---

Study Name:
Orange River Integrated Water Resources Management Plan
Report Title:
Institutional Structures in the four Orange Basin States
Submitted By: WRP Consulting Engineers, Jeffares and Green, Sechaba Consulting, WCE Pty Ltd,
Water Surveys Botswana (Pty) Ltd
Authors:
R Tompkins
Date of Issue: August 2007
Distribution:
Botswana: DWA: 2 copies (Katai, Setloboko)
Lesotho: Commissioner of Water: 2 copies (Ramosoeu, Nthathakane)
Namibia: MAWRD: 2 copies (Amakali)
South Africa: DWAF: 2 copies (Pyke, van Niekerk)
GTZ: 2 copies (Vogel, Mpho)
Reports:
Review of Existing Infrastructure in the Orange River Catchment
Review of Surface Hydrology in the Orange River Catchment
Flood Management Evaluation of the Orange River
Review of Groundwater Resources in the Orange River Catchment
Environmental Considerations Pertaining to the Orange River
Summary of Water Requirements from the Orange River
Water Quality in the Orange River
Demographic and Economic Activity in the four Orange Basin States
Current Analytical Methods and Technical Capacity of the four Orange Basin States
Institutional Structures in the four Orange Basin States
Legislation and Legal Issues Surrounding the Orange River Catchment
Summary Report

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ................................................................................. 1
1.1 General .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Legislative and institutional background ................................................................................. 2
1.3 Approach and Methodology .................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1
Approach........................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.2
Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 4
2
THE BASIN STATES............................................................................................................... 6
2.1 General comparison of basin states ....................................................................................... 6
3
INSTITUTIONAL AND DEVELOPMENT HISTORY............................................................... 8
3.1 Institutional history................................................................................................................... 8
3.1.1
The Permanent Water Commission (PWC) ..................................................................... 8
3.1.2
The Lesotho Highlands Water Commission (LHWC)....................................................... 8
3.2 Development history................................................................................................................ 9
3.2.1
The Orange River Development Project (ORDP) ............................................................ 9
3.2.2
The Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP).............................................................. 11
4
EXISTING INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE .......................................................................... 15
4.1 National Structures ................................................................................................................ 15
4.1.1
Lesotho ........................................................................................................................... 15
4.1.2
South Africa..................................................................................................................... 17
4.1.3
Botswana ........................................................................................................................ 22
4.1.4
Namibia ........................................................................................................................... 25
4.2 International Structure ........................................................................................................... 30
4.2.1
The International context ................................................................................................ 30
4.2.2
The Orange-Senqu River Commission (ORASECOM).................................................. 34
5
POTENTIAL FUTURE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE....................................................... 36

---

5.1 General characteristics of integrated basin management institutions.................................. 36
5.2 Potential discussion issues for ORASECOM in the context of these characteristics .......... 37
5.3 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 39
6
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PHASE 2................................................................................ 42
6.1 The implications of changes to national systems ................................................................. 42
6.2 Administrative and coordinating bodies ................................................................................ 42
6.3 Organisational funding .......................................................................................................... 42
6.4 Allocation criteria ................................................................................................................... 43
6.5 Information systems .............................................................................................................. 43
6.6 Dispute resolution mechanisms ............................................................................................ 43
7
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 44
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1-1: Orange River Basin ...................................................................................................... 1
Table 1-1: Contributions to the Orange-Senqu Basin by country .................................................. 2
Table 2-1 Basin state statistics (CIA World Fact Book, IWRMP Demographics report)................ 6
Figure 4-1: Lesotho Institutional Structure .................................................................................... 16
Figure 4-2: South Africa Institutional Structure ............................................................................. 20
Figure 4-3 Botswana Institutional Structure .................................................................................. 24
Figure 4-4: Namibia's existing institutional structure .................................................................... 27
Figure 4-5: Namibia's proposed institutional structure ................................................................. 29
Figure 5-1: Potential future institutional structure for the Orange-Senqu Basin (as a basis for
further discussion).................................................................................................................. 40

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
1
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1
General
The Orange-Senqu River originates in the Lesotho Highlands and flows westward for
2200km, to the Atlantic coast of South Africa and Namibia, forming the border between
those two states. The Basin also encompasses the southern portion of Botswana. As
such, there are four basin states that share the waters of the Orange-Senqu River Basin
(Figure 1.1).
Figure 1-1: Orange River Basin
13/11/2007
Final
1

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
The basin covers almost 1 million km2 and has an estimated natural runoff of 11,300km3
per anum1, though this can vary between 40,000km3 and zero.
With an average mean
annual precipitation of 400mm per anum, the basin is considered arid by world standards2.
The contributions of the four states to the basin, and the area of the basin falling within
each state, vary considerably as shown in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1: Contributions to the Orange-Senqu Basin by country 3
Item
Lesotho
South Africa
Botswana
Namibia
Basin Area (%)
5%
60%
12%
25%
MAR (%)
41
55
0
4
Lesotho is by far the most significant in terms of its contribution, especially related to the
area of the basin that falls within its territory. South Africa, with the largest area of the
basin within its territory, also makes a significant contribution to the runoff.
1.2
Legislative and institutional background
The institutional and legal frameworks also vary considerably between the four basin
states; however, there is one factor consistent to all: state political and legislative
frameworks are considered to be in a transition period in all countries. The 1994 political
transition in South Africa has led to an entirely new Water Act and a change in the delivery
and
management
of
water
services
(following
local
government
restructuring).
Botswana's institutional framework is based on its 1991 Water Master Plan4, which is
currently under review.
Both Lesotho and Namibia are in the process of water sector
improvements.
1 2004. Senqor Consortium. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan for the Orange-Senqu Basin:
Inception Report.
2 2004. Heyns. Achievements of the Orange-Senqu River Commission in Integrated Transboundary Water
Resource Management.
3 2005. Krantz et al. Governance, Institutions and Participation in the Orange-Senqu Basin.
4 1991. Botswana DWAF. National Water Master Plan.
13/11/2007
Final
2

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
All four states are signatories to the SADC Revised Protocol on Shared Watercourse
Systems (2000), which was initially adopted in 1995 and then revised in 2000, in order that
its provisions were brought in line with those of the United Nations Convention on the law
of the non-navigational uses of international watercourses (1998). The Protocol makes
provision for management institutions for shared watercourses, and sets out five
components that limit use of international watercourses. They are as follows:
· Balancing development with conservation
· Inter-state co-operation
· Equitable sharing of water resources
· Developing compatible national systems
· Notification of emergencies
While the practical applicability of its provisions regarding the allocation of international
waters remains in question, the Protocol provides the guiding principles for equitable and
sustainable allocation of international waters in the SADC region. As such, and because all
four basin states are signatories to the Protocol which is now in force, it is the overarching
framework for the management of international waters in the Orange-Senqu basin. This
framework should provide the basis for "a harmonized legal regime for the Orange River in
which the revised SADC Protocol, the ORASECOM agreement and the national legislative
arrangements for the four countries fit logically together".5
Each basin state has its own legal, policy and institutional framework governing the use of
both national and international waters, adding significant layers of complexity to water
management at basin level.
Furthermore, the four states vary considerably in both
economic power and levels of development, often with highly divergent needs in terms of
the use of the waters of the Orange-Senqu basin. It is therefore essential that the existing
institutional framework be mapped nationally and internationally in order that the levels of
complexity can be clearly understood.
It is important to understand the historical context in which these institutions were devised
and developed. The major development projects were conceived at a time when public
5 2006. Senqor Consortium. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan for the Orange-Senqu Basin:
Legislation and Legal Issues
13/11/2007
Final
3

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
participation, and environmental investigation were not carried out routinely for large
development projects. Moreover, the political context was heavily influenced by the South
African apartheid government, and was subject to the controversies and issues generated
by that context. As a result, the older institutions established in the Orange-Senqu basin
reflect the context in which they were formed. This has generated significant controversy
with (often vociferous) criticism from international NGOs, environmental and social
activists and the media. The current institutional framework should be examined in this
context in order to be able to inform the development of an institutional framework that is
robust enough to address these issues, and flexible enough to incorporate the lessons
learned, both from the past, and through the development of a new integrated institutional
structure.
1.3
Approach and Methodology
1.3.1
Approach
An institutional scan was conducted which identified the relevant institutions at the various
scales within the four ORASECOM partner countries. The inter-relationships between
these institutions were then mapped to provide an indication of the institutional landscape
in which ORASECOM operates.
Significant infrastructure projects in the basin, which
have an impact on the current institutional structures, were also examined.
These
structures were then evaluated in the context of current thinking in international river basin
management (IRBM) institutional structures.
Extensive studies of IRBM structures across the globe in the last two decades have
revealed a number of lessons to be learned in building effective institutional structures for
international basins. It is these lessons that have formed the background principles for
international instruments such as the SADC Protocol.
The Orange-Senqu institutional
structure was evaluated in the context of these criteria.
1.3.2
Methodology
A review of documentation was conducted of institutional arrangements, policy and
legislation in each of the four basin states, in order to map the existing institutional
situation and document any currently ongoing and future changes. Institutional framework
diagrams were produced for each basin state and for the basin as an international entity.
Following the evaluation in the context of current IRBM research, the institutional map was
redrawn to reflect the necessary adjustments to the structure in order to address the
13/11/2007
Final
4

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
issues highlighted by current IRBM research, and to align the institutional structure with
the international legislative framework for transboundary water management in the region.
13/11/2007
Final
5

