1 To: Department of Water Affairs Contact persons: Marie Brisley, [email protected]Fred van Zyl, [email protected]CC: Parliamentary portfolio committee on water and environmental affairs Chair: Adv. Johnny de Lange, c/o Ms Tyhileka Madubela, [email protected]From: South African Water Caucus (SAWC) Contact persons: Samson Mokoena, [email protected], tel: 016 -933 9079 Jessica Wilson, [email protected], tel: 021-4482881 Re: SAWC submission on the National Water Resources Strategy 2 (NWRS-2) Submission date: 28 January 2013
34
Embed
To: Department of Water Affairs Contact persons: Fred van Zyl, … · 2014. 11. 12. · 1 To: Department of Water Affairs Contact persons: Marie Brisley, [email protected] Fred
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Appendix B: CER submission to DWA on NWRS-2 (elaboration on section 6) ................ 26
3
INTRODUCTION
The SA Water Caucus
The SA Water Caucus (SAWC) is a network of more than 20 community-based organisations, non-
government organisations and trade-unions active in promoting the wise, equitable and just use,
protection and provision of water. The Water Caucus was formed in the lead up to the 2002 World
Summit on Sustainable Development.
Since then the Water Caucus has met regularly, and is recognised by the Department of Water
Affairs as a critical voice to engage with in policy and implementation processes. Issues and
processes the SAWC has worked with include: large dams, national water resources strategy,
regulation, water pricing, water quality, pre-paid metres, tricklers and cut-offs, NEPAD, and The
Water Dialogues. Water Caucus members in various parts of the country have set up provincial
caucus groups to include community groups and to engage with local-level water issues. Provincial
caucuses exist in Mpumalanga, Western Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, Free State, Limpopo, Gauteng, and
Eastern Cape.
The SA Water Caucus is intimately concerned with water resources issues, and welcomes the
revision of the NWRS, and the opportunities to engage in public conversation around it. The SA
Water Caucus met on 16 and 17 August 2012 to consider the NWRS revision, was given background
and entered discussions with DWA officials. We consulted in provincial caucuses, and shared our
thoughts in the Water Sector Leadership Group meeting on 16 and 17 October 2012, made
parliamentary presentations on 24 October 2012, participated in provincial discussions and met with
DWA on 3 December 2012.
We welcome the opportunity to give comment on the NWRS-2.
GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE NWRS-2
A view on the NWRS-2
The emphasis in the NWRS-2 on a democratic developmental state, and the progressive thinking
behind it, should be welcomed. The water sector in particular needs citizens’ participation. Legally
and politically, South Africa’s water resources belong to its people, and are only held in
custodianship by the state. Active citizens shape a democratic developmental state, as much as such
a state shapes its citizens. These sentiments should find practical expression also in the process of
consultation towards the finalisation of the NWRS-2.
The NWRS-2 is an important and potentially powerful document. It sets out the strategic direction
for water resources management in the country over the next 20 years, with a particular focus on
priorities and objectives for the period 2013 – 2017. It provides the framework for the protection,
4
use, development, conservation, management and control of water resources for South Africa, as
well as the framework within which water must be managed at catchment level, in defined water
management areas. It is binding on all authorities and institutions exercising powers or performing
duties under the National Water Act, 1998.
Its predecessor, the NWRS-1 (2004) carried the same power. However, according to DWA officials,
there was no real ownership of the previous NWRS. Fewer than 4% of DWA officials knew about it
and less than 2% had it on their tables. In 2012, officials are keen that the same should not happen
with this version of the strategy.
One of the core drivers of this strategy, indeed, is that water issues should be communicated to
other sectors, and that water issues should be taken into account in the early changes of the
planning of other sectors. The reason for this is that our water resources are now fully subscribed,
and that any misuse or abuse – such as water pollution – adds to the constraint that water places on
the national economy.
However, the process of arriving at this NWRS-2 already sets off warning lights. The process to date
has been difficult and confusing. It has been delayed by 4 years, since it should have been completed
in 2009. A number of teams worked on drafts, and undertook consultations with privileged major
water users, for example members of the Water Resources Group. They should not be making policy
on behalf of people.
The difficult genesis of NWRS-2 communicates, to observers, a lack of focus and co-operation within
the department, which raises the question whether its strategies will be implemented, and
questions about the department’s capacity to deal with management of water resources.
How “Pro-poor” is the NWRS-2?
The NWRS-2 is written in development friendly language, but this is approach is not carried through
everywhere in the text. For example, saying that people will benefit either directly or indirectly (e.g.
p. 56) leaves the door open to diminish people's right to water in favour of other interests.
The technical strategies in the NWRS-2 should accord with the pro-poor and participatory
sentiments expressed in the NWRS-2.
