategy

development.

Phase 1 has run from September to November 2010, with four National Facilitators (one per

country), one Regional Coordinator and one Technical Back-stopper. The methodology adopted

included a mixture of desk-top research and in-field rapid Stakeholder Participation Appraisals

(SPAs). Methods used in the latter included consultations and interviews with identified key

stakeholders. Project outputs have included the following:

Four National Stakeholder Participation Appraisal reports (one per country)

Summary discussion paper on national SPAs (the basin perspective)

Discussion paper on legal and policy framework for stakeholder participation for the

Limpopo basin

E-library

Preliminary basin-wide Stakeholder Database

Content of SPA reports have consistently included the following sections: Socio-economic context of

water use; Institutional arrangements for stakeholder participation; Rapid Stakeholder Participation

Appraisal (interests/ influence); and Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT)

analysis of current stakeholder participation landscape.

LIMCOM Stakeholder Participation Workshop

Objectives of the LIMCOM Stakeholder Participation Workshop, which was held in Polokwane (South

Africa) from 09 to 10 November 2010, were to:


Present and discuss results from Phase 1 of Roadmap development;

Identify LIMCOM ‘Priority Issues’ for Stakeholder Participation;

Brainstorm possible institutional structures for stakeholder participation in the basin;

Develop a draft outline for the LIMCOM Stakeholder Participation Strategy; and

Brainstorm possible approach for Phase 2

All the above objectives were met. Based on results of national SPAs and technical inputs by the

coordination and facilitation team, workshop outputs included: Identified and prioritized key issues,

Outlined options for institutional mechanisms of up-scaling existing stakeholder participation from

national to transboundary level, and Drafted outline of proposed Strategy. Identified transboundary

priority issues for stakeholder involvement included (a) Disaster management/ early warning; (b)

Transboundary pollution/ water quality and (c) Basin planning/ water allocation. The proposed

Strategy outline is captured below:

Conclusion

Rapid SPAs completed in Phase 1 will form the basis for further Strategy development. The draft

outline for a LIMCOM Stakeholder Participation Strategy has been developed. A Proposal for Phase 2

(Strategy development) has been made, with a view to presenting a full draft Stakeholder

Participation Strategy to a LIMCOM meeting to be held in May 2011. Importantly, the LIMCOM

Stakeholder Participation Workshop has recognised the principle that stakeholder participation

activities need to be embedded into an overall LIMCOM work programme.

PROPOSED STRATEGY OUTLINE

1. Background and Introduction

2. Characteristics of the Limpopo basin

3. Strategic Goal

4. Principles underpinning the strategy

5. Focus areas:

- Disaster management/ early warning

- Transboundary pollution/ water quality

- Basin planning/ Water allocation

6. Strategic objectives, outcomes, outputs

7. Budget and financing

8. Implementation plan

- Institutional set-up

- M&E framework

- Communication plan

(9. Annex: Logical Framework)


WORKSHOP REPORT AND PROCEEDINGS

1.0. SESSION ONE: INTRODUCTION 1.1. OPENING OF WORKSHOP The workshop was officially opened by Tendani Nditwani (Host country representative) and Sérgio Sitoe (LIMCOM secretariat). For familiarization before the start of the business, participants were given time to introduce themselves. 1.2 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE OF WORKSHOP/OVERVIEW OF WORKSHOP AGENDA

Facilitator: Kulthoum Omari The facilitator remarked that the First Stakeholder Consultation Workshop on a Roadmap for Stakeholder Participation in the Limpopo Basin was the result of a process initiated and driven by member states through the Limpopo Watercourse Commission (LIMCOM) and with the help of International Cooperation Partners (Ices). The Regional Coordinator and four National Facilitators had provided important services in coordinating and facilitating the Roadmap development process. However, it was essential that the process was not “consultant driven” but was instead owned and directed by the basin states at all times. For that reason, the workshop carried forward an overall approach that emphasized close cooperation (communication, exchange of ideas, information sharing) with the basin states (through LIMCOM) and Ices throughout the Roadmap development process. Roadmap development was taking place within an already well-developed SADC regional legal, policy and institutional framework. In light of challenges, such as increasing demand of water, environmental degradation and climatic change, it was critical that the Roadmap be tailored to the needs of the basin, basin states and stakeholders, with a view to achieving economically, socially and environmentally sustainable outcomes. The Roadmap should therefore be well-integrated into the regional institutional framework and regional guidelines for stakeholder participation in transboundary river basins. It was also important for the Roadmap to comply with both the legal and policy commitments the basin states have made at regional level. Roadmap development within this workshop should not be about “international blueprints”. Rather, the Roadmap needed to reflect region-specific needs and conditions as well as regional knowledge and expertise. Many participants in this workshop had had experience in working within the SADC Region and Limpopo basin, which would prove useful to the identification of issues, development of institutional mechanisms and thinking about a principled approach and structure for the Roadmap for Stakeholder Participation. In addition to such knowledge and expertise, workshop facilitation would provide insights garnered from national-level Stakeholder Participation Appraisals (SPAs), reviews of theoretical and experiential literature and practical experience with similar


processes elsewhere. Such insights would provide valuable background resources for the task ahead in this workshop. The facilitator proceeded to outline workshop objectives. For Day One of the workshop, objectives were to:

Report back on activities carried out, key findings and outputs of national SPAs;

Discuss key findings of national SPAs; and

Summarize the key findings. Objectives for Day Two were to:

a. Identify and discuss key issues for a basin-wide stakeholder participation roadmap and strategy, with a focus on implications of up-scaling from national to transboundary levels;

b. Discuss the existing legal and institutional framework for stakeholder participation and identify possible institutional mechanisms for a basin-wide Roadmap and strategy for stakeholder participation

c. Decide key content and structure of a LIMCOM Strategy for Stakeholder Participation; and

d. Explore possible approach to next phase of the Roadmap development process.

The two days’ workshop agenda (Page 7) was presented and agreed up on. With regard to the methodology for the workshop, a participatory approach involving presentations followed by group or plenary discussions was adopted. 1.3. OVERVIEW OF ROADMAP DEVELOPMENT: FIRST STAGE

Facilitator: Daniel Malzbender An overview of the project activities carried out and respective outputs was presented. Firstly, the facilitator highlighted activities carried out during preparatory Phase Two namely: (I) National Rapid Stakeholder Participation Appraisals; (ii) Development of a preliminary basin-wide Stakeholder Database and (iii) Compilation of a baseline E-library for LIMCOM website. With regard to outputs, the presentation pointed out that major outputs of Phase Two of the project included:

National SPAs for Botswana, Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe;

A discussion paper summarizing and analyzing key findings from national SPAs from a basin-wide perspective;

A discussion paper on national and regional legal and institutional frameworks for stakeholder participation in the Limpopo basin;

A baseline e-library, which LIMCOM will further develop; and

A preliminary Stakeholder Database, which LIMCOM will further develop


1.4. PLENARY DISCUSSION During and after the presentation, participants had the opportunity to appreciate and comment on the first versions of the e-library and stakeholder database. These first versions, which were developed in MS Excel format, would be handed over to database development experts for the necessary follow up.

2.0. SESSION TWO: FINDINGS NATIONAL STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION APPRAISALS

National Facilitators presented key findings on SPAs of each country. Presentations focused mainly on four key areas, namely: (i) Socio-economic context of water use; (ii) Institutional arrangements for stakeholder participation; (iii) Stakeholder participation appraisal (interests/ influence); (iv) SWOT analysis of current. Overviews of key findings are outlined in Sections 2.1 to 2.4 below.

2.1. KEY FINDINGS: BOTSWANA

Presenter/Facilitator: Kulthoum Omari

A number of institutional frameworks provide a basis for broadening and strengthening stakeholder participation in transboundary management of Limpopo basin. The constitution of Botswana embraces a liberal democratic system of governance, which enshrines the principle of participation. Vision 2016 recognizes the importance of stakeholder participation through the goal to achieve ‘an open, democratic and accountable nation’. This goal recognizes the role that the Kgotla and traditional leaders play in the democratic process and governance. The goal also recognizes that the Kgotla provides a strong base on which to build a decentralized democracy, which must be extended down to the level of community. Botswana has taken steps to reform water related law and policies. The Draft Water Policy, which currently guides water resources management in the country, represents an on-going shift away from the old centralized water management framework. Although key planning frameworks and policies indicate that Botswana recognizes, in principle, the need for stakeholder participation, a major failing is the lack of legally-binding instruments to enforce the principle of stakeholder participation in natural resources management as a whole and water resources management in particular. Hence, for policy to be enforceable, legislation will have to be enacted to strengthen stakeholder participation. Currently, water resources management is centralized. The Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Resources (MMEWR) assumes regulatory functions and administers the national


water policy. Within the ministry two water supply units namely, the Department of Water Affairs (DWA) and the Water Utilities Corporation (WUC), are responsible for policy implementation. The WUC is the sole provider of water and DWA is the lead agency in water resources planning. In some situations, such as in the livestock and agricultural sector, water provision is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture (Moa). The Moa constructs small dams in farming areas used for livestock and assists syndicates (user groups). Currently, the District Councils under the Ministry of Local Government, Lands and Housing (MLGLH), oversee the management of waste water and sanitation. By contrast, there is an absence of strong local level traditional leadership in water management and the LIMCOM process as a whole. Direct stakeholder participation can be better facilitated if decision-making is decentralized. Stakeholders are more likely to be committed to LIMCOM initiatives if they are involved in planning and preparation. 2.2. KEY FINDINGS: MOZAMBIQUE

Presenter/Facilitator: Felicidade Massingue Participation of beneficiaries in water resources management in Mozambique is still a very limited experience, but is gaining momentum due to widespread of ARAs. The ARAs have the mandate to establish organisms for stakeholder participation in water resources management and development issues. The legal framework as provided for in the Water Act is sufficiently adequate to ensure the involvement of interested parties in water resources management, particularly at the basin level, however limited to the operational management in line with competencies of the ARAs. It does not expressly regulate participation of interested parties in the strategic management of water resources. Evolution of the vision on the involvement of interested parties in water resources management is visible in policy and legislation. In general, they convey a modern vision of participation of interested parties in water resources management. They provide an effective involvement of interested parties in planning, decision making and implementation, and giving them powers of monitoring and evaluation over the State Executive Bodies. Transboundary water management in the country is viewed as being important, especially due to the fact that Mozambique is downstream of almost all the international river basins, including Limpopo basin. As a downstream basin state, many of the issues pertaining to the conservation and management of LRB within the IWRM context are directly affected by upstream basin states. In this respect the ratification, accession and effective implementation of international agreements should be viewed as a priority. Mozambique has long recognised


this need and has signed numerous conventions that could assist in securing the countries entitlements to water resources. Despite the existence of a strong and sound internal policy framework for the continued development and implementation of IWRM, many issues are beyond the national jurisdiction. Even with the appropriate national tools Mozambique may not be in position to fully ensure sustainable conservation, management and development of its catchments. International agreements therefore represent one of the key opportunities to realizing sustainable IWRM. The problem with many of these agreements is that they do not yet incorporate the necessary legal mechanisms to ensure equitable distribution and compliance, relying heavily on negotiated settlement and the good will of the parties. 2.3. KEY FINDINGS: SOUTH AFRICA

Presenter/Facilitator: Mashudu Mathelemusa

Institutional arrangements in South Africa are in place for implementation of public participation. The issue of public participation is enshrined in legislation in the form of the Constitution, Acts, policies, strategies, plans and programmes. Legislation also encourages South Africa to take part in regional and international organizations, and has signed agreements on nature and natural resources management. With regard to stakeholder participation in the basin the following findings were made:

• Department of Water Affairs (DWA) is currently the South African representative in LIMCOM;

• The LIMCOM process has full governmental support; • Legislation and policies are in place to regulate water resource management issues

in the country; • South Africa has ratified relevant international agreements; • Existing public participation programmers, stakeholder forums and transboundary

platforms (.e.g. transfrontier parks) can provide support to LIMCOM initiatives. Although national-level legal and institutional frameworks, structures and procedures for stakeholder participation are in place, there remain challenges to effective implementation and many existing stakeholder structures are not operational. 2.4. KEY FINDINGS: ZIMBABWE

Presenter/Facilitator: Emmanuel Manzungu Although Zimbabwe had not yet ratified the SADC Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourse and the LIMCOM Agreement, government had accepted, in principle, these frameworks and had already made significant advance towards signing both. Consequently, the lack of ratification by Zimbabwe was not be construed as a threat to the LIMCOM process.