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
2
THE BASIN STATES
2.1
General comparison of basin states
The following table (Table 2-1) gives a comparative overview of the general facts of each of the basin states.
Table 2-1 Basin state statistics (CIA World Fact Book, IWRMP Demographics report)
Item
Lesotho
South Africa
Botswana
Namibia
Co-ordinates
29 30 S, 28 30 E
29 00 S, 24 00 E
22 00 S, 24 00 E
22 00 S, 17 00 E
Population
2 million (2006)
44.2 million (2006)
1.6 million (2006)
2 million (2006)
Population
- 0.46% (2006 est.)
- 0.4% (2006 est.)
- 0.4% (2006 est.)
0.59% (2006 est.)
growth rate
% Population
100%
29.8%
2.8%
8.9%
resident in basin
% of total basin
13.5%
84.9%
0.3%
1.3%
population
Total Area
30,355km2
1,221,038 km2
581,730 km2
824,292 km2
Temperate; cool to cold, dry
Mostly semiarid; subtropical
Semiarid; warm winters and
Desert; hot, dry; rainfall
Climate
winters; hot, wet summers
along East Coast
hot summers
sparse and erratic
Mostly highland with
Vast interior plateau rimmed
Predominantly flat to gently
Mostly high plateau. Namib
Terrain
plateaus, hills, and
by rugged hills and narrow
rolling tableland; Kalahari
Desert along coast. Kalahari
mountains
coastal plain
Desert in southwest
Desert in east
GDP
US$ 1.362 billion (2005)
US$ 187.3 billion (2005)
US$ 9.046 billion (2005)
US$ 4.976 billion (2005)
GDP Growth
0.8% (2005)
4.9% (2005)
4.5% (2005)
3.5% (2005)
GDP per capita
US$ 2,500 (2005 est.)
US$ 12,000 (2005 est.)
US$ 10,500 (2005 est.)
US$ 7,000 (2005 est.)
Government
Parliamentary constitutional
Republic - constitutional
Parliamentary Republic
Republic
type
monarchy
democracy
Position on HDI*
out of 177
145 (2004)
119 (2004)
128 (2004)
126 (2004)
countries
* HDI = UN Human Development Index
13/11/2007
Final
6

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
South Africa has by far the highest total GDP, though it is comparable with Botswana on a
per capita basis. Lesotho has the lowest GDP and together with garments, the export of
water forms the majority of its export revenue. Namibia is the most arid of the four basin
states, and is also the furthest downstream, however it only has a small percentage
population living in the basin.
The dominant nation in the basin, in terms of resident
population, basin area coverage and economic power, is South Africa6.
All basin states are considered developing countries, ranging from 119 to 145 (out of 177)
on the UN Human Development Index.
All except Namibia have marginally negative
population growth rates, mostly thought to be as a result the prevalence of AIDS.
Namibia's population growth rate is only marginally positive, indicating that future demand
will be driven primarily by factors other than demographics.
Negotiations over the waters of the Orange-Senqu Basin have been ongoing between
various combinations of the basin states since the 1980's resulting in a variety of bilateral
and multilateral arrangements, as indicated in the next section.
6 Additional information on the demographics and economic development of the Basin is contained in the Task
10 Report of this series.
13/11/2007
Final
7

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
3
INSTITUTIONAL AND DEVELOPMENT HISTORY
3.1
Institutional history
3.1.1
The Permanent Water Commission (PWC)
The PWC evolved from the Joint Technical Committee formed between Namibia and
South Africa in 1987 (while Namibia was still under South African rule). The commission
advises the governments of the two basin states on the use and development of the lower
Orange River.
The commission focuses on the Vioolsdrift and Noordoewer Irrigation
Schemes (the PWC evolved from the Vioolsdrift / Noordoewer Joint Irrigation Scheme). In
1992, a bilateral agreement between Namibia (which gained independence in 1990) and
South Africa established the PWC.
The PWC commenced a study in 2001 to assess the potential for efficient use of the
available water resources of the lower Orange. The study includes the assessment of the
potential for the construction of a dam on the lower Orange, in order to improve water
management for the next 50 years7.
3.1.2
The Lesotho Highlands Water Commission (LHWC)
The Lesotho Highlands Water Commission is a bi-national body that evolved from the
Joint Permanent Technical Commission established under the terms of the Lesotho
Highlands Water Treaty. This organisation is responsible for matters of joint concern to
Lesotho and South Africa with regard to the implementation of the Lesotho Highlands
Water Project (LHWP).
Activities include the appointment of auditors and consultants,
operating and maintenance plans, tendering procedures, the allocation of costs between
the parties and the quantities of water to be delivered8.
There are two national institutions linked with the LHWC.
The Trans-Caledon Tunnel
Authority (TCTA) manages and maintains the delivery tunnel which transfers water across
the border (i.e. under the Caledon River) to the Ash River in the Vaal catchment as well as
all other aspects of the infrastructure in South Africa3.
The Lesotho Highlands
7 2004. Schuermans et al. Evaluation of success and failure in International Water Management: Orange River
Basin, South Africa.
8 2001. Mohammed-Katerere. Review of the legal and policy framework for TBNRM initiatives in Southern
Africa.
13/11/2007
Final
8

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
Development Authority is responsible for the management of all aspects of the project that
fall within Lesotho, including infrastructure and social aspects, such as the resettlement
and compensation of displaced communities, water supply to resettled communities,
irrigation and tourism.
It is important to note that there are comprehensive and specific management provisions
for the LHDA in the Treaty, while the functions of the TCTA, which are similar to those of
the LHDA, "are provided for in considerably less detail and no attention is given to
downstream responsibilities"8. This is an indication of the significant power inequalities
between the two states, and also raises the issue of the exclusion of Namibia and
Botswana from the Treaty despite the fact that the LHWP has a very significant impact on
the waters of the Orange-Senqu Basin5.
3.2
Development history
3.2.1
The Orange River Development Project (ORDP)9
The ORDP has its roots in the 1920s, when proposals were put forward to the South
African government to use the waters of the Orange River in various irrigation projects.
These were considered prohibitively costly, until the 1950s, following the National Party
electoral victories through the late 1940s and early 1950s. The subsequent capital outflow
from South Africa, as a result of the Government's apartheid policies, prompted the
formulation of a comprehensive development plan for the Orange as strategy to attract
investment. The plan, which was hastily compiled in the early 1960s by the then
Department of Water Affairs, was formulated under considerable political influence.
Its objectives were as follows:
· To provide irrigation for agriculture
· Municipal water supply provision
· Hydro-electric power generation
· Flood prevention
· Creation of recreational facilities
· Population settlement in the basin (mainly white farmers)
· Employment opportunities
9 2000. World Commission on Dams. Case Study ­ Orange River Development Project
13/11/2007
Final
9

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
· Regional economic stimulation through water and agriculture-based industry
Because of the haste in which the planning was conducted, many of the required studies
were superficial and public participation was highly limited (which was in line with
Government policy at the time), and only whites in the area were notified and
compensated for the negative impacts of the project.
Although significant design changes were also required as a result of the rapidity of the
planning stages, as well as the complexity of the project, the Gariep and Vanderkloof
Dams were constructed in the 1960s. Once again, as a result of fast-tracked planning, the
additional Welbedacht Dam silted up soon after its construction (although this increased
the yield of the Gariep Dam downstream). Despite the shortcomings, the project resulted
in a significant increase in agricultural productivity in the area, exceeded expectations for
hydropower generation, and generally met flood control expectations.
As South African policies began to change in the early 1970s, with the Commission of
Enquiry into Water Matters, through to the political transformation in 1994, participation in
decision-making and environmental issues began to be considered, and it understood that
a reappraisal of the ORDP was becoming increasingly necessary.
This reappraisal was undertaken in the form of the Orange River Replanning Study
(ORRS) between 1992 and 1998.
At the same time, the National Water Act was
promulgated, based on the National Water White paper drafted after the 1994 transition to
democracy. Thus the principles under the new policy framework were incorporated into
the new study.
The result was a greater degree of participation, deeper analysis of
environmental and financial impacts, the incorporation of In-stream Flow Requirements
(IFR) for the Orange River, and consideration of the basin-wide implications for improved
coordination with the LHWP. The guidelines and regulations necessary for effective
integration of these issues in the implementation of the ORRS have, however, not yet
been promulgated, indicating a gap between planning and the necessary legal and
institutional reforms10.
10 Legal aspects of the Basin management are discussed in detail in the Task 13 report of this series.
13/11/2007
Final
10

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
This situation lends a sense of urgency to the formulation and implementation of the
IWRMP, since it could address many of these issues, at both local and international level,
through a legislative and institutional framework that will address these concerns.
3.2.2
The Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP)
The Lesotho Highlands Water Project, was the largest infrastructure project in Africa, and
was first conceived in the 1950s, when it became clear that the demand for water from the
industrial and economic heartland of South Africa's Gauteng region would escalate beyond
the area's water availability.
The Project provides for water transfers from Lesotho to
South Africa, and hydroelectric power generation in Lesotho. Negotiations over a period of
about 30 years took place during the apartheid era in South Africa before the Lesotho
Highlands Water Treaty was signed in 1986, between South Africa and the then recently
installed military government in Lesotho7.
The Treaty sets out the quantities of water to
be delivered, the calculation of royalties and the provisions for cost sharing. The purported
objectives of the project are to:
· Transfer surplus water from the Lesotho highlands to South Africa for royalties
· Generate hydropower in Lesotho
· Promote economic development of both states.
Initial international funding was provided by the World Bank (along with a number of other
aid agencies and the European Investment Bank)11 through Lesotho, since sanctions were
imposed on apartheid South Africa at the time of the establishment of the institutions under
the 1986 Treaty.
From the start the LHWP was designed to serve the water needs of South Africa. The
overall scheme was designed to eventually comprise of 5 dams, over 200km of tunnels,
and a 72-megawatt hydropower plant for the supply of electricity to Lesotho12. To date,
only Phase 1 of the project has been completed, which includes the 185m Katse Dam, the
145m Mohale Dam, as well as the hydropower plant and the transfer and delivery tunnels
to South Africa.
11 2002. Hilyard. The Lesotho Highlands Development Project ­ What went wrong?
12 2005. International Rivers Network. A brief history of Africa's largest water project.
13/11/2007
Final
11