In our view it is necessary to insert two principles into this revision of the NWRS, namely:
1. The ecological and human reserves remain the first priority in water resource allocation
2. The polluter pays principle remains in force, and the NWRS-2 specifies exactly what the
country’s expectations are from mining, agriculture, industry, and different spheres of
government in this regard. This should include the long overdue implementation of the
wastewater discharge charge.
5
The NWRS-2 wrongly assumes that there is currently a “balance” between
economy and ecology.
Currently, the economy takes precedence over ecology. This needs to change so that the economy
operates within the limits of the earth’s natural laws. Any economic “benefits” derived from
ecological destruction are short-term, and will be paid for by near-by communities or future
generations. One example is the acid mine drainage problems on the goldbelt, that will soon come
to public notice as a reality on the Mpumalanga and other coalfields as well. We expect that fracking
in the Karoo will have a similar impact – the public will have to pick up the bill of the damage done.
It is telling that core strategy 3: Ensuring water for equitable growth and development and core
strategy 4: Contributing to a just and equitable South Africa, are treated as separate. They should be
closely integrated.
We welcome the statement in the NWRS-2 that “Economic growth has to be planned in context of
sector specific water footprints, which include the water use footprints, the various water and
environmental impact footprints, as well as the relevant socio-economic impacts and contributions.”
A logical way to put this into practice is for the NWRS-2 to include a clear commitment to specify “no
go areas” for development, e.g. wetlands and places significant to biodiversity and cultural history,
such as Mapungubwe, or indeed the Freshwater Ecosystems Priority Areas (FEPAs).
SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON THE NWRS-2
1. Water conservation and demand management
The SAWC agrees that water demand management and water conservation is absolutely necessary
in the context of real water scarcity and welcomes its inclusion in core strategy 6 (p71-73) and
detailed core strategy 2 (p123-128). However, currently at a municipal scale, water demand
management often conflates saving water with saving money (for the municipality) because non-
payment for water threatens municipal income. Therefore domestic water users are treated as
customers: those who can pay are allowed to use as much water as they want, and those who
cannot pay are restricted, often to the free basic minimum. This means that even where people have
taps and toilets, their access to water is compromised by punitive water demand management. The
SAWC does not support this inequitable form of WDM.
Here are three examples of unfair WDM/WC:
• Water management devices (amafudo) in Cape Town: a policy of conditional leak fixing
means that the City will only fix household leaks and consider writing off people’s debt if
they accept amafudo, which are very problematic. They allow 350 litres per day, but due to
recurrent leaks, technical failures and many people sharing a tap, people are often left
without water.
• In MacGregor (Langebaan DM), and in many other towns, water bills are linked to electricity
bills so that if a household is in arrears for water, they cannot buy more electricity until they
have managed to clear their water account.
6
• Msunduzi Municipality’s (Pietermaritzburg) shocking tariffs, where the typical bill for a low
income, low consuming household is R859. The majority of this bill is made up of fixed
charges, so that even if poor households cut back their water and electricity consumption to
the absolute minimum they are still left with extremely unaffordable bills, and are hounded
by aggressive debt collectors if they default on a payment
Specific recommendations on WC/WDM: · P72, 4
th paragraph, add sentence: “In view of water scarcity, it is essential that economic
sectors using large quantities of water are evaluated for the contribution to the public good
and if necessary restricted or banned, for example the production and use of bottled water.”
· P72 add bullet: “for water savings, target those using excessive water and water for luxury
purposes (rather than those who are already using modest amounts of water which they are
struggling to pay for)”
· P123 :the situation analysis in the detailed core strategy should recognise the following:
o Technical fixes to the complex social reality of leaks, high water consumption and
non-payment for services is inappropriate and misguided
o Limiting people’s access to water through prepaid meters, flow restricting devices,
tricklers, high bills and other methods amounts to a denial of the right to water, and
as such deepens poverty, inequality and social injustice.
o A radical shift to put people’s health, dignity, livelihoods and creativity at the centre
is needed – rather than putting cost recovery at the centre.
o A holistic approach to fixing household leaks is needed (for example once-off leaks
fixing, given the poor quality of housing and infrastructure is ineffective at best)
o Community-based monitoring of leaks, leak-fixing training for local artisanal
plumbers, meaningful education on water services, understanding your water bill,
identifying leaks etc. is necessary
· P126, we support the bullet “comprehensive leak detection and repair programmes for
households at a nominal charge or for free for low income households” and recommend a
related bullet:
o Develop a programme of leak fixing skills training for local empowerment and job
creation
· P128, Targeting the public: add bullet: “first target those using excessive water and water for
luxury purposes (rather than those who are already using modest amounts of water which
they are struggling to pay for)”
2. Strengthening the role of local catchment forums in protecting and
allocating water resources
Background
Local catchment forums are structures that will be empowered to make water decisions at
catchment levels. It is important that civil society keeps involved and actively participating, but
looking at the size of the nine new catchments, participation in particular by civil society will be a
real challenge. Thus there is an urgent need to consider sub-catchments so as to enable participation
by local people and stakeholders in the water decision making processes at this level. It is also
7
important that capacities of the local communities are enhanced so that their participation is
meaningful. Logistical support should be adequately provided as well as refreshments in meetings,
as local people travel long distances sometimes without having eaten anything. Information must be
presented in the language understood by the local people and participation should not equal rent a
crowd or window dressing.