In the case of Zimbabwe, the Roadmap needs to be contextualized within the prevailing biophysical and socio-economic circumstances as well as efforts that have been made towards ensuring stakeholder participation at the national level. In particular, the poor performance of the economy, due to political decline between 2000 and 2008, has resulted in a very difficult operating environment that is characterized by endemic poverty and hyperinflation. Despite this, the country put in place IWRM-based water policies and pieces of legislation that were underpinned by a number of ratified international environmental agreements and conventions that promoted sustainable development. The Water Act and the ZINWA Act were the main pieces of legislation that framed the water reforms process (that was geared to achieve equity) in general and stakeholder participation in particular. Once the law was in place, stakeholder platforms namely, catchment and sub-catchment councils were established as early as six months to a year after the new water law was promulgated. Within these platforms, all identified stakeholders could participate in the management of the country. However, these new institutions faced numerous challenges and vital lessons were learnt. Challenges included problems related to poor identification of stakeholders, ineffective representation arrangements, and weak individual and institutional capacity. There was also lack of representation of primary water use in stakeholder platforms, such that it was mainly government departments that constituted the bulk of secondary stakeholders. Communities living in and affected by transfrontier parks, for example, were not included probably because their interests were seen to relate to land issues rather than water. Research institutions were also not privy to the proceedings at sub-catchment and catchment level although they had a strong research presence in the area. Emerging socio-economic classes, courtesy of land reform programme, also posed significant challenges, as did poor linkages between the lower and higher levels of the institutions were another problem. Hydrologic-based boundaries were found to be operationally too big as far as concerns of local people were involved. This was worsened by the fact that the new stakeholder institutions and water management boundaries were little known compared to long established administrative structures and boundaries. Stakeholders suggested that the framework for stakeholder participation should include administrative boundaries such as villages, wards and districts. Stakeholders felt that there was lack of information regarding what transpired at the LIMCOM level and the Mzingwane catchment Council and its four sub-catchments. This resulted in the suggestion that stakeholders in the basin should be represented at the basin level by the chairman of the council. In general, however, there were more positive than negative factors as far as stakeholder participation is concerned. 2.5 PLENARY DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS Plenary discussion followed presentations on the four national SPAs. Concerns raised and discussed include:


(i) The level of participation of Stakeholders in the LIMCOM process: The facilitator clarified that this is one of the issues that LIMCOM has to address. In fact it is a rationale of group discussions. The summary of the discussion held on this issue indicated clearly that during the group work participants should think on the definition of stakeholder from the point of view of LIMCOM process.

(ii) Role of media in the LIMCOM process: The participant agreed that media play an important role at the community level, particularly in terms of raising awareness in water related issues. However this group of stakeholders has to be involved in water resources management and not only when there are problems. They are willing to take part of the process but the challenge is that there are not specialized in water related issues. It was also indicated that during the group discussion it is important to think on how to bring media to the LIMCOM process.

(iii) Clarification on whether the Mzingwane Stakeholder’s participation strategy includes the transboundary issues: In response, Zimbabwe delegates explained that the strategy was merely a national process with no provision for transboundary issues. The Mzingwane catchment Council has the mandate to deal with national issues, however a common good practice in Zimbabwe is that people are educated to consider the effects of their activities downstream.

(iv) From the national SPA presentations it appears like all the stakeholders forum in the four countries are consultative bodies. To which extent can they play a more participative role in decision making process?

Zimbabwe clarified that the Mzingwane catchment council has the mandate to manage water resources in the Limpopo basin. This signifies that they make decision on water resources development and planning. For Mozambique, Olinda de Sousa (Director of ARA-Sul) clarified that the ARA is part of the Limpopo basin committee, so, the decisions made at the committee level are quite mandatory for ARA-Sul. For Botswana the challenge is that there are no stakeholder forums in place.

3.0. SESSION THREE: KEY NATIONAL VERSUS TRANSBOUNDARY ISSUES 3.1. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS FROM DAY ONE

Facilitator: Barbara Tapela


The second day of workshop started with recap and summary of the main issues discussed on Day One. These issues included:

Variation in stages of water sector reforms (e.g. Botswana ongoing);

Variations in legal provisions for stakeholder participation – Most of them are consultative structures;

Variations in stakeholder platforms;

Variations in current practices;

Similarity in complexity of stakeholders Amid such varied basin-wide landscape, LIMCOM would need to ensure effective stakeholder participation. Other issues emerging from Day One sessions were included:

The fact that enabling legislation is there but implementation lagged behind;

The need to clarify the distinction between national and transboundary issues;

Implications of Zimbabwe’s non-ratification of Revised SADC protocol and LIMCOM Agreement;

Potential roles for traditional authorities, who have been identified as currently playing important roles in engaging local level communities;

Media engagement (“How to engage the media?”);

Power imbalances within stakeholder platforms/forums;

The fact that existing forums were more consultative than representative, except in Zimbabwe.

Regarding Zimbabwe’s ratification of the Revised SADC Protocol and LIMCOM Agreement, a senior Zimbabwean delegate informed the workshop that LIMCOM and Zambezi Watercourse Commission (ZAMCOM) protocols had already been taken to parliament to seek ratification. It was expected that the ratification of the documents would soon follow. 3.2. DISCUSSION PAPER: STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN LIMPOPO BASIN

Presenter/Facilitator: Barbara Tapela

A discussion paper entitled “Towards Effective Stakeholder Participation in the

Transboundary Management of the Limpopo River Basin” was presented by Barbara Tapela.

The presentation began by highlighting the locus of ‘stakeholder participation’ within Article

7 and specifically Section 7.2 of the LIMCOM Agreement. The presenter pointed out that a

detailed overview of the institutional frameworks (policy, legislation and guidelines) for

stakeholder participation would be presented in the next session. Following this, the


presentation raised issues relating to involving a multiplicity of identified stakeholders, with

diverse interests ranging from local to transboundary levels. Questions asked included:

How to deal with such complexity in designing LIMCOM Roadmap/Strategy?

In broadening stakeholder participation to include all valid stakeholders ranging from

sub-national versus transboundary level: What is the ‘lowest appropriate level’? (Or:

How small is ‘beautiful’?)

A key question raised was:

Should the LIMCOM Roadmap for Stakeholder Participation be viewed in terms of a

discontinuity or continuity between sub-national and transboundary levels? In other

words, should stakeholder participation be conceived as focused at the

transboundary level OR should stakeholder participation be conceived as cutting

across multiple layers and sectors of transboundary water management? The latter

embraced all levels as part of a nested and integrated watercourse management

system, while the former narrowed Limo’s attention to issues of transboundary

significance.

According to the facilitator, the manner in which this question was answered would give

indication of how ‘effective participation’ was or needed to be conceptualized within

LIMCOM. Definition of what constituted effective participation ultimately depended on

LIMCOM’s vision, mission, goals and objectives, as well as awareness and common

understanding within LIMCOM of need for and nature of stakeholder participation.

Notwithstanding LIMCOM’s prerogative, theory and international best practice provided

indicators of what could constitute ‘effective’ stakeholder participation. These indicators

were outlined (Refer to Power Point Presentation in Appendix 1). While awareness of

indicators was important, there was a need to also recognize challenges to operationalizing

participatory approaches (i.e. “the softer but harder issues”). These included achieving a

balance between interests of powerful and less powerful stakeholders, building trust and

confidence in the process and going beyond participation as a ‘goal’ to participation as a

‘means’. The facilitator proceeded to distinguish between different forms of participation,

using a Typology of Participation. A key point here was that various forms of participation

were applicable to different contexts and types of stakeholders. For example, it was

common practice for participation to increase with successive stages of a process. Hence,

although ‘consultation’ was not a relatively high level of participation, it was appropriate for

certain transboundary water management initiatives and stages of processes, while for

others, such as implementation of infrastructure development projects, more active forms

of participation by affected communities was more appropriate. Predicated on genuine


commitment and recognition of the importance of involving stakeholders in transboundary

water management, effective participation was therefore largely context-specific.

The presentation proceeded to synthesize, compare, contrast and analyze findings from national-level SPAs. The facilitator used a transboundary diagrammatic ‘snapshot’ or overview of existing institutional arrangements, stakeholder platforms/forums and current practices. A key point emerging from the analysis was that provisions, structures and practices of stakeholder participation varied among the four riparian countries. Mozambique’s River Basin Committees provided platforms for stakeholder consultation, while South Africa’s Catchment Management Agencies (CMAs) and Zimbabwe’s Catchment and Sub-Catchments Councils (CCs and SCCs) provided forums for active stakeholder participation, and Botswana’s ongoing water sector reforms had yet to carve out definitive roles for stakeholders within proposed inclusive water management structures. In up-scaling stakeholder participation from national to transboundary water management, therefore, LIMCOM needed to consider questions regarding how to:

Ensure effective communication and information dissemination?

Create and/or develop appropriate stakeholder forums or platforms?

Build and/or strengthen capacity of stakeholder platforms and practices?

Define requisite institutional interfaces and channels of interaction? Workshop participants responded by seeking clarification on the LIMCOM snapshot diagram, and this was provided. Issues for clarification included the positioning of traditional governance (i.e. the ‘Kgotla’) in IWRM and transboundary water management in Botswana. One participant felt that the Kgotla should be shaded dark blue because it is a stakeholder platform though not specific for water issues only. The facilitator pointed out that the Kgotla was actually shaded light blue but much of the colour was lost in projection of the power point presentation. The rationale for the lighter shade was that currently, the Kgotla was formally not legally recognized as a water management structure although recommendations had been made to that effect by the Revised National Water Master Plan of 2007. A point raised by another participant was that in Zimbabwe, stakeholders such as Water

User Associations (WUAs), District Local Government, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)

and Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) were consulted by CCs and SCCs, but in effect their

participation was not sanctioned by law. For that reason, such structures needed to be distinguished

from responsible and legal entities (RALEs) in the water sector, perhaps using a different shade or

colour. This point was noted.


3.3. GROUP EXERCISE I: KEY ISSUES FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION Participants randomly formed two groups, each with mixed representation from all four riparian countries. The groups were assigned the following tasks:

1. Identify key transboundary issues for which engagement of stakeholders at

transboundary level is essential

2. Prioritize three issues that you think should be engaged first in the roll-out of

LIMCOM stakeholder participation activities

Technical advice was two-fold. Firstly, that it was essential for a transboundary stakeholder participation strategy to deal with transboundary water management issues and not with water management issues that can be resolved at national level and do not necessarily require engagement of stakeholders at transboundary level. Secondly, that a potential approach to prioritization would be to start with short term immediate issues and, later on, build in longer term issues. 3.4. PLENARY REPORTS AND DISCUSSION

Facilitator: Daniel Malzbender

After an hour of group discussion participants joined the plenary to present and discuss results from the group work. Table 1 outlines key issues and priorities identified by the two groups. The two groups have prioritized more or less the same issues (not necessarily in any order of importance) namely: • Early warning for disaster management • Pollution monitoring • Basin plans After the first group’s presentation, the discussion centred on how to address national issues that could have cumulative effect on the transboundary level. An example of such an issue was a scenario of numerous small-scale abstractions of water within a localized watershed, whereby the combined effect of such abstractions could have transboundary ramifications on downstream riparians. The discussion also sought to clarify differences between transboundary water ‘quality’ and ‘pollution’. Workshop participants acknowledged that water quality and transboundary pollution can be treated under water quality in general, although the rationale behind the separation of two is that water quality issues can be regarded as largely national while transboundary pollution needs coordination between countries.


Table 1 Key Issues and Priorities for which Engagement of Stakeholders at Transboundary Level is Essential

Key issues for transboundary consideration

Group 2 Group 1

Transboundary water pollution Early warning for disaster management: information sharing and dissemination

Transboundary water quality Funding (for development of appropriate means of communication and information dissemination, and to develop a common communication framework adapted to LIMCOM needs)

Transboundary droughts and floods Water allocation between countries

Transboundary water related diseases, such as cholera

Water quality (and pollution)

Major infrastructure development, which impacts on environmental flows

Framework of action for stakeholder participation (not necessarily a stakeholder issues but one that guides participation)

Lack of coordinated basin development planning

Three priorities

Coordinated basin development planning LIMCOM work plan &framework

Disaster management Water allocation at transboundary level

Transboundary water pollution Early warning, for disaster management

A third issue discussed was the role of stakeholders in basin planning and coordination, for example, with regard to Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and Strategic Action Planning (SAP). The general consensus was that since planning cycles go through different stages of a process, approaches to stakeholder engagement could be based on issues being discussed in each stage of the planning process. For example, in the drafting of the LIMCOM Roadmap for Stakeholder Participation, key stakeholders for active participation could include the Limpopo Basin Permanent Technical Committee (LBPTC), water and related departments and other selected agencies. The bulk of key stakeholders, including water users and intermediary stakeholders such as NGOs and CSOs, could participate in lower degrees, such as by being informed and/or consulted about the process. A point was made that prioritization did not necessarily imply a sequencing of participation. The gap between planning and implementation meant that stakeholder participation could occur with respect to specific immediate issues, such as transboundary pollution control and disaster management. After the second presentation, discussions revolved around a number of concerns, including the question of appropriate protocols and/or channels for raising issues picked up during monitoring. In particular, the question sought views on whether or not appropriate channels would be national structures or LIMCOM.


Regarding the prioritized issue of a LIMCOM programme or framework of action, questions were raised whether the envisaged LIMCOM work plan would be a pre-condition for stakeholder engagement or stakeholders should be engaged to develop the work plan? The first response to this question was that LIMCOM should develop a plan, ideally engaging stakeholders in work plan development. A second response was that such an approach would not be practical, due to financial and time constraints. Botswana delegates reacted by saying that in Botswana, no basin plan could be developed without engagement of water utilities. Technical input on this issue was that it was important to bear in mind that there were various stages during a process to develop a basin plan, and that for each stage relevant stakeholders needed to be identified and engaged with, depending on issues under discussion. Technical input was also that international best practice showed that stakeholder participation tended to increase in successive stages of a process, and this was not contradictory to good governance. While the initial planning stage could begin with a narrower base of actively participating stakeholders (the majority participating in less active ways, e.g. by being informed or consulted), active involvement of a greater number of stakeholders needed to take place early enough in the process, to foster ownership and legitimacy. The conclusion was that LIMCOM could not develop a basin plan without engagement of stakeholders. The process of involving stakeholders entailed costs and was time-consuming but needed to be done properly. In the final analysis, it was a matter of prioritizing what needed to be done.

From the foregoing discussion, the general consensus was that LIMCOM has a mandate to develop a preliminary plan and later on engage stakeholders for discussion and follow up. Given that the LIMCOM Agreement provided a framework that member states had agreed upon, engagement of stakeholders could be structured as a step-by-step process.

4.0. SESSION FOUR: INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK AND MECHANISMS

Presentation/Facilitation: Daniel Malzbender

4.1 DISCUSSION PAPER: LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN LIMPOPO BASIN

The objective of this session was to examine the legal and institutional framework for stakeholder participation in transboundary management of the Limpopo basin. The presentation began with a brief overview of the basin profile and specification of Limo’s primary objective and mandate with respect to stakeholder participation. This was followed by outlines of regional frameworks for participation and the LIMCOM Agreement. A comparative analysis of existing national level stakeholder participation structures and institutional arrangements was then presented, with focus on the effectiveness, inclusiveness, harmonization and implementation opportunities, weaknesses, opportunities and constraints. The conclusion highlighted that although the IWRM-based legal and


institutional framework was largely in place (or, in the case of Botswana, well underway) and although organizational structures had been established at different levels, a key challenge remained the discrepancy between legislative requirements and actual capacity to implement stakeholder participation activities on the ground.

4.2. GROUP EXERCISE II: INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN THE LIMPOPO BASIN

The two participant groups re-convened and were asked to address the following: Topic: Institutional mechanisms for stakeholder participation in the Limpopo Basin Scenario Outline There is a wide range of organizations at national and transboundary

level with responsibilities in the management of the Limpopo water resources, each organization with a different mandate.

Task 1 Develop an organizational diagram for what you think is the best possible

stakeholder engagement mechanism in the Limpopo basin Task 2 Briefly elaborate the mandate/role with respect to stakeholder participation that

you see for each organization (type of organization) in you diagram. After one-and-a-half (1½) hours of group discussion, participants joined the plenary to present and discuss results of group work.

4.3. PLENARY REPORTS AND DISCUSSION The two groups presented their conceptualizations, in the form of organizational diagrams, for what they envisaged to be the best possible stakeholder engagement mechanism in the Limpopo basin. These presentations are set out below. 4.3.1. GROUP ONE REPORT

The group had begun by adopting a decision that since LIMCOM could not easily change

existing institutional arrangements for IWRM, the group had to work with these in

constructing an organizational diagram (Figure 1).

A hierarchical diagram was put forward. At the highest level, the group considered that

LIMCOM would play an overarching role in coordinating the transboundary management of

Limpopo watercourse. The implementation arm of LIMCOM would comprise a Secretariat

and a number of technical Task Teams. Secretariat roles included Strategic Planning and


Management, Financing, Planning & Contracting Party Coordination. Identified Task Teams

included the following:

• Disaster Management Task Team, which would deal with issues pertaining to floods,

drought, water-related diseases, transboundary pollution;

• Water Resources Management Task Team, whose focus would be on issues of Water

Demand Management (WDM), Water Allocation and Water Quality and Pollution

control;

• Information, Education and Communication (IEC) Task Team IEC, which would

handle issues relating to Information, Education and Communication; and

• Legal task Team, which would address legal issues around transboundary

cooperation.

Figure 1 Group One: LIMCOM Institutional Organization for Stakeholder Participation

LIMCOM

THE COUNCIL

POLLUTION

Task Team

DISASTER MGT

(e.g. Floods)

Task Team

BASIN PLAN

Task Team

LEGAL

Task Team

ZIMBABWE

Stakeholders

SOUTH AFRICA

Stakeholders

MOZAMBIQUE

Stakeholders

BOTSWANA

Stakeholders

SECRETARIAT

BASIN-WIDE STAKEHOLDER PLATFORM

TECHNICAL WING


Task Teams were envisaged to be a critical link between LIMCOM and stakeholder

structures and therefore located at a level below LIMCOM but above the basin-wide forum.

The forum, which could possibly be named ‘Limpopo Basin Wide Forum’, would constitute a

key stakeholder platform whose primary role would be Outreach regarding LIMCOM. While

membership and modalities of the forum would be decided at country level, its composition

would mainly comprise Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and Non-Governmental

Organizations (NGOs), who would engage directly with stakeholders at grassroots levels of

the LIMCOM hierarchy. The basin-wide forum would have an Observer Status in LIMCOM.

4.3.1.1. Discussion of Group One Report

Workshop participants responded with a number of questions, comments, technical inputs

and advice to group one. The list below captures some of the responses.

Group awareness of Legal Task Team’s focus on cooperation rather than conflict

appreciated.

Clarity sought on differentiation between pollution control under Water Resources

Management Task Team and under Disaster Management Task Team. Group

Answer: The former deals with normal day-to-day operations around

transboundary pollution control and water quality issues. By contrast, the latter

deals with ad hoc events whereby pollution and water quality issues reach crisis

levels and thus require emergency action as opposed to ‘business-as-usual’

operational activities.

Question: Do basin wide forum members who are at senior government levels sit as

observers in LIMCOM or can they play other roles? Group Answer: They can be

called upon ad hoc to act as technical advisers, or alternatively, can be appointed

as permanent technical advisers, according to Article 7 of the LIMCOM

Agreement.

Question: How does a vertical linkage work that starts at the bottom with

stakeholders, then somewhere along the line takes process away to CSO/NGOs,

which then link up with LIMCOM? Is that a desirable arrangement? Group

Answer: The basin wide forum for stakeholders is what members of the group

agreed upon at a later stage, that they could be meeting at least once a year if

funding is available and who could participate (limited number) as observers at

council meetings.

Question: Who is responsible for day-to-day management of stakeholder

participation within LIMCOM? Group Answer 1: Discussion was too short to


effectively interrogate this issue. Group Answer 2: Day-to-day management is an

operational function, beyond scope of LIMCOM… (misunderstanding clarified

below)

Further question: This [i.e. foregoing question] is not about day-to-day management

at operational level. Rather, question refers to LIMCOM’s coordination role, for

example, who will manage the Stakeholder Database for early warning of

disaster? Who will manage information dissemination and communication?

Group Answer: Members of the 4 Task Teams are expected to be members from

riparian states, who are knowledgeable or experts in those specific areas.

4.3.2. GROUP TWO REPORT

Group Two, in similar fashion to Group One, began by taking a group decision to work with existing institutional arrangements in formulating an organizational diagram (Figure 2). The group was quick to point out that the suggested structures would not be permanent fixtures, but would adapt their composition according to issues at hand. For example, under each permanent Task Team could be sub-task teams that would be temporary and issue based, which would incorporate, for example, technical expertise, as necessary. LIMCOM was seen to be the possible overarching institutional structure located at the

highest level of the hierarchy for Limpopo transboundary water management. This view

echoed that of Group One. However, with regard to the next level below LIMCOM, Group

Two deviated from Group One. Whereas Group One saw technical Task Teams occupying

the level below LIMCOM, Group Two envisaged LBPTC as possibly occupying that level.

However, Group Two did not provide any specific notion of what type of structure LBPTC

would be, but pondered possibilities of this Committee acting as a Secretariat, temporary

Technical Advisory Council or High Level Technical Committee for LIMCOM. Below LBPTC or

similar new structure, there would be Task Teams, which would effectively implement

LIMCOM activities. Cited examples of such teams included:

Disaster Management Task Team, which would deal with issues pertaining to floods,

drought, water-related diseases, transboundary pollution;

Legal Task Team, which would address legal issues around transboundary

cooperation; and

Stakeholder Task Team


Figure 2 Group Two: LIMCOM Institutional Organization for Stakeholder Participation

While in essence notions of the first two technical Task Teams were congruent to thinking

by Group One, a key variation was that Group Two added an innovative stakeholder

structure among task teams. This was the “Stakeholder Task Team”, which would be

composed of stakeholder representatives from all four riparian states. Representation in

this task team would include representatives of Departments of Water Affairs (DWA/DNA)

and catchment level stakeholder institutions. At the bottom rung of the LIMCOM hierarchy

would be the broader group of water users, who are primary stakeholders. By virtue of their

positioning at the junction between coordination and operational levels, Stakeholder Task

Team roles would be to coordinate stakeholder activities at the national level and to

communicate issues, such as pollution, water quality and disaster, LIMCOM (above) and

broader groups of water users (below).Group Two envisaged roles of water users in general

to include, on the one hand, raising awareness and proposing solutions and/or actions and,

on the other hand, complying with basin plans and sustainable water use practice

requirements. Modes of participation by water users were not specified.

Water users

LIMCOM

LBPTC

FLOOD

Task Team

LEGAL

Task Team

Stakeholder task team

BOTSWANA

Stakeholders

MOZAMBIQUE

Stakeholders

SOUTH AFRICA

Stakeholders

ZIMBABWE

Stakeholders

Secretariat


4.3.2.1. Discussion of Group Two Report

Workshop participants responded with a number of questions, comments, technical inputs

and advice to group one. These are captured in the list below.