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
Construction, which created thousands of jobs and provided substantial revenue to
Government through import duties, commenced in 1989. The first water was delivered
from the Katse Dam (Phase 1A) in 1998. This provides close to R20 million per month in
Royalties to Government of Lesotho. Power production from the Muela power plant began
at the same time, making Lesotho virtually self-sufficient in electricity. The Mohale Dam
(Phase 1B), linked to Katse by a tunnel, was inaugurated in 2004. Feasibility studies are
currently underway for Phase 2 of the project.
Only in recent years have the needs of the Lesotho Lowlands become more evident,
prompting fundamental questions to be asked about how subsequent phases of the
scheme might be adjusted to take into consideration Lesotho's own requirements.
Any
changes would, of course, have major implications for the treaty and for the current
institutional arrangements.
The LHWP has been extensively criticised as a result of the massive social upheaval
caused by the project in Lesotho.
Although fewer than 1,000 households had to be
resettled a far large number (around 27,000) lost access to valued resources in the areas
inundated by the two dams as well as downstream of these.13 Despite $62,000 being
spent per households resettled from the Katse Dam, and over $30,000 per household for
Mohale Dam (higher than any other World Bank funded project worldwide), the
resettlement process is said to have been plagued by problems including corruption, lack
of adequate basic services in resettled areas, inadequate compensation for displaced
people and tension between resettled people and residents of the resettlement areas7.
During construction, the influx of thousands of people into the area brought AIDS,
prostitution and alcoholism to previously isolated communities.
Furthermore, in certain
cases, resettlement did not take place before construction began leaving many displaced
people homeless, and the process to recreate lost livelihoods has been slow and
inconsistent. There was also significant loss of arable and grazing land as a result of
large-scale inundation.
Assessing the likely environmental impacts of the project has been complicated, partly
because the national legal and institutional arrangements were not in place at the start of
13 2006, Transformation Resource Centre, On the Wrong Side of Development: Lessons Learned from the
Lesotho Highlands Water Project.
13/11/2007
Final
12

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
the project, and are still not complete although progress has been made. There was no
formal environmental impact assessment (EIA) for Katse Dam. The absence of a formal
EIA for Katse Dam as in 1986 this was not a national requirement and the environmental
impact assessment capacity was very limited. Institutional and legislative developments
since then have ensured that no similar project could be developed today without an EIA
(a detailed EIA was conducted for Mohale Dam). However, Lesotho still does not have a
Lesotho Environment Authority or a national compensation policy, the absence of which
undermines EIA assessments and monitoring.
Although much criticised, the LWHP is ironically well known for developing methods for
assess the in-stream flow requirements (now usually know as environmental flows) for the
rivers below Katse and Mohale Dams.
A multidisciplinary team of biophysical, social and
economic experts carried out a complex assessment in the late 1990s of the impacts that
different flow scenarios would have on the downstream environment and the people who
depend on its resources. The results of this showed a need for significant sums to be paid
in compensation for a likely decline in river-dependent natural resources, notably shrubs.
However, there have been significant delays in payments because of a lack of clarity
regarding what local institutions should be responsible for handling the money (new
community councils are an avenue now being considered). The emerging lesson is that
the institutional aspects of compensation need be carefully examined well in advance of
such projects.
The Government of Lesotho is well known for having successfully prosecuted its own
officials and several large foreign companies for corruption in cases associated with the
LHWP. This has resulted in the World Bank suspending contracts to major international
engineering firms after findings that they were guilty of paying bribes. For example, in
2006, the World Bank's sanctions committee found that Lahmeyer International had
engaged in corrupt activities by bribing the LHDAs then chief executive, Mr Masupha Sole,
who was the government official responsible for contract award and implementation under
the LHWP, in violation of the Bank's procurement guidelines14.
To a certain extent, the difficulties experienced by the LHWP can be traced back to
institutional problems.
Resettlement and compensation are recognised as being
14 See http://www.probeinternational.org/
13/11/2007
Final
13

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
extremely contentious issues in all big dam projects. International experiences indicates a
need for high levels of political will, staff capacity, funding, community participation and
development opportunities for there to be any measure of success. In the case of the
LHWP project it has been argued that, from the start, political will was not sufficient as the
award-winning engineering components always appeared to receiver higher priority than
the social aspects; that capacity was inadequate and was not enhanced in a timely
manner; that budgets for development projects, notably health and agriculture, were
insufficient and that "inability to allocate expenses between the governments of South
Africa and Lesotho" adversely affected implementation of resettlement and other
programmes. This experience points to a need for the institutional aspects of multinational
projects to be very carefully hammered out well in advance of project implementation.15
Looking ahead, there is increasing evidence that the implementation of water demand
management practises in South Africa could significantly reduce the amount of water
needed from Lesotho, and that further phases of the project may not be necessary.
Currently, however, a feasibility study for Phase 2 of the LHWP is underway. If this is to
serve the needs of the Lowlands of Lesotho new institutional arrangements will need to be
considered for bulk water supply management.
Some of these issues discussed above can be addressed in a more integrated manner
through the IWRMP, and it is therefore important to learn from the problems that this
project has generated, in order to improve the effectiveness, sustainability and equity in
the implementation of other projects on the Orange-Senqu Basin.
15 2006, Thayer Scudder. Assessing the Impact of the LHWP on Resettled Households and other Affected
People: 1986-2005. In Ibid.
13/11/2007
Final
14

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
4
EXISTING INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE
4.1
National Structures
4.1.1
Lesotho
The Ministry of Natural Resources is the organ of state responsible for formulating policy
and legislation with regard to water resources. All water uses (except domestic use) must
be licensed, and domestic uses have priority. Most of the population lives in the Lowlands
and experiences frequent water shortages5, despite the plentiful supply in the Highlands.
Water management in Lesotho is impacted by the Lesotho Highlands Water Treaty, and
the institutions it established, as can be seen from the diagram in Figure 4-1.
Consequently, these institutions must be included in any discussion of Lesotho water
management policy and practise.
Internally, a significant policy framework for water resources is the National Environment
Policy (NEP) of 1998.
This document sets out the policy and strategy provisions for
integrated water management, with strong commitment to environmental sustainability and
protection. It includes strategies for demand management and pollution control, as well as
providing for the development and enforcement of water quality standards, and the
protection of the environment and delicate ecosystems.
The NEP, and the subsequent Lesotho Environment Act (2001), resulted in the
established the Lesotho Environment Secretariat (LES) to oversee implementation of
national environmental policies. The 2001 Act, although not yet in force, acts as the
principle document guiding EIAs and having some influence on the environmental
management of water and land resources. The NEP is based on internationally agreed
sustainable development principles. Under the 2001 Act there are plans to transform the
LES into the Lesotho Environment Authority (LEA), which is to be the primary institution for
environmental management. Current institutional capacity constraints are said to be a key
reason for the delay in the enforcement of the Act and creation of the LEA.
13/11/2007
Final
15

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
LESOTHO
Minister of
Formerly:
Office of the
Natural
W
N
Po
Minister of Water,
Prime Minister
Resources
a
a
Bill
t
l
Energy & Mining
t
i
i
e
o
c
r
n
y
Se
/
a
ices
lEn
St
rv
c
r
t
Principal Secretary
or
a
v
teg
rSe
I
ir
m
o
te
n
y
a
p
m
:
r
W
Ministry of Natural Resources
o
en
v
ft
Water Services
e
t
Water Commissioner
m
a
Regulator (as
l
Dra
en
Po
yet unformed)
Department of
t
Department of
l
1),
Pr
ic
Rural Water
y
00
Water Affairs
o
(
Supply
je
1
t(2
c
99
c
t( 8)
A
C
l
,
om
L
tan
e
Lesotho
m
so
Local Water Management Institutions
enc
Environment
th
nme
o
Secretariat
ed
H
irov
Lesotho
Water &
Lesotho
i
n
20
gh
Highlands
Sewage
Lowlands
02
la
),E
Development
n
8
Authority
Project Unit
)
d
7
Authority
s
Lesotho
W
(19
Environment
ate
Authority (as yet
Act
rT
unformed)
r
International Water
ea
urces
ty
Ministry of
Management Institutions
n:
(1
io
Environment,
(Lesotho Highlands Water
98
lat
rReso
Gender and
Commission (LWHC))
s
2)
6)
gi
tea
,
00
Youth
Le
W
(2
Source: Krantz et al. Governance, Institutions and Participation in the Orange-Senqu Basin. Report to the NeWater Project,
Berlin, October 2005.
2006. Lesotho Water and Sewage Authority. Maseru Wastewater Project ­ Brief Review of Institutional Arrangements
2006. D Hall. Pers.Comms. 10/11/2006
Figure 4-1: Lesotho Institutional Structure
Following a Water Resources Policy and Strategy study in 1996, the Commissioner of
Water was created to oversee the water sector in Lesotho. The Commissioner falls under
the Ministry of Natural Resources, and is responsible for the Departments of Water Affairs
(DWA) and Rural Water Supply (DRWS). He is also responsible for setting policy for the
Lesotho Highlands Development Authority (LHDA) and the Water and Sewage Authority
(WASA). The Policy, Planning and Strategy Unit (PPSU) provides technical support to the
13/11/2007
Final
16