Catchment Management Forums have the potential to bring water resources management close to
the people, to use local knowledge and local monitoring as a strength to protect water resources,
and to build local understanding and co-operation around water allocation and care of the
catchment. Local catchment management forums operate within the terms of the NWA (1998) and
the NWRS (2004), currently under revision. The first version of the NWRS acknowledged the forums
as “useful”. It stated that “in the Department’s experience such voluntary bodies have proved to be
of great value in initiatives leading to the creating of catchment management agencies, and in
addressing local water management issues. They have provided a focus for public consultation and
for integrating the water-related activities of other non-governmental and community-based
organisations” (2004: 91).
However, there is a need to develop this further, including support for the better function of the
forums, capacity building etc. This is particularly important in the light of the new demarcation of
only 9 CMAs, which removes catchment management further from local communities.
In the current draft version of the NWRS-2, forums are considered in Core strategy 11, “Engaging the
private and water use sectors”. There are two mentions of catchment forums. One falls under “Key
strategic actions”:
57. DWA and CMAs will ensure transparent and inclusive stakeholder participation in water
governance through catchment forums and other appropriate consultative forums and
processes; (p. 91)
Another is part of “Revisiting the boundaries of Water Management Areas”:
“A critical implication of these new boundaries is the issue of facilitating sector involvement
and community participation (participatory management). Increasing the size of the water
management areas has an impact on the ability to engage effectively with stakeholders on
the ground. Key objectives of the CMAs are the promotion of equity through more effective
water resource management, greater responsiveness to the needs of poor and marginalized
communities, and closer links with stakeholder groups in the water management area. The
proposed CMA model will facilitate the involvement and empowerment of stakeholders and
communities through structures such as catchment committees, catchment forums and
water user associations (p. 95)”.
The SA Water Caucus agrees with these sentiments, but do not believe that they go far enough
and will therefore not reach the objectives of involving people in water resources governance.
Under the enabling strategy of “Capacity building” it is remarked that:
8
“The Masibambane Civil Society Support Programme has funded courses which include the
following areas: advocacy, water resource protection, WC/WDM, water services regulation
and sustainable livelihoods. Replication of these activities remains a challenge due to
inadequate knowledge management, knowledge transfer and related capacity building
mechanisms. Improvements in these areas can contribute significantly to water literacy and
knowledge equity, as well as empower stakeholder groupings to participate in effective
governance, protection and socio-economic aspects of the NWRS.” (p. 173)
This remark presents no vision into the future, and should be replaced by a commitment to provide
capacity building to communities, civil society and other stakeholders, or to support the self-
provision of such capacity building.
In discussing “establishing partnerships with key role-players and ensuring effective involvement of
relevant stakeholders in the implementation of the Water Allocation Reform” (p. 188) there is no
mention of partnerships with civil society. Instead, it should point out the important role that
organized civil society can play in supporting effective involvement of community groups in
accessing and using water.
Further, the regulation strategy as set out in the NWRS-2 is completely centred on DWA and its
actions. While DWA is acknowledged as sector leader and water regulator, the key issue that there
is:
“Inadequate awareness of water users and the general public of the importance of
compliance with water regulations and their roles and responsibilities” (p. 191)
… will not be addressed without building the capacity and institutions for citizens to effectively
participate in and therefore support regulation.
In the light of this, the following recommendations are made, focusing on the institution of local
catchment forums.
Specific recommendations on catchment forums: It is recommended that the role, status and DWA support to Local Catchment Forums, should be
spelled out in a dedicated chapter of the NWRS-2. The chapter should contain the following.
1. Citizens’ energy drives both participation in forums and public or media discussion of water
quality issues and needs to encouraged. Fundamentally citizens and DWA as the regulator
share the same goal: sustainable use and therefore protection of water resources.
2. Forums need to be legitimate and representative. DWA should support forums in recruiting
participants, and in strategies to retain participants, including communication with
communities in the catchment. This could happen via schools, NGOs and CSOs, local radio
stations, adopt-a-river and adopt-a-catchment programmes, water week celebrations etc.
