By

Sobona Mtisi

Overseas Development Institute,

Water Policy Programme

Overview of the Paper� Paper is organised in 6 main sections

I. Hydrological and Historical Context of Water Resources in Zimbabwe

II. Water legislation during the colonial period, particularly the 1976 Water Act

III. Access to water post 1980

IV. The Case for Water Reforms and its Key Principles

V. The Experience of the Water Reform

VI. Conclusions and Recommendations

Starting Point of Analysis� A meaningful analysis of water reform and its effects

on poverty and livelihoods in Zimbabwe, and suggestions for a future water policy that contributes to poverty reduction, must analyse the historical context, past policies, political processes, and the dynamic changes over time, as central to the understanding of reasons and circumstances of poverty (cf. Murray, 2001; Bracking 2003)

Central Arguments of the Paper� Although the post 2000 period presented complex

social, economic and political challenges that undermined the water reform, and contributed to deepening poverty, this paper argues that the concept of integrated water resources management, which informed the water reform in Zimbabwe was largely incapable of reducing poverty and improving rural livelihoods

� An attempt to re-embark on reforming the water sector during a recovery programme should pay adequate attention to historical and contemporary factors that lay at the core of inequitable access and use of water, lack of effective participation in decision-making on water, institutional contradictions embedded in the water reform, debilitating effects of paying for water on the poor, and the underlying political history of land and water distribution and how this shaped present patterns of access and use of water and poverty.

Setting the Context: Hydrological

and Historical Background� There exists great variation in spatial distribution of

water resources in Zimbabwe

� Average annual rainfall is 675mm, and it varies from 1500mm in the Eastern Highlands to less that 400mm in the lowveld (Muir, 1994)

� Only 37% of the country receives an annual rainfall of 700mm, which is sufficient for crop production

� Geographically, Zimbabwe is divided into 5 Natural Regions on the basis of climatic conditions, farming potential and, to a certain extent, water resources.

� Natural Regions 1, II, and III are high rainfall areas and are richly endowed with water resources

� While Natural Regions IV and V have low and erratic rainfall, are drought prone and have limited water resources.

Natural Regions of Zimbabwe

Historical Issues� It is on this landscape of diverse variation in water

resources, climatic conditions and agricultural potential that colonial land acquisition was played out.

� A key point is that early European settlers forcible acquired fertile and well watered land in Natural Regions I – III, and subsequently resettled Africans on marginal lands, which were referred to as ‘native reserves’. ‘Native Reserves’ were invariably located in Natural Regions IV and V

� For detailed discussion on the historical land acquisition during the colonial period refer to Palmer 1977a; 1977b; Moyana 1984; Moyo, 1986 and Tshuma 1997

� This paper argues that a striking feature of the colonial land acquisition was a simultaneous process of deprivation of water among Africans to the extent that the colonial experience did not only create a skewed distribution of land but also inequitable access to water

The Matebeleland Case in the

1890s� After the institution of the Matebele-Order-in-

Council of 1894 most land on the Ndebele highveld was forcible acquired by European settlers, and the Ndebele people were resettled on two ‘native reserves’: the Gwayi and Shangani (Palmer, 1977a; Moyana, 1984; Tshuma, 1997)

� These two ‘native reserves’ were described as 6500 square miles of waterless and infertile land, which the Ndebeles regarded as cemeteries and not homes’(Phimister, 1988:65)

� Several pieces of legislation such as the Southern Rhodesia Order in Council of 1920; Land Apportionment Act of 1930 and the Land Tenure Act of 1969 expanded, entrenched and formalised the creating of ‘native reserves’ and ‘native purchase areas’ in areas that lacked water resources and were of low agricultural productivity.

� On the hand, areas designated for European settlement were frequently located in areas richly endowed with water resources and of high agricultural potential

African Irrigation Schemes� Within ‘native reserves’ there was an attempt to

develop African irrigation schemes to promote productive uses of water on small pockets of irrigable land.

� One of the main reasons for the development of African irrigation schemes was to allow for the resettlement of a large number of people whose land has been alienated or forcible acquired (Roder, 1965; Weinrich 1975)

� Infact, Weinrich (1975) pointed out that, contrary to widespread practice elsewhere in Africa and Asia, where irrigation schemes were developed as essential bases for an agricultural revolution, in Rhodesia African irrigation schemes were developed as essential bases for subsistence farming

� In sum, it is apparent that the colonial process of land acquisition was tied to a process of water deprivation, which shaped differential access to and use of water for productive purposes between Africans and European settlers.

� Added to this process, was the establishment of a legal and administrative framework that governed access to, control and use of, water.