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
Commissioner.16
These institutions are still in their infancy, and a World Bank-funded
Water Sector Improvement Project is currently underway in Lesotho to strengthen them.
The Department of Water Affairs is the implementing institution for the Water Act (1978)
and is generally responsible for water sector administration, policy and data collection.
The supply of water to rural communities is the responsibility of the DRWS, while the
WASA was established as a parastatal, to manage water supply to urban areas.
The second parastatal overseen by the Commissioner of Water is the LHDA.
This
organisation is responsible for all aspects of the LHWP within Lesotho and must give effect
to the rights and duties of the LHWC. The LHDA is governed primarily by the terms of the
Lesotho Highlands Water Treaty.
In volume terms, therefore, the terms of the Treaty
dominate most of Lesotho's water, although the LHDA can be called upon by the Lesotho
government, to provide support to the water sector in Lesotho.
The Local Government Act (1997) provides for local government structures to eventually
take responsibility for the delivery of water services, but this is a long way from
implementation.
Comment
Whilst it appears that Lesotho has a modern water management framework, there are two
significant issues that affect the implementation of this structure.
The first is that the
policy, legislative and institutional frameworks are in the initial stages of transformation to a
more integrated framework. The second is that the technical capacity to implement this
framework is limited in Lesotho. This situation could affect Lesotho's contribution regarding
the use of this basin at international level, if much of its available technical capacity is
concentrated on local issues.
4.1.2
South Africa
The major changes in South Africa's political regime in 1994 carried through to water
management issues in the sense that riparian rights (ownership) were removed from
private individuals, and the national government, through the Ministry of Water Affairs and
Forestry, became the custodian of the nation's water. Thus the Minister of Water Affairs
16 2002. Lesotho Water and Sewage Authority. Maseru Wastewater Project: Brief Review of Institutional
Arrangements.
13/11/2007
Final
17

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
and Forestry holds the responsibility for the management of South Africa's water
resources.
The Minister retains the functions of specification of international water obligations,
contingency planning for future needs and authorising inter-basin transfers or water uses
of strategic importance. All other functions are delegated to officials in the Department of
Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF).
The DWAF is responsible for the functions relating to implementation of the two major
legal instruments relating to water, the Water Services Act No. 108 of 1997, and the
National Water Act No. 36 of 1998 (NWA). The NWA was derived from the National Water
Policy, the fundamental principles of which are that of equitable allocation, sustainability
and environmental protection. The means by which the NWA is to be implemented, is
through the National Water Resource Strategy (NWRS).
The NWRS has 4 main
objectives17:
· To establish the national framework for the protection, use, development,
conservation, management and control of South Africa's water resources.
· To establish the framework for the formulation of catchment management
strategies.
· To provide information to the public.
· To identify opportunities and constraints (given that South Africa is considered an
arid country and that water resources are limited).
Under the NWA, the NWRS must also contain objectives for the establishment of
institutions to manage water and determine the inter-relationship between those
institutions18.
Figure 4-2 outlines the major institutions, and their related legislation and policy for water
management in South Africa. Following the promulgation of the above acts, South Africa's
institutional structure for the management of water resources changed dramatically. Most
significant, was the move to integrated management, with the catchment as the basic unit
of management (regional level management). This resulted in the delineation of 19 water
17 2002. DWAF. National Water Resource Strategy
18 Undated. DWAF. Overview of Water Management Institutions
13/11/2007
Final
18

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
management areas (WMAs) in South Africa. (The Orange-Senqu Basin in South Africa
spans five of WMAs: the Upper and Lower Orange, and the Upper, Middle and Lower Vaal
WMAs.) These water management areas will eventually become the responsibility of the
Catchment Management Agency (CMA) in that area, a function that is currently
undertaken by the DWAF.
The Catchment Management Agencies have a legal identity and are (or will be)
responsible for administering and implementing the catchment management strategy
(CMS) for their area, which must be in accordance with the NWA and the NWRS. This
strategy must be formulated with extensive stakeholder consultation, which may take place
through the establishment of non-statutory bodies such as Catchment Management fora,
or Catchment Steering Committees.
CMAs comprise the Governing Board, temporary
standing committees (for matters of particular interest or import), committees (e.g.
executive committee), a chief executive officer and the general staff, and their principal
objective is to devolve water management responsibilities to a regional level through the
stakeholder participation process which is integral to their establishment.
The NWA
regulates the management and planning of a CMA, and all CMAs must submit business
plans and annual reports to the Minister.
13/11/2007
Final
19

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
SOUTH AFRICA
N
N
Pol
a
a
ti
ti
i
onal
onal
cy
Minister of Water
/Str
ental
Affairs & Forestry
Str
W
a
a
a
ter
teg
Water Tribunal
tegi
ironm
onal
R
(Independent
y
c
:
e
F
Env
,Nati
body)
Department of
s
r
our
am
Water Affairs &
onal
National
ce
ti
Forestry
Advisory
ewor
a
(1989)
infrastructure &
Committees
Strateg
N
t
,
development
k
Ac
f
institutions
o
on
r
y
1997)
ti
W
,Nati
(
a
Water Management Areas
2004)
ater
erv
(
Act
Serv
onal
International
es
ons
Act
ic
ity
water
C
D
i
rs
management
c
i
ent
e
es
sas
Serv
v
institutions
Catchment
Department of
ter
ter
odi
Management
a
ironm
Environemntal
M
v
Bi
Agencies
W
n
a
Affairs &
n
,E
ent
agem
Tourism
1998),t( 1998)
ent
t(
anagem
Department of
Water
Fora
Ac
F
M
r
ter
Ac
Provincial and
Services
(Voluntary
am
Water User
a
ent
Local
Authorities
bodies)
ewor
W
ental
Associations
Government
(Municipalities)
lation:s
k
onalti
ironm
,
a
anagem
Legi
N
M
Env
Source: South Africa DWAF. National Water Resources Strategy, First Edition. September 2004
Krantz et al. Governance, Institutions and Participation in the Orange-Senqu Basin. Report to the NeWater Project, Berlin, October 2005.
Figure 4-2: South Africa Institutional Structure
Furthermore, the NWA provides for Water User Associations (WUAs) to be set up as
localised bodies (within a particular WMA), and they may or may not have water
management activities devolved to them. They are defined as "associations of individual
water users that undertake water related activities for mutual benefit", and are statutory
bodies ­ i.e. have a legal identity.
There are two types of WUA, one sector-based ­
comprising members with similar water uses, and multi-sectoral, acting in the interests of
members with a number of different water uses. WUAs can only be established by the
Minister under the procedures set out in the NWA, and must include a public consultation
process.
There are also advisory bodies which are be formed to advise the Minister on the
particular issues, such as the Board of a CMA, or the Advisory Committee on the Safety of
13/11/2007
Final
20

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
Dams.
Institutions may be established for the management of infrastructure or
development projects that traverse regional or national boundaries.
Other institutions mentioned in the NWRS are those established for international water
management.
This does not refer to bodies such as ORASECOM, which is an
international organisation, but rather to those national institutions that are implementing
organisations for the provisions of an international treaty.
An example of such an
institution is the Trans-Caledon Tunnel Authority (TCTA) (para. 3.1.2). A second such
institution, established under the 1956 Water Act, and now repealed, was the Vioolsdrift
Noordoewer Joint Irrigation Authority, which now falls under the PWC (para. 3.1.1).
The Water Tribunal is an independent body, established by the Minister under the NWA,
and deals with appeals against any administrative decisions made by the water
management institutions described above.
In addition, the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) has links to
water resources, since the provisions of the NWA must be in accordance with
environmental policy through the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) of
1998. Formal mechanisms exist for this, in the form of the Consolidated Environmental
Implementation and Management Plan, drafted by the DWAF, and requiring review every
4 years, and DWAF contributions to the State of the Environment report prepared by
DEAT.
Finally, the Municipal Structures Act of 1998 gave the responsibility of the delivery of water
services (water supply and sanitation) to District Municipalities through the establishment
of Water Services Authorities. These institutions can have a significant impact on water
resources, as they are responsible for the management of effluent return to water
resources, water quality issues in their area of jurisdiction, and abstraction of bulk supply
from water resources in, and outside, their area.
Infrastructure that was previously
managed by the DWAF for the above functions, is now in the process of being transferred
to the ownership of local government institutions across the country. Each WSA must
complete a Water Services Development Plan to address their service supply backlogs, as
well as provide an annual report to the Minister of Water Affairs (through the DWAF).
Comment
South Africa has a progressive, but complex legislative and policy framework, and hence,
institutional structure, for the management of her national water resources.
Its
13/11/2007
Final
21

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
implementation, however, is progressing slowly, with most of the CMAs not yet established
despite the NWA having been promulgated 8 years ago. The NWRS, which gave effect to
the provisions of the Act, was completed in late 2004, and infrastructure remains to be
transferred to the WSAs.
Although strategic frameworks for the management of most of the WMAs have been
prepared by the DWAF (in the form of an Internal Strategic Perspective or ISP document),
these do not fulfil the terms of the NWA, in the sense that they must be prepared by the
CMAs, which are considerably more representative of the stakeholders of the area than
the DWAF.
The NWA provides that stakeholders, especially previously disadvantaged
and marginalised stakeholders, must have the capacity to participate effectively in water
management; a time-consuming process. Capacity is also an issue with regard to the
WSAs, and infrastructure is often obsolete or in bad repair.
Furthermore, there are constraints with regard to the implementation of the Ecological
Reserve according to the NWA, as well as the licensing system, under which all existing
uses must eventually be documented and review according to the provisions of the NWA.
These two processes are both enormous and costly exercises, which must also be
integrated, and then managed by CMAs, which will be newly formed organisations. Given
that there are five WMAs within South Africa that relate to the Orange basin, and at least
20 WSAs, including the powerful Gauteng Municipalities governing the cities of
Johannesburg and Pretoria, South Africa's institutional structure in the context of the
Orange-Senqu Basin, is highly complex. As a result, at international level, the protracted
time frame in which these processes are taking place, and the complexity of the
institutional structure could impact on the implementation of an adequate integrated
management strategy in the international context.
4.1.3
Botswana
The principal institution for the management of water resources in Botswana is the Ministry
of Mineral Resources and Water Affairs (MMRWA). According to the Botswana National
Water Master Plan (NWMP)19, the organisation's broad functions are policy development,
planning and liaison with related Ministries.
There are a number of departments and
19 1991. SMEC et al. Botswana National Water Master Plan Study.
13/11/2007
Final
22