3. Water Use License applications should be presented to the local forum for discussion. The
forum should be included in monitoring whether license holders are complying with the
conditions in the water use licenses.
9
4. Attendance of and reporting to local catchment forums should be included as a condition in
the award of WULs.
5. Citizens’ monitoring is feasible, provides cheaper than normal monitoring, and extends the
regulator’s ability to cover a larger area. DWA needs to develop and support citizens’
monitoring, including making it easy for citizens to report spills and incidents.
6. Issues brought to the forums need to be taken up by DWA regional offices, and have
consequences, which are reported back to the forums.
7. Forums need to be effective in terms of their inner workings such as communication,
minutes and working groups. DWA needs to provide appropriate administrative support to
forums.
8. Forums need to be spaces in which participants feel welcome, are able to participate, and be
convinced that the time they invest is worth it.
9. Information in forums needs to be presented and discussed in an accessible manner and
language, using maps, graphs and with explanations of technical terms.
10. DWA should support forums with budgets to make transport available to participants who
cannot afford it.
11. Forums should be recognised in the National Water Act and the National Water Resources
Strategy as an intrinsic and acknowledged part of the catchment management system, with
authority to protect water resources. This can be done by inserting a section specifically on
CMFs in section “Governance Strategy 3: Water Sector /institutional Arrangements” (p. 193).
This legal form (which should be worked out by institutional experts) should both enable the
forum to be heard and taken seriously (and receive state support), AND preserve the
autonomy of the forum as an invented space or citizens’ space. Local catchment forums
should be able to hold CMAs accountable for the services they provide and the complaints
they resolve.
12. Forums should be supported to learn from each other. An annual or biannual meeting or
conference bringing together participants in local forums within a catchment, should be
supported by DWA.
3. Participation
We welcome the emphasis on participation and active citizenship in the NWRS-2. However our
experience of consultation around this document, as well as our engagement over the past few
years with the DWA and Ministry has been poor. Practical changes need to take place to turn the
nice language into meaningful participation. Appendix 1 outlines our recommendations for this at an
operational level. We understand that DWA has existing guidelines for participation and recommend
that these are reviewed and revised with us in order to reach a more beneficial partnership.
4. Water quality
South Africa’s water resources belong to all people who live here, with the Department as the
custodian of water resources. In its role as custodian DWA has the important role of making sure
that water is used equitably and sustainably, of protecting water resources, and of protecting the
10
quality of water that impacts on people and ecosystems. Yet the Department, by its own admission,
is failing in that role.
The NWRS-2 states clearly that water quality is an issue of major concern in terms of pollution, river
health, wetlands, estuaries and ecosystems:
“The situation regarding acid mine drainage and municipal wastewater pollution has
reached unacceptable levels. In terms of river health, almost 60% of river ecosystem types
are threatened, with 25% of these critically endangered. Wetland ecosystem types are of
even more concern with a 65% identified as threatened, including a staggering 48% critically
endangered. This situation demands drastic intervention” (p. 10).
There are additional concerns about high levels of nutrients, such as phosphate, where non-
compliance at national scale stands at 88% (p. 11). Acid Mine Drainage affects not only the gold belt,
but also the coal fields in Mpumalanga and KZN. A bigger threat than acidity is the salinity resulting
from Acid Mine Drainage.
The NWRS-2 must be commended for its honesty in describing the situation. But the question must
be asked why these concerns have not yet been addressed. A first explanation lies in factors that are
under control of the Department. The NWRS-2 reports that there are serious problems in the
monitoring system, which has deteriorated since 2004:
“The 2004 NWRS already recognised that resources (staff, skills, funding and equipment) for
monitoring were inadequate, and that there is a particular need for training of water
resources managers. To date, however, there has been a pronounced decline in technical
skills and the number of staff supporting the national and regional monitoring programmes.
Funding for these programmes has also shown a dramatic decline, although some funds
were made available to alleviate the most critical problems on an ad hoc basis.” (p. 178)
It also reports that there are problems in regulation, as well as in the development of inclusive
governance (see pp. 190 and 191). The abuse of our water resources will continue when the
department is not able to monitor or regulate the situation.
As civil society, we support the intentions expressed in the NWRS-2 to deal with these problems, as
detailed in core strategy 5, Protecting Water Ecosystems (p. 68). We support the rigorous
implementation of the Freshwater ecosystems priority areas (FEPAs) and the protection of riparian
and wetland buffer zones and critical groundwater recharge areas, although we argue that such
protection needs to beyond agricultural areas and apply to mining and industrial activities as well,
which pose extensive threats to groundwater resources.