Question: In your conceptualization, would LBPTC be co-opted to replace LIMCOM,

but perhaps within LIMCOM Agreement as the Council, which can set up ad hoc Task

Teams?

Question: Will LIMCOM, through Task Teams, hire permanent Secretariat personnel

to manage day-to-day Stakeholder Participation activities, for example database

management, communications and information dissemination?

Group Answer 1: Day-to-day management does not need permanent staff.

a. Tech Input(DBM): Unless LIMCOM has permanent staff, implementation

might grind to a halt.

b. Group Answer 2(after clarification of question): Right now LIMCOM has not

rationalized structures, but recommendations can be accepted, as per need,

regarding permanency of staff. For now, staff is seconded from government

departments to LIMCOM to ensure continuity, although this is not

guaranteed as such staff can change institutional affiliation. LIMCOM will

engage with issue when time comes.

c. Comment from Group 1: Group 1 agreed about the need for permanent staff

in the secretariat.

d. Tech Input (DBM): If LIMCOM waits until crisis or need becomes pressing,

then there are bound to be problems. It is advisable to have a concrete

decision on permanency of staff from the outset, during strategy formulation.

e. Tech Input(PQ): Regarding issues of permanency of staff, given that

Stakeholder Participation needs to be imbedded in all aspects of

transboundary water management by LIMCOM, there is a need to think

about organizational structure from the outset, and flesh out the

composition, roles and procedures. Hence, issue of permanency of staff will

need to be addressed early on. Such decision will inform the TOR for LIMCOM

structures.

f. Group Answer 3: At the moment, driver of day-to-day processes has to be a

person from within existing government structures, but in future, with


adequate funding and other resources, there may be a dedicated

(permanent) person within the secretariat.

Question: Having a Stakeholder Task Team… What does it mean, since other Task

Teams also seem to involve stakeholders? Technical Input(EM): There is a

distinction. The Stakeholder Task Team is the stakeholder structure, while the

others are technical Task Teams.

4.3.3. SYNTHESIS OF DISCUSSION


Both organizational diagrams are not different, in essence. Both have stakeholder

participation. Taking examples of disaster management, planning, legal and other issues,

there is a need for stakeholders to play active roles in such issues. However, regarding

sustenance of effort, reality suggests that ultimately government has the responsibility for

ensuring implementation. If stakeholder structures are given a huge implementation role,

the process will founder. Hence, a decision about mode of participation might be that

stakeholders will participate by consultation, which is relatively a less active level. Such

participation might suffice and in fact contribute [by proxy] to effective implementation by

LIMCOM. A critical point therefore is that the implementation team (including, for example,

the Secretariat, Task Team and/or Technical Permanent Committee) needs to be permanent

to ensure continuity.

Technical Input (PQ): Best practice internationally indicates that observer groups, such as

coalitions of NGOs and similar, with seats on River Basin Organization (RBO) structures and

processes, give adequate voice to stakeholders and stakeholders feel they do have a stake in

decision making, planning and other activities. Group 1 alluded to observer status. However,

are stakeholder perceptions not yet mature in Southern Africa, such that such status is

generally viewed as inadequate?

Response from a participant: Reason for failure to effectively implement stakeholder

participation is not so much a lack appreciation of observer status for stakeholders, but

rather a need for implementation to be firmly entrenched within governments.

5.0. SESSION FIVE: LIMCOM ROADMAP CONTENT AND STRUCTURE

5.1 BACKGROUND PAPER: PRINCIPLES OF STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT


Presenter/Facilitator: Emmanuel Manzungu

The facilitator began by acknowledging that the presentation was largely based on personal

experiences in facilitating the development of the SADC Regional Strategic Action Plan on

Integrated Water Resources Development and Management (2005-2010) and Mzingwane

Stakeholder Participation Strategy (2010-1015). He informed workshop participants that the

aim presentation would be to provide insights into steps and processes that go into

developing a strategy. He also stressed that the discussion was not a theoretical discussion

and therefore no effort would be made to adhere to strict textbook definition of terms.

The facilitator explained that in essence a strategy is a plan of what needs to be achieved,

how that will be undertaken with what financial, material and human resources, and over

what time frame. A strategy is put in place to bring to reality an existing policy and is

therefore not developed in a vacuum. Firstly, as an action plan, it differs from a policy,

which sets out the destination of what is being undertaken. Secondly, as an action plan, a

strategy is also different from a long term strategy, which is about the elements of the

direction of desired change. Thirdly, a strategy differs from an operational plan, which is

about tasks that need to be done, such as an annual plan. Furthermore, he stated that

strategy is usually undertaken over a period of five (5) years, which is short enough not to

lose sight of what needs to be done or what is happening and long enough to allow

reasonable action to be performed. A strategy document should be seen as a management

tool rather than a souvenir. The number of critical elements to any strategy document

depends on the history of the organization for which the strategy is being developed. As a

general rule a strategy is lean document that is not clattered with technical jargon,

verbosity. It is a shared document. All details if needed must be in appendices. Lastly, a

strategy should ideally be a distillation of feeder technical reports, which could total more or

less one hundred (100) pages, from which a thirty (30) to fifty (50) page strategy document

is produced.

The facilitator proceeded to outline the step towards drafting a strategy. These were the

vision and mission, focus areas and strategic objectives, outputs and outcomes, activities,

logical framework, budget and financing, and implementation plan(see Appendix 1 for

power point presentation). This section focuses on the First Step towards drawing up a

Strategy, which is formulation of a vision and mission.

Vision and Mission:

A vision is a visualization of where an organization sees itself in years to come and is

about becoming unique in a chosen field of operation


A vision statement is a vivid idealized description of a desired outcome that inspires,

energizes and helps to create a mental picture of your target.. It is about dreams and

hopes and answers the question: WHERE DO WE WANT TO GO?

A mission (statement) is the purpose of an organization which guides the actions of

an organization and includes socially meaningfully and measurable criteria and

answers the questions WHY DO WE EXIST?

The vision and mission are presented together; the vision statement is shorter than

the mission statement.

In some cases the vision and mission together form the goals of the organization

where both are merged together although goals are long term aims that define

accomplishment of the mission.

Where there is an overall vision and mission for the organization it is not desirable

for a unit to have its own vision and mission in which case the unit can have a

strategic goal.

The question is where does one get the vision and mission? Should be based on the

organisation‘s larger picture or what is already happening. It should draw from

existing policies etc. For example the RSAP-IWRM draws from the politico-economic

framework (SADC vision and mission) and makes reference to development

framework (RISDP).

The vision and mission of the stakeholder participation strategy must make

reference to the Protocol on Shared Watercourses, Regional Water Policy and

Regional Water Strategy.

There must be a demonstration of how pertinent development needs will be

addressed e.g. MDGs… the vision and mission must be seen as leading to certain

outcomes.

The development of the vision and mission must ideally be a participatory process,

which is true for the entire strategy.

To this end those that entrusted to write the strategy should reflect the consensus of

the different stakeholders.

Sometimes core values are also given which indicate the ethics that bind and guide

the organization.


The vision and mission statements are displayed in visible places to remind the

personnel of the organisation as well as inform outsiders what makes the

organization.

However, the vision and mission must not end up being a decoration.

Other points highlighted by the facilitator were that the Strategic Goal should express the

vision and mission, and not go off tangent to add more content, otherwise a strategy loses

focus. Outcomes could include participation as a goal or a means and achievement of MDG

goals, for example. Core values of LIMCOM related to the quality of how things will be done,

and these would form the Ethics and Principles underpinning the organizational ethos in

terms of stakeholder participation. Prioritization of objectives was emphasized as important.

Strategic objectives were to be viewed not as stand-alone items but logical in sequence.

Outputs related to what was within power of strategy to achieve. For that reason, outputs

were distinct from outcomes, which are beyond the realm of the strategy. Milestones

needed to be stated, and they could also become a management tool for monitoring

achievement of objectives. A strategy had to specify the activities and resources required

for achievement of outputs, such as human, material, financial and other resources.

Indicators for verification of achievements were requisite, and such indicators needed to be

very specific. The implementation plan was most effectively structured in logical framework.

5.2 LIMCOM ROADMAP - CONTENTS OF STRATEGY DOCUMENT: PLENARY DISCUSSION

Facilitator: Emmanuel Manzungu

Regarding the content and structure of a strategy document, the facilitator stated that a

strategy essentially had three main elements of Strategic Development or Planning, namely,

Context, Process and Content. A strategy also:

1. Required resources, such as finance and human capacity;

2. Had a definite Time Frame;

3. Was based upon existing policy and documents;

4. Was an Action Plan for these, specifying limited time frame (normally five years).

Such time is reasonable planning time for foreseeable achievements;

5. Was a management tool, rather than a souvenir;

6. Should not be clattered with technical jargon; and

7. Should be lean (compact) and readable, with details appended for further reference.


5.2.1 PLENARY DISCUSSION

Workshop participants were invited to ask questions about the foregoing presentation. For

guidance, clarification was made that the facilitation team expected that by the end of the

day, delegates should have indicated what was required in terms of a possible strategy for

stakeholder participation. For example, facilitators needed to know if the outlined approach

to strategy formulation (i.e. outlined in this session’s presentation) could broadly be what

LIMCOM envisages, and if so, could that be a starting point for Roadmap development?

Further guidance was that priority issues, such as pollution and early warning of disasters,

were doable within the strategy time frame. Hence, such priorities could feature as key

focus areas and objectives within the initial strategy document. In the interests of progress

with the discussion, the plenary was asked to decide, for practical purposes, whether or not

a time frame of five (5) years was reasonable to LIMCOM, or if a possible time frame should

rather be ten (10) years. The plenary was also asked to share their views on when planning

time should begin. Further technical guidance was that envisaging the time frame would

involve thinking along the lines: “In ….years, this is where LIMCOM wants to be at”.

Responses were as follows:

Firstly, there was consensus among workshop participants that a strategy time frame of five

years was reasonable, and that the time frame of the initial strategy would be from Jan

2012 to Dec 2016. Secondly, participants agreed that a starting date in early 2012 would be

appropriate. A senior delegate from Zimbabwe added that such time frame would ensure

that the strategy started with sufficient lead-in time (at least three months) after Zimbabwe

had ratified the LIMCOM Agreement, which was acceptable. Technical input was that, given

that the Strategy document is envisaged to be completed by May 2011, a start date of

strategy implementation could not, in any case, be realistically before early 2012. The one

year time lag would allow for necessary preparations for implementation, such as sourcing

of funding, institutional rationalization and other activities.

From the foregoing discussion, as well as previous plenary and group work sessions, a draft

framework for the content of the LIMCOM Stakeholder Participation Strategy was

developed (Box 1). This framework, as well as other outputs from the workshop, collectively

contributed to the development a draft methodology and process for the next stage of the

Roadmap development process (See Executive Summary on Page 10).


BOX 1 LIMCOM STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION STRATEGY: CONTENT AND STRUCTURE

(Draft)

1. Background and Introduction

2. Characteristics of the Limpopo Basin

3. Strategic Goals

4. Principles underpinning the strategy

5. Key Focus Areas (herein not in any order of priority; to be decided upon by LIMCOM)

a. Early warning/disaster management

b. Basin Planning

c. Transboundary pollution/water quality

6. Strategic objectives, outputs and outcomes

7. Overview of Strategy (Graphical presentation)

8. Budget and financing

9. Implementation plan (longer than 5-year time frame)

a. Monitoring and evaluation framework

b. Communication Strategy/Plan

c. Institutional set up

Appendix

Generalized Logical Framework, with indicators, resources and activities (including

mention of sub-strategies/plans)


6.0 WAY FORWARD: ROADMAP DEVELOPMENT AND PROCESS PHASE TWO


The facilitator introduced the session by recalling that, according to project TOR, the envisaged date

for presentation of the final Strategy for approval was May 2011. In the facilitator’s understanding, a

drafting team would be established, which would work under the guidance of LIMCOM or other

delegated structure. The Drafting Team would work at national levels, get technical input on issues

requiring clarification and flesh out how process will unfold, among other tasks. The Drafting Team

would finalize the Strategy document, present it and LIMCOM would either endorse or make

comments for revision then endorsement.

Regarding the way forward, the facilitator asked the plenary to what extent stakeholders were

envisaged to be involved in the development of the strategy itself? The facilitator pointed out that

decisions would need to be made regarding the following modes of stakeholder engagement:

National consultations only; and/or

Participation in Technical Workshop

A suggestion (PQ) was that the first question should perhaps be: Is it necessary to take the process

further, or is existing output sufficient? One participant responded that it was odd that this question

should be asked in this particular platform (i.e. plenary session), since the present workshop

participants did not have the mandate to take such a decision, and South Africa was not represented

in the session. A further suggestion was therefore that the facilitation team had done its work,

according to TOR, and further proposal and discussion on way forward should be presented to the

commission tomorrow. All participants conceded to this. The decision therefore was that

arrangements would be made for the Regional Coordinator to present a proposal regarding the Way

Forward for Roadmap / Strategy Development at an LBPTC meeting scheduled to take place in the

same venue on the next day (11 November).[NB: The Regional Coordinator presented a summary of

the workshop proceedings and outputs to the LBPTC meeting on Thursday 11 November 2010 (see

Executive Summary on Page 10).

7.0 . WORKSHOP CLOSURE

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) representative, Peter Qwist-Hoffmann,

gave initial closing remarks and thanked the Regional Coordination and National Facilitation team for

work done. To quote, he stated, “From the start their work has been of high professional


standard.”LIMCOM Interim Executive Secretary, Sérgio Sitoe, gave the vote of thanks to all

participants and the National Facilitation team. In his words, “The project facilitation team was

recommended by the national focal points, and did not disappoint”. Sitoe also commended the

Regional Coordination team for a job well done. With these words, the LIMCOM Interim Executive

Secretary formally declared the workshop closed.

2010/11/05

1

LIMCOM Stakeholder Participation Roadmap

National Stakeholder Participation Appraisal

Botswana

Key findings

Kulthoum Omari

Water resource use – key aspects Limpopo- Botswana eastern part of the

country (hardveld)- active erosion and frequent climate

extremes

Approx 69% of population lives in the basin SA (22), Zim (10) and Moz (7)

Water use Urban water supply- 60% (eg Gaborone Dam,

Shashe and lower Shashe, Bokaa, Molatedi) Rural water supply- 12% Irrigation- 20% Mining 9%

Socio-economic issues of relevance

Urban water supply Eg Gaborone, Francistown- are major users of

water resources of the basin, supplying industries and towns and cities

Largest and fastest growing in the basin- increase population

This is in line with the new Water Policy rural population in the basin

From groundwater abstraction, however, GW not taken into account during river basin planning

65% derives livelihood from agriculture

subsistence arable farming and rearing of livestock- relies on rainfed agriculture for livelihoods

Commercial farming- Tuli Block- along the Limpopo river Crop and livestock agriculture, game farming

and tourism Formal employment Game reserves Tourism Fuel wood and Phane collection & crafts

Institutional and Legal Arrangements for stakeholder participation

Botswana constitution embraces principle of public participation

Vision 2016- Pillar ‘open, democratic and accountable nation’. Recognizes the role that the Kgotla and traditional leaders play in the democratic process

NDP 10- Defines governance, way a society sets and manages its development process through mobilizing, using and coordinating all available resources in the public, private and civil society sectors

Draft Water Policy Guided by three principles- equity,

efficiency and sustainability. Sustainability promotes management of water

resources at the lowest appropriate levels through a participatory approach.

planning, management and water to be based on integrated catchment management approaches that encourage conjunctive use & promote public awareness

Supports the establishment of WRC- Multi sector council that manages water

APPENDIX 1: WORKSHOP POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS

2010/11/05

2

Access to water will be given in the following order of priority: (i) the basic requirements required for human

consumption; (ii) the environment to ensure sustainable

foundations for supporting the national interests; followed by

(iii) agricultural and livestock, commercial and industrial applications.

National Water Master Plan- Main planning document for WRM. Recommends IWRM in water planning, which

include broad stakeholder participation. Botswana subscribes to the principle of

stakeholder participation However, policy by itself is not binding

statutorily and only tends to provide the foundation for administrative purposes.

lack of implementing binding instruments that enforce the principle of stakeholder participation.

Current practice for stakeholder participation Central government (DWA) and WUC has

the largest responsibility in water resources management

Absence of strong local level traditional leadership in water management and the LIMCOM process as a whole

Associations such as Tuli Block Farmers & Small scale farmers associations exist- but limited participation in national planning processes in water management

Summary of main findings

Water resources management is the domain of Central government- has the largest responsibility

Local level Dikgosi important anchor in the Botswana

democratic system. command respect and influence among their

followers, Dikgosi have lost their powers over the years,

particularly in natural resources management

Final stages of the water sector reform process- addressing the multiplicity and overlap of

institutions in water resources management. Draft Water Policy and WRC-membership

(government, civil society, private and research organisations)

Lack of local level stakeholder institutions within the river basin

lack of a policy which explicitly calls for stakeholder participation at all levels of water resources management.

Opportunities

The International Water’s Unit which coordinates the activities of all River Basin Organisations

The IWRM project - on going The existence of a Kgotla system- a viable,

basic community structure which can also be used to strengthen stakeholder participation in water resources management


2010/11/22

1



Mozambique

Key findings

Felicidade Massingue

I. Introduction Include 4 countries In Mozambique: •Located southern part of the Country

•19.3% of the Basin In Mozambique = approx. 79 900 Km2

•Climate: semi-arid; dry and hot

•Rainfall: 890 mm (coast) – 300 mm interior.

I. Introduction

The river extends 561 Km over a gradient of approx. 1.03/km from Pafuri to Indian Ocean (river mouth in Xai-Xai town)

Water resources Total annual runoff generated in the

country: 400 Mm3 Three main tributaries: (1)Nuanedzi

(Zimbabwe) – Northern part of the Limpopo river; (2) Changane (close to the border with Zimbabwe) – enters limpopo close to the mouth in Xai-Xai; (3) Elephants (From South Africa) – enters limpopo downstream Massingir reservoir

III. Water resource use – key aspects Important legislation - Water Act 1991 &

water policy 2007: Satisfaction of human water consumption needs

(PRIORITY); Improvement of sanitation (promotion of health and

hygiene education)

Efficient use of water for economic development;

Water for conservation of the environment

IV. Socio-economic issues of relevance Population: 1100000 (Census 2007). Most

of the population concentrated along main infrastructures such as roads and markets

Agriculture is the main activity; Fishing, livestock keeping, trading, manufacturing and service industry.

Tourism is very important – Large parks including Transfrontier Management areas): Limpopo, Banhine and Zinave parks


2010/11/22

2

Institutional Arrangements for stakeholder participation

Mozambique legal framework establishes: National Water Council (NWC) : Ministers of the

relevant ministries Technical water Committee: National Directors of the

relevant ministries at technical level

ARA-Sul- UGBL – Limpopo Basin Committee (CBL) an consultative body for the director of ARA-South

Districts wards: Advisory councils (traditional authority or family elders)

Current practice for stakeholder participation

NWC – Ministries: Public Works and Housing; Health, Agriculture; Fisheries; Coordination of Environmental Affairs; Tourism & Energy Important functions with key tasks to support

the water sector Difficult to get together a group of ministers

to discuss water issues in regular basis – different agendas

Weak intersectoral coordination

Current practice for stakeholder participation

CBL: comprised by UGBL (president); civil society, government institutions, private sector (medium and large commercial agricultural enterprises or representatives) and water users.

Advisory councils - traditional authorities or family elders: management and safeguarding traditional habits as well as resolution of different sorts of problems at community level (e.g. domestic, social conflicts).

Summary of main findings: Stakeholders

Government institutions - all relevant institutions at national, provincial, district and local level:

Play important role as policy makers

Summary of main findings: Stakeholders Urban and Rural communities: all communities

residing within the basin; Low water usage; low level of education; not represented in the

LBC; needs articulated by local government, municipalities or traditional authority

Smallholder / subsistence farmers: less than 10 ha land (most <1 ha): organized into associations (membership number unknown) Have no legal personae, most associations started with

assistance from NGOs Low water usage Not represented in LBC Low influence, low technical capacity

Summary of main findings: Stakeholders

Large and Medium Commercial farmers: High water usage Represented in the LBC (interested in water

resources management) High technical capacity High influence in policy (they have tha

capacity to articulate their need Industry / tourism: as commercial

farmers but do not get involved in water resources management


2010/11/22

3

Summary of main findings: Stakeholders Environment and conservation areas:

special group stakeholders with specific needs and water use. Represented through relevant institutions

(Environment; tourism institutions; Environmental NGOs)

TFCA entry point for LIMCOM process

Media: not involved in WRM. It is an important group for awareness raising

Summary of main findings: Stakeholders Catchment Management Agencies Water management and water supply

agencies Not for Gain Organizations Religious organization (Mozambique

Christian Council) Management of Natural disasters Academic and Research Institutions

Summary of main findings: Key issues

Legal framework makes adequate provision for stakeholders participation

Mozambique ratified almost all relevant instruments for transboundary water resources and biodiversity management

Top – down approach to involve stakeholders: ARA-Sul has a mandate to create river basin committee

Summary of main findings: Key issues

Participation of stakeholders in WRM through river basin committees

The river basin committee defined to include government institutions, water users, civil society and other interests

The basin committees are considered to be a consultative body for the ARA (to what extent the decisions made at the committee level are implemented by ARA?)

Summary of main findings: Key issues There is no equilibrium of representation in

the basin committee: Commercial water users dominate the committee. Small scale water user not represented


2010/11/05

1

LIMCOM STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION ROADMAP


South Africa

Key findings

Mashudu Mathelemusa

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES OF RELEVANCE

South Africa occupies 45% of the basin, with Levuvhu/Letaba, Limpopo, Crocodile West/Marico and Olifants WMAs are affected

Limpopo, North West, Mpumalanga and Gauteng Provinces Home to 10.7 million people and has a strong diversity of rural

versus urban population. Capital cities and largest urban population centers are

Johannesburg, Pretoria, Polokwane, Thohoyandou, and Witbank. ±70% of the basin is rural area Although South Africa is generally economically stable, there are a

lot of poverty stricken communities along the basin- especially in Limpopo Province

Main spoken languages are Limpopo Basin are Setswana, Sesotho, Xitsonga and Tshivenda; Afrikaans spoken by white

SOCIO-ECONOMIC ISSUES OF RELEVANCE CONT.

The climate ranges from dry savannah and hot dry steppe to cool temperatures (0°C in winter to 40°C in summer)

Rainfall is highly seasonal and unevenly distributed (95% occurring between October and April)

Flooding and droughts are common in the basin and impact on irrigation

Backlog on water and sanitation services in rural communities, people using raw water for basic needs without proper purification

Reported cases of preventable health related diseases Changes in lifestyle, increased industrial and mining developments,

and non compliance lead to overstressed resources and water quality challenges

Agriculture, mining and tourism major contributors to the economy Non compliance to waste management procedures contribute to

resources pollution

WATER RESOURCE USE – KEY ASPECTS

The National Water Act introduced the concept of Reserve, which refers to both an ecological reserve in terms of retaining a minimum level of instream flow to ensure ecosystem sustainability, and that of a human reserve, which refers to the quantities of water necessary to meet basic human needs. Water uses were categorized into: Schedule 1 uses: water used for domestic purposes General Authorisations (non-transferable): covers water uses in specific

geographical areas or for particular purposes that are deemed to have a low impact

Existing Lawful Uses (ELUs): uses that were actively taking place within two years of the new National Water Act being promulgated and which were recognised as lawful under the previous legislation

Water use licences: covers all other uses.

INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION

Constitution (Act No. 108 of 1996) National Water Act-1998 (No. 36 of 1998) National Water Policy Water Services Act (No. 108 of 1997) National Environment Management Act (No.107

of 1998) Promotion of Access to Information 2 of 2000

(PAIA)

THE CONSTITUTION ACT No. 108 OF 1996

Constitution promulgate for the right of people to an environment

that is not harmful to their health or well-being have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future

generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that prevent pollution and ecological degradation

promote conservation and secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development

is also clear in terms of people having the right to access to information that is held by the state and/or another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights.


2010/11/05

2

NATIONAL WATER POLICY The National Water Policy promotes the responsibility for the

development, apportionment and management of available water resources to be delegated to a catchment or regional level in such a manner as to enable interested parties to participate.

The policy promotes the development of women in relation to water management as traditional custodians of natural resources in the rural areas, and suffer most from degradation of water and other natural resources.

It encourages empowering, educating and communicating with women through access to information, by education and on simple water purification procedures,

Encourages women to work through water committees, and ultimately in catchment management agencies

THE NATIONAL WATER ACT NO. 36 OF 1998 (NWA)

NWA was developed to redress the inequalities of the past and in line with the Constitution. NWA: deals with water resources management recognizes that water belongs to all people in South Africa, and

the need for equitable distribution of water. Promotes stakeholder participate in water resource management Promotes the management of water resources at the lowest

possible level through the establishment of Catchment Management Agencies (CMAs) and Water User Associations (WUAs)

Ensures that through institutions the public participate and is involved in water resource management decision making.

WATER SERVICES ACT NO. 108 OF 1997

Water Services Act deals with water services i.e. portable, drinkable water and sanitation that is supplied by municipalities to households and other municipal water users.

The Act supports the right of access to basic water and sanitation supply necessary to secure sufficient water and an environment not harmful to human health or well-being.

WATER SERVICES ACT NO. 108 OF 1997

Services are supported and implemented through a 5 year Integrated Development Plans (IDP) required from municipalities, and developed through stakeholder participation and involvement. Water and sanitation projects and services are some of the projects that go into the IDPs. Stakeholders that are involved in the IDP process are: Municipality: The IDP guides the development plans of the local municipality Councillors: The IDP gives councillors an opportunity to make decisions based

on the needs and aspirations of their constituencies Communities and other stakeholders: The IDP is based on community needs

and priorities. National and Provincial sector Departments: Many government services are

delivered by provincial and national government departments at local level -for example: police stations, clinics and schools. Municipalities must take into account the programmes and policies of these departments. The departments should participate in the IDP process so that they can be guided how to use their resources to address local needs.

NATIONAL WATER RESOURCE STRATEGY (NWRS)

NWRS is developed to achieve the principles of the NWA. Summary off strategy gazetted to ensure stakeholder participation in the

development process For the National Water Strategy to be implementable it advocates for Public

Participation through: Capacity Building and expertise among practitioners: A Water

Sector Capacity Building Strategy Task Team is established to focus on the competency needs of the water sector, to ensure that all role players in the water sector have the necessary capacity to implement water related policy and laws. The strategy focuses creating and developing people’s skills, knowledge and attitude, for them to support the development of infrastructure, institutions, knowledge and information management, and financial management for water resources management.

NWRMS CONT. Educating and creating awareness among stakeholders: Continuously public

consultation processes to ensure that the public, especially HDI, is aware and have an understanding on WRM issues and challenges, through establishment of stakeholders representative groups and forums in water management areas.

The Water Education Programme (20/20 Vision for Water Programme): Encourages learner at schools to develop water value and life skills by implementing projects on water related issues, to promote water literacy and resource conservation among the public; integrate WRM in school curriculum and into all departmental programmes

Communication: DWA provides information about its activities, programmes and plans, gather information about public concerns related to water issues, and obtain feedback about its performance through its communication strategy. DWA also uses community visits, media coverage, media briefings, water week and promotional materials to communicate with its stakeholders and the public.


2010/11/05

3

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT ACT NO.107 OF 1998 (NEMA)

Promotes participation of all interested and affected parties in environmental governance

Promotes capacity building and skills transfer for all people in order to achieve equitable and effective participation, esp. by HDI

Promotes the interests, needs and values of all interested and affected parties are taken into consideration when taking decisions, including traditional and ordinary knowledge.

Promotes community wellbeing and empowerment through environmental education, environmental awareness, sharing of knowledge and experience

Promotes international environmental relations through international environmental instrument deals with, for example, dissemination of information related to the instrument and reports from international meetings, initiatives and steps regarding research, education, training, create awareness and capacity building, and ensuring public participation.

PROMOTION OF ACCESS TO INFORMATION 2 OF 2000 (PAIA)

This Act gives effect to the constitutional right of access

to any information held by the State and any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights;

Fosters a culture of transparency and accountability in public and private bodies by giving effect to the right of access to information

Actively promotes a society in which South Africans have effective access to information to enable them to more fully exercise and protect all of their rights

CURRENT PRACTICE FOR STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION

Institutional arrangements and mechanisms for public participation are in place and clear about stakeholder participation.

The issue of stakeholder participation is enshrined in the Constitution and supported by Acts, Policies, Strategies, Plans and Programmes

South Africa ratified international agreements South Africa participates in international organizations Stakeholder participation in water resources

management is implemented through institutions i.e. CMAs and WUAs

CURRENT PRACTICES CONT.

There are water forums in different sectors and communities, and political will and involvement in the form of water committees.

At a transboundary level, there are existing conservation transfrontier parks that stakeholders participate.

There are databases of interested and affected stakeholders from government information systems and government departments.

CHALLENGES REGARDING CURRENT PRACTICES

Lack of resources to facilitate participation (especially finance)

Lack of stakeholders’ capacity to effectively participate Lack of immediate benefits for stakeholders Frustration of stakeholders by too much bureaucracy

from government agencies Top down approaches Lack of enabling legislation and other enabling

conditions

CHARACTERIZATION OF IDENTIFIED STAKEHOLDERS

Government: National Provincial Local

Water Providers: Parastatals Local Water Resources Management

CMAs WUAs Water Committees

Industries: Mining Agriculture Tourism

Academic institutions Local community


2010/11/05

4

BRIEF ANALYSIS

Cooperation and support from the DWA Existing policies and legislation that regulate WRM issues Existing ratified international agreements and participation in

international organizations There are other supporting public participation programmes/projects

that are currently being implemented Accessible information on stakeholders There may not be a common interpretation of legislation and policies

by different stakeholders Some existing forums may not be operational Slow updating of information e.g. changes in contact people within

organizations and stakeholders group

SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS

Availability of the basin profile Institutional arrangements are in place Government willingness to participate Part of the global community Existing database Need for effective stakeholder participation


2010/11/05

1



Zimbabwe

Key findings

Emmanuel Manzungu

Context Water resources

Semi-arid to arid conditions: average rainfall -400 to 600 mm; High annual variability with a CV of about 40%

Surface water resources produced in the basin estimated to be 0.54km3/year; 0.41km3 drains into the river at the border between Zimbabwe and South Africa, 0.13km3 enters Mozambique before flowing into the Limpopo

Irrigable land is estimated at 70 00ha reduced to 10 900 ha because of water availability. Close to 4 000 ha have been developed for irrigation

Context Water resources

Most of the water is stored in government dams. This agreement water is available at government-

determined prices

There is limited groundwater and is mainly used for rural primary water use

Climate change is estimated to play a significant role in

water availability

Context Main water use categories

Main water uses include: -Primary water users –defined as water for basic needs

and not just domestic for which no permit is required. Catchment councils can set the limit for primary water use

-Environment -UIM (Urban, industry and mining) -Agriculture -Recreation

Context Agricultural water use

In agricultural water use the two main categories are bluewater users (river, dams, and groundwater) and greenwater users (rainfed crop and livestock husbandry including wildlife).

The above informs the following sub-categories: 1. Subsistence-oriented rainfed crop farming in

communal and resettlement areas: less than 12 ha arable with communal grazing


2. Subsistence-oriented livestock farming utilising communal resources (water and) grazing: herd size is variable; less amenable to commercialisation, contains the majority of the national herd

3. Small scale/medium commercial rainfed cropping: 30

ha (not common because of aridity) 4. Small/medium commercial livestock production:

averaging 1 000 ha accommodating 40 herd of cattle


2010/11/05

2


5. Large scale commercial irrigated cropping: above 20 ha and include communal irrigation

6. Large scale commercial ranching: over 2 000 ha Categories 4 to 6 pay for water used, applies to intensive

production systems such as pen fattening, dairy schemes. Category 2 escapes paying water fees because of the location of the activities.

Livestock particularly cattle has high carbon footprints!

Context Socio-economic issues

There is widespread poverty in the area, commercial water use is not an issue for the majority of the population

The economic status in the country has negatively

affected water resources planning and development

Context Institutional Arrangements for stakeholder

participation

Policy and legal context 1. An enabling legislation: Water Act and ZINWA Act

2. A supportive policy framework that supports IWRM exists 3. Policy and legislation promote stakeholder participation 4. The country is signatory to regional and international

agreements –that directly or indirectly support stakeholder participation in natural resource management

Context Institutional arrangements for stakeholder

participation

Stakeholder platforms 1. Catchment and sub-catchment councils established

some 10 years ago 2. The Mzingwane Catchment Council and its four

subcatchments is operational) 3. The Mzingwane Catchment Council has a stakeholder

participation strategy in place (2010-2015)

Context Institutional arrangements for stakeholder

participation

The stakeholder platforms are based on the understanding of a stakeholder as any person under the jurisdiction of a catchment and subcatchment council who has an interest in water.

The regulations identified the stakeholders who over

time were found to be limited.

Findings

Progress to date Regular elections for stakeholder representatives Meetings are regularly convened

A water dialogue is evident, illustrated by a draft

catchment outline plan and stakeholder participation strategy

Inclusion of traditional leaders has increased legitimacy


2010/11/05

3

Findings

Operational problems 1. Stakeholder representatives are not really

representatives for a variety of reasons 2. Lack of finances for the new institutions 3. High transaction costs have been a problem 4. Capacity deficits among many stakeholders

Findings

Opportunities There is a need to harness opportunities such -Involvement of local government in transfrontier parks -Research presence in the basin -Similar endeavours e.g. Capnet -Involvement of local government in catchment and

subcatchment councils -Widening secondary stakeholders who come in as

observes without voting rights

Findings

Strategic problems/threats 1. LIMCOM is yet to be ratified 2. The Revised Protocol not yet ratified 3. No known mechanism that links catchment council to

LBPTC/LIMCOM 4. Research not well incorporated.

Findings

5. Revival of old Department of Water Development with

parallel structures to ZINWA 6. Land issue to do with people settled in transfrontier

parks

Findings

Attempts to rectify the problems The stakeholder participation strategy has been

produced which seeks to broaden and deepen participation by:

1. including stakeholders left out the process especially primary water users, rainfed farmers, and new groups of farmers, women (a gender quota now exists)

2. Establishing water users associations

Findings

3. Making use of the district level as an intermediate level

to organise stakeholders 4. Incorporating water issues that matter to communities


2010/11/05

4

Conclusions

1. A legal and policy framework at both the national and regional level exists

2. However there is a need to address Protocol and LIMCOM ratification

3. Stakeholder platforms are operational but need to

address shortcomings of representativeness at local and basin level

Conclusions

4. The Mzingwane stakeholder participation strategy is a vehicle to address shortcomings

5. There is a need to harness opportunities 6. There is a need to minimise weaknesses and threats.


2010/11/22

1


Recap of issues from Day One

Recap of Day One Variations in stages of water sector

reforms (e.g. Botswana ongoing) Variations in legal provisions for

stakeholder participation Variations in stakeholder platforms Variations in current practices Similarities in complexity of stakeholders Amid such landscape, opportunities have

to be found for effective participation…

Issues raised Enabling legislation is there, but

implementation lags behind. Need to clarify distinction between national

and transboundary issues. Zimbabwe’s non-ratification of Revised

SADC protocol and LIMCOM Agreement: implications.

Issues raised Traditional authorities do/can play

important role in engaging local level communities.

How to engage the media Power imbalances within stakeholder

platforms/forums Existing forums are more consultative than

representative, except in Zimbabwe.

Key Questions for SP Roadmap In upscaling from national to transboundary water management, how does LIMCOM: Ensure effective communication and information

dissemination? Create/develop appropriate stakeholder forums

or platforms? Build and/or strengthen capacity of stakeholder

platforms and practices? Define requisite institutional interfaces and

channels of interaction?


2010/11/22

1


Towards Effective Stakeholder Participation

Discussion

Barbara Tapela

LIMCOM Agreement: Article 7 Sub-section 7.2: The Council shall advise Contracting Parties on the Extent to which the inhabitants in the

territory of each of the Contracting Parties concerned shall participate in the planning, utilization, sustainable development, protection and conservation of the Limpopo and the possible impact on social and cultural heritage matters.

Key Challenge: Dealing with Complexity Stakeholder Participation Appraisals in the four

LIMCOM countries indicate a multiplicity of stakeholders with diverse interests, ranging from local to transboundary levels.

How to deal with such complexity in designing LIMCOM Roadmap/Strategy?

What is the „lowest appropriate level‟? OR How small is „beautiful‟?

Key Issue: Sub-national vs Transboundary Should LIMCOM Stakeholder Participation be

viewed in terms of a discontinuity or continuity between sub-national and transboundary levels?

Is it “stakeholder participation at transboundary level”? OR

Is it “stakeholder participation in transboundary water management”?

Latter embraces all levels as part of a nested and integrated watercourse management system.

Defining “effective participation”... Depends on LIMCOM vision, mission, goals and

objectives… Also depends on awareness and common

understanding within LIMCOM of need for and nature of stakeholder participation.

Theory AND international best practice provide indicators of what could constitute „effective‟ stakeholder participation.

Effective stakeholder participation… Widens the base of available knowledge,

expertise and information to identify relevant transboundary issues and solutions, resulting in better substantive outcomes.

Increases the likelihood that values and priorities of stakeholders and the public will be included, thus improving credibility and public support for decisions and projects.

Increases transparency in decision-making and projects, hence enhancing legitimacy of decisions and projects.

Provides for early warning of potential challenges.


2010/11/22

2

Effective stakeholder participation…

Enhances cooperation and provides potential to build consensus and avoid conflict.

Improves transboundary water management and project implementation.

Educates the public about transboundary water issues and solutions, increasing the likelihood of sustainable behaviours.

Enhances accountability in decision making related to transboundary waters.

Effective stakeholder participation… Creates a sense of empowerment and

social responsibility among stakeholders. Builds capacity of civil society to

participate meaningfully in water governance.

Creates public ownership of decisions and project goals and activities, increasing the likelihood of successful implementation and overall sustainability of outcomes.

Minimizes costs and delays due to public and stakeholder opposition.

Reality check! Softer but harder issues

Balancing interests of powerful and less powerful stakeholders.

Building of trust and confidence in the process.

Going beyond participation as a „goal‟ to participation as a „means‟.

Typology of Participation Passive participation Participation in information giving Participation by consultation Participation for material incentives Functional participation Interactive participation Self-mobilisation/active participation

Practical Applications

How do we move from awareness of what constitutes effective participation to practical strategies and application?

No blue print. Basin-specific situations and experiences vary, and innovation is therefore key.

However, there are certain critical factors that underpin effective stakeholder participation.

Policy Environment

Commitment by governments AND officials to promoting stakeholder participation.

Strong legal basis for stakeholder participation at national levels

Alignment of national legal provisions for stakeholder participation among transboundary basin or aquifer states.

Institutional support (incl. financial support)


2010/11/22

3

Minimum requirements for effective participation Effective communication and information exchange

between all relevant role-players; Appropriate legal and institutional frameworks for

stakeholder participation in transboundary basin management and establishment of partnerships between governments and civil society;

All stakeholders have the necessary capacity to meaningfully interact and contribute to decision-making on matters relating to the management of the basin;

Institutional interfaces at all levels are clearly defined and functioning channels of institutional interaction are established.

Stakeholder Platforms Purposeful Long-lived Properly resourced Statutory basis Integrative and coordinating Participatory Politically supported Nested structures

Kgotla (Trad.governance)? Other structures?

Water Allocation Boards Water

Resources Councils

DWA

BOTSWANA

River Basin Committees

Limpopo Basin Management Unit

(UGBL)

DNA

ARA-Sul

MOZAMBIQUE

Consultation

Advisory Councils (Trad.governance)

ZIMBABWE DWA

ZINWA

Mzingwane CMC

Sub-catchment Councils

WUAs, District Local Govt,

NGOs/CSOs Trad. leadership

Interactive Participation

Active Participation

Consultation

LIMCOM SA

DWA

CMAs

WUAs, other water users

Water Users

Consult

End of Session


2010/11/05

1


Legal Discussion Paper

09 November 2010

Agenda

Limpopo River Basin Regional Level Basin Level LIMCOM National Level Conclusion

Limpopo River Basin Shared by the four SADC Member States

Botswana Mozambique South Africa Zimbabwe

1986 - Limpopo Basin Permanent Technical Committee (LBPTC)

Established first joint cooperation platform involving all four basin states

2003 - Agreement to Establish the Limpopo Watercourse Commission (LIMCOM Agreement) Cooperation strengthened Three countries already ratified the agreement Remaining country in advanced stage of ratification Entry into force expected soon

Regional Overview

All Limpopo River basin states are SADC members

SADC Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourses Regional framework agreement

Botswana, Mozambique and South Africa have ratified

Zimbabwe has not yet No direct stakeholder participation provisions

Regional Overview Regional Water Policy (RWP) and Regional Water Strategy (RWS) Regionally agreed policy guidelines on water resources

management Inform implementation of Revised Protocol and water related

development plans Regional Indicative Strategic Development Plan (RISDP) Regional Strategic Action Plan (RSAP)

Both contain provisions on stakeholder participation in transboundary water management

Regional Overview

Regional Water Policy Product of participatory and consultative process involving diverse

stakeholders Multi-level state, non-governmental, academic, private and community-based

sectors

Long-term policy and strategy for management of transboundary

watercourses

Aims to reduce water-related conflicts

Acknowledges opportunities for cooperation and regional economic growth through common heritage of shared watercourses


2010/11/05

2

Regional Overview Regional Water Policy Recognises constraints on effective management and

development of regional water resources:

Regional Strategic Action Plan (RSAP-IWRM) - integrated water resource development and management „to develop, promote and facilitate best practices regarding effective

participation by various individual and institutional stakeholders in water resource development and management, including women, youth and other disadvantaged groups‟

2 RSAP projects:

Promotion of Public Participation in Water Resources Development and Management

Skills Training for Policymakers, managers and practitioners to support stakeholder participation

Regional Overview Regional Water Policy Anchored upon a number of SADC pronouncements:

SADC Declaration and Treaty - calls for a shared future, within a regional

community, that will ensure economic well-being, improvement of standards of living, freedom and social justice, peace and security

Southern African Vision for Water, Life and Environment - aims at “equitable and

sustainable utilization of water for social and environmental justice, regional integration and economic benefits for present and future generations”

Revised SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourses – „”to foster closer cooperation

for judicious, sustainable and coordinated management, protection and utilization of shared watercourses and advance the SADC agenda of regional integration and poverty reduction”

Regional Overview

Regional Water Policy requires:

Participation and cooperation in planning, development, management of shared watercourses

Harmonisation of national policy and legislation Regional public has access to information on water infrastructure

development Stakeholder participation in decision-making processes -

emphasis on vulnerable communities Recognition of environment as a and legitimate water user in its own

right

Chapter 10 deals exclusively with stakeholder participation and capacity building Water management and development at all levels shall be based on a

participatory approach

Regional Overview

Regional Water Strategy Similar to RWP ito stakeholder participation but adds: Promotion of linkages between the water sector and other sectors‟

institutions at all levels Acceleration of establishment and strengthening of shared SWCIs

Chapter 10 deals with stakeholder participation in IWRM, including:

Promotes capacity development such participation Gender mainstreaming Effective networking and collaborative partnerships

Regional Overview SADC Guidelines for Strengthening River Basin Organisations Stakeholder Participation

Establishes procedures to assist RBO‟s with implementing

participatory processes Requires:

Careful planning ito stakeholder participation frameworks Strong communication and outreach Stakeholder consultation Collaboration

Provide LIMCOM with potential interventions and considerations/methods for effective implementation

Basin Level Number of international agreements relating to

Limpopo River Basin None contain specific provisions on stakeholder

participation

Joint management of the Basin provides opportunities for sustainable development and overcoming resources constraints

Has been progressive strengthening of the legal framework


2010/11/05

3

Date Agreement Signatory States

1964 Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the

Republic of Portugal in regard to rivers of mutual interest and the Cunene River Scheme.

Republic of South Africa and the Republic of Portugal.


Republic of Portugal in regard to rivers of mutual interest, 1964- Massingirdam

Republic of South Africa and the Republic of Portugal.

1973 Boundary Treaty between the Republic of South Africa and the Republic of Botswana Republic of South Africa and the Republic of

Botswana

1983 Joint Permanent Technical Committee (JPTC) established by the Government of the Republic of

South Africa and the Government of the Republic of Botswana concerning water matters of

common interest

Republic of South Africa and the Republic of

Botswana

1986 Agreement Between the Government of The Republic of Botswana, the Government of

The People’s Republic of Mozambique, the Government of The Republic of South Africa

and the Government of The Republic of Zimbabwe Relative to the Establishment of the

Limpopo Basin Permanent Technical Committee

Republic of Botswana, the People’s Republic of

Mozambique, the Republic of South Africa and

the Republic of Zimbabwe

1988 Agreement relating to the supply of water from the Molatedi Dam on the Marico River made and

entered into by and between the Department of Water Affairs of the Republic of

Bophuthatswana and the Water Utilities Corporation in the Republic of Botswana and the

Department of Water Affairs of the Republic of South Africa


Botswana


Republic of Mozambique for the Establishment of a Joint Permanent Commission for Co-

operation.


Mozambique


Republic of Mozambique on the Establishment and Functioning of the Joint Water Commission


Mozambique


Republic of Botswana for the Establishment of a Joint Permanent Commission for Cooperation


Botswana

2003 Agreement between the Republic of Botswana, the Republic of Mozambique, the Republic of

South Africa and the Republic of Zimbabwe on the Establishment of the Limpopo Watercourse

Commission.

Republic of Botswana, the Republic of Mozambique,

the Republic of South Africa and the Republic of

Zimbabwe


Republic of Botswana on water supply across the border between Botswana and South Africa.


Botswana

LIMCOM Primary objective: Advise basin states on use, protection, preservation and management of

water resources of the Limpopo River Basin

Recognises that stakeholder involvement in broader basin management is critical for sustainable basin development & management. In accordance with

International trends and good practice Regional water-related policies and laws

Mandate includes advising member states on involving inhabitants in basin management

Tasked itself with developing a Roadmap for Stakeholder Participation

National Level Stakeholder participation at national level critical to success of basin-wide stakeholder participation (LIMCOM)

LIMCOM does not have enforcement powers Must act through national mechanisms

Stakeholder participation exists at various levels in the different countries, but not always as intended by SADC because:

• Lack of resources • Lack of stakeholder capacity to effectively participate • Low motivation to participate (no immediate benefits perceived) • high levels of bureaucracy • Limited empowerment from higher levels (top down approaches) • Lack of enabling legislation and other enabling conditions

Botswana

Generally no provisions for stakeholder empowerment Centralised decision-making structures

Lack of stakeholder-based institutions to partner with state in

water management Exception: Serowe

DWA engaged with stakeholders to manage water related conflicts with communities in the area

Stakeholders participating effectively in water management e.g. water allocation, pricing etc.