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
parastatal organisations that fall under the MMRWA.
Figure 4-3 sets out Botswana's
institutional structure as it relates to water.
The Department of Water Affairs (DWA) is responsible for hydrological data, water
resources development, water supply to major villages and the design and investigation of
supply to rural villages and the servicing and support of the Water Apportionment Board
(WAB). Given that the people living in the Botswana portion of the Orange-Senqu Basin
are predominantly dependent upon groundwater, the Department of Geological Surveys
(DGS) is of particular significance. The DGS is responsible for the administration and
management and research of groundwater resources under the Boreholes Act.
The
groundwater division of the DWA works closely with the Hydrogeological division of the
DGS, and is responsible for drilling for and siting of small-scale water supply schemes.
The Water Apportionment Board (WAB) is a quasi-judicial body, which is responsible for
the administration of water use licenses and rights. The Minister of MRWA appoints its
members, who include representatives from other Ministries, but in practice it is operated
by the DWA, whose Director is the WAB Secretary and Water Registrar. All major water
abstractions from surface and groundwater resources must be approved by the WAB, and
major mines are required to produce bi-annual reports on water quality. The DWA also
began producing these reports for the groundwater supply to major villages in 1991.
13/11/2007
Final
23

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
BOTSWANA
C
N
P
o
a
o
n
ti
l
8)
Minister of
i
s
on
c
t
e
y
97
Mineral
/
r
al
Ac
1
v
Str
s
a
t(
Resources and
W
k
tion a
a
or
Ac
Water Affairs
te
teg
w
and
rM
y
ter
ent
:
a
D
a
Ministry of Mineral Resources and Water Affairs
s
W
e
t
,
ndm
er
e
v
6)
e
Department of
Pl
l
Department of
Department of
opmen
95
Am
a
Geological
1
C
n
Ministry of
Mines
Water Affairs
(1
t(
U
Surveys
Finance and
991
Ac
W
t.
e
),
Development
0
)
7
,
Planning
N
hol
9
re
1
a
o
ti
)(
on
C
Divisions of DWA
),B
U
al
Ministry of
2
Water
Po
69
Agriculture
t(W
Apportionment
Hydrology &
l
(1
ic
t
Board
y
Ac
Water
Groundwater
on
n
Ac
o
Ministry of Health
Resources
s
N
rk
rati
a
o
o
tu
W
rp
ra
r
o
Ministry of Works,
Design &
Operations &
Water Utilities
lR
te
C
Transport and
a
s
Construction
Maintenance
Corporation (Major
es
W
Communications
o
,
urban centres &
u
8)
tilitie
r
infrastructure)
c
rU
es
196
Ministry of Local
:
te
t(
a
Government and
on
District Councils (Domestic water
ti
W
Ac
,
Lands
la
supply)
is
ter
83)
a
9
Leg
W
(1
Source: Botswana DWAF. Botswana National Water Master Plan Study: Volume 7 ­ Institutional Aspects. July 1991.
IUCN ROSA et al. Sharing Water ­ Towards a transboundary consensus on the management of the Okavango River: River Basin
Management Governance. March 2004
Figure 4-3 Botswana Institutional Structure
The Water Utilities Corporation (WUC), a parastatal entity that falls under the MMRWA, is
responsible for the supply of water to the urban centres, having taken over from the Water
and Electricity unit in 1970.
It is chaired by the Deputy Permanent Secretary of the
MMRWA and representatives from other relevant Ministries serve on its Board. The WUC
operates the major dams and the North-South carrier (from the Limpopo Basin), in addition
to several well fields.
Other Ministries relevant to water resources management in Botswana include the Ministry
of Local Government and Lands (MLGL), whose responsibilities include the operation of
water supply to the rural villages through the District Councils. In practice, this occurs with
significant support from the DWA. The MLGL is also responsible for land use planning,
13/11/2007
Final
24

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
environmental investigations and the preparation of the National Conservation Strategy.
The Ministry of Finance and Development Planning (MFDP) allocates funding for water
development projects and water resource studies, and the Ministries of Health and
Agriculture have obvious links, the latter through its Small Dams construction and Irrigation
sections and the former with regard to water quality standards. Finally, the Ministry of
Works, Transport and Communications collects and processes meteorological data.
Community based formal structures include the kgotla, which is in essence a Community
Meeting Forum. Disputes over water supply or water requirements in the rural areas may
be addressed in such fora.
Comment
Botswana is a dry country, and surface water resources, particularly in the area of the
Orange basin, are limited. National institutional arrangements for water management are
fairly cumbersome, with some significant areas of overlap; both the legislation and
institutional structures are now more than 15 years old, and require updating. It is also
important to note that Botswana's institutional arrangements do not reflect the catchment
as a management unit, although the Water Apportionment Board is involved obliquely at
the catchment level.
This structure, and the legislation that establishes its institutions,
requires extensive review and coordination, as well as the establishment of the catchment
as the management unit.
The NWMP is currently under review, and this should be
coordinated with the IWRMP in order to maximise the coordination of the national structure
at international level, especially given that Botswana's major surface water resources are
shared watercourses.
4.1.4
Namibia
Under a United Nations mandate, until 1990, Namibia was a protectorate under South
African stewardship. As a result, much of the earlier legislation applicable in Namibia has
its origins in South Africa.
Namibia's institutional arrangements for water resources management are currently in the
throes of transformation, and as such, this institutional map will present two scenarios, the
situation under existing legislation, and the emerging situation under the new Draft Water
Bill, according to the National Water Policy adopted in 20025.
Under the existing structure, the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development
(MAWRD) (previously the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry (MWAF)) holds
13/11/2007
Final
25

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
overall responsibility for the management of the nation's water resources. The Ministry
comprises two main departments, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
(DARD), and the Department of Water Affairs (DWA). The MAWRD is responsible for
broad policy setting and overall coordination of agricultural and water issues to achieve the
National Development Plan (NDP) (1997) objectives20.
The DWA comprises two directorates as set out in Figure 4-4, the Directorate of Resource
Management (DRM) and the Directorate of Rural Water Supply (DRWS).
The DRM
carries out the overall management of water resources according to the existing legislative
framework (South African Water Act 1956). The DRM is therefore, for practical purposes,
the custodian of Namibia's water resources. In this capacity, the DRM is responsible for
the implementation of measures to ensure sustainable use and protection of water
resources, the control of abstraction and water allocation and carries out the functions of
planning and regulation of the water sector. Currently this Directorate is attempting to
achieve these goals on the basis of an outdated legislative framework, but this should
improve considerably once the National Water Bill is enacted.
(The Water Resources
Management Act was promulgated in December 2004, but implementation has not yet
commenced21.
20 Undated. MWAF Official Website. Available at: http://www.op.gov.na/Decade_peace/agri.htm
21 This information was received through email communications with Ms Maria Amakali (14/11/2006), but was
received too late to be integrated into this report. Subsequent reviews or projects must, however, take this into
account.
13/11/2007
Final
26

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
NAMIBIA (Existing structure)
Bas
and
N
P
t
e
o
t
w
li
e
Sanitati
cy
Ac
e
Minister of
N
d
y
/
M
a
Agriculture,
S
tional
ater
not
a
t
(
Water and Rural
nage
ra
W
on
,
t
Development
e
Poli
W
gy
6)
Bill
m
ter
a
:
ent
t
195
a
e
cy
(
r
W
Str
Poli
(
)
Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry
1
Act
e
a
9
n
nal
t
93)
cy
a
e
tio
rc
gy
(
ric
a
fo
Department of
Department of Water Affairs
,
2
N
(
Env
0
1997
Af
,
tin
Agriculture and
02)
e
97)
y
Rural
ir
9
t
o
­
)
nm
(1
o
Development
W
South
n
,
t
Directorate of
Directorate of
a
ll(
en
ter
04)
Ac
Resource
Rural Water
ta
0
)
Bi
Su
Management
Supply
l
(2
ter
As
t
a
pply
ses
tAc
s
a
n
amW
agement
m
nd
N
n
ent
(
a
Sa
M
Pol
ageme
tion
ni
n
tation
a
rao
icy
M
,
s
rp
C
Po
e
o
Water Supply
Namibian
International
ironmental
Water Point
o
rc
rC
v
and
Water
Water
m
u
li
te
Committees
m
c
:
o
a
Sanitation
Corporation
Management
y
n
s
unit
,
o
e
,En
W
W
e)
Coordinating
Organisations
,
lati
R
y
a
rc
Committee
ter
tera
fo
956)
(WASCO)
Legis
W
(1
on
Source: Namibian Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry official website.
http://www.op.gov.na/Decade_peace/agri.htm
IUCN ROSA et al. Sharing Water ­ Towards a transboundary consensus on the management of the Okavango
River: River Basin Management Governance. March 2004
Figure 4-4: Namibia's existing institutional structure
The DRWS is responsible for the supply of water to the rural or communal areas in
Namibia, and its objectives are set out in the NDP. The NDP represented a move to
community-based water management and established Water Point Committees, which are
staffed with trained local representatives.
It is estimated that over 1000 water point
committees have been established and trained since the strategy was formulated in
199720.
The DRWS is also responsible for assisting the rural communities with the
installation and maintenance of water supply infrastructure.
13/11/2007
Final
27

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
The Namibian Water Corporation Act (NamWater Act) of 1997 established the NamWater
parastatal organisation which begun operating in 1998. Its objectives are the bulk supply
of water consumers throughout Namibia, primarily through the local authorities.
The Water and Sanitation Policy of 1993 recommended the establishment of a Water
Supply and Sanitation Coordinating Committee (WASCO), which was approved by
Cabinet in 1995. It is the mechanism for coordination of the water sector in Namibia and
falls under the DWA.
Finally, Namibia is party to a number of international agreements, including the Helsinki
Rules on Shared Watercourses, the UN Convention and the SADC Protocols on Shared
Watercourses.
Representatives to multilateral and bilateral organisations of which
Namibia is a member are responsible for the internal application of the provisions of the
agreements that established them.
The proposed structure (Figure 4-5) under the Draft Water Resources Management Bill
represents a move toward the catchment (or basin) as the unit of management in Namibia,
in a more integrated framework22. The Bill attempts to address the problems generated by
the fact that all of Namibia's interior rivers are ephemeral, and their flow is influenced by
the condition of the catchment.
To this end, the establishment of Basin Management
Committees (BMCs) is proposed by the Bill. These will be statutory bodies, established by
the Minister and should incorporate the current community-based and coordination
structures (WASCO and Water Point Committees).
22 2002. Amakali & Shixwameni. River Basin Management in Namibia.
13/11/2007
Final
28