We support the intentions expressed in Enabling Strategy 3, on drastically improving monitoring,
and similarly in regulation. We offer our help as citizens and civil society to improve monitoring and
regulation through active participation (pp. 190 and 192).
11
However, and very fundamentally, DWA needs to take on its role as custodian of our water
resources with more resolve.
It is shocking to see that the plans for fracking do not get a single mention in the document. At the
very least, the department should be participating in the debate from the perspective of custodian
of our water resources, studying the risks of fracking (there is extensive international evidence of the
dangers of fracking and widespread opposition to it), and developing a regulatory framework which
should aid in government decision making whether fracking should be contemplated at all.
Similarly, DWA does not act as the custodian of water resources in the gold mine based acid mine
drainage debates, or show foresight in the developing acid mine drainage problems on the
coalfields. It needs to show more political courage and foresight about the effects of polluting
industries on our water resources.
While DWA’s blue drop and green drop schemes are innovative and commendable, they need to
move beyond incentive schemes. There should be consequences for individuals and organisations,
such as local government, who pollute our water resources. It is people and their livestock who rely
directly on river water, who currently suffer the consequences.
It is disturbing that the wastewater discharge charge system has not yet been implemented. This
makes a mockery of the “polluter pays principle”. Equally disturbing is to see that the very
companies who have polluted our water, now stand to gain from cleaning it.
While in the NWRS-2 DWA seems to understand the severity of water quality problems, and
proposes strategies to deal with it, there seems to be an unspoken lack of political will. In this
situation, the only alternative will be for civil society to raise the level of public awareness, public
debate and public pressure on DWA to properly perform its role as custodian of the nation’s water
resources for present and future generations.
5. Access to productive water for small farmers; food security;
communities without water who live next to dams and pipelines
5.1 Communities affected by dams At the time of the drafting of the NWRS-1 the South African review of the World Commission on
Dams (WCD) was in progress and the NWRS-1 noted the WCD. A key outcome of the WCD was that
communities affected by dams needed to be better off after the dam’s construction. In the period
post the SA Initiative on the WCD the DWA undertook several projects:
1. Resettlement and Social issues
2. Social Audit of 9 existing dams
3. Establishment of fora to resolve outstanding issues at existing dams
Of these issues only the document outlining the resettlement and social contracts has been
completed by DWA. The social audit was initiated in 2004 and consultants were appointed by DWA.
12
The consultants only started working in late 2005 and produced background documents, identified
communities and outstanding issues.
DWA held a meeting in May 2006 to bring together the nine communities from the dams, namely
Gariep and Van der Kloof (treated as one community), Sandile, Kat River, Loskop, Thapani,
Woodstock, Quedisisi, Inanda and Pongola. This meeting was the first and last meeting of the
process and seven years later communities are still waiting for the outcome.
Here are more details on two of the dams:
Loskop:
This dam was built in the 1930s and there are no records of dam affected communities from that
time. The dam was built for irrigation and is on the border of Mpumalanga and Limpopo. As a result
of the apartheid policies of the day people were relocated or restricted to deep rural areas without
access to water.
In 2006 DWAF contracted BKS and Bohlweki Consulting Company to carry out an audit of all the
families that were relocated to other areas as a result of the construction of the dam. The DWAF
official who was overseeing the process was Mr Mashishi Methula. Numerous workshops were held
in Pretoria of which SAWC member John Mathebe was part. Mr Mathebe relates:
“Thereafter they convened community meetings and they visited our area. People were
made to fill some forms with the promise that they were going to be compensated for the
losses they incurred when they were removed from the perimeters of the dam. From that
time until today, DWA and the consultants have disappeared and the communities have
been asking questions and we don’t have answers as community leaders. This is unfair
because they have raised the expectations and treated our people with contempt.
“Our community is almost 15km from the wall of the dam but there is no clean running
water in this area. The village was built in 1903 but up to date our people are dying of thirst
and no one cares. There are two parallel bulk water pipes coming from Weltevrede Water
Treatment plant in the former KwaNdebele Bantustan that were constructed in order to
solve the water crisis in our area but nothing happened , which to me , was misuse of our
taxes and the funds used were intended to benefit the tenderpreneurs and corrupt
municipal officials. The water canal runs 86km from Loskop Dam to that Water Treatment
Plant and the pipe lines also runs 86km back to our area. This does not make sense – why
can’t they just build a purification plant next to the dam and give us clean water?
“The Sekhukhune District Municipality is presently constructing another bulk water pipeline
from Groblersdal town almost 38km away from our area, to our area with the intention of
giving us clean water but I doubt we will indeed get that water. Poor planning is the order of
the day from our government.