Water Legislation During the

Colonial Period� Between 1890s and 1927, water was governed by a set

of loosely coordinated pieces of water legislation

� Water for agriculture was governed by the 1913 Water Ordinance

� 1913 Water Ordinance was repealed by the 1927 Water Act, which, in turn, was repealed by the 1976 Water Act

1976 Water Act� Key Principles

� Classified water into ‘private’ and ‘public’ water

� Access to ‘private water’ was vested in the owner of the land on which it was found and exclusive use belonged to such an owner

� Access to ‘public water’ was vested in the State and its use apart from primary purposes required a water right to be granted by the Water Court

� Right of access to ‘public water’ was based on prior appropriation doctrine

� Legal access to water was attached to land rights, and were granted in perpetuity

� Responsibility for the administration of the Act lay with the Water Court, which was empowered to determine applications for use of water

� The Act put in a place a decentralised framework for water management in the form of River Boards

� River Boards were constituted by water right holders

Effects of the 1976 Water Act� The 1976 Water Act denied Africans legal access to

water for productive purpose by virtue of tying land rights to water rights, whereby rights to water were granted to landowners

� Since Africans did not possess freehold title to land, the provisions of the 1976 Water Act prevented Africans from applying for water rights

� In applying for legal access to water, applicants were asked whether the water was going to be put to ‘beneficial use’. At the core of this question lay a prejudice against African farmers precisely because the term ‘beneficial use’ was interpreted as ‘commercial use’ (Mohamed-Katerere, 1994; Bolding, 1998).

� It was thus inconceivable from the Water Court’s perspective that African farmers could use water ‘beneficially’ or rather ‘commercially’.

� Infact, African farmers’ use of water was viewed as ‘wasteful’ (ibid.).

� The granting of water rights in perpetuity had the attendant effect of limiting the amount of water available to new applicants, thereby latently denying them water

Continuity with Change: Post 1980

Water Access� The fact that the 1976 Water Act continued to be in

use post 1980 meant that the inequalities in water access were largely perpetuated

� Communal area irrigation increased by 4200 hectares in a decade from 4300ha in 1983 to 8500ha in 1993 (GoZ, 1994)

� Lack of irrigation development in communal areas is partly attributed to austerity measures promoted under the 1990s under ESAP (cf. Rukuni, 1990; WRMS, n.d., 16-18).

Water Reforms in the 1990s� The need for water reform emanated from two distinct debates

1. The need to ‘redress colonial injustices in the water sector’ (Matinenga, 1999; Manzungu et al, 1999; Bolding et al, 1999)

� The main concern was to establish a legal framework that ensured equal access to water for all Zimbabweans. Equitable access to water was viewed as providing a basis for rural people to gain access to water for productive purposes which will contribute to poverty reduction

A second strand was rooted in the global discourse of ‘integrated water resources management’ which sought to ‘promote a coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximise the resultant economic and social welfare benefits in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems’ ( GWP,2002)

In many ways, the water sector reform in Zimbabwe reflect the embedment of the IWRM concept in national policy frameworks

Key Principles of the Water Reform1. Water would be managed on the basis of

hydrological boundaries – the catchment and sub-catchment areas

2. Catchment and sub-catchment areas would form the basis of decentralised water management

3. Water would be viewed as an economic good so as to achieve efficiency and fair use of water

Key Principles Contd.� All people with an interest in the use of water

should be involved in decision making processes about water

� The State would own all surface and underground water. Except for primary purposes, use of water would need approval by the State

New Water Legislation: Water Act

and ZINWA Act of 1998� Water Act of 1998 set the parameters of access and

use of water as well as providing for the establishment of catchment and sub-catchment councils composed of elected representatives

Functions of Catchment and Sub-

Catchment Councils� Function of CCs

� Determining applications and granting water permits

� Regulating and supervising the use of water

� To serve as forums for participation and decision making on water

� Functions of SCCs

� Regulating and supervising the exercise of water permits

� Collection of sub-catchment rates, fees and levies

� Participating in the planning and management of water

ZINWA Act of 1998� Created ZINWA as a parastatal tasked with the

responsibility for providing a coordinated framework for planning, development and management of water resources

Functions of ZINWA� Advises the Minister on formulation of water policy,

water pricing and water resource development

� Ensuring CC and SCC discharge their functions in accordance with the Water Act

� Provide technical assistance to CCs and SCCs

� Exclusive responsibility for selling, supplying and management of agreement water

Experiences of Water Reform and

Implications for Poverty Reduction � Put in place some key principles for access, use and

management of water

1. The concept of ‘private water’ was abolished. Ownership of water was vested in the State

2. Prior appropriation doctrine and the associated practice of granting water in perpetuity were removed. Instead, access to water was granted through a water permit or agreement contract for a specific period of time and subject to renewal

3. The issuance of water permit or agreement water was no longer tied to land

4. CCs and SCCs provided for participation and representation of all water users, including communal, resettlement and small-scale farmers

These changes, in principle, provided for equitable access to water for the poor and the previously disadvantaged

Challenges 1. Financial Costs

� There are significant costs associated with the application of a water permit, as application forms have to be bought and an application fee paid.