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
NA MIB IA
(P ropos e d s tru c ture unde r th e ne w D ra ft W a te r R e s ourc e s
M a n a g e m e n t B ill)
M inis ter of
Ag ric u ltu re ,
W a te r a n d R u ra l
De v e lo p m e n t
M inistry o f A g ric u lture, W a te r a nd R u ra l D e velo p m en t
D e partm ent of A g ricu ltu re
D e pa rtm e n t of W a te r
a nd R u ra l D e velo p m en t
Affa irs
P o lic y an d
W a te r A d v is o ry
S tra te g y U n it
Co m m itte e
W a te r M ana gem ent A re a
Wa te r
Ba s in
R e so u rce s
T e c hnic a l su ppo rt
M a n age m e n t
M a na ge m e n t
C o m m itte e s
Ag e n c y
S ourc e : A k am ali, M . a nd S h ix w a m eni, L . R ive r B a sin M ana ge m e n t in N a m ibia . P ape r
presen te d to : 3 rd W a te rnet/W A R F S A S y m p os iu m . D a r-e s - S a laam . O c to b e r 20 02
Figure 4-5: Namibia's proposed institutional structure
Technical support to the BMCs will be provided by the Water Resources Management
Agency (WRMA), which falls within MAWRD, and will also be the regulating authority. The
BMCs, with the support of the WRMA, will be responsible for the formulation of
management plans at the level of the basin and incorporating extensive stakeholder
participation. These plans will then be coordinated by the Policy and Strategy Unit (PSU),
which will be responsible for overall national planning and policy formulation. The PSU will
also provide the guidelines for all BMC plans.
Finally, the Water Advisory Committee (WAC) will be established to advise the Minister on
all aspects of water resource management. All BMCs will be represented on the WAC.
13/11/2007
Final
29

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
Comment
The proposed structure represents an integrated management framework at catchment
level in Namibia. This requires a significant revision of outdated structures, and the policy
and legislation that established them.
However, it is modelled on the South African
structure, which is complex and has already had considerable problems in its
implementation. The concern therefore, is Namibia's capacity to implement the Bill, given
the problems South Africa, considered to be generally better funded and with greater
technical capacity, has already had5.
For the IWRMP for the Orange-Senqu Basin, however, the current and ongoing
transformation of Namibia's institutional structure at national level represents an
opportunity to integrate with international principles of water management in a process
concurrent with the revision of international structures for improved management of shared
watercourses. This could save costs and also represents the possibility for Namibia to
take into account issues raised in the South African transformation.
4.2
International Structure
The Permanent Water Commission (para. 3.1.1) and the Lesotho Highlands Water
Commission (para.3.1.2) are both bilateral agreements, and, while they are international
structures, they do not correspond to the international context with regard to the
management of shared watercourses.
There are various overarching international
institutions that have determined the policy and legislative framework by which
international basins in Southern Africa (and generally) should be managed. The Orange-
Senqu River Commission (ORASECOM) was established in November 2000 as a result of
the evolution of this policy context.
ORASECOM includes representation from all four
basin states under the terms of the ORASECOM Agreement (2000).
Figure 4-6
represents the existing institutional framework for the Orange-Senqu Basin.
4.2.1
The International context
The Helsinki Rules, formulated by the International Law Association in 1966, set out
factors that should be applied in determining what constitutes equitable utilisation of
shared water resources. Given the multifaceted nature of water resources, it is not
unexpected that refining of these rules into an agreed United Nations Convention, took 25
years.
13/11/2007
Final
30

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
The UN General Assembly adopted the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigable
Uses of International Watercourses in 1997. It represents the codification of the rules of
customary international law as regards shared watercourses. It established three critical
principles in the use of shared watercourses. They are:
· The principle of equitable and reasonable utilisation according to a number of
factors including social and environmental factors. This principle states that these
must be considered on a case-by-case basis (Article 6)
· The principle of obligation not to cause significant harm (Article 7), which protects
downstream users of the watercourse from upstream development or utilisation.
This principle introduces the possibility of compensation in the event that serious
harm is caused
· The principle of prior notification in the event of planned measures that may "have
a significant adverse effect upon other watercourse states" (Article 12)
These principles essentially obligate basin states to institute a framework for extensive
cooperation, information exchange and impact assessment in their uses of international
watercourses.
The Revised SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourse Systems (2000) (The Protocol) was
formulated by the regional organisation, the Southern African Development Community
(SADC).
This protocol was originally signed in 1995, as part of the implementation
process of the SADC Treaty (promoting cooperation between 14 member states in the
Southern African region).
In 2000, however, the 1995 Protocol was revised to bring its provision in line with the UN
Convention and to strengthen the principle of integrated management of shared
watercourses, with specific provisions regarding equitable utilisation, planned measures,
no significant harm, and emergency situations5. The Protocol also makes provision for the
establishment of "shared watercourse institutions" (Article 5(3)) and "joint management
mechanisms" (Article 4(3)).
Although The Protocol provides the framework principles on which shared watercourse
management institutions in the Southern African region should be based, it does not
provide specifics on a model institution. Any institution established in the SADC region,
however, must implement its general principles as the Protocol has been ratified and is
13/11/2007
Final
31

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
therefore binding on its signatories (which include the four basin states on the Orange-
Senqu). The SADC has also recently (in 2005) established a Tribunal, in order to address
regional disputes.
13/11/2007
Final
32

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
GENERAL INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL FRAM EWORKS
UNITE D
NEPAD
SADC
NA TIONS
Policy
Information flow
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SPECIFIC TO T HE ORANGE-
STAT E
SENQU BASIN
LEGISL ATIVE
INTERNATIONAL
FRAMEWORKS
MULTIL AT ERAL
LEGISL ATIVE
FRAMEWORKS
ORASECOM
LESOTHO:
Water Resources
LESOTHO
BOTSWANA
Act (1978)
UN Convention
Guiding
on the Law of the
International
principles
Non-Navi gabl e
SOUTH AFRICA:
Protocols
SOUTH AFRICA
NAMIB IA
Uses of
National Water Act
must be
International
National Water
ratified in
Watercourses
Resources Strategy
local laws
(SA& Namibia
etc.
ratified)
BILAT ERAL
BOTSWANA:
Water Act (1968)
LESOT HO HIGHLANDS WAT ER
PERM ANENT
Revised Protocol
Borehole Act (1956)
COMMISSION
WATER
on Shared
Waterworks Act
COMMITTEE
Watercourses in
LESOTHO: Lesotho Highlands
('70,'78)
the SADC Region
Development Authority
SOUTH AFRICA
NAMIB IA:
Specific
Water Act (1956)
SOUTH AFRICA: Trans-Caledon
provisions
NAMIB IA
Multilateral and
Draft Water
Tunnel Authority
Bilateral Treaties
Resources
Management Bill
Information flow
STAT E INSTITUTIONAL FRAM EWORKS (See Figures 4.1 to 4.5)
Policy
LESOTHO
SOUTH AFRICA
NAMIB IA
BOTSWANA
M
i ni s t er
of
Fo r m
e r l y :
M
i ni s
t er
o
f
M
i ni s
t er
of
Na t u r a l
Ag
r i c
u
l t u
r e
,
Mi n
e
r a
l
M
i ni s t er
of
W
a t e r ,
M
i ni s t er
o f
W
a
t e
r
R
e s our c e s
A
f f a
i r s
&
F
o
re
s t ry
W
a
t e
r
and
R
e
s
our c
e
s
a
nd
E
ner gy
&
M
i ni ng
F
o
re
s
t ry
Wa
t e
r
A
f f a
i r s
D
e pa r t m
e nt
of
M
i ni s
t r y
of
M
i ner al
R
e
s
our c
e
s
and
W
a
t e
r
A
f f a
i r s
M
i ni s t r y
of
N
a t u r a l
R
e s our c e s
W
a te r
A
ffa
i r s
&
M
i ni s
t r y
of
A
g
r i c
u
l t u
r e,
W
a
t e
r
and
W
a t e r
C
o m
m
i s s i oner
N
a t i on
al
Ad v
i s o
r y
Fo r e s t r y
F
o
re
s
t ry
D
e
pa
r t m
ent
of
G
e
o
l og
i c
al
D
epa
r t m
e
nt
of
i n
fr a
s tr u c
t u
r e
&
Co m
m
i t t e
e s
M
i ni s t r y
of
M
i nes
Su
r v
e
y s
Wa
t e
r
A
f f a
i r s
D
epar t m
e n t
of
de v
e l o pm
en t
F
i nanc
e
a
n
d
D
epa
r t m
ent
D
epar t m
en
t
D
epar t m
ent
of
De
v
e
l o
p
m
e
n
t
Ru r a l
W
a t e r
i n s
t i t ut i o
ns
of
A
g
r i c
u
l t u
r e
of
W
a
t e
r
Wa t e r
A
f f a i r s
P
l anni n
g
S
uppl y
W
a t e r
M
a na ge m
e nt
A
r e a
s
an
d
R
u
r a
l
A
ffa
i r s
M
i ni s t r y
of
D
e
v
e
l opm
en
t
E
n v i r onm
ent ,
I n t e r n at i o na l
D
i vi si o
n
s
o
f
D
W
A
M
i ni s t r y
of
Wa
t e
r
G
e nder
and
wa t e r
Loc al
W
a t e r
Ag
r i c
u
l t u
r e
A
ppo
r t i o
nm
ent
m
a
na
ge
m
e
nt
H
y
dr o
l og
y
&
Y
out h
M
ana gem
e nt
i n s
t i t ut i o
ns
C
a
t c
h m
e n
t
M
a na ge m
e nt
Bo
a
r d
Wa
t e
r
G
r oundw
a
t e
r
W
a
t e
r
S
uppl y
I n s t i t ut i ons
( W
at er
and
A
g en c
i es
W
a
te
r
P
o
i n
t
Re
s o
u
r c
e
s
and
M
i ni s
t r y
of
H
eal t h
L e s o t ho
Co
m
m
i t t e
e
s
M
i ni s t r y
of
S
e w
a ge
A
u t hor i t y )
S
a
n
i t a
t i on
E
n v i r onm
ent
C
oor di nat i ng
Ag r i c u l t u r e
M
i ni s
t r y
of
W
o
r k
s
,
W
a
t e
r
U
t il it ie
s
S
e c r et ar i a t
De
s
i g
n
&
O
p
e
r at i o
ns
&
Co
m
m
i t t e
e
T
r ans
por t
and
C
o
r p
o
r at i on
C
o
ns
t r uc
t i o
n
M
a
i n
t e
n
anc
e
(W
A
S
C
O
)
C
o
m
m
un
i c
at i o
ns
(S
h
a
s
e
Fo
r a
In
f r a
s
tr u
c
tu
r e
/
M
i ni s t r y
of
Lo c a l
( V
ol un t a r y
Wa t e
r
U
s e
r
I n
t e
r nat i onal
G
abor one
M
i ni s t r y
of
Lo
c a
l
Go v e r n m
e n t
I n t e r nat i onal
W
a t e r
L e s o t ho
bo di es )
A
s
s o c
i at i o ns
Wa
t e
r
M
anagem
ent
I n s t i t ut i ons
Na
m
i b
i a
n
G
o
v
e
r n
m
e
nt
a
n
d
E
n v i r onm
ent
M
a
nag
em
ent
Wa
t e
r
Lan
d
s
( Les ot ho
H
i ghl i ands
A
u t h o r i t y
( a s
y e t
Or g
a
n
i s
a
t i o
n
s
D
i s
t ri c t
C
o
u
n
c i l s
(D
o
m
e
s
t i c
w
a
t e
r
C
o
r p
or at i o
n
W
a t e r
C
o m
m
i s s i on
s
uppl y )
M
i ni s t r y
of
Lo c a l
unf or m
ed)
( L W
HC) )
Go v e r n m
e n t
Figure 4-6: Orange-Senqu existing institutional framework
13/11/2007
Final
33