“In 2009 (if I am not mistaken) the then Minister of Water Affairs Mrs Buyelwa Sonjica came
to our area where she announced in that Imbizo that the government had set aside a budget
13
of R380m to build a new purification plant in our area because it is about 15km from Loskop
Dam and we would get clean water. She further said there is R20m for the engineers to start
with feasibility studies and the drawings for the bulk line from the dam and the plant. During
the IDP meetings in our area this year, I raised the matter of the purification plant but the
municipal officials responded by saying that the project has been cancelled. When I further
pursued the matter with DWA, they said the project is still on. Who is fooling who here? I
would like the DWA to come up with clear answers regarding this project. Should we go to
the High Court to force the government to give us clean water which is our right? We have
already approached a Section 27 organisation to assist us in this regard and I would like to
put it loud and clear to our government that we are not fighting them but we just want them
to deal with the Sekhukhune District Municipality, to please, do their work and give us
services.”
Pongolapoort
In 1969 construction started on the dam. The dam basin was mainly white owned farms but the wall
and part of the dam fell within what was to become the KwaZulu homeland government area.
Large-scale irrigation of the Makatini flats failed to materialise and to this day has not met to
potential. The natural flood regime has been interfered with and communities living downstream
have had their traditional livelihoods impacted on.
The dam is managed primarily as a conservation area with the dam surrounded by game reserves
and game lodges as well as a DWA flood control dam. In the Social audit, one of the issues that was
raised by communities was access to water for both domestic and productive use. At several
provincial water summits the issue of access has been raised not only by communities but also by
local and provincial political leadership from as high up as the Premier. In the interim a commercial
farmer has been granted an extraction permit provided he supplies some water to communities, but
to date some 43 years later the bulk of the water is still underutilised in the dam and the majority of
communities do not have access to water.
The issues of water for domestic use have been brought to the attention of DWA on numerous
occasions, but what is needed is a follow up on the social audit of the 9 dams to see what progress
has been made and a report back on this.
5.2 More equitable water allocations (water for productive use). While there has been a process of water allocation reform our understanding is that this still has a
long way to go. This was illustrated by communities in the Western Cape who, at the meeting of 16th
August 2012 in Cape Town, highlighted the issue of lack of water permits for land reform projects. In
some instances small-scale emerging farmers and people with food-gardens are using municipal
water and therefore being charged on a step-tariff basis that was designed to penalise wasteful (not
productive) water use.
In Water Summits and water reconciliation processes in KZN NAFU has regularly raised the issue of
water for emerging farmers. This is often overlooked because it is raised in the context of water
service processes and therefore not taken up by DWA. During NWRS-2 parliamentary hearings,
14
AgriSA stated that it does not foresee the loss of water rights to commercial farmers (the
parliamentary portfolio committee Chair suggested that they review their position on this). This
position of AgrsSA is not helpful, given that commercial agriculture is the biggest user of water in
South Africa. NWRS-2 needs to look at how commercial farmers can use less water, and use it more
smartly, for example through changes in technology from conventional irrigation systems to
technologies such as drip and controlled irrigation. There is also a need to ensure that technology is
transferred from resource rich farmers to emerging farmers that are willing to embrace technology,
and that appropriate capacity is built to maintain this technology.
The situation alongside dams designed to support the rural poor is that smallholder irrigation
schemes in former homelands, which have largely collapsed and are increasingly encroached on by
‘strategic partners’, who mine the soils and create intra-community conflict. There is an urgent need
for a national transparent debate on how to learn from these failures of the past. If not, the
National Development Plan’s intention to expand irrigation with 500 000 ha will remain an empty
intention for smallholders, but just another alibi for large-scale irrigators to take up more water
without creating jobs because of the highly mechanised nature of their farming.
We support the NWRS-2 strategy to reinvigorate the Water Allocation Reform (WAR), and build the
power of representative Water Users Associations to claim a fair share of productive water.
However, we note with concern that in the detailed discussions of water balances in Part 3 of the
NWRS-2 (Spatial Perspectives on WMAs), in some cases the availability of water for small scale
farmers is ruled out, whereas in others there are allocations for emerging farmers. There must be
more creative and equitable ways of dealing with this question in the Spatial Perspectives (see p.
214; 223; 252). This underlines the need for the transformation of irrigation boards and the creation
of new WUAs.
5.3 Questions the NWRS-2 should raise NWRS-2 needs to address the following questions for people living in rural areas where there are
dams, but much more often where there are not even any dams:
1. What support is provided for homestead RWH as well as for groundwater irrigation, river lift
irrigation / diversions?
2. How do smallholders get access to inputs and markets – the two factors consistently
ignored for smallholder agriculture?
3. How do people get access to storage and conveyance infrastructure for other productive
water uses (food processing for sale, crafts, small-scale enterprise, and ceremonial
functions)?