It is possible

Involving stakeholders at the managerial planning level could be beneficial

Mozambique

Water Act provides for stakeholder involvement:

National Water Council (NWC) - advisory body for water management - comprised of multisectoral ministries

Technical Committee (TC) - same representation as above but on a technical level

No non-governmental representatives above

Regional Water Administration (RWA) – non-governmental stakeholders involved at implementation level

Mozambique National Directorate of Water (DNA) responsible for planning

and supervision of water resources Under DNA five ARAs (Regional Water Administrations) responsible for

management of water resources at regional level

ARAs boundaries correspond within country river catchments Includes several basins close enough to expedite management and coordination with

political authorities

Under each ARA are River Basin Management Units (RBMU) Under which are also locally-based Water Committees

Manage water resources & collection fees at local level


2010/11/05

4

Mozambique

Traditional authorities/elders play an important role in managing traditional water use

Involving stakeholders at the decision and

policy-making levels would be beneficial

South Africa Water Act provides for stakeholder participation at catchment and lower levels Catchment management agencies (CMAs) perform certain implementation functions

Including active promotion of stakeholder participation

Constitution gives all people equal opportunities to participate Does not guarantee equal capacity to participate

Gaps present within stakeholder communities ito active participation capacity

Different interests Large commercial farmers and industry command more knowledge, skills and institutional

support Rural communities and subsistence farmers not as well capacitated Greatest challenge for both government and civil society - mitigate this dominance without

jeopardising economic growth generated by large stakeholders

Are examples of CMAs undertaking grassroots initiatives to engage with rural stakeholders

Zimbabwe Water Act led to an increase in water stakeholder institutions - heavily dependent on donors

Unsustainable – largely disappeared when support was withdrawn because of political problems

Lack of financial resources and knowledge has resulted in poor stakeholder participation in rural communities

Use of English as medium of communication and emphasis by government on information dissemination rather than communication has further alienated people

Powerful stakeholder groups have sometimes hijacked the process of participation to meet their own agendas

Generally legislation and policy are based on IWRM principles Led to creation of hydrologically-based water management institutions (sub-catchment

and catchment councils) Stakeholder participation exists only at implementation level Basin boasts impressive history of water-related cultures and indigenous water management

practices - some hypothesise that these can be up-scaled to basin level

Zimbabwe

Catchment and sub-catchment councils

Stakeholders are diverse and representative Catchment Councils & ZINWA are mandated to produce catchment plans

in a participatory manner Published so that public can comment Minister responsible for water approves plans once due process is followed Process of establishing Sub-catchment Councils does not differ from that

of catchment councils Sub-catchment councils consist of elected representatives from all

stakeholder groups

State has final say ito of all key policies and decisions

Led weaknesses and ineffectiveness of stakeholder institutions at grassroots level

Conclusion

Trend in four countries - equate institutions‟ existence/non-existence to its ability to participate

Different countries report a variety of stakeholder empowerment interventions - tend to be isolated

Genuine desire to create stakeholder empowerment should underlie government actions

Process more likely to produce desired results

THANK YOU


11/22/2010

1

Strategy development: Core Principles Emmanuel Manzungu

Introductory Remarks

In the main this presentation is based on personal experiences in facilitating the development of: The SADC Regional Strategic Action Plan on

Integrated Water Resources Development and Management (2005-2010)

Mzingwane Stakeholder Participation Strategy (2010-1015)

This is not a theoretical discussion; no effort is to adhere

to strict textbook definition of terms


In essence a strategy is a plan of what needs to be achieved, how that will be undertaken with what financial, material and human resources, and over what time frame.

A strategy is put in place to bring to reality an existing policy, it is not developed in a vacuum

It is an action plan and is different from a policy which sets out the destination of what is

being undertaken a long term strategy that is about the elements of the

direction of desired change. an operational plan which is about tasks that need to

be done such as an annual plan


It is usually undertaken over a period of 5 years….which is short enough not to lose sight of what needs to be done or what is happening or long enough to allow reasonable action to be performed.

This presentation aims to provide insights into steps and processes that go into developing a strategy

A strategy document should be seen as a management tool rather than a souvenir

The number of elements, level of detail or emphasis that is contained in any strategy is a function of the some critical elements to any strategy document depends on the history of the organisation for which the strategy is being developed


As a general rule a strategy is lean document that is not clattered with technical jargon, verbosity…. It is a shared document.

All details if needed must be in appendices A strategy should ideally be a distillation of feeder

technical reports…from 100 pages plus a 30-50 page strategy document is produced.

STEPS TOWARDS A STRATEGY Vision and mission

A vision is a visualization of where an organization sees itself in years to come and is about becoming unique in a chosen field of operation

A vision statement is a vivid idealized description of a desired outcome that inspires, energizes and helps to create a mental picture of your target.. It is about dreams and hopes and answers the question: WHERE DO WE WANT TO GO?

A mission (statement) is the purpose of an organization which guides the actions of an organization and includes socially meaningfully and measurable criteria and answers the questions WHY DO WE EXIST?


11/22/2010

2


The vision and mission are presented together; the

vision statement is shorter than the mission statement Example SADC ‘s vision is to be reputable, efficient and responsive

enabler of regional integration and sustainable development


Mission To provide strategic expertise and co-ordinate the

harmonisation of policies and strategies to accelerate regional integration and sustainable development through efficient productive systems, deeper co-operation and integration, good governance, and durable peace and security, so that the region emerges as a competitive and effective player in international relations and the world economy

In some cases the vision and mission together form the goals of the organisation where both are merged together although goals are long term aims that define accomplishment of the mission


Where there is an overall vision and mission for the organisation it is not desirable for a unit to have its own vision and mission in which case the unit can have a strategic goal

The question is where does one get the vision and mission?

Should be based on the organisation ‘s larger picture or what is already happening. It should draw from existing policies etc. For example the RSAP-IWRM draws from the politico-economic framework (SADC vision and mission) and makes reference to development framework (RISDP)


The vision and mission of the stakeholder participation strategy must make reference to the Protocol on Shared Watercourses, Regional Water Policy and Regional Water Strategy

There must be a demonstration of how pertinent development needs will be addressed e.g. MDGs… the vision and mission must be seen as leading to certain outcomes

The development of the vision and mission must ideally be a participatory process , which is true for the entire strategy

To this end those that entrusted to write the strategy should reflect the consensus of the different stakeholders


Sometimes core values are also given which indicate the ethics that bind and guide the organisation

The vision and mission statements are displayed in visible places to remind the personnel of the organisation as well as inform outsiders what makes the organisation

However the vision and mission must not end up being a decoration.

STEPS TOWARDS A STRATEGY Focus areas/Strategic Objectives

A strategy cannot address all the issues no matter how urgent they may seem

It is therefore important to implement some form of prioritisation

The priority areas (3-5) should form the focus areas of the strategies

From the focus areas are then developed the strategic objectives

It is important that the strategic objectives are well linked logically and sequentially


11/22/2010

3

STEPS TOWARDS A STRATEGY Outputs and outcomes

Effort must be made to itemise what the strategy will achieve (outputs) and what it will lead in the wider society (outcomes)

Outputs are what a strategy is within its power to achieve while outcomes are desirable results in the society than the strategy can influence

Milestones that indicate the level of performance towards the outputs must be spelt out.

STEPS TOWARDS A STRATEGY Activities

For each output it is important to reflect on what activities need to be undertaken

The human and the material resources that are required

should be defined

STEPS TOWARDS A STRATEGY Logical framework

It is important that the various elements of the strategy are put together, namely:

-The vision -Mission -Outputs -Milestones -Activities The means of verification and important assumptions

should also be indicated.

STEPS TOWARDS A STRATEGY Budget and financing

The cost of the various activities should be worked out

Standard budgeting techniques should apply Financing of the strategy should be indicated; without a

financial plan the strategy is as good as dead

STEPS TOWARDS A STRATEGY Implementation plan

A good strategy is one which is being implemented To this end an implementation plan should be produced

to cover such issues as: -Schedule of activities -Monitoring and evaluation plan including a mid term

and end of strategy review -Communication strategy

STEPS TOWARDS A STRATEGY Contents of a strategy document

Example: Mzingwane Catchment Council Stakeholder Participation Strategy

_________________________________________________

1. Background and Introduction 2. Characteristics of the Mzingwane Catchment Area 3. Goal, strategic objectives, outputs and outcomes 4. Generalised logical framework 5. Implementation plan 6. Budget _______________________________________________

___


2010/11/22

1


Roadmap development process – stage 1 Overview of project activities and outputs

Daniel Malzbender

Stage 1 - Objectives

Preparatory work for development of Roadmap document National Rapid Stakeholder Participation

Appraisal Development of preliminary basin-wide

stakeholder participation database Compilation of E-library for LIMCOM web site

Project outputs

National Stakeholder Participation Appraisal – content Socio-economic context of water use Institutional arrangements for stakeholder

participation Stakeholder participation appraisal (interests/

influence) SWOT analysis of current stakeholder participation

landscape

Project outputs

Discussion note summarising key findings from national SPAs (basin perspective)

Discussion note on (regional) legal

frameworks for stakeholder participation in the Limpopo basin

Project outputs

1st version e-library 1st version stakeholder database (basin-

wide)


2010/11/22

1

LIMCOM Stakeholder Participation Roadmap – Phase 1 Overview

Project origin Methodology Project outputs Results of LIMCOM stakeholder

participation workshop

Project origin

Stakeholder participation firmly established in SADC Legal and Policy framework for transboundary water management to which LIMCOM countries subscribe

Article 7(2) c mandates LIMCOM to advise Member States on the scope and nature of stakeholder involvement in basin planning and management

LIMCOM (LBPTC) tasked itself with developing a Roadmap for stakeholder participation for the Commission

Methodology

Roadmap development split in 2 phases Phase 1 – stocktaking/situation analysis Phase 2 – Strategy development

Phase 1: Sept – Nov 2010 Four National Facilitators (one per country) One Regional Coordinator & One Technical Backstopper Mixture of desk-top research & in-field rapid stakeholder

participation appraisal (consultations/interviews)

Project outputs

Four National Stakeholder Participation Appraisal reports (one per country)

Summary discussion paper on national SPAs (the basin perspective

Discussion paper on legal and policy framework for stakeholder participation for the Limpopo basin

E-library Preliminary basin-wide stakeholder database

National SPA reports – content

Socio-economic context of water use Institutional arrangements for stakeholder

participation Rapid Stakeholder Participation Appraisal (interests/

influence) SWOT analysis of current stakeholder participation

landscape

LIMCOM stakeholder participation workshop

Objectives: Presentation and discussion of phase 1 results Identification of LIMCOM “Priority Issues” for Stakeholder

Participation Brainstorming on possible institutional structures for stakeholder

participation in the basin Development of draft outline for LIMCOM stakeholder

participation strategy Brainstorming of possible approach for phase 2


2010/11/22

2

LIMCOM stakeholder participation workshop

Identified transboundary priority issues for stakeholder involvement:

Disaster management/ early warning Transboundary pollution/ water quality Basin planning/ water allocation

Proposed Strategy Outline

1. Background and Introduction 2. Characteristics of the Limpopo basin 3. Strategic Goal 4. Principles underpinning the strategy 5. Focus areas - Disaster management/ early warning - Transboundary pollution/ water quality - Basin planning/ Water allocation

Proposed Strategy Outline (ctnd)

6. Strategic objectives, outcomes, outputs 7. Budget and financing 8. Implementation plan - Institutional set-up - M&E framework - Communication plan (9. Annex: Logical Framework)

Conclusion Rapid stakeholder appraisals completed and forms basis

for Strategy development Outline for LIMCOM stakeholder participation strategy

developed Proposal for Phase 2 (Strategy development) was made

– aims at presentation of draft Stakeholder Participation Strategy to LIMCOM meeting in May 2011

Workshop recognised stakeholder participation activities need to be embedded into an overall LIMCOM work programme

THANK YOU


LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION...

Documents

Transcript of LIMPOPO WATERCOURSE COMMISSION...