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
Finally, the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD) has established
development objectives, relating to water resources. They are as follows23:
· Sustainable access to clean water and sanitation, especially for the poor
· The planning and management of water resources as a basis for cooperation and
development at national and regional level
· The protection of ecosystems, biodiversity and wildlife
· The cooperation on shared rivers of basin states
· Addressing the threat of climate change
· The improvement of sustainable agricultural production and food security through
enhanced irrigation and rain-fed agriculture .
These international institutions provide the setting for multilateral institutions for
established for a specific set of conditions, such as the equitable use of the shared water
of the Orange-Senqu Basin.
4.2.2
The Orange-Senqu River Commission (ORASECOM)
ORASECOM is considered an international organisation with an international and national
legal personality. While it does provide a forum for discussion between the basin states
and is empowered to advise their governments on technical issues relating to the Orange-
Senqu Basin, it is not directly aligned with the principles of international water
management outlined above, specifically to the SADC Protocol5.
It encourages communication on basin issues between the member states through the
mechanism of an annual meeting of the representatives of the states, and provides that
the basin states must utilise the resource within their respective states equitably and
reasonably (according to the SADC Protocol). It also operates as a funding coordinator for
joint basin projects. ORASECOM serves as a technical advisor to the member states and
can execute the necessary feasibility studies to support decision-making.
It does not, however, have any direct links (through formal mechanisms) with the bilateral
organisations (the LHWC or the PWC), although the basin states are required to inform
ORASECOM of any issues pertaining to the basin, changes to agreements or impacts on
23 2001. NEPAD. NEPAD framework document.
13/11/2007
Final
34

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
the waters of the basin.
Furthermore, the Commission does not set out criteria for
equitable allocation, which is subject to negotiation at political level, and if there is no
agreement within the Commission about a proposed project, it is also subject to
negotiation at political level.
Comment
The current structure of ORASECOM therefore contradicts the integrated framework
provided for in the broader international instruments, specifically the SADC Protocol, which
is binding on all four of the Orange-Senqu basin states.
As it is currently structured,
ORASECOM essentially provides a forum for discussion on basin issues and operates as
a funding coordinator.
Current international water management research has generated some key criteria which
IRBM organisations should fulfil, in order that they improve the effectiveness of the
management regime of the basin in terms of sustainability and equity. In the following
paragraphs, the existing structure of the Orange-Senqu Basin will be evaluated against
those criteria, as a basis for discussion in terms of improving the effectiveness of the
implementation of the IWRMP.
13/11/2007
Final
35

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
5
POTENTIAL FUTURE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE
5.1
General characteristics of integrated basin management institutions
Numerous studies have taken place on the world's some 300 international basins over the
past few decades24, resulting in an overwhelming consensus that integrated management
is the key to sustainable international river basin management.
This extensive
international experience can be drawn on to assist ORASECOM to devise appropriate
basin management methods and structures in the years ahead. For this reason the key
lessons emerging from international experience are noted below and discussed in relation
to the Orange-Senqu Basin.
The key characteristics of integrated management organisations are as follows25,26:
· Provision of a common forum for meeting - in order that issues can be discussed
regularly among representatives from each basin state and to promote
understanding between the relevant parties.
· Promotion of information sharing among the relevant states and organisations ­ in
order that a catchment-wide database can be maintained, and historical data
stored.
· An adaptable management structure incorporating participation at deeper than
state level ­ to allow for changing conditions in the basin and emerging data, as
well as some degree of public participation. This will enhance the effectiveness of
the implementation of a management plan.
· The existence of a coordinated water resource management plan ­ to ensure that
realistic management objectives are met in a basin-wide context.
· Adequate financing and the ability to secure funding from donor agencies ­
financing of the organisation itself will ensure continuity and effective operation,
24 Studies include the Global International Waters Assessment (GIWA) a series of case studies conducted
through UNEP, the NeWater project (EU project to develop and international basin management toolkit), the
Transboundary Freshwater Atlas (UNEP), the Global Environmental Outlook (GEO-4) project (UNEP) and
many case studies, in basins such as the Nile, the Mekong, the Aral Sea, the Jordan basin etc.
25 2002. Nakayama. Institutional Aspects of International Water System Management.
26 2002. Giordano and Wolf. The World's International Freshwater Agreements: Historical Developments and
Future Opportunities.
13/11/2007
Final
36

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
as well as enhancing the organisation's ability to secure adequate funding for
necessary projects and the implementation of its management plans and
objectives.
· Clear and flexible water allocation criteria ­ clear allocation schedules and quality
standards that incorporate the changing conditions of the basins, as well as
providing for extreme events.
· Equitable distribution benefits (and the costs) of water use throughout the basin ­
distributing the benefits of water use rather than dividing the water itself lends
flexibility to allocations and the ability to manage changing basin dynamics, as
well as facilitating management of the system as a whole.
· Clear and effective conflict resolution mechanisms ­ in order that, when disputes
arise, the management objectives of the basin are not compromised.
5.2
Potential discussion issues for ORASECOM in the context of these characteristics
ORASECOM does provide a forum for discussion of basin-related issues among the
member states. Currently these meetings are limited in number and for state
representatives only.
While this addresses the promotion of understanding between
parties, the limited number of meetings may not be sufficient for a basin with the degree of
complexity of the Orange-Senqu, especially considering that national institutional
structures are currently in a state of transformation or review, as noted earlier.
International experience suggests that there is a need to move fairly rapidly from limited
meetings to the creation of a forum that allows for more frequent exchanges of views and
information.
While ORASECOM supports information sharing among the basin states, and the annual
meeting is a discussion forum at which information would be communicated, a more
systematic approach to information sharing could significantly reduce communication
costs.
An issue for discussion with ORASECOM may be to create a database to be
housed at ORASECOM that can be accessed at different levels, by different users. The
parameters for what information is shared, when it is shared and with whom it is shared
would then need to be established.
In order to ensure flexibility and deeper participation, bringing ORASECOM into alignment
with the provisions of the SADC Protocol, it is important to review the state-level
13/11/2007
Final
37

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
management structure.
At the time of writing, no permanent Secretariat had yet been
established, (although there are unconfirmed reports that the formation of a Secretariat is
currently underway). An issue for further discussion and investigation are the operational
guidelines for the Secretariat, which includes the study of mechanisms for deeper
participation, and for linkages with other international institutions in the basin (the LHWC
and PWC).
The ORASECOM agreement provides for the process by which all basin
states are informed of any developments in the basin, which would include those occurring
under the LHWC or PWC.
With regard to a coordinated management plan for the basin, this project comprises Phase
1 of the preparation of the IWRMP, but significant review of both the legislative5 and
institutional frameworks should take place to support its development, and ensure its
effective implementation. A review should include an assessment of the implications for
international structures, of changes to national structures.
ORASECOM is able to secure donor funding for basin projects, it has done so in the case
of the IWRMP, but the organisational funding is not clear in the absence of a Secretariat.
The organisational costs should not necessarily be borne equally by the basin states, but
based on the distribution of benefits of use of the basin, including cost recovery from users
within each nation.
The costing structure for the Secretariat, and any potential future
aspects of ORASECOM is therefore an issue for further study.
The ORASECOM agreement states that equitable utilisation should take place in
accordance with the SADC Protocol principles.
These principles were generated at
international level and are effectively allocation principles rather than practically applicable
guidelines in the basin-specific context.
Therefore, ORASECOM could support the
implementation of the IWRMP, as well as make a significant contribution to the
management of international waters generally, by initiating a participative process to
establish basin-specific allocation criteria.
The concept of equitable distribution of the benefits of water use, rather than distribution of
the water itself is relatively new, and as such, in-depth study is required to assess the
benefits of water use on this basin in an integrated manner. The implementation process
of the IWRMP could address this.
The principal mechanism for dispute resolution for ORASECOM, other than consultation,
is the SADC Tribunal, which was established in 2005. This Tribunal is a general body, not
13/11/2007
Final
38

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
specifically related to water issues, and considering the high degree of technical
complexity in international water management, may not be an adequate mechanism.
Allowing for different levels of dispute could be less costly ­ addressing smaller issues at
the SADC Tribunal may be prohibitively costly. The required level of technical expertise
necessary to address disputes is also an issue that could be dealt with more effectively by
a more flexible structure (such as an expert panel), which ORASECOM could call upon if
necessary.
5.3
Conclusions
ORASECOM provides for interaction at state level only, and does not at this stage have
adequate measures to support the implementation of an integrated management plan,
incorporating basin-wide issues. Coordination between international organisations in the
basin, as well as mechanisms for the incorporation of issues below state level, require
extensive discussion and review in order to improve the level of integration in the current
structure. Figure 5-1 sets out a structure that could serve as a basis for such discussion.
Such a structure would require the revision of the terms of the ORASECOM agreement as
well as changes to the structure of the LHWC and the PWC.
This potential structure requires the formation of a permanent Secretariat, as well as a
Coordination Unit, to ensure adequate links between ORASECOM and the LHWC and
PWC. The coordination unit could consist of a high-level panel of various disciplines, so
as to be able to address political, legal, social, technical and environmental issues, and
should also include representatives from a coordination body within the LHWC and the
PWC. The coordination unit could be permanent or semi-permanent, in the sense that the
relevant member expert panel could be called on when necessary, and able to assemble
the required staff for any detailed investigation required.
The composition of the
coordination unit would need to be agreed upon by the member states, and potential staff
identified in detail as part of the formation of the unit.
The unit would also require
adequate funding in order to ensure its operational effectiveness and continuity.
13/11/2007
Final
39

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
Inform ation flow
IN TER N ATIO N AL IN STITU TIO N S S PEC IFIC TO TH E O R AN G E-
SEN Q U B ASIN
M U LTIL ATER AL
IN TER N ATIO N AL
ORAS EC O M
LE G ISL ATIVE
FR AM EW ORKS
COORDINAT ION
BAS IN
SECRET A RIAT
UNIT
ST AT E
GENER AL
R EPR ESE N -
IN TER N ATIO N AL
U N C onvention
BILAT ER AL IN ST IT UT IO N : C oordination
TATIVES
IN STITU TIO N AL
on the Law of the
unit representative
FR AM E W O R K S
N on-N avigable
Uses of
International
BILATER AL
UNITED
W atercourses
NATIONS
Policy
LES O TH O HIGHLANDS W ATE R
PER M ANENT
(SA& N am ibia
G uiding
C O MMISSIO N
WATER
ratified)
principles
C O MMITTE E
LES O T H O : Lesotho H ighlands
NEP AD
D evelopm ent Authority
SO UT H AFRIC A
R evised Protocol
on Shared
SO U T H AFR IC A: T rans-C aledon
NAM IBIA
W atercourses in
T unnel Authority
the SAD C R egion
SAD C
OR A SEC OM
Specific
O R A SEC O M C oordination unit
C oordination unit
provisions
representative
representative
M ultilateral and
B ilateral T reaties
International Protocols m ust
be ratified in local laws
Inform ation flow
ST ATE IN STITU TIO N AL FR AM E W O R K S
ST ATE
(See Figures 4.1 to 4.5)
LEG ISL ATIVE FR AM E W O R K S
Policy
S O UT H AFRICA:
BO T SW A N A :
N A M IBIA:
LESO T H O :
LESO T H O
S O UT H A FRICA
N ational W ater A ct
W ater Act (1968)
W ater Act (1956)
Water
N ational W ater
Borehole A ct (1956)
D raft W ater
R esources
R esources Strategy
W aterworks Act
R esources
NAM IB IA
BO T SW AN A
Act (1978)
etc.
('70,'78)
M anagem ent Bill
Figure 5-1: Potential future institutional structure for the Orange-Senqu Basin (as a basis for further discussion)
13/11/2007
Final
40

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
The unit could be responsible for the on-the-ground implementation of the IWRMP, and
report regularly to the Secretariat. The Secretariat should be responsible for the operation
and maintenance of the basin-wide database, but this may already have been taken into
account, since the structure of the Secretariat, which is currently being formed, is not yet
known and understood.
High-level state meetings could still be held on an annual basis in terms of the
ORASECOM agreement, but including permanent ORASECOM structures could improve
the speed and effectiveness of ORASECOM's reaction to issues raised.
ORASECOM is probably the most complex river basin organisation in Southern Africa,
because it involves so many riparians, and existing, often highly elaborate bilateral
schemes, without necessarily having jurisdiction over these schemes27.
Given this
complexity, an adaptable management structure is essential in order to be able to
implement the Integrated Water Resource Management Plan.
27 2003. Turton et al. Transboundary Rivers: Sovereignty and Development: Hydropolitical drivers in the
Okavango Basin
13/11/2007
Final
41

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
6
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PHASE 2
6.1
The implications of changes to national systems
The "Legal Aspects" report has identified specific requirements (in terms of national
legislative changes) for effective implementation of the IWRMP. If these are implemented,
the institutional structures established by the legislation, will also change.
Furthermore,
given that two of the basin states' institutional and legislative frameworks are already
under review, and all are considered to be in a state of transformation, an ongoing
investigation of the impacts of these changes should be carried out through Phase 2.
6.2
Administrative and coordinating bodies
As mentioned, there are unconfirmed reports that the process of establishing a secretariat
in ORASECOM is underway.
It is essential that clear roles and responsibilities of the
Secretariat are defined and supported by agreement between the parties. These should
be assessed in Phase 2, and agreement between the parties facilitated accordingly.
Furthermore, the structure and functions of the coordination unit that has been suggested
in this report could be investigated in Phase 2, following a clear understanding of the
nature of the Secretariat. A structure such as this, would require wider participation, and
therefore would need to incorporate a detailed basin-wide stakeholder identification
process.
An analysis such as this should also include an investigation of the potential for similar
structures in the LHWC and PWC, in order that a transparent, collaborative structure that
flows both ways can be established.
This could create a link between ORASECOM, the
LHWC and the PWC, in order to improve the level of integration, thus improving the
effectiveness of the IWRMP.
6.3
Organisational funding
If these administrative and coordination bodies were permanent within ORASECOM, they
would require funding. Costs of these bodies should not necessarily be equally distributed
across the basin states, but could be based on relative benefits of the use of water. In any
event, the Secretariat currently being established would require funding and therefore an
analysis of potential cost structures would be necessary in Phase 2.
A link with an
analysis of the benefits of the use of water throughout the basin could also inform the
criteria for equitable allocation.
13/11/2007
Final
42

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
6.4
Allocation criteria
The ORASECOM agreement states that the definition of equitable use should follow that
set out in the SADC Protocol. The criteria set out in the Protocol are necessarily vague,
since they relate to all basins in the SADC region. Conditions are different in each basin,
and, as such, it may be more practical to develop basin-specific criteria.
This would
improve the flexibility of the allocation criteria, as well as their adaptability in changing
conditions. An investigation for the quantity and quality of allocations and the practical
applicability of the criteria could take place during Phase 2. This could be linked with the
study of the relative benefits of water use to allow for scenario planning for future use or
development of the basin.
The investigation could also include an assessment of the
flexibility of the set of criteria, possibly through case studies ­ such as the potential
development of the Lower Orange.
6.5
Information systems
One of the key principles of IRBM agreements is the sharing of information between basin
states.
Moreover, an essential prerequisite of effective management (especially in the
context of the complexities of international waters) is an adequate information system.
Phase 2 should include an assessment of the parameters of a basin-wide information
management system.
The assessment should include full business process analysis,
levels of access, development of indicators, security and equipment. This assessment
should be linked to the investigation into the roles and responsibilities of the Secretariat,
since the information system would best be housed within that body.
6.6
Dispute resolution mechanisms
The legal report in this series suggests an investigation of more flexible dispute resolutions
mechanisms, given that the SADC Tribunal has only recently been established and does
not necessarily have the technical capacity to address the complexities inherent in issues
relating to international waters. An analysis of the recommendations of this study (should
it take place in Phase 2) as they relate to the institutional structure would be essential.
13/11/2007
Final
43

---

Orange IWRMP
Task 12: Institutional Structures
7
REFERENCES
2004. Senqor Consortium. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan for the Orange-
Senqu Basin: Inception Report. Unpublished report as part of Phase 1 of the IWRMP
January 2004. Heyns, P. Achievements of the Orange-Senqu River Commission in
Integrated Transboundary Water Resource Management. Paper presented to the
International Network of Basin Organisations General Assembly. Martinique.
October 2005. Krantz,N., Interwies, E., Vorwerk, A., von Raggamby, A. Governance,
Institutions and Participation in the Orange-Senqu Basin. Report to the NeWater Project,
Berlin.
1991. Botswana DWA. National Water Master Plan. Gaborone.
2006. Senqor Consortium. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan for the Orange-
Senqu Basin: Legislation and Legal Issues. Unpublished report as part of Phase 1 of the
IWRMP.
November 2004. Schuermans, A., Helbing, J., Fedoseev, R. Evaluation of success and
failure in International Water Management: Orange River Basin, South Africa. ETH Zurich.
2001. Mohammed-Katerere,