4. Levels of water provision need to be significantly higher than the prescribed free-basic
water minimum to accommodate such small-scale productive uses.
5. More urgent attention should be given to the transformation of irrigation boards into water
user associations. Even when the transformation has happened, they are often still referred
to as irrigations boards and continue with a business as usual approach.
15
5.4 Rainwater Harvesting (RWH) Rainwater harvesting needs to be integrated into water supply not just for supplementary water
supply but also for domestic water supply and for productive use. In some parts of the country this is
the only source of clean potable water.
RWH is largely absent in the NWRS-2 and more attention needs to be given to prioritising this supply
as an alternative to other expensive options such as desalination, and transfer schemes. Climate
Change predictions are clear, that in some of the coastal and eastern sections of the country we are
seeing a year round in change in rainfall. This opens the door for the scaling up of RWH in these
areas. We feel that it should be mandatory in all new developments both public and private and a
process of retrofitting implemented those areas where it is not in use.
We also believe that harvesting of rainwater should not be limited to roof-tops but use holistic
methods such as those used by the Tshepo Kumbane Women for Water which is based on
permaculture principles.
5.5 Summary of key recommendations Dam affected communities
· That the 2006 Social Audit process be reviewed and that the communities are included in
projects that will assist in the access to water for both domestic and productive use.
· That DWA works with Civil Society to establish a database of communities that live next to
dams or irrigation schemes that do not have access to water and that this process is
reported to the parliamentary portfolio committee on water and environment on an annual
basis.
Technology Transfer
· That DWA looks at a sector approach that includes civil society to ensure that where
technology is used for smarter water use, that rural communities are also given opportunity
to benefit from these technologies.
Rainwater Harvesting
· That RWH is given the space that it deserves in the strategy and that roll out is scaled up in
the regions where rainfall patterns are changing and rainfall may increase.
· That DWA provides the enabling environment for RWH to take place on an equal footing
with technologies such as desalination and water transfer schemes. That the model bylaws
be revised to make RWH mandatory in all developments both private and public in areas
that have the potential for RWH.
Water reallocation and rural water
· Launch a multistakeholder process to develop a legal framework to ensure that clean and
affordable water is available for productive use for small-scale and emerging farmers, as
well as small, low-impact businesses
16
6. Access to information, licensing, monitoring and enforcement
Comprehensive, regular, adequate compliance monitoring of all water use in South Africa is a large-
scale endeavour that cannot be addressed with current DWA resources. To support the DWA, the
power of citizen monitoring and reporting must be harnessed through improved access to
information, support for citizen monitoring activities and protection for whistleblowing.
With regards to licensing, compliance monitoring and enforcement, we submit the following:
1. There are both procedural and substantive challenges in water use authorisation,
particularly quality of decision-making, and timeframes for processing of IWUL applications
(IWULAs).
2. Compliance monitoring and enforcement activity is not optimal or effective as a result of too
few dedicated and adequately skilled compliance and enforcement officials, and the absence
of a strategic compliance monitoring and enforcement programme.
3. Existing enforcement tools do not provide adequate deterrence for violations.
4. The potential of the Water Tribunal, which has become dysfunctional, is not realised.
In addition, water resources and geographical areas of significant hydrological sensitivity and
importance are threatened by authorised and unauthorised water use and without adequate legal
protection.
The SA Water Caucus supports the submission made by Centre for Environmental Rights on these
issues, see Appendix B. These contain detailed recommendations for changes to the text of the
NWRS-2, as well as proposals for implementation and consideration of budget and other
implications.
7. Impacts of Industrial Timber Plantations and timber processing on
water resources
Government has historically considered industrial timber production and processing as two separate
exercises, but in order to appreciate the full extent of timber industry water pollution and
consumption in South Africa, it is necessary to include the full range of impacts, from the initial
stages where plantations of invasive alien trees are established in catchments, thereby also
destroying biologically diverse and agriculturally important grassland habitat, to the final point
where pulp mill effluent and used paper and cellulose products are dumped into / disposed of in
water bodies from where they eventually end up polluting estuaries and oceans.
17
Effluent from the Sappi paper mill at Stanger in KwaZulu-Natal ends up in the Mvoti River
During the timber production process, water is polluted by fuel and exhaust emissions from
industrial plantation equipment and poisoned by chemical pesticides. Disturbance caused by new
plantation establishment, clear-cutting and slash-burning also causes top soil loss which in turn leads
to increased erosion and drainage line scouring which then increases sedimentation in wetlands and
estuaries, with resultant water quality reduction and impacts on aquatic habitat.