� Access to water is dependent upon continued payment of water, and most communal and resettlement farmers in LSESCC could not afford the water fees. This was due to;

� Need to pay on a monthly basis in the context of seasonal agricultural incomes and subsistence irrigated agriculture

� High inflation environment

Institutional Issues� Institutional access to water depends on the type of

water an individual wants to obtain. For surface and ground water (i.e., raw water), a water user goes to the SCC and CCs, while for ‘agreement water’, an individual goes to ZINWA

� Although the classification of water and the division of institutional roles suggests a neat institutional design, the reality is rather complex, with water users, particularly in LSESCC, often unable to differentiate the type of water that they use and which institution to approach.

Institutional Issues contd.� Although ZINWA and CC and SCCs are supposed to

act in a coordinated fashion in providing water for productive purposes, there is often competition between the two institutions partly fuelled by the need for collecting water user fees. In instances where ZINWA sub-offices take over the responsibility for collecting water fees, this is usually to the detriment of SCCs and their participatory function in decision-making processes on water

Participation� Participation of new water users has been fraught

with problems

1. Poor water users often lack the money to travel to attend SCC meetings

2. Given that most communal and resettlement farmers were settled in areas that lacked water resources, some farmers have argued that they find it pointless to participate in decision-making processes on a resource that they do not have

Politics of Access to Land and

Water� Political narratives of access to land has been

extended to water to the extent that they have undermined the reform particularly in LSESCC

� For instance, a majority of A2 farmers in Middle Sabi Commercial Irrigation Scheme were unwilling to pay for water arguing that it contradicts the ‘revolutionary principles’ of the fast track land resettlement programme.

� Yet, by so doing the A2 farmers were depriving ZINWA sub-office and LSESCC with the vital revenue for effectively implementing the water reform

Conclusions and

Recommendations1. Conceptual underpinnings of policy: The water

reform was built around neo-liberal principles couched in the IWRM concept, of which its implementation coincided with the radical transformation of the State in Zimbabwe. The radicalisation of the State wrecked havoc to the underlying principles of neo-liberalisation in the water sector

2. The IWRM concept, central to the water reform paid little attention to local historical grievances of inequitable access to water

� Broadly, the historical construction of communal areas (the then ‘native reserves’), small-scale commercial farms (previously ‘native purchase areas’) and communal irrigation schemes ( African irrigation schemes) in marginal agro-ecological areas, characterised by limited water resources, poor soils, drought proneness, high population densities, and degraded environmental conditions, are what still largely define these areas.

� In view of this, it can be concluded that the 1990s water reform provided limited possibilities for increased use of productive water for new water users residing in communal, small-scale commercial and ‘old’ resettlement schemes.

� This paper suggests that any attempt to reform the water sector must confront the historical legacy of inequalities in access to land and water, particularly its perpetuation during the past decade

� This paper further suggests that water reform must be linked, in innovative ways, with a land reform programme which is aimed at providing access to productive land to the poor for poverty reduction. It is the combined access to productive land and water, that water can be productively used to contribute to poverty alleviation

Access to Water is Not Enough � While access to water is necessary, it is not sufficient

to reduce poverty. New water users, particularly the poor, need access to a broad portfolio of other assets, capitals and resources such as low-cost irrigation technology, agricultural inputs, extension support, micro-finance and markets.

�

Access to Markets� The development of, and improved access to, markets

for irrigated produce should lie at the core of a future water policy. It is pertinent to state that markets play a crucial role in poverty alleviation and livelihood improvement as they provide an arena in which agricultural produce is traded, and different services to the water sector are provided, and interactions with the wider economy, takes place.

Institutional Issues� The separation of ZINWA and CC and SCCs and the

institutional competition it engenders undermines the participatory functions of CCs and SCC thereby undermining the space for the voice of new water users, particularly the poor

� Perhaps one way of resolving the competition is by better integrating the functions of ZINWA and CCs and SCC in ways that enhance the voice of the poor in decision-making processes on water

Politics of Access to Land� One way of resolving the politicisation of access to

land and its adverse impact on water sector reform is to foster cooperation and coordination between ministries responsible for water, land, agriculture and policy implementation to enable policy coherence that is aimed at poverty reduction, across sectors.

� At the local level, this may provide a fruitful dialogue between new farmers and representatives of ZINWA and CCs and SCCs

� IWRM based water reform seems to place more emphasis on water management at the expense of water development. Therefore a future water policy must prioritise water and irrigation development geared towards poverty reduction and economic growth.

Thank You