The invasive alien Eucalyptus, Pine and Wattle tree species primarily used in industrial timber
plantations include an estimated 3,2 million hectares comprising 1,5 million ha. of managed
plantations and 1,7 million ha. abandoned plantations and feral tree invasions, which cover much of
South Africa’s high rainfall ‘mist-belt’ area, but also affect large parts of the coastal belt in KwaZulu-
Natal as well as fynbos areas in the southern and Western Cape that lie within critical water
production catchments.
18
The ‘mist belt’ zone starts in Limpopo province, in the vicinity of the town of Tzaneen, extending
down through Mpumalanga, Swaziland, KwaZulu-Natal to the Eastern Cape inland of Mthatha. The
high rainfall and fertile soils in these areas provide ideal growing conditions for the alien tree species
used in timber plantations, as they need to consume vast quantities of water to support the high
evapo-transpiration rates that accompany their rapid growth.
Timber plantations in South Africa have mostly been established in the grassland, fynbos and
savannah biomes. Grasslands are especially valuable because of their high biodiversity values and
water retention capacity. Their sponge-like function slows down runoff when it rains in the
catchments and allows greater seepage into aquifers. This also helps prevent ‘flash flooding’ and soil
erosion. After grassland is destroyed through conversion to plantations, these valuable services are
lost.
Considerable research has been undertaken into the water consumption of timber plantations and
there is ample evidence to show that their impacts on South Africa’s water catchments is
substantial, to the extent that they can consume the equivalent of all the rainwater that falls directly
onto the plantation footprint, i.e. in excess of 1000mm per annum in some cases.
Plantations of evergreen trees such as those used in South Africa consume water throughout the
year and this means that even during dry periods the trees draw water from the aquifer with
resultant seasonal loss of flow in rivers and streams that would normally flow perennially.
Increasing demand for low-quality timber for the wood-chip exports is driving the expansion of
illegal plantations into areas with marginal rainfall with devastating consequences for local
communities whose subsistence is dependent on already limited water and soil resources.
19
Eucalyptus plantation near the Sappi Ngodwana pulp mill in Mpumalanga province
Excessive use of water by industrial timber plantations directly affects the livelihoods of rural
communities that depend upon rivers and streams for basic needs and subsistence farming. Local
traditions and cultures are also affected, i.e. certain rituals need to be performed utilising waters of
the rivers, which are compromised by over-abstraction in the upper catchments.
The graph below depicts the impact of large scale timber plantations establishment:
The Klaserie River rises at Mariepskop, Limpopo Province, South Africa. Water flow was measured
beneath the mountain where the road between Tzaneen and Nelspruit crosses the river. All that has
changed between 1935 and 1964 was the progressive establishment of monoculture tree
plantations in the Klaserie River catchment.
20
Recommendations on industrial timber plantations
1. The NWRS-2 should recommend that the DWA implement a moratorium on the issuing of
any new water-use licenses for timber plantations. This is critical in the Eastern Cape, where
100 000 ha has been earmarked for new timber plantation establishment.
2. All existing water use licences must be reviewed and either withdrawn where appropriate or
steps taken to enforce the conditions of water licences that are not withdrawn. This should
apply to both stream flow reduction licences and effluent discharge licences.
3. Meaningful water use tariffs/ licence fees need to be introduced in order to ensure that the
true cost of water used by timber plantations is paid so that adequate funds will be available
to cover the costs of providing alternative supplies where communities have been deprived
of access to water by plantations.
4. The NWRS-2 should recommend that the DWA as water regulator should revise and update
water use models to get a clearer understanding of the water use of alien plantation trees.
New scientific methods involving testing isotopes for information about impacts on
groundwater, which is still little understood, are available.
5. There should be a greater focus on research, and the ‘paired catchments experiments’ in
Jonkershoek in the Western Cape should be continued and funded by the DWA. Valuable
data and information has been gathered over almost 80 years, providing world leading
opportunities for understanding plantation land use models and their impacts.
6. The Working for Water Project is valuable and should receive greater support for enhanced
operations, better oversight and greater efficacy in follow-up exercises.
7. The NWRS-2 should include extensive restoration and rehabilitation of the grassland biome,
that is vital to water conservation in southern Africa, and wherever possible, existing
unviable plantations should be removed. Such an opportunity exists with state owned
plantations in the Mariepskop area. In the 1990’s the then Minister of the Department of
Water Affairs and Forestry proclaimed that these plantations should be removed to free up
water for residents of Bushbuck Ridge. Contrary to this decision, a government report has
been produced which recommends that 4500ha should now be re-planted and brought back
into production. These plantations should rather be removed as per the ministerial decision,
and the land rehabilitated and put to productive use – by providing a range of ‘natural’ (but
managed) services, such as medicinal plant cultivation, cattle / sheep grazing, etc. that will
not undermine the water yield of the catchment.
8. Please review the following comprehensive report regarding plantation trees and water use: