UNDP Project Document
Governments of Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and South Africa
United Nations Development Programme
United Nations Office for Project Services
Development and adoption of a Strategic Action Programme
for balancing water uses and sustainable natural resource management
in the Orange-Senqu River trans-boundary basin
(PIMS: 3243)
The Project will assist the Orange-Senqu riparian states to 1) identify the principal threats and root causes of the trans-boundary water resources of
the Orange-Senqu River Transboundary Basin and 2) develop and implement a sustainable programme of policy, legal and institutional reforms
and investments to address these threats. Competing water uses in the context of dwindling and uncertain future supplies is seen as the critical
issue in the basin and will be a principal focus of project attention from the very outset. The Project will create synergies with and build upon a
range of initiatives being undertaken by the countries themselves and those of bi-lateral and multi-lateral donors that have given priority to the
Basin.
The long-term development/environmental goal of the project is the sustainable development of the Orange-Senqu River Basin enhanced through
ecosystem-based, Integrated Water Resource Management approaches. The project objective is to improve the management of the Orange-Senqu
River Transboundary Basin through the implementation of a sustainable programme of policy, legal and institutional reforms and investment
options using the Trans-boundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and Strategic Action Programme (SAP) process. In order to achieve this objective,
the project will strengthen the capacity of ORASECOM, update the TDA, formulate a SAP and associated National Action Programmes (NAPs) as
part of a wider regional IWRM plan, undertake a range of public involvement and awareness activities focusing on trans-boundary activities, and
undertake demonstration projects that implement key aspects of the SAP.
The project will support the institutional strengthening of ORASECOM through development of an informational management system,
establishment of a wider OrangeSenqu Water Resources and Environmental Programme (OSWREP), developing guidelines for water allocation,
climate change scenarios to be applied in water resource planning, and transboundary EIA. During the development of the preliminary TDA, five
priority transboundary problems were identified as affecting the Orange Senqu River Basin: 1) Stress on surface and groundwater resources, 2)
Altered water flow regime, 3) Deteriorating water quality (surface and groundwater), 4) Land degradation and 5) Alien invasives. This project in
finalising the TDA will undertake a number of gap filling activities related to these transboundary issues including: a review of the impacts of
artisanal mining on the middle and lower Orange; an assessment of Persistent Organic Pollutants levels in the Orange Senqu basin; and a detailed
yield assessment and demand forecast for the Orange Senqu basin for the next 25 years based on an agreed methodology. Climate change and
biodiversity are identified as cross-cutting concerns and these issues will be highlighted and integrated throughout the project. The final TDA will
serve as the scientific basis for development of an agreed programme of interventions for the introduction of eco-system based approaches
throughout the basin under the framework of the SAP, itself a critical component of a wider IWRM being developed by ORASECOM. The SAP
will incorporate a basin vision, water resource quality objectives, targets and interventions in the short and medium term to meet targets.
In parallel to SAP development, the project will implement three pilot projects which are developed based on three of the five priorities identified
during the preliminary TDA development, namely, the setting of ecological flows; water demand and quality management in the irrigation sector;
and land/range management. These pilots will demonstrate new techniques and methodologies in those critical SAP areas of concern:
This project has been designed in close collaboration with the Orange Senqu River Commission (ORASECOM) and will form a part of the Orange
Senqu Water Resource Environmental Programme. It has been developed in coordination with the other major ORASECOM donors, inter alia
French GEF, BMZ/GtZ, European Union and InWEnt, to ensure maximum synergy and minimum overlap between supporting projects.
1
Table of Contents
Section
Page
Acronyms
4
Map of the Basin
7
SECTION I : Elaboration of the Narrative
8
PART
I:
Situation
Analysis
8
Project Context
8
Physical Context
8
Environmental
Context
9
Socio-economic
Context 11
Legal, Institutional, and Policy Context
14
Threats, underlying and root causes analysis
17
Stakeholders
Analysis
Summary
28
Baseline Analysis
29
PART II: Strategy
33
Project Rationale and Policy
Conformity
35
Project Goal, Outcomes and Outputs/activities
36
Project Indicator
47
Risks
and
Assumptions
48
Expected global, national and local
benefits
49
Country Ownership: Country Eligibility and Country Drivenness
51
Sustainability
52
Replicability
and
innovation 53
PART
III:
Management
Arrangements
55
PART IV: Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Budget
57
PART V: Legal Context
66
SECTION II: STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND
GEF INCREMENT
68
PART I: Incremental Cost Analysis and list of affiliated projects
67
PART II: Strategic Results Framework
89
SECTION III: Total Budget and Work Plan
103
SECTION IV: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
PART
I:
Other
agreements
108
PART
II:
Organogram
of
Project
109
PART III : Terms of Reference of key personnel
110
2
PART IV: Institutional arrangements for the Orange-Senqu Water
Resource and Environmental Programme
(approved by ORASECOM April 2007)
115
PART V: Draft Demonstration Project documents
124
PART VI:Orange-Senqu Water Resource and Environment
Programme integrated workplan
170
ANNEXES:
ANNEX 1: Stakeholder Involvement
Plan
171
ANNEX
2:
Stakeholder
Analysis
180
ANNEX 3: Basin wide preliminary
TDA 272
ANNEX
4:
Causal
Chain
Analyses
273
ANNEX 5: EPAC Meeting Minutes
278
SIGNATURE PAGE
288
3
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ARB- Botswana
Agricultural Resources Board
APR
Annual Project Report
AWP Annual
Work
Plan
BCLME
Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem Programme
BMZ
German Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development
BWP Botswana
Pula
BWSF
Basin
Wide
Stakeholder
Forum
CBO
Community Based Organisation
CCA
Causal Chain Analysis
CEPF
Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund
CI Conservation
International
CLMC
Community Land Management Committee
CMA
Catchment Management Authority
CMS
Catchment Management Strategy
CO Country
Office
cumec Cubic
metre
DCPF-Botswana Department
of Crop Production and Forestry
DDC-Botswana
District Development Committee
DDP- Botswana
District Development Plan
DEAT-SA
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
DWA- Botswana
Department of Water Affairs
DWAF-SA
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry
EF Environmental
Flow
EFR
Ecological Flow Requirements
EIA Environmental
Impact
Assessment
ELF
Environmental Low Flows
ELMS
Environment and Land Management Sector
ESI Environmental
Status
Indicators
ESIA
Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
EWT
Endangered Wildlife Trust
FGEF
French GEF (Fonds Français pour l'Environnement Mondial)
FSP
Full Size Project
GA Grazing
Association
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
GEF
Global Environment Facility
GEF-4
Global Environment Facility (Phase 4)
GHG
Green House Gases
GIS
Geographic Information System
GoB
Government of Botswana
GtZ
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit
IAs Implementing
Agencies
IFAD
International Fund for Agricultural Development
InWEnt Internationale
Weiterbildung und Entwicklung gGmbH
4
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
IR Inception
Report
IW International
Waters
IWRM
Integrated Water Resource Management
JICA
Japan International Cooperation Agency
JPTC
Joint Permanent Technical Committee
JPWC
Joint Permanent Water Commission
LHWC
Lesotho Highlands Water Commission
LHWP
Lesotho Highlands Water Project
LME
Large Marine Ecosystem
LORMS
Lower Orange River Management Study
M&E Monitoring
and
Evaluation
MAWF- Namibia
Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry
MDG
Millennium Development Goal
MET-Namibia Ministry
of
Environment and Tourism
MEWT-Botswana
Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism
MLRR-Namibia
Ministry of Lands, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
MMEWR
Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Resources
MoA- Botswana
Ministry of Agriculture
MOU Memorandum
of
Understanding
NACOMA
Namib Coast Biodiversity Conservation and Management Project
NAPs
National Action Plan
NCSA- Botswana
National Conservation Strategy (Coordinating) Agency
NEMA-SA
National Environmental Management Act
NFP
National Focal Point
NGO
Non Governmental Organization
NPC
National Planning Commission
NWRMR
Namibian Water Resources Management Review
NWSP
National Wetland Strategy and Policy
OPEC
Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries
ORASECOM
Orange-Senqu River Basin Commission
OSRB
Orange-Senqu River Basin
OSWREP Orange-Senqu
Water
Resources and Environment Programme
PC Project
Coordinator
PCU
Project Coordination Unit
PDF B
Project Development Facility Block B
PIR
Project Implementation Review
PIU
Project Implementation Unit (for demonstration projects)
POPs
Persistent Organic Pollutants
PSC
Project Steering Committee
PWV Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vereniging
Area
RC Regional
Coordinator
RCU
Regional Coordination Unit
REEP
Regional Environmental Educators Programme
RMA Rangeland
Management
Areas
RMU
Regional Management Unit
5
RSA
Republic of South Africa
RWP
Regional Water Policy
RWQO
Receiving Water Quality Objective
RWS
Regional Water Strategy
SADC
Southern African Development Community
SAP
GEF Strategic Action Programme
SH Stakeholder
SHAF Stakeholder
Advisor
Forum
SHF
National Stakeholder Forum
SO
Scientific Officer
SRF
Strategic Results Framework
SRI Stress
Reduction
Indicators
TDA
GEF Trans-boundary Diagnostic Analysis
TPR Tripartite
Review
TTR
Terminal Tripartite Review
UNDP
United Nations Development Programme
UNEP
United Nations Environment Programme
UNOPS
United Nations Office of Programme Services
WB World
Bank
WMA
Water Management Area
WRQOs
Water Resource Quality Objectives
WSSD
World Summit on Sustainable Development
WUA Water
User
Association
6
MAP of the ORANGE-SENQU RIVER BASIN
7
SECTION I: Elaboration of the Narrative
PART I: SITUATION ANALYSIS
Project Context
1. The overall goal of the Project is to improve the management of the Orange-Senqu River
Basin's trans-boundary water resources through ecosystem based Integrated Water
Resource Management (IWRM) approaches that remediate threats and root causes. An
IWRM approach considers the inter-relationships between natural resource systems,
biophysical processes and socio-economic systems and objectives. IWRM seeks to integrate
this approach into the management of the overall water resource, taking into account factors
outside of the water sector, such as agriculture and energy and such issues as land
degradation and climate change. This expanded approach makes possible a transition to
adaptive management strategies for water resources.
2. The principal anthropogenic threats to the integrity of the basin identified in the preliminary
Trans-boundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) include:
· Stress on surface and groundwater resources
· Altered water flow regime
· Deteriorating water quality (surface and groundwater)
· Land degradation
· Alien invasives
3. Climate change is viewed as a cross-cutting issue and is expected to lead to greater
environmental variability in future (e.g. dislocations in spatial and temporal rainfall
patterns). Biodiversity is also viewed as a cross-cutting issue by the region in the context of
this project. Though climate change and biodiversity are not independent priority trans-
boundary concerns, these issues will be highlighted and integrated throughout the project
into all aspects of these priority issues since any shifts in these aspects could result in
critical impacts on the ecology of the Orange-Senqu River Basin.
Physical Context:
4. The Orange River, (called the Senqu River in Lesotho), originates in the Lesotho Highlands
some 3,300 m above sea level where the average annual precipitation can exceed 1,800 mm,
with a corresponding average annual potential evaporation of 1,100 mm. The river stretches
8
2,300 km from the source to its mouth at Alexander Bay/Oranjemund on the South Africa/
Namibia border, where the average annual precipitation drops to below 50 mm, while the
average annual potential evaporation rises to over 3,000 mm. The Orange-Senqu River
basin is the largest river basin in southern Africa south of the Zambezi, with a total
catchment area in the order of one million km2, of which almost 60% is within the Republic
of South Africa with the remainder in Lesotho, Botswana and Namibia. The effective
catchment area is difficult to determine since it includes many pan areas and also several
large ephemeral tributaries, such as the Molopo and Nossob in Botswana and Namibia
which rarely contribute to flows in the main river channel. The average river flow that
would occur if the river were free flowing is less than half of its natural, historic runoff. The
river has been significantly and heavily developed with the result that the current average
annual runoff reaching the river mouth at Alexander Bay is significantly diminished.
5. There are several storage dams on the downstream portion of the Orange Senqu River that
effectively control the flow of water. These structures have modified the flow regime of the
river and have exacerbated the periodicity of discharge to the Atlantic Ocean at Oranjemund
(Namibia).
6. The banks of the middle and lower Orange-Senqu River are heavily developed in many
areas, with irrigation being the principal use, compounded by increasing demands from
industry, energy, mining and municipal demands. The principal tributary of the Orange-
Senqu River is the Vaal and its associated basin, which is not only the largest and most
important tributary, but `fuels' South Africa's industrial heartland in the greater Pretoria-
Witwatersrand-Vereniging (PWV) region1. Approximately fifty percent of South Africa's
GDP is generated in this area, and more than 80% of South Africa's electricity requirements
due to the presence of extensive, shallow coalfields in the Upper Vaal catchment. This
constitutes approximately 50% of all the electricity generated in Africa. Cooling water for
the numerous thermal power stations is supplied from the Vaal River and its tributaries and
from transfers into the basin. Water is also supplied from the Vaal catchment to some of the
largest gold and platinum mines in the world, as well as to production activities in some of
the World's largest coal reserves.
7. Many of the river systems in the southern African subregion are subject to periodic
impoundment by sandbars at their mouths, which reflect the significant natural climatic
variability of the region. It is this characteristic of the Orange-Senqu River system that
differentiates it from other basins elsewhere in the world (such as the Mekong and la Plata
River basins in Asia and South America, respectively) within which GEF IW project are
operating and is potentially an ideal test-bed adaptation management techniques for climate
change.
1 The industrial heartland of South Africa is commonly known as the PWV region. This region includes the towns named in the title, as well as
Midrand, the East Rand, West Rand, Johannesburg, Sasolburg and Vanderbijlpark.
9
Environmental Context:
8. The highlands of Lesotho support Alpine vegetation that consists of climax heather
communities composed mainly of low woody species interspersed with alpine grasses at the
highest altitudes. Grassland habitat dominates the remaining high-lying areas while at lower
altitude, mixed sour grassveld occurs westwards to False Upper Karoo. A series of karooid
vegetation types characterize the middle and lower Orange River catchment, including the
Fish River tributary in Namibia, ending ultimately in the Succulent Karoo from the
Richtersveld to the coast. The Nossob / Molopo catchment in Namibia and Botswana drains
mainly the Southern Kalahari.
9. The ecological condition of the Orange River continues to be significantly negatively
impacted by human activities. The main hydrological changes are:
A decline in the mean annual runoff of the river. The past 20 years has seen less
than half the annual runoff recorded before 1960
A marked decrease in summer flows (November to March)
A dramatic reduction in seasonal differentiation
A marked decrease in magnitude of inter-annual floods
A virtual elimination of early summer flows (spring freshets)
A marked decrease in variability
An increase in winter flows (mainly July and August) and a lack of very low flow
periods.
10. The riparian and in-stream vegetation is negatively impacted and continues to deteriorate in
the following ways:
Clearing for small scale alluvial mining
Wood fuel collecting for cooking and building material
Agriculture on river banks
Colonisation by alien species
11. The situation regarding the aquatic invertebrates in the middle and lower Orange River also
reflects a degraded system, with further deterioration predicted.
There is an overwhelming and persistent abundance of filter-feeders, in particular the
pest proportion numbers of the blackfly Simulium chutteri. The outbreaks of blackfly
are attributed to stable flow conditions, particularly high winter flow, deterioration in
water quality and encroachment of in-stream vegetation;
Winter releases from Vanderkloof dam were shown to have detrimental impacts on
aquatic invertebrates up to 600 km downstream a significant increase in abundance
of blackfly, almost complete disappearance of a previously abundant midge and a
significant drop in the abundance of a predaceous caddisfly;
A number of aquatic invertebrates have declined and possibly disappeared from the
Orange River system, including mayflies, snails, a large elmid beetle (the only known
specialised wood borer along the Orange River), and a leech species which was known
10
to be parasitic on hippopotami, the latter becoming extinct in the Orange River in the
1930s. By contrast, an invasive snail Physa acuta has spread dramatically.
12. The status of the fish communities in the middle and lower Orange River is considered to be
largely modified and on a negative trajectory. The main reasons for this are the deviation
from the natural flow and deterioration in water quality. The poor ecological status and
negative trends of the Orange River are as a result of both the changed hydrology and out-
of-river activities.
13. The Orange River mouth carries the status of Ramsar wetland site as a result of its high
number of rare or endangered species, particularly relating to waterfowl, and its uniqueness
as ecosystem within the bioregion. Through changes in the flow of the river, and
particularly the impacts of mining, it is considered to be in a highly degraded state. Recent
initiatives by the Northern Cape Department of Conservation, Environment and Land in co-
operation with the Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism have started to
rehabilitate the wetland and provide it with statutory protection. While changes in flow
regimes over time have contributed to degradation of the site, there are several other
contributing factors such as diamond mining activities and the physical presence of sewage
treatment works and golf courses located in the floodplain of the mouth. The level of
degradation has proceeded to such a state that the Ramsar Convention Secretariat has placed
the site on the Montreux Record. The additional perturbations caused by potential climate
change will further stress this already overwrought environment at the mouth.
14. Research has shown that large parts of southern Africa experience amongst the most
variable rainfalls and streamflows worldwide. Not surprisingly, the Inter-governmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has identified this region as one of the most vulnerable to
anticipated climate change. These two factors, together with the juxtaposed mix of
developed and underdeveloped sectors within the region, present major challenges to water
resources and disaster managers alike.
15. A consequence of the accumulating GHGs is a projected increase in global temperature,
estimated to be about 2.0 - 3.5º C by the time the CO2 level reaches double its pre-industrial
level. Higher temperatures will lead to changes in precipitation and atmospheric circulation,
which are currently hard to predict with acceptable accuracy.
16. The anticipated increase in temperature that will (or has already begun to) accompany
global warming will have profound effects on evaporation rates. This in turn will affect
atmospheric water storage, and hence, magnitudes, frequencies and intensities of rainfall
events, as well as seasonal and geographical distributions of rainfall and its inter-annual
variability. All of these impacts will influence the magnitude and variability of streamflow
in river basins. In addition, temperature directly affects a wide range of processes and
activities such as human comfort and demand for heating and cooling, crop and livestock
responses, ecological responses, and incidences of pests and disease.
11
Socio-economic Context
17. The total population of the River Basin is estimated at approximately 19 million. The array
of cultural, social and economic characteristics in the Orange-Senqu Basin is remarkably
diverse. The development within the basin ranges from indigenous traditional lifestyles
similar to those hundreds of years ago to exceptionally modern development based in
resource extraction and meeting globally driven market demands. Diverse human
immigration and emigration and settlement patterns in the basin have left a significant
footprint on the basin ecology which grows wider as further economic development
scenarios emerge.
18. Agriculture employs more than 25% of the basin's population, many of whom reside in
rural areas, while a good portion of the remainder is employed in the industrial sector. This
rural-urban dichotomy is a prominent feature in the divergent livelihoods of the inhabitants
of the basin as well as their use of ecosystem services. Table 1.1 below outlines the wide
variation in economic conditions in the basin countries.
Table I.I.1 Economic Indicators
Botswana Lesotho Namibia South
Africa
GDP/Capita adjusted for PPP*
$10,900
$2,600
$7,600
$13,300
Percent GDP by sector
Agriculture 2.4
16.1
11.8
2.6
Industry, includes mining
46.9
43
30.2
30.3
Services 50.7
40.9
58.1
67.1
Percent employment by sector, gender
Agriculture 26
m/19f
86**
33m/29f
13m/7f
Industry, including mining
29/13
17/7
33/14
14
Services 43/58
49/63 54/79
Unemployment rate
23.8
45
33.8
25.5
* PPP purchasing power parity
** employment figures for Lesotho from CIA World Fact Book, others from World Bank
Labor Report 2007
19. Social development indicators for the Basin countries shown in Table 1.2 demonstrate
that there is a significant basin-wide discrepancy in human development trends. These
trends as they relate to trans-boundary water management issues are more fully expanded
upon in the TDA.
Table I.I. 2 Social Development Indicators*
South
Botswana
Lesotho
Namibia
Africa
Total Population
1,815,508
2,123,262
2,055,080 43,997,828
UN Human Development
0.57/131 0.494/149 0.626/125 0.653/121
Index/ Rank of 1-177
Infant Mortality Rate/1,000
116
82
63
67
12
South
Botswana
Lesotho
Namibia
Africa
live births
Life Expectancy
34.9
35.2
47.2
47
HIV/AIDS Infection Rate (%)
24.1
23.2
19.6
18.8
Population below poverty line
(Population living below
23.5 36.4 34.9 10.7
USD1 a day) (%)
Population Undernourished
30 12 23 3
(%)
Gender-related Development
0.55 0.486 0.622 0.646
Index
GINI
Index
63 63.2 74.3 57.8
Population with access to
95 79 87 88
improved water (%)
Population with access to
42 37 25 65
sanitation facilities (%)
*UNDP Human Development Report (2006)
20. The UN Human Development Index demonstrates that the Orange-Senqu River Basin
states are in the lower quartile on the world country ranking, with Lesotho ranked as a
Least Developed Country, and both Namibia and Botswana very close to this category.
Indicators especially pertinent to environmental conditions, water resource use and
availability for human health, demonstrate that conditions are widely varied and in dire
need of improvement throughout the basin. The infant mortality, low life expectancy and
HIV/AIDS infection rates, are extremely troubling, especially combined with percentage
of the population below the poverty line and undernourished. The gender-related
Development Index places the Basin countries in the middle range of countries on the
world ranking. The GINI Index measuring equity of income distribution shows a
significant skewing, with a large portion of total income going to a wealthy minority of
citizens. With regards to percent of populations with access to improved water, the initial
numbers look quite good. However perhaps more telling is the relatively low percentage
of population with access to sanitation facilities and failing facilities, resulting in the
contamination of water courses and groundwater, which in turn results in greater direct
contact and exposure to microbiological pathogens and diseases.
21. The indicators listed in Tables I.I.1 and I.I.2 paint a partial picture of the challenges
facing the Basin states. Poverty levels, income discrepancies, public health considerations
including HIV/AIDS, lack of sanitation, and urbanisation, create significant challenges to
the Basin governments who are also having to adapt to climate change and increasing
demands for equitable distribution of resources, whilst striving to reach the MDGs.
22. While this project alone will not assist the governments to meet their Millennium
Development Goals independently, it will assist the countries to optimize equitable and
coordinated water use to improve living conditions throughout the basin. The first and
13
foremost of the MDGs is ensuring environmental sustainability (MDG 7), and
specifically improving sustainable access to safe drinking water, and integrate the
principles of sustainable development into country water management policies and
programmes to include reversing of environmental loss. By providing populations access
to cleaner water, infant mortality is expected to be reduced. Through demonstrating
improved irrigation technologies, and improved rangeland management it is hoped that
there will be a reduction in those who are suffering from hunger (MDG 1) as access to
local food sources are improved.
Legal, Institutional and Policy Context:
23. At the regional level, all Orange-Senqu River riparian states Botswana, Lesotho,
Namibia and South Africa are Member States of the Southern African Development
Community (SADC). The SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourses (hereafter the SADC
Protocol) is the regional framework agreement dealing with the management of shared
watercourses in SADC. The SADC Protocol received the required number of ratifications
and entered into force on 22 September 2003 (Barroso, 2007) for all countries that
ratified it, which include all Orange-Senqu River riparian states. The SADC Protocol is
drafted largely in line with the provisions of the 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the
Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (hereafter the UN Convention). Of
the Orange-Senqu River riparian states, to date only Namibia and South Africa have
ratified the UN Convention.
24. Of relevance for the GEF project is the adoption of the internationally-accepted
"ecosystems approach" to environmental protection of shared watercourses in the SADC
Protocol. The SADC Protocol also contains the generic rules for the management of
shared rivers within the SADC region, but does not contain basin-specific rules. The
SADC Protocol establishes an institutional framework at the regional level for the
implementation of the instrument.
25. Within the Orange-Senqu River Basin, an Agreement was concluded in 2000 between the
Governments of the Republic of Botswana, the Kingdom of Lesotho, the Republic of
Namibia and the Republic of South Africa on the establishment of the Orange-Senqu
River Commission (hereafter ORASECOM Agreement). It is the first basin-wide
agreement on the Orange-Senqu River involving all four basin states.
26. The objectives of the ORASECOM Council are to "serve as technical advisor to the
Parties on matters relating to the development, utilization and conservation of the water
resources in the River System" and to "perform such other functions pertaining to the
development and utilization of water resources as the Parties may agree to assign to the
Commission" (Article 4 of the ORASECOM Agreement). Article 5 of the ORASECOM
Agreement singles out a number of areas where the Commission is requested to take the
required measures necessary for advising the parties. These issues are the long-term yield
determination, equitable and reasonable utilization, studies with regard to the
development of the resources, stakeholder involvement, data collection and sharing,
14
pollution prevention, measures for emergency situations, information exchange and
consultation between parties and measures for the prevention and settlement of potential
disputes as well as any other matters determined by the parties (i.e. the four riparian
states). SADC institutions are not mandated with the implementation and enforcement of
basin-wide agreements. Where basin-wide agreements have been concluded they have
been done by Shared Watercourse Institutions such as ORASECOM and/or bilateral
institutions as well as the domestic institutions in the countries that are party to the basin
specific agreements. Bilateral agreements take precedence over basin wide agreements,
which create challenges when these do not coincide and the relationships between the
agreements have to be assessed on a case by case basis. Article 1 (3) of the ORASECOM
Agreement stipulates that the rights and obligations of the parties from other agreements
in force prior to the date of entry into force of the ORASECOM Agreement, remain
unaffected. The rights and obligations provided for in the applicable bilateral agreements
(see below) therefore remain unaffected.
27. Bilateral agreements relating to the Orange-Senqu River have also been concluded
between riparian states over time. Two treaties between Botswana and South Africa deal
with border delineation and the establishment of a Joint Permanent Commission for
Cooperation (on several matters, including water) respectively. The most important
bilateral agreements specifically dealing with cooperation on the development and use of
the water resources of the Orange-Senqu River are:
·
Treaty on the Lesotho Highlands Water Project Between the Government of
the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Kingdom of Lesotho
(1986) with Protocols I-VI (concluded between 1988 and 1999) supported by the
Lesotho Highlands Water Commission (LHWC) between Lesotho and South
Africa;
·
Cooperation Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South
Africa and the Transitional Government of National Unity of South-West Africa/
Namibia Concerning the Management, Development and Use of the Water of the
Orange River (1987);
·
Agreement on the Vioolsdrift and Noordoewer Joint Irrigation Scheme
Between the Government of the Republic of Namibia and The Government of
the Republic of South Africa (1992);
·
Agreement between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the
Government of the Republic of Namibia on the Establishment of a Permanent
Water Commission (1992);
28. The legal framework for trans-boundary water resources management set by the SADC
Protocol, the ORASECOM Agreement and the bilateral agreements is complemented by
the domestic laws of the member states. Essentially, the effective implementation of
international agreements depends on the interaction between international and national
laws, as enforcement on the national level has to make use of the instruments of national
laws.
29. Currently, the main Act governing water resources management in Botswana is the Water
Act 34 of 1968. Yet, the 1968 Act is outdated and Botswana currently is in the process of
15
reforming its water law. A new draft Botswana Water Bill (2005) has been prepared and
is currently being prepared for parliamentary proceedings (Mathangwane, 2007). The
draft bill contains provisions on water resources management as well as pollution control.
In recognizing IWRM principles it creates a new institutional set-up for water
management in the country, including the involvement of stakeholders. It also includes
reference to Botswana's rights and obligations resulting from international agreements
related to water.
30. Water resource management in Lesotho is governed by the Water Resources Act 1978,
which defines water users and contains some provision on permit administration and
pollution control. This act does not recognize international obligations and does not
provide the Lesotho Authorities with adequate means in domestic law to comply with
international obligations. Lesotho has embarked on a process to reform its water resource
legislation and the new Water Resources Management Bill 2007 is currently going
through a public consultation process. The Bill recognizes Lesotho's international
obligations related to water. It also establishes a comprehensive water resource
management framework, including water use entitlements with administration of water
licenses, pollution prevention and control, and the establishment of a new institutional
framework for water management, including establishment of Catchment Management
Agencies. Also, the Bill makes provisions for protection of wetlands and natural springs.
To date, the legislation has not been gazetted and is yet to come into force.
31. The relevant water resources management legislation in Namibia is currently largely
confined in the Water Act No 54 of 1956. Although it is still in force, the Act is outdated
and does not take modern water law principles into account. Namibia has, however,
promulgated a new Water Resources Management Act 24 of 2004. The new Act has not
yet commenced, but this is expected for December 2007 (Amakali, 2007). Once
commenced the new Act will replace the 1956 Water Act. The new Act subscribes to the
principle of IWRM and establishes a new institutional framework for water management
in the country. Importantly it places strong emphasis on the involvement of stakeholders
in water resources management and makes specific reference to meeting Namibia's
international obligations, thus providing Namibian authorities with the domestic legal
means to comply with international agreements related to water resources.
32. South Africa has replaced the old Water Act 54 of 1956 with the National Water Act No.
36 of 1998. The Act, in combination with the National Water Resources Strategy,
establishes a detailed framework for water resources management and the protection of
water resources in the country. Based on the principles of IWRM, the Act stipulates the
gradual devolution of water resources management responsibilities to Catchment
Management Agencies (CMAs) and Water User Associations (WUAs). Five CMAs are
to be established in the South African part of the Orange-Senqu River basin. Section 2 (i)
of the National Water Act expressly recognizes the need to meet international obligations
relating to shared water resources as a purpose of the Act. This provides South African
water resources management authorities with the means to enforce international
obligations domestically and comply with obligations resulting from international
16
agreements. The Act furthermore contains specific provisions empowering the Minister
to establish bodies to implement international agreements.
33. In addition to the above-mentioned water specific international agreements, the Orange-
Senqu River riparian states are Party to a number of other relevant international
(environmental) agreements, such as:
Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl
Habitat (Ramsar Convention);
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES);
Convention on Biological Diversity;
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and Kyoto Protocol;
United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries
Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, particularly in Africa;
Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.
34. A full list of references for the above sections is given in the preliminary Transboundary
Diagnostic Analysis see Part IX of this document.
Threats, underlying and root cause analysis
35. The threats and their root causes were identified during the development of the TDA.
These are summarized below, under the sub-heading for each of the major trans-
boundary issues: stress on surface and groundwater resources and altered flow regime,
deteriorating water quality, land degradation and alien invasives. The details of each issue
and its impacts are provided in the TDA, but a summary of each issue is provided below.
The Causal Chain Analysis (CCA) may be found in Annex 4 of this Prodoc.
Stress on surface and ground waters and altered flow regimes
36. The highlands of Lesotho provide the only exception where the climate is temperate and
annual rainfall exceeds evaporation in the Orange-Senqu basin. Elsewhere annual
evaporative losses far exceed annual rainfall and to such a degree in the Lower Orange
that the climate is classified as arid to hyper-arid. Certain areas of the Basin are already
densely populated, economic development is significant, and socio-economic
expectations are high. This causes an inevitable high degree of competition for the finite
water resources that are available. The skewed distribution of rainfall, the geographical
concentration of demand in the upper half of the system, the significant agricultural
demands in the drier parts of the catchment and the provision of the storage and
transmission infrastructure to meet these, is the essence and driving force of the ensuing
trans-boundary issues.
17
37. Starting with the construction of Vaal Dam in the 1930's and accelerating with of the
`Orange River Development Project' in the early 1960's, huge investments were made in
water resources infrastructure to meet demand in an industrialized South Africa. As a
consequence the Orange Senqu basin and the external river basins which are integrated
with the Orange Basin feature one of the most complex bulk water storage and transfer
systems anywhere in the world. Its major elements are summarised below:
The Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP) has a combined storage capacity
in the Katse and Mohale dams of 2376 Mm3. The present rate of transfer, from
Phase I of the project, is of the order of 780 Mm3/a, or just over 7% of the overall
Basin's natural annual runoff of 1300 Mm3.
The Vaal and Bloemhof dams with a combined storage of 3 843 Mm3/a.
Transfers into the eastern sub system of the Vaal from the Inkomati, Usuthu and
Thukela river basins of 853 Mm3/a.
Transfer from the Upper Vaal to the Upper Olifants.
The Gariep and Vanderkloof Dams situated on the mainstream of the Orange
River in South Africa, upstream of the Vaal confluence, with a combined storage
of 8500 Mm3.
The Orange Fish tunnel which transfers out an average of 575 Mm3/a to the
Eastern Cape and Port Elizabeth for irrigation and urban use.
The largest single water transfer into the system from the Thukela drainage basin
of 790 Mm3/a.
Transfers of potable water out of the Basin through water supply to northern
Johannesburg, Tshwane and Rustenburg.
38. For Namibia the Orange River is a key resource for the southern region of the country,
where the commercial agriculture and mining activities depend on the river as a reliable
resource. In Botswana the basin is very flat has not contributed water to the mainstream
in recent history. Nor is the Orange a very practicable resource for the southwest
Botswana. The existing demands generally are too far distant from the river, however,
some irrigation development is proposed. In the case of Lesotho the national water
demands are relatively small and the downstream impacts of abstractions would therefore
be quite minor and not present a significant downstream conflict risk. However, the
development of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (LHWP) in Lesotho, transferring
water to the Vaal System, does have a significant impact on the river in Lesotho and
South Africa.
39. The groundwater resources of the Orange-Senqu River basin, play an important role in
supplementing severely stressed surface water resources in certain parts of the catchment.
Groundwater is principally used locally for potable water for small towns and villages,
particularly in remote areas, for livestock and in some cases mining enterprises. Limited
information is available on the inter-connectivity between ground and surface waters and
there are no examples of conjunctive use in the basin. It is evident that further or better
use could be made of the groundwater resources but how much that resource is worth is
unclear. However, groundwater quality is a pressing issue and existing resources are
18
increasingly under threat from diffuse pollution sources. Aquifer protection policies are
urgently required.
40. DWAF has assessed the current firm yield of the Integrated Vaal River System, including
transfers from Lesotho at 2920 Mm³/a, with 98% assurance and the historic yield of the
remainder of the system as 2220 Mm³/a.
41. The current and estimated future water requirements of the whole Orange-Senqu River
Basin up to 2025 are shown in Table I.I.3. It should be noted that the current study of the
Vaal River system (PWC 2005) will have produced revised demands for that system.
Table I.I.3: Summary of Water Demands on the Orange-Senqu River System
Category
Expected water demand (Mm³/a)
RSA
2002
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
Irrigation
Vaal
796
796
796
796
796
796
Upper & Middle Orange 1 371
1 381.2
1 398.1 1 415
1 415
1 415
Eastern Cape
607
617.5
634.4
651
651
651
Diffuse Irrigation
397
397
397
397
397
397
Lower Orange
62
82
102
122
122
122
Subtotal Irrigation
3 233
3 273
3 328
3 381
3 381
3 381
Urban, Industrial &
Mining
Vaal6
1 840
1 968
2 039
2 088
2 163
2 270
Upper & Middle Orange 101
110
122
134
143
153
Eastern Cape
19
20
20
20
20
41
Lower Orange
15
17
23
24
22
23
Subtotal Urban, Industrial, 1 975
2 115
2 204
2 266
2 348
2 487
Mining
TOTAL- South Africa
5 208
5 389
5 531
5 647
5 729
5 868
NAMIBIA
Irrigation- Lower Orange 41
60
103
150
197
227
Urban
9
16
31
47
47
48
Total Namibia
50
76
134
197
244
274
Lesotho
Irrigation
9
9
9
9
9
Urban
11
12
14
15
17
Total Lesotho
20
21
23
24
26
19
TOTAL (RSA, Namibia
& Lesotho)
5 485
5 687
5 867
5 997
6 168
* No figures were made available for the catchment within Botswana
42. The increased demand in Lesotho of 1.5% per annum is due to limited increase in
domestic water use and some agricultural development in the Lower Senqu. In South
Africa, a slow growth in demand from the urban and industrial sectors of less than 1%
per annum is predicted.
43. There is significant potential for increased water use for commercial irrigation,
particularly in the Lower Orange area, where the climate is suitable to grow high value
crops using efficient drip or sub surface irrigation systems. In Namibia, the majority of
the present and future demands are for irrigation, with some increase in demands by
mining. A total possible irrigation development for Namibia of 15,115 ha is projected for
2025, with an annual growth in water requirement of 11%. There is also a proposal for
irrigation in Botswana with a water requirement of 100 Mm³/a, which is not shown in
Table I.I.3.
44. Results from the DWAF Water Resources Planning Model (PWC 2005) excluding any
potential impact from climate change and maintaining existing ecological flow
requirements predict a supply deficit developing from 2006 onwards. In practice it will
not be possible to provide any significant increase in the system yield until 2015 at the
earliest by which time a significant deficit will have arisen without taking account of any
increase in the recognised ecological flow requirements of the estuary. The proposed
management and development actions to address the temporary shortfall are discussed in
subsequent sections.
45. The inevitable conclusion is that the present levels of water use and the intentions to
expand it even further are not sustainable. The key issue to be addressed is the
management of demand, which while being attended to a degree in the urban / industrial
sector, it is in the agricultural sector that action needs to be taken most urgently since it is
here that more than 50% of the total demand lies.
46. The natural flow of the Orange River at its mouth is estimated to be 11,300 Mm³/a and
has been reduced by half by the major water resource development taking place in the
basin since the 1930's, to the extent that now it is only in March that the former mean
annual discharge of 380 cumecs is commonly exceeded. In most other months the flows
are a fraction of the pre-development figures.
47. The changes to the hydrological regime of the Lower Orange-Senqu particularly below
Vanderkloof dam have, as a consequence of upstream development, been dramatic. Flood
events have reduced considerably, while the usual month of peak discharge has been set
back from February to March. This radical modification of the regime means in effect
that the former natural dynamic equilibrium of the biophysical environment in the Lower
Orange River has all but been destroyed, resulting in a much degraded fluvial, ecological
and environmental situation, particularly at the mouth.
20
48. Current ecological flows, established in the early 1990s, although honoured, do not
provide the protection required in the Lower Orange and a re-evaluation of these flows,
and thereby a re-evaluation of the water resources of the Lower Orange system, is now
required. Furthermore, a new methodology for establishing ecological flows throughout
the river basin, in the main river channel and the seasonal rivers, is now required based
on best international practice.
49. Excess water use and the lack of effective demand management particularly in the
agricultural sector emerge very strongly as the major immediate and root causes of the
degraded hydrological regime. In addition, reservoir operation procedures, particularly of
Gariep and Vanderkloof, do not currently provide meaningful environmental releases and
operation policies are not consistent with the spirit of integrated water resources
management. More water needs to be found for transboundary flow provision and for
environmental water needs of the Lower Orange River.
50. The causal chain analysis (CCA) illustrated in Annex 4 verified that over-allocation of
available water resources is the immediate cause of stress on surface and groundwater
resources and alteration of hydrological flows. Socio-economic, legal, and political root
causes underlie the immediate causes. For the mining/industrial sectors there is a lack of
harmonization in policy and legislation at the national and basin wide levels, a lack of
international agreements, and uneven economic growth featuring development at all
costs. For urban and household uses the changes in national political priorities and
targets combined with shifts in population density and growth, including urban migration,
and fragmentation of management at the municipal, provincial, national, and basin wide
levels, has lead to increased demand on water resources. In the agricultural sector root
causes include lack of coordinated basin wide policy and targets, and a lack of
harmonized regulations and policing at the municipal and provincial wide levels.
Throughout the basin there is a lack of holistic planning and management pertaining to
efficient water use, which is compounded by a lack of coordination of related research.
Deteriorating water quality
51. The surface water in the Orange-Senqu Basin has deteriorated significantly over the last
30 years due to the development of irrigation agriculture, mining, industry, urbanisation
and growth in human population. The problem has been further exacerbated by the
increase in water consumption, which has reduced the ability of river systems to
assimilate pollutants through dilution. The key water quality issues of which some are of
transboundary nature are: eutrophication, microbiological organisms and pathogens,
salinity, and possibly heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants, radio-nuclides and to a
lesser extent, temperature changes.
52. Eutrophication, i.e. nitrogen and phosphate enrichment of surface waters emanates from a
combination of point and non-point sources. Point sources of high concentrations of
21
nitrogen and phosphate include: overflow from waste water treatment works, animal
feedlots and industrial effluents which are discharged directly to the river.
53. Salinity is a major cause for concern in the Orange-Senqu Basin. The issue is particularly
serious in the Vaal catchment, due to the extent of urbanisation, industry, mining and
irrigation agriculture in the Upper, Middle and Lower Vaal sub-catchments.
54. Salt inputs to river systems derive from: industrial discharges directly to river, runoff
from urban areas and industrial sites, power station blow-down water and cooling water,
mine water decant from closed mines, discharge of underground mine water to surface,
and return flows from irrigated lands. The situation in the Lower Vaal is so bad that
under normal and low flow conditions, no water is released from Douglas Weir (just
upstream of the Vaal-Orange confluence) to prevent pollution of the low salinity Orange
River.
55. Elevated concentrations of heavy metals, especially copper, lead, zinc, nickel, cadmium,
chromium, iron, manganese, arsenic, selenium and mercury may be found in surface and
underground water from mine water discharge and seepage from mining wastes,
industrial effluent discharged directly into rivers, seepage and runoff from landfills, urban
storm water runoff and in return flows from lands treated with pesticides. The Water
Management Areas (WMAs) which are most affected are the Upper and Middle Vaal,
including many of the main tributaries, and the Lower Orange.
56. The temperature within a water column is one of the factors which dictate the nature and
functioning of the ecosystem within a given river reach. This is because less oxygen can
dissolve in warm water than in cold and rates of chemical reactions, including
photosynthesis and respiration increase in warmer water. The impact of altered
temperature regimes resulting from unseasonable low or high flow conditions within the
Orange-Senqu catchment has not been well studied and therefore the scale and
significance of the impact is not known.
57. While groundwater pollution is a problem throughout South Africa in urban,
industrialised and mining areas, the only trans-boundary aquifer in the Orange-Senqu
basin that may be affected is the Molopo aquifer, which straddles the Botswana-South
African border. There are naturally high levels of nitrate in this aquifer but there are few
significant sources of pollution.
58. The other major immediate causes of water quality deterioration from the urban and
house hold sector include discharges of wastewater from inadequate municipal
wastewater treatment works, run-off from urban areas including solid waste disposal
along river banks. From the mining and industrial sectors there is untreated or
inadequately treated wastewater from industry and mining, land contamination from
spills and hazardous waste, and discharge of waste-water from mining operations and
acid mine drainage. The primary causes from the agricultural sector are diffuse pollution
from agricultural enterprises (incorrect application of pesticides and fertilizers), intensive
22
farming, sedimentation from poor pasture management, and salinity from poor irrigation
practices.
59. The problems identified above result from a number of underlying causes in each sector.
These underlying causes are: inadequate and failing waste water treatment facilities, lack
of incentives for improvements and lack of understanding and attention to the impacts of
deteriorating water quality. The socio-economic, legal and political root causes of
deteriorating water quality are: a lack of dedication of resources and a low level of
capacity to sufficiently address these challenges through enforcement of regulations. This
is exacerbated by inadequate administrative systems to manage and evaluate diffuse
sources of pollution from agriculture, growing demands for products combined with a
lack of regulation of informal agriculture.
Land Degradation
60. Land degradation in the Orange-Senqu Basin is due to activities primarily within three
major sectors. These are mining, commercial agriculture and rural activities including
pastoral and small scale agriculture. Large-scale coal and gold mines generate vast
quantities of overburden, waste rock, process tailings, liquid effluents and other
associated wastes. The disposal of these wastes over large tracts of land, together with
the actual surface disturbance of opencast and underground mines, are the causes of
severe land degradation in certain parts of the catchment. Within the agricultural sector
the immediate causes are cultivation practices along river banks and on floodplains as
well as in wetlands, which often do not have adequate legal protection to prevent
conversion to agriculture. The loss of riparian vegetation and large-scale land conversion
to agriculture has both contributed significantly to land degradation in the catchment.
61. Landscape degradation from the rural sector is caused by extensive overgrazing by
subsistence stock farming in particular. Grazing on steep slopes, especially in Lesotho
and on marginal grasslands in the drier parts of the catchment causes large-scale erosion.
Remedying unsustainable grazing practices is a crucial step in improving conditions. All
the countries of the Orange-Senqu River Basin consider rangeland degradation to be a
significant threat to sustainable land management and biodiversity conservation.
Traditionally, livelihoods have been based on the use of natural resources through
livestock husbandry and cultivation of land. Land management practices evolved to adapt
to the physical conditions of the southern African climate and historically, resource use is
considered to have been largely sustainable. Today, in the Orange-Senqu Basin people on
communal lands still largely lead subsistence lifestyles, due to the absence of
employment and other significant monetary income. As a result livestock are a major
investment, and animal husbandry serves as an economic driver for subsistence level
populations. The impacts of this on the landscapes in terms of degradation due to over
grazing are significant.
23
62. Landscape degradation manifests itself in two contradictory forms: loss of vegetation
cover on the one hand and bush encroachment on the other. In the south of Namibia,
Lesotho and parts of South Africa, the former is by far the dominant expression of
degradation, while in Botswana (and possibly the adjacent areas of South Africa) bush
encroachment is listed as a significant challenge. Loss of vegetation cover is perhaps the
most obvious indicator of landscape degradation, ranging from the loss of grass species
diversity and perennial grasses, a loss of grass vigour to a loss of ground cover and land
productivity, increasing vulnerability to drought and facilitating encroachment of
undesirable plants and soil erosion. There are generally two interrelated causes for loss of
vegetation cover: overstocking - which describes the situation where more animals are
kept on a certain piece of land than there is fodder available to feed them; and
overgrazing which is caused when animals are concentrated in one specific area for too
long, resulting in over use of the vegetation with inadequate recovery time. Open access
to land and unsuitable distribution of water and boreholes is one major factor for the
latter.
63. Two important biomes, the grasslands and succulent karoo, are noted for their high
floristic richness and endemism. The grasslands biome is further noted for its
hydrological service provisioning capacity, straddling important catchment areas in the
headwaters of the Orange River. Land degradation in these areas is a threat to
biodiversity and undermines hydrological service functions. With the exception of the
montane grasslands these biomes are all considered deserts or semi deserts with
unpredictable rainfall patterns. The succulent and Nama karoo biomes are highly
vulnerable to desertification and are expected to suffer from increased rainfall variability
and changes expected as a result of climate change. The succulent karoo, which lies
within a winter rainfall area, currently has more predictable rainfall than the other areas.
64. With regard to dryland habitats, development of the river has at least indirectly affected
the surrounding lands through what might be called a "knock-on" effect of irrigation
schemes, which have led to the loss or degradation of large tracts of indigenous veld.
There have also been losses in biodiversity of riparian vegetation along the Orange-Senqu
River. Such losses appear to be mainly secondary consequences of current river
regulation schemes, which led to land clearing for cultivation and set the stage for the
introduction of invasive alien species.
65. The underlying causes of land degradation for the mining sector are inadequate law
enforcement as a result of limited institutional capacity, as well as poor rehabilitation,
which together have resulted in large areas of partially or completely un-rehabilitated
land. The proliferation of small-scale mining and unregulated river bank mining has
added to the problem. Within the formal agricultural sector: the underlying causes stem
from agriculture development on marginal land; poor land planning; inadequate
monitoring and regulation of the sector; and limited financial and human resources to
regulate the industry adequately. From the rural agricultural sector, the underlying causes
are inadequate rangeland planning systems; inadequate knowledge of good farming
practices; increased numbers of domestic livestock due to market demands; and, poor
24
land planning due to inadequate coordinated management through conservation and
livelihood development agencies.
66. The socio-economic, legal and political root causes of land degradation have several
shared issues across the sectors, including a lack of knowledge, planning, and regulation.
Poor regulation of the mining sector is a major root cause since it is a profit driven,
exploitative short-term industry. Clear economic incentives are needed to ensure effective
rehabilitation of mining sites. The socio-economic, legal and political root causes in the
agricultural sectors include a high demand for products, including those for export, and
political prioritization. Within the rural pastoral sector the main socio-economic root
causes are poverty, increased human pressures often from migration, combined with the
land tenure system and skewed land ownership, and an overall lack of integrated
management. While these causes are largely localized there are significant trans-
boundary implications which make addressing these causes a priority.
Alien Invasives
67. ORASECOM and stakeholders, in determining the priority trans-boundary issues during
the TDA training and development exercises, decided that loss and degradation of
biodiversity was a cross-cutting issue, however they recognised that invasive species was
a critical problem and classified it as priority problem for the Orange-Senqu Basin.
68. Alien species are generally pioneers by nature. Disturbances in natural systems (aquatic
and terrestrial) and degradation of land often make colonization of new areas by alien
invasive species possible. Increases in alien species were found to have an impact in the
trans-boundary problems of: land degradation, deteriorating water quality, changed
hydrological regime and decreased availability of water. In each of the above mentioned
cases, an ecological system is affected, causing disruptions to the habitat balance. Such
disruptions cause ideal environmental conditions for fast growing and reproducing alien
species to establish, leading to a vicious circle of degradation. The cause of the problem
arises from three main sectors: agriculture, tourism and urban / household development.
Introductions of ornamental and productive species are often deliberate, but their invasive
ability was not predicted. Introductions can also be accidental, as with plant material
carried in feeds, or attached to animal parts for dispersal. Floods are often responsible for
the spread of alien species beyond areas of initial distribution.
69. Alien invasive species within the Orange Senqu River Basin can be broadly grouped in
two categories, namely aquatic and riparian invasive species.
70. The aquatic plant species Eichhornia crassipes (Water hyacinth) has heavily invaded
sections of the Vaal River. It has spread from the upper-middle parts to near the
confluence with the Orange-Senqu River in recent years. Apart from the large water use
of the plant, its ability to cover the surface of the river in dense stands makes it a physical
25
impediment, blocking abstraction channels and irrigation equipment. Chemical and
biological control measures have proven successful in eradicating the plant. Azolla
filiculoides (Water fern) has invaded sections of the upper Orange River and its
tributaries. Impacts of invasion by the plant are similar to that of E. crassipes.
71. The introduction of two trout species (Salmo trutta and Oncorhynchus mykiss) to the
upper reaches of the Orange-Senqu River catchment in South Africa and Lesotho has
impacted on populations of indigenous minnow species in these areas. The value of these
species for sport angling, and their impact on indigenous fish species are a highly debated
topic among local ichthyologists. Exotic trout have been found in small populations in the
Gariep and Vanderkloof dams.
72. Monitoring and research programmes have confirmed that riparian areas of all southern
African rivers have been invaded by alien plant species. The severity of invasions is
correlated to average annual rainfall, with rivers in the drier western portions of the
subcontinent being less impacted than the eastern rivers. Tributaries of the Orange such
as the Vaal and the Senqu Rivers have their origins in the wetter parts of the country and
are thus more heavily infested with alien species.
73. In the upper catchments, where rainfall is typically above 600mm per annum, the woody
plant species Acacia dealbata, Acacia mearnsii, Poplus sp. Melia azederach and
Jacaranda mimosifolia are invasive in riparian areas. As the rivers enter more arid areas
in the central and western areas of South Africa, and southern Namibia, the invasion of
mostly Prosopis glandulosa is encountered. The Prosopis invasions are mostly found on
flat alluvial floodplains, which are often disturbed by flooding and erosion. Prosopis has
been identified by the South African National Botanical Institute (SANBI) as the seventh
most invasive species in South Africa. Throughout the course of the rivers, common reed
(Phragmites australis) is found on the edge of the river channels, or in shallow sections of
the channels. The species, although not alien, has proliferated with increased river
regulation which has reduced the frequency of flood events in the system.
74. The main underlying causes of increased invasions of alien species in the tourism sector
are where alien species have an amenity value (e.g. trout) and there is a demand for
services and products exacerbated by competition within the sector. The underlying
causes in the agricultural sector are demand for products from invasive species; lack of
understanding of ecosystems combined with incorrect agricultural practices and changed
land use. Within the rural household sector the underlying causes are pressure on
available natural resources, resulting in changed water flows, creating ecological
conditions suitable for the spread of alien species, as well as eutrophication and
disturbances in ecosystem balance, thus creating disturbed systems ideal for invasion by
alien species. Another underlying cause in rural areas is intentional and accidental veldt
fires, causing disturbances in natural systems. In urban areas, many garden species have
been introduced from overseas e.g. jacaranda and syringa trees, which have spread into
natural systems along the urban edge.
26
75. The root causes across the sectors are a lack of knowledge, inadequate planning, and
ineffective monitoring and enforcement of regulations. There is also a lack of harmonized
legislation within the basin, and a lack of resources for eradication of alien invasives, the
spread of which is exacerbated by climate change conditions.
Underlying Causes
76. The above threats have been evaluated and the following underlying causes have been
identified at the basin wide level:
77. The accelerating use of the waters of the Orange-Senqu River Basin is rapidly
outstripping the basin's institutional ability to adapt. While there are several
Commissions that currently have responsibility for management of the system, and the
principal Commission, ORASECOM, is an entity with international legal status, there is
limited capacity to jointly identify and advise the riparian countries with many
anticipatory actions that will be necessary for the countries to adopt.
78. Increasing, though uneven, economic growth rates within the basin and the region have
driven increased consumption and demands on limited water resources, as industrial,
energy and extractive industries vie for resources with agriculture, tourism, and
environmental sectors.
79. Population growth in the basin and region, including large influxes of immigrants and
rapid urbanization has impacted water use trends and demands for increased dedication of
revenues to infrastructure and social development needs.
80. Previously insufficient attention had been given to the wide array of stakeholder views,
knowledge and concerns about trends in water management throughout the basin.
81. Cooperative endeavours have heretofore focused on the water sector specifically, rather
than the production sectors that use water; an integrated cross-sectoral focus will be
needed to balance water demand and supplies, and address land degradation and other
key threats.
82. There is a need to share information both within and between countries and sectors
regarding water use trends, environmental demands, and development strategies.
83. There is a need for joint harmonized planning for environment linked with water
departments and ORASECOM through inter-sectoral planning.
84. At the National level, underlying causes are identified as:
27
·
The domestic push for economic development and provision of social services at
the national level in some cases obscures basin-wide water resource availability.
·
Agencies responsible for water management have many of the legal tools with
which to address issues confronting the Basin, but lack the capacity to use them
effectively.
·
Cooperation and the sharing of information between and among
Departments/Ministries is not targeted to the needs of the wider basin, which cut
across Departmental/Ministerial lines of responsibility.
·
Environmental legislation is often new and difficult to implement effectively.
·
Harmonization of approaches and expectations at national and basin-wide levels
are needed to enable effective management of the shared basin.
·
Countries need to improve measurement of demand and exert greater control of
water abstractions in order to better evaluate the water balance of surface and
ground waters.
·
While some countries have given consideration to revamping water pricing
strategies, initiating water trading through use of normal market forces, having
users of water bear responsibility for water losses, and water conservation
strategies (reducing water demand), there is still much work needing to be done at
national levels in these areas.
·
All the challenges outlined above require financial capabilities, access to capital
and government commitment to be addressed effectively.
Stakeholder Analysis Summary
85. During the PDF-B Phase a stakeholder analysis was undertaken to identify direct and
indirect, and impacted and impacting stakeholder groups, to gauge the stakeholder group
perceptions pertaining to the issues within the TDA and to illuminate areas of potential
tensions between stakeholder groups. The full Stakeholder Involvement Strategy and
Stakeholder Analysis is given in Section IV. Based on both qualitative and quantitative
stakeholder analyses, stakeholder involvement activities have been developed to address
the specific concerns identified by stakeholders and directly pertaining to the priority
trans-boundary problems.
86. Involvement of a wide array of stakeholders is a critical element of this project. There are
multiple venues to feature stakeholder involvement and public participation in the
project, including intersectoral committees, activities emphasizing direct stakeholder
involvement in water management strategies, a basin-wide stakeholder forum, and
national stakeholder forums, and a wide spectrum public awareness building effort
conducted through a social marketing campaign. The details of these efforts are
elucidated in Section IV, with the following groups (inter alia) included:
·
Inter-sectoral Committees involving government departments or ministries of:
Water, Conservation/Environment, Fisheries, Industry, Energy, Mining, Finance,
Foreign Affairs, Agriculture, Social Welfare/Public Health, Labour, as well as
28
elected politicians, local government and water management parastatal
organizations.
·
Stakeholder Activities, as shown in Table I.I.4 below:
Table I.I.4: Involvement of stakeholder groups
Stakeholders
Direct
Basin-wide
Social
stakeholder
and national
marketing
activities
stakeholder
campaigns
forums
Government officials
Water management officials
Power utilities
Tourism/recreation sector
Mining sector
Industrial sector
Construction industry
Agro-industrial sector
Local government officials
Waste management officals
NGOs
CBOs/village development committees
Education sector
Student and youth groups
Irrigation farmers
Stock farmers
Factory farmers (chickens, piggeries etc)
Dryland croppers
Health care providers
Riverine community members
Traditional healers
Scientists
Conservation officials
Press/media
Development finance institutions (DFIs)
Bilateral development organizations
Baseline Analysis
87. As noted above, water demand in all the Orange-Senqu River Basin states is forecast to
rise and it is unclear how those demands are to be met. The second stage of the Lesotho
Highlands Water Project is currently being evaluated but this on its own will not satisfy
the demand in the basin and a new impoundment in the Lower Orange is being
considered, the feasibility of which will depend upon the environmental flow
requirements. In order for either of these to be effective without significantly altering the
29
conditions of the river system, the basic tenets of Integrated Water Resource
Management (IWRM) must be applied.
88. The concept of Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) is well known
throughout the basin and it is enshrined in the National Water Resource Strategy of South
Africa, in the Water Resource Management Act in Namibia, and in the draft Water Bills
in Botswana and Lesotho. IWRM is a systematic process for the sustainable
development, allocation and monitoring of water resource use in the context of social,
economic and environmental objectives. It is a cross-sectoral policy approach, designed
to replace the traditional, fragmented sectoral approach to water resources and
management that has led to poor services and unsustainable resource use. IWRM is based
on the understanding that water resources are an integral component of the ecosystem, a
natural resource, and a social and economic good. Traditionally within the water sector,
resource management has been undertaken independently of social and economic
objectives and has focused on the interaction between land and water use at the basin
level. The increased complexity of the IWRM inter-sectoral approach brings with it many
challenges, not least the differing planning units and plans in which the different sectors
operate.
89. For example in South Africa, in order to achieve an inter-sectoral approach, water
resource management responsibilities are to be devolved from central government to the
catchment level. The National Water Resource Strategy has identified 19 Water
Management Areas (WMA), 5 of which are in the Orange-Senqu River Basin. In each
WMA there will be a Catchment Management Agency (CMA) responsible for certain
water resource functions and for the development a Catchment Management Strategy
(CMS) for the protection, use, development, conservation, management and control of
water resources within its WMA. The way in which the resources are protected, used,
developed, conserved, managed and controlled needs to form an integral part of other
planning initiatives at provincial, district and local authority level.
90. IWRM plans are also under development in other parts of basin, in particular in
Botswana where the plan is soon to be supported by GEF through an International Waters
(IW) Medium Size Project, and in Namibia which has secured financial support from the
African Development Bank to develop its national IWRM Plan. In addition, Lesotho is in
the process of modifying its water management legislation to incorporate principles of
IWRM. It is important that these initiatives and those on-going in South Africa are
closely tied under an agreed set of policies in order to avoid unconstrained water resource
consumption whilst still recognizing the need to apply the concept of IWRM. Under the
present agreement, ORASECOM is an advisory body to the Governments with no basin
management or regulatory functions. There are also bi-lateral water resource agreements
which set a status quo against which the ORASECOM agreement is measured. A
permanent secretariat to ORASECOM was established in 2007 and a executive secretary
appointed. The effectiveness of ORASECOM is currently limited by the amount of time
that technical task team members, drawn from the respective countries' water
departments/ ministries can dedicate to ORASECOM issues. In 2003, with the assistance
of BMZ/GTZ, ORASECOM commissioned an IWRM Plan to be prepared for the whole
30
of the Orange-Senqu Basin. The first phase is now complete and a large amount of data,
information and knowledge has been collated in a series of thematic reports, many of
which have been used to prepare the preliminary TDA. The second phase which is
currently in preparation will implement priority interventions identified and further
prepare for the development of the IWRM plan. There is no overall vision statement for
IWRM in the Orange-Senqu Basin as yet, nor have water resource objectives been set,
targets agreed or final interventions identified. The establishment of a basin-wide agreed
vision will enable the countries to more effectively implement their national level IWRM
strategies.
91. As part of the push toward coordinated IWRM strategies the countries of the basin need
to be very conscious of the need to focus on the management of water quality as well as
quantity as part of their water resource planning. Water availability is only as good as the
quality of that water. It is recognized in the basin that too often there has been a failure to
integrate the issues of quantity and quality both with regard to surface water and
groundwater. The need to manage water quality and quantity together is a central tenet in
the concept of Integrated Water Resource Management. This is especially pernicious with
non-point source pollution. The consequences of irrigation with larger quantities of water
results in the leaching of fertilisers, and more importantly the leaching of salts from
deeper soil horizons, which can render both the lands themselves and the receiving rivers
unsuitable for use. Diffuse agricultural `effluent' may be less visible than direct
discharges of sewage or industrial effluent, but are no less pernicious. Diffuse pollution
sources are also a problem particularly for groundwater resources. Aquifer protection
policies need to be developed and implemented throughout the basin as part of the efforts
to apply IWRM principles in the basin. The integrated management of surface and
groundwaters within the basin is being pursued by a specifically task force (the
Transboundary Aquifer Initiative) within ORASECOM and this project endeavour to
support the group's activities.
92. There is a need to ensure that direct discharges to rivers are licensed and managed
properly on the basis of assimilative capacities of those rivers, and on Receiving Water
Quality Objectives (RWQOs). Where these limits are exceeded, often through the
cumulative impact of diffuse discharges, water becomes unavailable to some, or even all,
users downstream. Licensing and permitting procedures should be harmonized and
Receiving Water Quality Objectives or a set of discharge standards should be agreed by
all basin states. Even once licensing/permitting procedures and water quality standards
(for end-of-pipe discharges and receiving waters) are in place; this does not guarantee
good water quality management. Without the essential policing and monitoring,
compliance is impossible to ensure. In the remoter parts of the Orange-Senqu River Basin
and within certain sectors, for example artisanal mining, compliance is a real problem
which will require concerted efforts to overcome.
93. The linkage between water resource management and land use, in particular range
management, is not clearly articulated in any of the basin countries. A lack of capacity
and information prevents local communities from making informed management
decisions. They lack information on the important parameters like rangeland condition,
31
carrying capacity and livestock condition which would allow the resource users to
identify problem areas and make appropriate mitigation decisions. Conservation of
biodiversity and preservation of the hydrology pathways, particularly in the riparian areas
should be key objectives in any rangeland management plan. These can be realized
through basin wide implementation of IWRM and associated activities.
94. The national level IWRM efforts are to be commended where appropriate, and this
project seeks to build coordination mechanisms between the countries to ensure that there
are collaborative efforts in managing water resources in line with basin-wide priorities.
Without this level of collaboration, national level policies will be sub-optimal, as shared
resources require shared management.
32
PART II: Project Strategy
95. The overall goal of the Project is to improve the management of the Orange-Senqu River
Trans-boundary Basin through implementation of a sustainable programme of policy,
legal and institutional reforms and investment options using the TDA/SAP process. The
project will apply Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM) approaches which
consider the interrelationships between natural resource systems, biophysical processes
and socio-economic systems. IWRM will take into account factors outside the water
sector such as agriculture and energy and such issues as land degradation and climate
change in a cross-sectoral approach. This expanded approach makes possible a transition
to adaptive management strategies for water resources.
96. The project will play a catalytic role in developing and implementing, through the TDA
and SAP process, a sustainable programme of policy, legal and institutional reforms and
investments to address them. The Project will create synergies with and build upon a
range of initiatives being undertaken by the countries themselves and those of bi-lateral
and multi-lateral development partners that have given priority to the Basin. Competing
water uses in the context of dwindling and uncertain future supplies is seen as the critical
issue in the basin and will be a principal focus of project attention from the outset.
97. The Project will strengthen basin-wide institutions, particularly ORASECOM, to ensure
the long term management sustainability; identify the underlying and root causes of the
priority trans-boundary problems/issues and building on the existing preliminary TDA
identify potential interventions to address them; develop an agreed basin-wide Strategic
Action Programme (SAP) based upon short, medium, and long term management
objectives and strategies; through pilot projects, build capacity for adaptive management
and implement measures to sustain and enhance overall environmental health of the
Orange-Senqu river basin; and support ORASECOM to implement a comprehensive
stakeholder involvement programme based on its Stakeholder Roadmap. The Project will
create synergies with and build upon a range of initiatives being undertaken in the Basin
by the four countries and those of donor agencies. In particular, the project shall
coordinate with the existing BMZ/GtZ, EU, InWent and FGEF projects in the
implementation of the Orange-Senqu River Basin Programme (see below) and
ORASECOM's Road-map towards Stakeholder Participation.
98. During the PDF-B stage the countries have:
Undertaken a qualitative and quantitative stakeholder analysis to determine
stakeholder perceptions and ranking of the priority trans-boundary issues (Annex
2).
Prepared a draft public involvement and communication strategy building upon
the ORASECOM Road-map towards Stakeholder Participation (Annex 1).
Confirmed the trans-boundary priority issues and undertaken causal chain
analyses to identify immediate, underlying and root causes (Annex 4).
Developed a preliminary trans-boundary diagnostic analysis (to be further refined
during the project implementation), incorporating thematic basin studies on water
quantity and quality, climate change and the studies undertaken by BMZ/GTZ as
33
a first step to the development of an Integrated Water Resource Management Plan
for the Orange-Senqu River Basin.
Agreed the institutional arrangement for an Orange-Senqu River Basin umbrella
programme under which the GEF project and other international donor projects,
and eventually the SAP, are to be implemented. (Section IV, Part IV).
Agreed on a draft basin vision and water resource quality objectives,
corresponding to the priority trans-boundary issues, as the framework for the
Strategic Action Programme to be later developed.
Agreed the scope, activities, outputs and outcomes of three demonstration projects
addressing environmental low flows, water conservation in the irrigation sector
and range land management.
Prepared a Full Sized project document for submission to GEF through UNDP.
99. The proposed GEF project on the Orange-Senqu River Basin will build upon these
achievements and those by other organizations and together with the countries and other
partners will undertake the following activities:
· Strengthen the Orange-Senqu River Commission and its Secretariat through
creation of an Information Management System; establishment of technical
working groups; establishment of water resource allocation criteria; and capacity
building;
· Review and update the Trans-boundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA), filling
critical data gaps through targeted assessments in collaboration with EU, FGEF
and BMZ/GtZ, identifying potential short, medium and long-term interventions to
address trans-boundary issues and conducting pre-feasibility studies on key
interventions;
· Development of a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) and National Action Plans
(NAPs) as part of a wider IWRM plan for the Orange-Senqu River Basin to be
implemented by ORASECOM under the Orange-Senqu River Basin Programme;
including the development of a detailed Monitoring and Evaluation framework for
SAP implementation and support of implementing institutions at the national
level;
· In line with the ORASECOM Road-map towards Stakeholder Participation,
implement a range of stakeholder involvement activities to encourage stakeholder
participation and involvement in basin management and increase awareness in the
critical issue of water conservation in the basin;
· Implementation of three demonstration projects to show the potential for
strengthening integrated water resource management at the national, sub-basin
and basin wide scale and fill critical data gaps.
34
Project Rationale and Policy Conformity
GEF Alternative Scenario
100.
Strengthening of ORASECOM will provide a stronger forum for the countries to
discuss difficult issues such as water allocation and water quality objectives at a multi-
lateral level. A strong ORASECOM will also help coordinate the various national and
basin-wide strategies to ensure that the principles of IWRM are applied basin-wide and
not distorted at the sub-basin level. The environment is a primary stakeholder. In order to
apply the IWRM principles effectively, ORASECOM should be able to strike a balance
between the needs of the environment and national economic and social development
objectives.
101.
The GEF project will support the countries to approach water resource management
issues in an interdisciplinary, multi sectoral manner focusing on harmonized basin wide
priorities through the development of the SAP as part of a ORASECOM's IWRM plan.
Ultimately, the harmonization of policies and approaches, demonstration of cost effective
alternatives, and setting of basin-wide empirical baselines will empower the counties in
the basin to most effectively adapt future growth trends towards realistic sustainable
development scenarios and protection of the riverine environment.
102.
The GEF project will support the countries to strengthen and find common
ecosystem based approaches and IWRM policies, objectives and targets to which they
can commit over the next 20-25 years through the SAP. Some tools to be developed with
the assistance of the GEF project may include, for example:
· Agreed methodology for determination of environmental flow requirements;
· Develop transboundary EA procedures and policies
· Common policy on aquifer protection;
· A shared water quantity and quality monitoring system and information
management system.
103.
An umbrella Orange-Senqu Water Resources and Environment Programme
(OSWREP) has been developed in a form of Gantt Chart and as a living document during
the PDF phase and serves as the key donor coordination tool for ORASECOM. This
document will keep encourage and coordinate support from the international donor
community during the implementation phase of the Full sized project and help avoiding
duplication and maximize synergies and complementarities.
104.
The GEF project, amongst other public involvement activities promoted by the
countries and other partners, will raise the awareness of the general public to the need to
conserve water in all sectors, in collaboration with in particular the EU initiative.
Through support of the basin forums the GEF project will provide multi-stakeholder
access to the decision making process.
35
Fit with Focal Area strategy:
105.
The project is consistent with the 1st Strategic Objective of the IW Focal Area: to
foster international, multi-state cooperation on priority trans-boundary water concerns
through more comprehensive, ecosystem-based approaches to management. It
furthermore fits with the 3rd Strategic Programme in GEF-4: Balancing overuse and
conflicting uses of water resources in trans-boundary surface and groundwater basins.
The project aims to assist countries to balance competing water uses between production
sectors in the highly water stressed river basin under climate change uncertainties, while
ensuring water security to support the people's livelihoods and ecological flows to sustain
riparian ecosystems. Following integrated basin river management (IRBM) principles,
the project will in particular demonstrate the application of integrated land and water
resource management practices in the upper catchment of the basin, as well as promote
the harmonization of policies and activities necessary to effectively address trans-
boundary water concerns in the basin.
Project Goal, Outcomes and Outputs/activities
106.
The goal of the GEF involvement will be to address trans-boundary water resource
management issues, including transboundary aquifers, as identified through the TDA
process and articulated in the Strategic Action Programme (SAP) and the accompanying
National Action Plans (NAPs). GEF funding will be drawn upon for finalization of the
comprehensive TDA and SAP, and the implementation of selected interventions
identified in the SAP as basin-wide priorities.
107.
The outcomes for this project are based on basin-wide initiatives that will enable the
countries to reach the objective through improved basin-wide conditions. These five
outcomes are:
1 Capacity of ORASECOM strengthened to coordinate initiatives, national
institutions and current and future support from development partners in a
harmonised manner to effectively promote the implementation of IWRM
principles. ORASECOM's coordination capacity will be further strengthened
through the establishment of the Orange-Senqu Water Resources and
Environment Programme;
2 Trans-boundary issues analyzed through additional studies, underlying and root
causes and targeted interventions identified in a comprehensive TDA;
3 Agreement on and commitment to policy, legal and institutional reforms and
capital investments to address priority trans-boundary issues and implementation
of IWRM approaches through endorsement of SAP and NAPs. This will include
sustainable financial arrangements agreed for SAP implementation;
4 Stakeholder involvement in project activities assured and public awareness of
trans-boundary issues raised;
5 Ecosystem-based IWRM approaches encouraged and strengthened through the
successful implementation of the Demonstration Projects.
36
108.
At its Council meeting in April 2007 in Windhoek, ORASECOM agreed on the
establishment of an Orange-Senqu Water Resource and Environment Programme
(OSWREP) to bring the various ORASECOM supporting projects under one umbrella
and provide a platform for the development and implementation of the SAP (to be re-
titled to better reflect its final content). The approved institutional arrangement document
(see Section IV, Part IV) shows how the programme will be governed and how the
various international funded projects are to contribute.
109.
Currently, there are several development partner driven projects in the basin which
are assisting ORASECOM and SADC in their efforts to implement IWRM in the Orange-
Senqu River Basin. To date, these partners, including BMZ/GtZ, the French GEF, EU,
InWEnt and the UNDP/GEF, have worked well together albeit in a loose collaboration. A
more structured approach has now been adopted by ORASECOM with the formation of
the Orange-Senqu Water Resource and Environmental Programme and integrated
workplan. Partner coordination meetings are now being held frequently under the
chairmanship of ORASECOM and partners are being encouraged to coordinate
implementation of their projects under the OSWREP workplan in order to avoid overlap
and ensure complementarities.
110.
The intended catalytic role of the GEF project and co-financing objectives are to be
stressed in the context of the coordination among the countries and development partners
to achieve the sustainable development objectives outlined in this document. The
following five technical project activity components (plus a project management
component) were identified during the project preparatory phase as the most effective
intervention areas to realize these sustainable development objectives, global
environmental benefits and address transboundary concerns in the basin. The project
activities have been designed to most effectively meet the project goals and objectives.
The design however is not so rigid as to limit the project's ability to play the catalytic
role during the implementation of the project in coordination with activities of other
partners, nor does it presume that implementation be solely carried out by GEF funding.
Maximum implementation flexibility will be exercised at all times.
Component 1: Institutional Strengthening of ORASECOM
111.
In order for ORASECOM to function optimally, there is a need to strengthen the
institutional capacity of the organization and enable it to reach the objective of serving
effectively as a coordinating agent for trans-boundary water management in the Orange-
Senqu River Basin. The project will work closely with BMZ/GtZ, EU and SADC in
contributing to the support and strengthening of ORASECOM.
Activities:
1.1. GIS-based Information Management System created
1.2. Technical Working Groups established
1.3. Transboundary EIA guidelines and procedures prepared
37
1.4. Capacity of water resource practitioners strengthened
112.
The supportive measures to be taken for strengthening ORASECOM must have
clearly defined objectives and concrete results. The activities outlined above will build
capacity within ORASECOM and create mechanisms that will perpetuate the positive
steps taken thus far by the Commission.
113.
There is a clear need to develop a common information system and thereby
understanding of the water related problems and issues of the Orange-Senqu Basin. Equal
access to data and information is essential if the countries are to be able to enter into
basin-wide agreements on a range of key trans-boundary issues. The design of the
information system will need to take account of the management decisions it will be
required to support, the current and future form and type of data to be made available to
ORASECOM (with the need for a data sharing protocol), quality control/assurance
procedures and security access procedures. A web-based, GIS information system and a
website will enable the information to be shared efficiently by projects, governments,
NGOs, the media, and other interested stakeholders in and outside the basin. The creation
of online databases will enable a knowledge based community to emerge, building on the
collective expertise in the basin. Additionally, it will be critical in the development of
outreach mechanisms for stakeholders without access to internet media, including
posters, radio and television information in conjunction with other activities for
stakeholder participation (see Component 4). The project will contribute to the
development of the information system and the ORASECOM website in close
coordination with the EU and BMZ/GtZ projects. A project website will also be
established in line with IW:LEARN guidance and standards and linked to the
ORASECOM website, once the latter becomes operational.
114.
In order to strengthen the technical working of the OSWREP and ORASECOM, the
project will establish a set of technical working groups to review key aspects of trans-
boundary water issues, such as water resource yields, demand forecasting and
management, pollution control, etc. in consultation with the ORASECOM and in close
coordination with the EU and BMZ/GtZ projects. Experts from the basin states will be
selected to serve on these groups which will meet regularly to review the work done by
ORASECOM and the international projects and provide guidance to the Orange-Senqu
Water Resource and Environment Programme Strategy Committee.
115.
ORASECOM will also be assisted in the development of guidelines and procedures
for trans-boundary Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment. Experts will be
appointed to develop draft procedures specific to OSRB in compliance with international
best practice and to present them to ORASECOM for consideration and negotiation and
eventual agreement.
116.
In addition to the efforts listed above, in conjunction with ORASECOM, French
GEF, BMZ/GtZ, EU, and InWent, the GEF project will undertake capacity building
efforts for water resource practitioners. The project will with the aid of a Needs
Assessment and Capacity Building programme to be developed by FGEF, identify
38
specific basin wide capacity gaps, review options for improving capacity, initiate a
recruitment programme for junior water management officials and implement training as
appropriate. This has been identified as critical area for capacity building in the short and
medium term by all the countries.
117.
Deliverables:
· Functional GIS based information system and web page;
· Technical working groups established and functioning to support the
implementation of OSWREP;
· Trans-boundary Strategic EIA guidelines and procedures prepared; and
· Capacity improved based on the Needs Assessment and Capacity Building
Programme developed by F-GEF.
Component 2: Completion of Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis
118.
Within the PDF-B phase of the project, a preliminary TDA was conducted to identify
and assess the status of the priority trans-boundary issues. The preliminary TDA
identified information gaps to be addressed in order to better understand and improve our
knowledge of the trans-boundary issues. The information gaps presented in the
ORASECOM integrated work plan (Section IV, Part VI) and will be addressed by the
four major projects. Once these gaps have been addressed as part of the Full Size Project
the TDA will be revised and updated and include a listing of potential interventions for
inclusion in the SAP.
Activities:
2.1. Information gaps filled for the TDA
2.2. TDA revised and updated
2.3. Revised TDA widely disseminated
119.
The following critical information gaps were identified in the TDA to be addressed
in the Full Sized Project:
· A review of the impacts of artisanal mining on the middle and lower Orange,
requiring a desk study plus field visits to validate findings and perhaps limited
contaminant monitoring of sites.
· An assessment of Persistent Organic Pollutants levels in the OSRB. This will be
in the form of a series of monitoring surveys, probably in the sediment phase, to
give a snap-shot of current levels throughout the basin. This study will not
provide an estimate of contaminant input or fluxes through the system.
39
· A detailed yield assessment and demand forecasts for the OSRB for the next 25
years based on an agreed methodology including water allocation criteria and
climate change scenarios (see Component 1). This work will be done in close
collaboration with the BMZ/GtZ project.
120.
Other critical gaps will be filled by studies supported by Phase II of the BMZ/GtZ
IWRM project and EU project. Once these studies are complete the TDA will be revised
and updated, including a thorough revision of the Causal Chain Analyses, development of
causal loop diagrams, indicating the positive and negative feed-back and identifying the
gate-keepers in the decision process, and identification of a range of short, medium and
long term interventions for inclusion in the Strategic Action Program. Priority short-
medium term interventions will be subject to pre-feasibility desk studies. The final TDA
will be presented to ORASECOM and once approved will be disseminated widely to
stakeholders, civil society, governments, other basin wide and regional projects, and the
International Waters community.
121.
Deliverables:
·
Gap-filling studies on artisanal mining, POPs and water resource yields and
demand forecasts based on agreed climate change scenarios;
·
Revised/updated CCA and causal loop diagrams;
·
Listing of potential SAP interventions;
·
Pre-feasibility studies for key interventions; and
·
Final TDA
Component 3: Preparation of the Strategic Action Programme and National Action
Plans
122.
The project will provide support to ORASECOM in the development of a Strategic
Action Programme and supporting National Action Plans that will enable the basin to
harmonize their IWRM policies and actions. The culmination of these efforts will be a
donors' conference to mobilize financial commitments to implement the SAP. The
development of a basin wide plan for the Orange-Senqu basin is a key element in the
Terms of Reference of BMZ/GtZ and UNDP-GEF, although the emphasis and
development processes of each is slightly different. Guided by ORASECOM, the GEF
project will work with the other two donors to ensure that there is a single and not
multiple development plans. It was agreed during the consultation in May 2008 that the
SAP will be a component of a wider IWRM plan to be developed by ORASECOM and
supported by BMZ/GTZ Phase III project.
Activities:
3.1. Institutions established to support the national process for the NAP development
3.2. SAP and NAPs formulated and endorsed
3.3. Donor conference held to mobilize resources for IWRM Implementation
40
123.
The Strategic Action Programme is at the heart of this project and will assist the
countries to harmonize their national IWRM policies and strategies in the OrangeSenqu
River Basin, and incorporate the ecosystem based approach in any regional IWRM plan.
The SAP will be under-pinned by National Ecosystem Based and IWRM Action Plans
(NAPs), which will take into account both national and basin wide priorities. The SAP
and the NAPs will be developed in parallel to ensure consistency and correlation and will
be an iterative process beginning with the development of a preliminary SAP.
124.
The project will assist the countries to formulate and obtain endorsement of the
Strategic Action Programme (SAP) and National Action Plans (NAPs). A basin wide
working group for SAP formulation and national groups for NAP development will be
formed. The preliminary SAP will incorporate the Basin Vision and Water Resource
Quality Objectives (WRQOs) developed in the PDF-B stage and for each WRQO a set of
targets for the short, medium and long-terms. A listing of policy, legal, institutional, and
investment interventions to meet those targets will be drawn from the work done under
the TDA. It should be noted that the SAP may include interventions which are not GEF
applicable and alternative funding sources will need to be sought. The preliminary SAP
will be reviewed at basin-wide meeting which will include the participation of the Basin
Wide Stakeholder Forum (BWSF see Section 4.1). On the basis on the preliminary
SAP, draft NAPs will be developed and will be appraised through national workshops to
verify the feasibility of the proposed targets and interventions in each state and determine
the financial implications. The NAPs will be reviewed by the National Stakeholder
Forums to obtain additional inputs from throughout the basin of those who will be
impacted and whose support will be critical. Through an iterative process the project will
amend the SAP in line with findings of the NAPs, while the countries finalise and
endorse the NAPs through national planning procedures including establishing financing
arrangements. An important element of SAP development will be the creation a
Monitoring and Evaluation framework based on GEF International Waters indicators
(process, stress reduction and environmental and socio-economic status) and the new
GEF-4 IW Results Tracker. Using this framework the implementation of the SAP will be
monitored by ORASECOM on an annual basis. Once the SAP and NAPs are completed
and agreed, the project will, with the support of ORASECOM, seek to obtain
endorsement of the SAP at the highest government level in each basin country.
125.
Once the SAP is endorsed the project will assist ORASECOM to organize a donor
conference aimed at mobilizing commitments for SAP and NAP implementation. A range
of international and bi-lateral donors will be invited to consider support for specific
aspects or interventions within the SAP, some of which will have been subject to pre-
feasibility studies. The project will assist ORASECOM in establishing commitments
through appropriate memoranda and/or agreements, at national or basin wide level as
appropriate.
126.
The SAP and NAPs will correspond to the priorities identified by the basin countries
for the basin and will incorporate social and economic development objectives as well as
environment protection targets and measures. The SAP will form a component of a
41
basin-wide IWRM plan being developed by ORASECOM and drawing together the
outputs from all the donor projects. It is expected that the preliminary basin-wide IWRM
Plan will be available by the time for the donor conference. Implementation of
developmental targeted activities may not be eligible for the GEF funding, but the project
will assist the countries to secure support from other development partners, such as IFIs
and bilateral donors. Priorities included in the SAP and NAPs are determined by the
countries and not by the GEF funding scope.
127.
Deliverables:
· Endorsed SAP and NAPs;
· Operational GEF M&E framework for SAP implementation; and
· Financial support leverage for SAP and NAP implementation
Component 4: Basin wide stakeholder involvement activities
128.
The project will aim to involve stakeholders and the public in all stages of project
development and implementation through active participation, targeted stakeholder
education, and sectoral and long term public awareness raising of the importance of
environmental and water conservation measures. These activities link with the objectives
of the ORASECOM Roadmap toward Stakeholder Participation, specifically the four key
focus areas outlined in the Roadmap: 1) enhanced communication and information, 2)
institution creation and development, 3) capacity building, and 4) creation of institutional
interfaces. In addition this project will support enhancement and promotion of
stakeholder interaction encouraging them to progressively play an enhanced role in the
management of the basin, at the same time as educating them in the economic benefits of
improved resource stewardship. During coordination meetings, it has been agreed that all
projects will work together closely and collaboratively to ensure their contributions are
compatible and demonstrate synergy.
Activities:
4.1. Basin Wide Stakeholder Forum and National Stakeholder Forum established
4.2. Water conservation awareness raised
4.3. Education & Social marketing campaign materials produced
129.
The active inclusion of stakeholders in project activities at all levels will be critical
to the successful implementation of the project. This has been highlighted in the
ORASECOM Roadmap toward Stakeholder Participation and it is intended that at every
juncture possible this project will coordinate stakeholder inclusion according to the
Roadmap guidelines. At the highest level the Basin Wide Stakeholder Forum (BWSF)
will be supported and will provide stakeholder oversight into project activities. The
membership of the BWSF will be determined in accordance with the ORASECOM
Roadmap. Stakeholders from a wide array of groups with diverse interests and concerns
42
will be elected by the National Stakeholder Forums to serve on the BWSF. They may
include representatives from river community stakeholders, NGOs, industries and private
sectors, agriculture, energy, conservationists, the media, public health care providers,
educators, and others. The members will receive training on the GEF TDA/SAP approach
and IWRM and be asked to review the TDA, and have input to the formulation of the
Basin Vision. The BWSF will also come together to review and provide input into project
activities at critical junctures throughout the project.
130.
In addition to the BSWF, two or more example national forums will be identified,
established and supported in sub-basins, elected in part through holding open meetings in
the sub-basin to identify the stakeholders' views and perceptions. The aim is to garner
community support and to include local, economically-oriented stakeholders in
demonstration project activities including training. Key members of the National
Stakeholder Forums will be involved in demonstration projects and will also serve on the
BWSF as illustrated above. In all cases the local stakeholders will help to develop
community level strategies to apply lessons/technology from the demonstration projects
(see Component 5).
131.
In order to raise awareness among stakeholders about the challenges of water
conservation and introduce cost effective strategies to preserve water resources, a basin
wide campaign will be conducted. This will target the general public, the tourism and
recreation industry, light industry, agriculture and mining sectors and will feature the
introduction of measures to reduce water use, improve water efficiency and lower costs
incurred due to unnecessary water loss. Training on water conservation will be conducted
in golf resorts, factories and mining sites with workers and other stakeholders, including
regulators, administrators and owners and communities. The project will also assist the
stakeholders to develop water conservation measures for communities in both rural and
urban areas. Results monitoring will be emphasized. It will be crucial to monitor and
evaluate effectiveness of conservation activities, and the results will be publicized as part
of a social marketing campaign.
132.
The public outreach campaign will also include the publication of a high quality
photographic project profiling of the Orange-Senqu linked to the production of a coffee
table book which will focus on the river basin and its water resources being at the heart of
Southern Africa's modern development and the stakeholder activities to protect the river
system.
133.
The project will also build long term capacity and increase stakeholder awareness of
water issues through development of ecosystem educational curriculum outreach for
specific stakeholder groups in conjunction with SADC REEP (Regional Environmental
Educators Programme). This will include the development of language appropriate
primary and secondary education curricula for schools throughout the basin with all
materials in self contained activity kits to emphasize low cost, hands on activities to study
water quality, ecology, flow rates, seasonal variation, and climate change adaptation.
Additionally the project will develop "river culture centres" guides for schools and
communities to teach about traditional uses of the river through oral history projects.
43
With REEP, the project will review and develop a university level curriculum course on
hydro-ecology based on the Orange River to emphasize the inter-sectoral importance of
river health and explore the feasibility of small matched grant scholarships for students
specializing in water issues.
134.
In coordination with National Stakeholder Forums and the BWSF, the NGOs and
other role-players will develop a social marketing campaign for water conservation
(Activity 4.3 listed above) to emphasize awareness raising and empowering behaviour.
The social marketing campaign will be informed by the approaches developed through
GEF best practices on Communication Strategies employed successfully in other river
basins and trans-boundary water systems throughout the world, and will emphasize
increasing awareness, small but meaningful changes in behaviours and local ownership of
solutions. ORASECOM will be asked to establish a date for an official Orange-Senqu
River Awareness Day which will be celebrated throughout the basin.
135.
Deliverables:
BWSF and National Stakeholder Forum reports and recommendations;
Environmental education curriculum materials;
Coffee-table book about socio-economic history and biodiversity of the Orange-
Senqu River basin produced; and
Awareness raising and social marketing campaign for water conservation.
Component 5: Demonstration projects on Environmental flows, Water conservation
and improved water management targeting irrigation sector, community led range land
management
136.
In order to catalyze activities for the SAP, the project will implement three
demonstration projects to demonstrate and improve IWRM in the basin. These projects
are designed to be replicable throughout the basin and beyond and are accompanied by a
strong results dissemination programme. These projects were selected and developed by
the countries during the TDA development and correspond to priority activities identified
by ORASECOM. The pilots are summarized below and the full draft project documents
are given in Section IV, Part V.
Activities:
5.1. Mechanisms established to assure preservation of environmental flows for the
surface and subsurface flows of the Lower Orange.
5.2. Water use efficiency improved at the transboundary pilot sites and best practices in
irrigation water usage developed
5.3. Soil erosion reduced at the pilot site and self-governance lessons and best practices
for improved land/range management established
137.
Environmental Flow: Two sites will be selected, one on the Lower Orange and one
on a seasonal tributary, to test methodologies for setting Ecological Low Flows (ELF) in
44
the Orange-Senqu River Basin, setting the bounds for water resource development. The
project design will be finalized in the first three months in an inception report, which will
include a review of state-of-the-art methodologies for setting ELF and an appropriate
methodology for testing and selection of the pilot sites, based on an agreed set of criteria.
The study will undertake a baseline data collection programme; assess the flow and non-
flow/ anthropogenic related impacts on the river and estuary and the likely outcome of
their possible amelioration; and, design a long-term monitoring programme to assess the
efficacy of any environmental flow and/or other management interventions (i.e. non-
flow/anthropogenic related) that have been implemented. The demonstration project will
establish two stakeholder advisory forums which will hold regular meetings. A socio-
economic study of the impact of flow scenarios will be conducted and the results
incorporated into the design and implementation of the long-term monitoring programme.
Similar studies will be undertaken by the BMZ/GtZ at other key sites in the basin
identified by ORASECOM in phase II of their support project.
138.
Water Conservation in Irrigation Sector: High levels of water use and poor water
quality management by the agricultural sector is a key trans-boundary issue which will be
targeted in the second demonstration project. A minimum of two trans-boundary
irrigation sites will be chosen to demonstrate improved water conservation and water
quality control management. The project design will be finalized in the first three months
in an inception report which will include a review of basin-wide and international best
practice. The trans-boundary project sites will be selected based on replicability and the
willingness of irrigation farmers to participate and apply best practice as well as serving
as control groups. For each site a stakeholder advisory forum and water-user association,
if not already formed, will be created to support the project and play an active role in
project implementation and monitoring. The project will assess existing practices at
selected sites, including monitoring of drainage waters, to serve as a baseline. The project
will develop a plan of improved management measures to be introduced (metering,
conservation tariffs, scheduling), designed, constructed and monitored. The project will
conduct training with nearby communities' agricultural departments, agro-industry and
irrigation farmers and farm workers and others. The BMZ/GtZ project will undertake
demand assessment and demand management studies in other water use sectors.
139.
Community-led Rangeland Management: Land degradation due to human activity
is a critical trans-boundary issue in the Orange-Senqu River Basin. Demonstration
projects focusing on improved land/range management will be implemented in Botswana
and Lesotho rangelands to provide models to be replicated throughout the basin. The
project design will be finalized in the first three months in an inception report which will
include a review of best practice in range management regionally and nationally. The
project will identify and assess current baseline land conditions at each site and practices
pertaining to livestock husbandry, farming, forestry, mining, etc. Concurrently a socio-
economic evaluation will be conducted at the sites to determine relevant trends and future
impacts. The project will feature the formation of community land management
committees with stakeholder advisory forums to guide and direct the demonstration
projects. Within the project locally agreed management plans will be developed and
implemented.
45
140.
All three pilot projects will be subject to regular monitoring and in the last quarter of
project implementation a series of workshops to disseminate the findings from all three
demonstration projects will be held at the basin-wide level. Intermediate and final
findings from the pilot will be fed into the TDA/SAP process.
141.
Deliverables:
Agreed methodology for setting Ecological Flows in the Orange-Senqu river basin
at selected points of the basin;
Demonstration of water conservation and water quality management best practices
in the irrigation sector;
Demonstration of best practices in land/range management and development of
basin wide guidelines; and
Lessons learned (Experience Notes) extracted from the above and disseminated
widely
Component 6: Project Management
142.
A project management structure will be established in order to facilitate optimal
project coordination and serve as the inter-linking mechanism for project components.
The activities include:
Activities:
6.1 Establish a basin wide Project Coordination Unit (PCU);
6.2 Attendance and Support of the Programme Coordination Group;
6.3 Inception and Steering Committee meetings (Programme Strategy Meeting).
143.
The implementation of this component is designed to minimize efforts devoted to
unwarranted project oversight, while facilitating optimal project outcomes (please refer to
the Organogram in Section IV, Part II of this document.) and will build upon the
foundations established during the PDF-B stage. Initially the project Steering Committee
will comprise the ORASECOM Commissioners who will act as National Focal Points,
representatives from UNDP and UNOPS, as the GEF implementing and executing
agencies, and a stakeholder representative. Once established the ORASECOM Water
Resource and Environmental Programme Strategy Committee will act as the Project
Steering Committee.
144.
A small basin wide Project Coordination Unit (PCU) will be established in Pretoria,
South Africa within the offices of ORASECOM Secretariat for the four year duration of
the project. Administration support staff, including office manager, secretary and
accountant will be sourced locally. The PCU will be provided with the basic equipment
necessary for the functioning of the project, including computers, copy machines and
other materials as needed and appropriate.
46
145.
To ensure good coordination of donor-supported projects under the wider
programme at the operation level a Programme Coordination Group will be formed made
up of project managers and chaired by the ORASECOM Executive Secretary. The
Programme Coordination Group will meet quarterly.
146.
Within the first three months the Project Coordinator will prepare an inception report
giving details of the full implementation of the project in consultation with the
Programme Coordination Group and will organize an inception meeting involving the
Programme Strategy Committee members.
Deliverables:
Project Coordination Unit established;
Programme Coordination Group established; and
Inception and Quarterly Progress reports.
Project Indicators
147. An agreement on trans-boundary priority concerns, impacts and causes embodied in an
endorsed TDA will signify strong technical collaboration and understanding between
the basin countries.
148. The development of the SAP, and NAPs and their adoption will represent a firm united
commitment by the basin states to take the governance reforms and commit the
investment necessary address the priority trans-boundary concerns.
149. The SAP and NAPs formulation and implementation will be substantially strengthened
by the functioning of inter-ministry/inter-departmental committees. These committees
are essential for the successful introduction of the IWRM approach as the forum at
which the differing sectoral objectives and targets can be balanced and reconciled.
150. The success of the project will be dependent on the level of involvement of multiple
stakeholder groups impacting and impacted by trans-boundary problems and the
proposed solutions. Indications will include multi-stakeholder involvement in goal
oriented activities and inputs into decision making as recorded in the reports of the
TDA/SAP development process.
151. Strengthening of the ORASECOM agreement and the enhanced functioning of the
secretariat will indicate the long term sustainable commitment of the countries to multi-
lateral management of the basin and wider commitment to international environmental
and water resource protection agreements.
152. The commitments from the governments, the basin wide bodies, and international
donors to support at the donor conference will serve as a critical process indicator of the
successful implementation of the SAP.
47
153. The key project indicators focus on preparation of the TDA and development of the
SAP and NAPs are largely focused on the processes, although there are some
environmental and socio-economic status indicators (ESIs) and stress reduction
indicators (SRIs) related to the demonstration projects (see full project and pilot project
logframes). In the irrigation pilot project the reduced volume of water consumed and
levels of agro-chemicals in the drainage waters are obvious SRIs linked to investments
in metering and improved distribution systems.
Risks and Assumptions
Risks
154. Acceptance of TDA findings by the participating Governments Key findings of the
TDA may not be accepted by all governments for various reasons including wider
development targets and objectives Low Risk.
155. Inabilities to bring NAPs in line with SAP The project risks unequal development of
the SAP if not all countries are able to align their National Action Plans with the SAP.
This will be dependent on the level of development of national IRWM plans of which
the NAPs for the Orange River will be nested. Thus the NAPs maybe over or under
ambitious and may not meet the minimum standards agreed upon with in the SAP
development. This risk should be managed through multiple iterations of the NAP/SAP
development in order to harmonize these strategies and national multi-sectoral
commitments. - Low Risk.
156. Strong and high-level government commitment is not sustained High level political
commitment to basin wide cooperation in water resource management is growing, as
observed in the agreement to establish the ORASECOM and other bilateral agreements.
The high economic importance of the basin's water resources and the vulnerability of
those resources to environmental degradation are well understood, and provide the
impetus for further cooperation. Low Risk.
157. Shift in economic conditions in the basin An unexpected shift in economic conditions
could result in realignment of government budgets and national commitments reducing
the overall ability to support the project activities. Should this occur the project has a
strong degree of flexibility to adjust the project prioritization giving it the ability to
buffer any potential disruptions, if temporary and reversible. - Medium risk.
158. Procedures to operationalize/implement the political commitment to basin-wide
cooperation on the ground are still in their infancy - Despite the political commitment,
many decisions to be made by the diverse stakeholders will not present clear "win-win"
solutions. As such, it will be particularly important to create strong decision support
frameworks and procedural mechanisms to ensure meaningful stakeholder involvement
Medium Risk.
48
159. Parallel commitment on the part of Governments and potential donors to ensure
financial sustainability beyond the life of the Project - Strong coordination with
governments and other donors who are already involved in, or interested in, the
sustainable management of the Orange-Senqu River basin will need to assured. The
creation of ORASECOM's umbrella Water Resource and Environment Programme will
provide a strong framework for donor and country collaboration. Moderate Risk.
160. Currently planned interventions will not bring effective results due to adverse effects of
climate change As part of the SAP and NAP development the project will assist the
riparian states to develop adaptation strategies and decision frameworks to address shifts
in resource availability caused by climate change impacts Low Risk.
Assumptions
161. Concurrently to the risks listed above there are assumed conditions that are requisite for
success of the projects. Awareness of these assumptions and their potential to
destabilize the process if not met is critical to effective project management.
162. Full support of governments and sectors It is assumed that the approval by the
governments of the project indicates full support of all executing ministries and sectors.
Formation of inter-ministry and inter-departmental committees is essential in ensuring
full government support throughout the TDA/SAP process and applying the IWRM
approach. This assumption should be reviewed regularly throughout the project life on a
country by country basis.
163. Acceptance of and reliance on scientific method to define problems in the basin There
is an assumed acceptance that scientific methods will be employed to explore the trans-
boundary problems. The high level of technical capacity throughout the basin supports
this assumption.
Expected global, national and local benefits
164. Global Benefits The global benefits of this project extend to the preservation of the
unique ecosystems, increasing socio-economic stability through environmental
cooperation in an ecologically sensitive area, and testing activities that can be replicated
elsewhere for integrated trans-boundary water resource management. The challenge in
this project is developing harmonized policies among nations who are at varying stages
of development, with multiple stakeholders and wide ranging priorities pertaining to
water use. This situation can be found throughout the world in shared water basins and
presents international, basin-wide and local decision makers with a unique set of options
ranging between meeting the most immediate and dire needs, to considering long term
sustainable actions that do not lead to a marked negative shift in water resources
49
throughout the full region. By trialling a number of innovative strategies, as well as
employing proven coordination mechanisms this project takes an array of options into
account and will devise a set of realistic activities and objectives that will create long
terms benefits and address the conditions which may be exacerbated by a further decline
in water quantity and quality. The lessons learned from this can be translated to many
shared water systems globally and it is expected that refinement of strategies will enable
this and other projects to develop more fully in the future. The Orange-Senqu River
Basin for example complements the current GEF IW portfolio by adding experience of
management in arid and semi-arid regions to those gained in the humid tropics and mid-
continental basins in Asia and Latin America. The proposed project also complements
the GEF IW Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem project that has contributed to
the sound management of shared marine resources at the mouth of the Orange-Senqu
River system. These benefits are more fully developed within the Incremental Cost
Analysis in Section IV, Part I.
165. Regional Benefits The Orange-Senqu River basin is possibly the central water
resource feature within this portion of southern Africa. Although less well known than
the other major river systems on the African continent such as the Zambezi, Congo,
Volta and Nile the Orange-Senqu is possibly one of the most significant in terms of its
economic importance to the continent. It supports not only a significant proportion of
the industrial outputs of southern Africa, but also fuels a large part of the agricultural
enterprises that feed this region. As early as the 1950s, perturbations of the riverine
system were being recorded as a consequence of the development activities associated
with the industrialisation of southern Africa. By the 1970s, the condition of the Basin's
waters had deteriorated to the point where remedial actions were being contemplated,
and technologies developed to address the concerns over eutrophication and salinisation
that were all too evident in this system. Initially, these focused on technological
approaches pioneered by the South African Council for Scientific and Industrial
Research (CSIR), and supported by applied research at the region's universities and
institutions for higher learning. The net result has been a leadership position within
southern hemisphere water resources management centred in South Africa. In recent
years, however, this position has been eroded as water resources studies have declined
in number to the point where, during the first decade of the new millennium, it has been
reported that there are no institutions of higher learning offering studies in water
resource engineering and sciences. Consequently, the types of initiatives proposed
herein can have a significant `knock-on' effect by creating an opportunity for southern
Africa to once again establish a leading role in practical water resources management. In
addition, there is the real possibility that this opportunity can be realised at the regional
level, through complementary programmes of education, research, and policy
development being coordinated and encouraged by entities such as ORASECOM.
166. National Benefits The project will strengthen IWRM strategies in the countries and
assist each of the basin states in realizing increased coordination, policy, planning and
regulatory harmonization. Through harmonized development strategies, the countries
will benefit from equitable sharing and co-management of water resources and
underpinning sustainable, social and economic development objectives at the national
50
level. The project through the SAP and NAPs will provide a platform for increased
regulatory investment in the basin and thereby conserve and improve the aquatic
environment.
167. Local Benefits The local communities within the river basin are aware of challenges of
water management, but often lack the skills or means to empower them to improve their
own conditions. By collaborating with the project the local stakeholders will gain a
sense of control over their circumstances, increase their ability to address them and learn
from other stakeholders in neighbouring countries. The project, through the public
involvement component and pilot projects, will provide communities and stakeholders
with examples of low cost activities that can be undertaken to improve conditions
pertaining to water resource management. Both the national and local benefits are
delineated in the Incremental Cost Analysis in Section IV, Part I under the "domestic
benefits" column.
Country Ownership: Country Eligibility and Country Drivenness
168. The countries singly and jointly are strongly committed to a basin wide approach to
addressing threats to the shared water resources of the basin. Each of the countries has
in place, is developing, and continues to improve upon domestic legislation that
provides a framework for basin-wide cooperation in the arena of Integrated Water
Resource Management. This is given further substance in bilateral and basin-wide
agreements between the riparian countries. In addition, the countries have formed basin-
wide institutions that provide a basis for management cooperation.
169. The participating countries are members of the SADC and the SADC Environment and
Land Management Sector Coordinating Committee Unit (ELMS), and are Parties to the
SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourses.
170. Each of the participating countries is an active and committed member of the Orange-
Senqu River Basin Commission (ORASECOM) see Institutional, sectoral and policy
context outlined in Section I. The countries are also members of other bi-lateral
management bodies including the Joint Permanent Technical Committee involving
South Africa and Botswana (JPTC), the Lesotho Highlands Water Commission (South
Africa and Lesotho -LHWC), the Permanent Water Commission involving Namibia and
South Africa, and the Joint Permanent Water Commission established by Botswana and
Namibia (JPWC).
171. The participating countries are supportive of the Southern Africa Vision for Water, Life
& the Environment in the 21st Century (Vision). The Vision states, inter alia, that there
are:
· An increasing demand on water resources;
51
· An increasing strain on both water resources and the infrastructure necessary to sustain
an urban environment;
· Increasing poverty;
· Widespread food insecurity;
· Inadequate coverage of water and sanitation services;
· Disease and premature death from water related illness;
· A need for integrated water resources management (IWRM);
· Poor waste management and lack of accountability;
· Low levels of energy supply;
· Degraded watersheds; and
· Constraints within water management institutions
172. Management of the trans-boundary water resources of the OrangeSenqu River Basin
will be a complex undertaking, requiring attention to a host of interrelated issues: water
supply and quality, water demand from different sectors, potential conflict between and
among users at a national level, water allocation decisions, pollution control,
environmental protection, climate change, land degradation and invasive alien species.
As demand for water resources in the basin countries is in excess of the reliable yield of
the basin2, it is in the countries' best interests to continue and to build upon their
commitment to cooperative approaches to the management of Basin resources. The
countries have signalled their intention to work together in, inter alia, the following
areas: developing joint adaptive management strategies codified in basin-wide action
plans; ensuring policy concordance to promote water conservation and maximize
currently available supplies of surface and groundwater fresh water flows; strengthening
institutional capacity for cooperative water resource management; developing a basin-
wide information system to establish a common understanding of management issues;
operationalizing specific, prioritized technical projects and studies to expand know-how;
and developing a multi-sector stakeholder participation framework. These activities will
be assessed, described and captured in the TDA/SAP process.
173. The national institutional support mechanisms are in varying stages of development but
all show promising trends towards increasing dedication to trans-boundary water
management and national level IWRM. These national institutions in support of the
project are outlined above in the Institutional, Sectoral and Policy Context outlined in
Section I, Part I.
Sustainability
174. The long-term sustainability of the results of this Project rests on the assumption that
there is strong and high-level government commitment to the outcomes of this project
2 The recent Lower Orange River Management Study (LORMS) has estimated that surface water supplies of the
Orange Senqu River Basin system may only be capable of meeting requirements for present and future predictable
uses until sometime between 2010 and 2015.
52
and financially sustaining them beyond the life of the Project. The Member States of the
ORASECOM have demonstrated their immediate political commitment with the
establishment of a permanent ORASECOM Secretariat in South Africa, appointment of
a full-time executive secretary, and financial contribution to the ORASECOM from
each state. The Governments are well aware that in the near future forecast water
demand will exceed reliable yield and that a full-range of measures will have to be
jointly identified and undertaken to address this reality. The joint development of a TDA
and SAP are important steps in this overall process.
Replicability and innovation
175. The overall objectives of this Project have high potential for international replicability
and a replication plan will be developed during the full size project. Specifically, the
project emphasis on cross-sectoral and basin-wide driven planning and actions, the
incorporation of an IWRM approach, will be a most instructive experience for semi-arid
river basins globally in which significant economic development and growth is being
experience. Further, the strong focus on public involvement in all project activities can
also serve as a model exercise.
176. The largest riparian in the Basin, South Africa, has an innovative water policy and
accompanying legislation (National Water Policy and National Water Act), which
provides amongst other things for the establishment of Catchment Management
Agencies (CMA). In creation of the CMAs South Africa is applying the principle of
subsidiarity, devolving responsibilities for integrated water resource management so that
decisions are taken as close as possible to and with the involvement of the end user.
Provision is made for the establishment of water user associations, co-operative
associations of water users who wish to collaborate on water management. The project
will assist in connecting the CMAs and water user associations with ORASECOM, and
thus connect national and trans-boundary IWRM strategies and programmes. A second
point of innovation will be the establishment of ecological flow requirements for the
river basin not only in the main river but also seasonal tributaries. The project will
contribute to the understanding of ecological needs of the Orange River which can be
applied to other river systems throughout southern Africa. The project will link closely
with the GEF Benguela Current Large Marine Ecosystem project to determine the
impacts of reduced and altered flows at the mouth on the coastal zone and fisheries of
southern Namibia. A third innovative aspect concerns the focus on adaptation to climate
change in water resource management on the Orange Senqu, a topic which has not yet
been fully addressed.
177. As noted above, the conduct of this project in a major global semi-arid climatic area
extends the GEF best practices experience into a climatic zone that has been
underrepresented in the GEF IW portfolio in the southern hemisphere. While portions of
the la Plata River basin, for example, include arid or semi-arid areas, the majority of the
basin grades from a mountain environment (the Andes) to the savannahs of South
America (the Chaco) which differs significantly from the southern African Karoo. The
53
Orange-Senqu River Basin project will form a useful complement to the la Plata River
basin project in that portions of both basins are highly urbanised and industrialised, both
rivers are highly regulated, and both basins include a variety of trans-boundary
relationships -- meaning that there is not only an upstream-downstream relationship
(such as that between Lesotho and South Africa) but also a shared boundary relationship
(such as that between Namibia and South Africa). It has been suggested that there
should be an information exchange meeting between the two project teams once the
Orange-Senqu River Basin project has reached an advanced state of completion to
elucidate additional lessons learned beyond those that can be gleaned from the project
individually. The GEF International Waters Conferences (IWC) could provide a suitable
venue for the conduct of such south-to-south dialogue and the project will actively
participate in these using project financial resources to support participation of both
project staff and key government counterparts to each IWC.
178. The implementation of the three demonstration projects is a key feature of this project,
and clearly contributes to the potential for replication of beneficial practices and
techniques. The project explicitly provides for mechanisms to disseminate the results at
the national, regional and international levels and through websites, scientific
publications, and other media will facilitate replication of the techniques and approaches
in other trans-boundary basins. The use of the GEF IW:LEARN network, IW
Experience Notes, and IW:LEARN website/data base will underpin the implementation
of this project.
54
PART III: Management Arrangements
179. The project will be administered from a small Project Coordination Unit (PCU), located
in Pretoria, South Africa within the offices of ORASECOM Secretariat. The PCU will
comprise an internationally recruited Project Coordinator (PC) with a background in
IWRM, a basin-wide recruited Scientific Officer who will act as deputy PC and a part-
time Public Involvement Coordinator to oversee public involvement activities of this
project. The number of support staff will be limited in order to keep administration costs
to a minimum. Where possible, administrative support will be cost shared with the host
organization and/or other initiatives that are also located within the same premises.
Whenever possible project work will be bundled into medium and large sized contracts
to be tendered internationally; the exception being the development of the SAP and the
regional coordination capacity development activities, which remains under the
management of the PCU. The PCU will be supported by experts/consultants based in the
region. Only when expertise regionally available is deemed insufficient, services of
international consultants will be procured.
180. The project will be guided by a Steering Committee comprising representatives,
National Focal Points, of the participating states drawn from ORASECOM, the GEF
implementing and executing agencies, and key stakeholders. The Steering Committee
will review and approve all technical documents, review budgets and financial reports
and provide general implementation guidance to the PCU. It will meet at least once a
year and all its decisions will be made on the basis of consensus. The Steering
Committee will be responsible for providing strategic guidance to the project, as well as
oversight of all activities and outcomes.
181. The National Focal Point (NFP) will be either the ORASECOM Commissioner or a
nominated representative. The NFP will be responsible for facilitating all necessary
permissions to enable the project to function effectively and efficiently in each country.
The NFP will also ensure that there is good coordination between the project and
relevant government bodies, institutions and projects (government and donor funded) in
the country. Under the leadership of the NFP, the countries will be encouraged, if it does
not already exist, to form an Inter-Ministry/ Department Committee to ensure inter-
sectoral coordination in the formulation of the SAP and NAPs.
182. The ORASECOM Programme Coordination Group has been established, comprising the
major programme projects (EU, FGEF, BMZ/GtZ, and UNDP-GEF) and chaired by the
executive secretary of ORASECOM. The group meets quarterly and will report to the
Programme Strategy Committee biannually. The Programme Strategy Committee of the
ORASECOM Orange-Senqu River Basin Water Resource and Environmental umbrella
programme will act as the project Steering Committee. The institutional arrangement
document for the proposed programme is contained in Part IV of this document.
183. A Basin Wide Stakeholder Forum (see Component 4) comprising a wide range of
stakeholders will be established to provide early input to the TDA and SAP and other
key documents. The establishment and functioning of the BWSF will meet at key
55
milestones during the TDA/SAP process, and will provide critical guidance to the
project development from the unique vantage point of stakeholders.
184. The success of the project implementation is dependent upon strong project guidance
from the Programme Strategy Committee and high quality technical inputs from the
PCU. The more collaborative the relationship between the PCU and the Programme
Strategy Committee - in particular ORASECOM - the more positive will be the project
outcomes. The onus for ensuring a good working relationship lies with the PCU and
ORASECOM Secretariat who will act as the secretariat to the Programme Strategy
Committee and ensure good communications among donors. BMZ/GtZ and EU
projects will also provide technical assistance to the ORASECOM and its Executive
Secretary in its efforts to fulfill its coordination and secretariat functions to support the
implementation of the Programme Framework.
185. The UNDP through its South Africa-based Regional Coordination Unit (RCU) and
South Africa country office (lead Country Office) will have full responsibility for
implementation oversight of the project in accordance with the articles of this project
document and delivery of the project outcomes as specified. The RCU in coordination
with UNDP country office will have responsibility for monitoring and evaluating the
project in accordance with the PART IV of the document. Progress will be reported by
UNDP to the Strategy Committee and will be responsible for ensuring decisions made
by the Committee are executed in full.
186. The United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) through its International
Waters Unit based in Copenhagen, Denmark, will be the Executing Agency for the
project. It will be responsible for delivery of project terms of reference on budget and to
programme in accordance with this document. All international contracts both for
procurement and consultancy will be issued by UNOPS and local contracts will be
issued either directly by UNOPS or through the UNDP country offices on behalf of
UNOPS on cost recovery basis for the execution support. The staff of the PCU will be
under contract to UNOPS and will report to the UNOPS portfolio manager. The
Executing Agency will report quarterly to the Implementing Agency in addition to
provide the UNDP-GEF task manager with regular progress updates.
187. The project will be audited in accordance with UNDP Financial Regulations and Rules
and Audit policies.
188. The three demonstration projects will be either tendered internationally or executed by a
nominated lead organisation/project partner under contract or through an Inter-Agency
Agreement. Each demonstration project will be managed by its own Project
Implementation Unit, which will report to the PCU.
189. In order to accord proper acknowledgement to GEF for providing funding, a GEF logo
should appear on all relevant GEF project publications, including among others, project
hardware and vehicles purchased with GEF funds. Any citation on publications
regarding projects funded by GEF should also accord proper acknowledgment to GEF.
56
The UNDP logo should be more prominent and separated from the GEF logo if
possible, as UN visibility is important for security purposes.
PART IV: Monitoring and Evaluation Plan and Budget
190. Project monitoring and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with established
UNDP and GEF procedures and will be undertaken by the project team and the lead
UNDP Country Office with support from UNDP/GEF. The Strategic Result Framework
in Section II, Part 2 provides performance and impact indicators for project
implementation along with their corresponding means of verification. These will form
the basis on which the project's Monitoring and Evaluation system will be built.
191. The following sections outline the principle components of the Monitoring and
Evaluation Plan and indicative cost estimates related to M&E activities. The project's
Monitoring and Evaluation Plan will be presented and finalized in the Project Inception
Report following a collective fine-tuning of indicators, means of verification, and the
full definition of project staff M&E responsibilities.
MONITORING AND REPORTING
Project Inception Phase
192. A Project Inception Workshop will be conducted at the end of the Inception Phase with
the full project team, relevant government counterparts, a wide range of stakeholders,
co-financing partners, the lead UNDP Country Office and representation from the
UNDP-GEF Regional Coordination Unit (RCU), as well as UNDP-GEF (HQs) as
appropriate.
193. A fundamental objective of the Inception Phase will be to assist the project team to
understand and take ownership of the project's goals and objectives, as well as finalize
preparation of the project's first annual work plan on the basis of the project's Strategic
Results Framework. This will include reviewing the SRF (outcomes, targets, means of
verification, assumptions/risks), imparting additional detail as needed, and on the basis
of this exercise finalize the Annual Work Plan (AWP) with precise and measurable
performance indicators, and in a manner consistent with the expected outcomes for the
project.
194. The purpose and objective of the Inception Workshop will be to: (i) introduce project
staff with the UNDP-GEF expanded team which will support the project during its
implementation, namely the Country Offices (CO) and responsible Regional
Coordinating Unit staff; (ii) detail the roles, support services and complementary
responsibilities of UNDP-CO and RCU staff vis à vis the project team; (iii) provide a
detailed overview of UNDP-GEF reporting and monitoring and evaluation (M&E)
57
requirements, with particular emphasis on the annual Project Implementation Reviews
(APR/PIRs), IW Results Template, and related documentation, Tripartite Review
Meetings, as well as mid-term and final evaluations. Equally, the incept workshop will
provide an opportunity to inform the project team on UNDP project related budgetary
planning, budget reviews, and mandatory budget re-phasing.
195. The inception workshop will also provide an opportunity for all parties to understand
their roles, functions, and responsibilities within the project's decision-making
structures, including reporting and communication lines, and conflict resolution
mechanisms. The Terms of Reference for project staff and decision-making structures
will be discussed again, as needed, in order to clarify for all each party's responsibilities
during the project's implementation phase.
Monitoring responsibilities and events
196. A detailed schedule of project review meetings will be developed by the project
management, in consultation with project implementation partners and stakeholder
representatives and incorporated in the Project Inception Report. Such a schedule will
include: (i) tentative time frames for Tripartite Reviews, Steering Committee Meetings, (or
relevant advisory and/or coordination mechanisms) and (ii) project related Monitoring and
Evaluation activities.
197. Day to day monitoring of implementation progress will be the responsibility of the
Project Coordinator based on the project's Annual Work Plan and its indicators. The
Project Team will inform the RCU and lead UNDP Country Office of any delays or
difficulties faced during implementation so that the appropriate support or corrective
measures can be adopted in a timely and remedial fashion.
198. The Project Coordinator and Scientific Officer will fine-tune the progress and
performance/impact indicators of the project in consultation with the full project team at
the Inception Workshop with support from the lead UNDP Country Office and the
UNDP-GEF Regional Coordination Unit. Specific targets for the first year
implementation progress indicators together with their means of verification will be
finalized at this Workshop. These will be used to assess whether implementation is
proceeding at the intended pace and in the right direction and will form part of the
Annual Work Plan. The local implementing partners will also take part in the Inception
Workshop in which a common vision of overall project goals will be established.
Targets and indicators for subsequent years would be defined annually as part of the
internal evaluation and planning processes undertaken by the project team.
199. Measurement of impact indicators related to global benefits will occur according to the
schedules defined in the Inception Workshop and tentatively outlined in the indicative
Impact Measurement Template at the end of this section (Table 1-5). The measurement
of these will be undertaken through subcontracts or retainers with relevant institutions or
through specific studies that are to form part of the project's activities or periodic water
quality sampling for example.
58
200. Periodic monitoring of implementation progress will be undertaken by UNDP through
quarterly meetings with the PCU, or more frequently as deemed necessary. This will
allow parties to take stock and to troubleshoot any problems pertaining to the project in
a timely fashion to ensure smooth implementation of project activities.
201. UNDP-GEF RCU, as appropriate, will conduct yearly visits to projects that have field
sites, or more often, based on an agreed upon scheduled to be detailed in the project's
Inception Report / Annual Work Plan to assess first hand project progress. Any other
members of the Steering Committee can also accompany the inspections, as decided by
the PSC. A Field Visit Report will be prepared by RCU and circulated no less than one
month after the visit to the project team, all PSC members, and UNDP-GEF.
202. Annual Monitoring will occur through the Tripartite Review (TPR). This is the highest
policy-level meeting of the parties directly involved in the implementation of a project.
The project will be subject to Tripartite Review (TPR) at least once every year. The first
such meeting will be held within the first twelve months of the start of full
implementation. The PCU will prepare an Annual Project Report/Project
Implementation Review (APR/PIR)3 and IW Results Template and submit it to the lead
CO and the UNDP-GEF RCU at least two weeks prior to the TPR for review and
comments.
203. The APR/PIR will be used as one of the basic documents for discussions in the TPR
meeting. The PCU will present the APR/PIR to the TPR, highlighting policy issues and
recommendations for the decision of the TPR participants. The PCU also informs the
participants of any agreement reached by stakeholders during the APR/PIR preparation
on how to resolve operational issues. Separate reviews of each project component may
also be conducted if necessary.
Terminal Tripartite Review (TTR)
204. The terminal tripartite review is held in the last month of project operations. The PCU is
responsible for preparing the Terminal Report and submitting it to UNDP-CO and
Regional Coordinating Unit. It shall be prepared in draft at least two months in advance
of the TTR in order to allow review, and will serve as the basis for discussions in the
TTR. The terminal tripartite review considers the implementation of the project as a
whole, paying particular attention to whether the project has achieved its stated
objectives and contributed to the broader environmental objective. It decides whether
any actions are still necessary, particularly in relation to sustainability of project results,
and acts as a vehicle through which lessons learnt can be captured to feed into other
projects under implementation of formulation.
3 For a UNDP/GEF project, a template for Annual Project Report (APR), an annual monitoring document required
by UNDP, and that of Project Implementation Review (PIR), an annual monitoring document required by GEF, have
been merged to simplify the annual review exercise. Therefore, APR and PIR are one and the same document and
there will be only one annual monitoring process for all UNDP/GEF projects.
59
Project Monitoring Reporting
205. The Project Coordinator in conjunction with the UNDP-GEF extended team will be
responsible for the preparation and submission of the following reports that form part of
the monitoring process. Items (a) through (f) are mandatory and strictly related to
monitoring, while (g) through (h) have a broader function and the frequency and nature
is project specific to be defined throughout implementation.
(a) Inception Report (IR)
206. A Project Inception Report will be prepared immediately following the Inception
Workshop. It will include a detailed First Year/ Annual Work Plan divided in quarterly
time-frames detailing the activities and progress indicators that will guide
implementation during the first year of the project. This Work Plan would include the
dates of specific field visits, support missions from the PCU or consultants, as well as
time-frames for meetings of the project's decision making structures. The Report will
also include the detailed project budget for the first full year of implementation,
prepared on the basis of the Annual Work Plan, and including any monitoring and
evaluation requirements to effectively measure project performance during the targeted
12 month time-frame.
207. The IR will include a more detailed narrative on the institutional roles, responsibilities,
coordinating actions and feedback mechanisms of project related partners. In addition, a
section will be included on progress to date on project establishment and start-up
activities and an update of any changed external conditions that may effect project
implementation.
208. When finalized the report will be circulated to project counterparts who will be given a
period of one calendar month in which to respond with comments or queries. Prior to
this circulation of the IR, the lead UNDP Country Office and UNDP-GEF's Regional
Coordinating Unit will review the document.
(b) Annual Project Report (APR)4
209. The APR is a UNDP requirement and part of the lead UNDP Country Office's central
oversight, monitoring and project management function. It is a self -assessment report
by project management to the CO and provides input to the country office reporting
process and the ROAR, as well as forming a key input to the Tripartite Project Review.
An APR will be prepared on an annual basis prior to the Tripartite Project Review, to
reflect progress achieved in meeting the project's Annual Work Plan and assess
performance of the project in contributing to intended outcomes through outputs and
partnership work.
4 As stated earlier, APR format and process are merged into the PIR format and process for UNDP/GEF projects to
simplify the annual monitoring procedures.
60
210. The format of the APR is flexible but should include the following:
An analysis of project performance over the reporting period, including outputs
produced and, where possible, information on the status of the outcome;
The constraints experienced in the progress towards results and the reasons for these;
The three (at most) major constraints to achieving the desired results
Expenditure reports;
Lessons learned;
Clear recommendations for future orientation in addressing key problems in lack of
progress.
(c) Project Implementation Review (PIR)
211. The PIR is an annual monitoring process mandated by the GEF. It has become an
essential management and monitoring tool for project managers and offers the main
vehicle for extracting lessons from ongoing projects. Once the project has been under
implementation for a year, a Project Implementation Report must be completed by the
CO together with the project. The PIR can be prepared any time during the year (July-
June) and ideally prior to the TPR. The PIR should then be discussed in the TPR so that
the result would be a PIR that has been agreed upon by the project, the executing
agency, lead CO and the concerned Regional Coordinator.
212. The individual PIRs are collected, reviewed and analysed by the RCs prior to sending
them to the focal area clusters at the UNDP/GEF headquarters. The focal area clusters
supported by the UNDP/GEF M&E Unit analyse the PIRs by focal area, theme and
region for common issues/results and lessons.
213. The focal area PIRs are then discussed in the GEF Interagency Focal Area Task Forces
in or around November each year and consolidated reports by focal area are collated by
the GEF Independent M&E Units based on the Task Force findings.
(d) Quarterly Progress Reports
214. Short reports outlining main updates in project progress will be provided quarterly to the
lead UNDP Country Office and the UNDP-GEF RCU by the project team.
(e) Periodic Thematic Reports
215. As and when called for by UNDP, UNDP-GEF or the Implementing Partner, the project
team will prepare Specific Thematic Reports, focusing on specific issues or areas of
activity. The request for a Thematic Report will be provided to the project team in
written form by UNDP and will clearly state the issue or activities that need to be
reported on. These reports can be used as a form of lessons learnt exercise, specific
oversight in key areas, or as troubleshooting exercises to evaluate and overcome
obstacles and difficulties encountered. UNDP is requested to minimize its requests for
61
Thematic Reports, and when such are necessary will allow reasonable timeframes for
their preparation by the project team.
(f) Project Terminal Report
216. During the last three months of the project the project team will prepare the Project
Terminal Report. This comprehensive report will summarize all activities,
achievements and outputs of the Project, lessons learnt, objectives met, or not achieved,
structures and systems implemented, etc. and will be the definitive statement of the
Project's activities during its lifetime. It will also lay out recommendations for any
further steps that may need to be taken to ensure sustainability and replicability of the
Project's activities.
(g) Technical Reports
217. Technical Reports are detailed documents covering specific areas of analysis or
scientific specializations within the overall project. As part of the Inception Report, the
project team will prepare a draft Reports List, detailing the technical reports that are
expected to be prepared on key areas of activity during the course of the Project, and
tentative due dates. Where necessary this Reports List will be revised and updated, and
included in subsequent APRs. Technical Reports may also be prepared by external
consultants and should be comprehensive, specialized analyses of clearly defined areas
of research within the framework of the project and its sites. These technical reports will
represent, as appropriate, the project's substantive contribution to specific areas, and will
be used in efforts to disseminate relevant information and best practices at local,
national and international levels.
(h) Project Publications
218. Project Publications will form a key method of crystallizing and disseminating the
results and achievements of the Project. These publications may be scientific or
informational texts on the activities and achievements of the Project, in the form of
journal articles, multimedia publications, etc. These publications can be based on
Technical Reports, depending upon the relevance, scientific worth, etc. of these Reports,
or may be summaries or compilations of a series of Technical Reports and other
research. The project team will determine if any of the Technical Reports merit formal
publication, and will also (in consultation with UNDP, the government and other
relevant stakeholder groups) plan and produce these Publications in a consistent and
recognizable format. Project resources will need to be defined and allocated for these
activities as appropriate and in a manner commensurate with the project's budget.
INDEPENDENT EVALUATION
219. The project will be subjected to at least two independent external evaluations as follows:
62
Mid-Term Evaluation
220. An independent Mid-Term Evaluation will be undertaken at the end of the second year
of implementation. The Mid-Term Evaluation will determine progress being made
towards the achievement of outcomes and will identify course correction if needed. It
will focus on the effectiveness, efficiency and timeliness of project implementation; will
highlight issues requiring decisions and actions; and will present initial lessons learned
about project design, implementation and management. Findings of this review will be
incorporated as recommendations for enhanced implementation during the final half of
the project's term. The organization, terms of reference and timing of the mid-term
evaluation will be decided after consultation between the parties to the project
document. The Terms of Reference for this Mid-term Evaluation will be prepared by the
lead UNDP Country Office based on guidance from the Regional Coordinating Unit and
UNDP-GEF. An associated output of the MTE will be an IW Experience Note
following the TOR developed under the IW:LEARN Programme and disseminated
through the IW:LEARN website.
Final Evaluation
221. An independent Final Evaluation will take place three months prior to the terminal
tripartite review meeting, and will focus on the same issues as the mid-term evaluation.
The final evaluation will also look at the impact and sustainability of results, including
the contribution to capacity development and the achievement of global environmental
goals. The Final Evaluation should also provide recommendations for follow-up
activities. The Terms of Reference for this evaluation will be prepared by the lead
UNDP CO based on guidance from the Regional Coordination Unit and UNDP-GEF.
An associated output of the FE will be an IW Experience Note following the TOR
developed under the IW:LEARN Programme and disseminated through the IW:LEARN
website.
TABLE I.IV.1 INDICATIVE MONITORING AND EVALUATION WORK PLAN AND CORRESPONDING
BUDGET
Type of M&E activity
Responsible Parties
Budget US$
Time frame
Excluding project team
Staff time
Project Coordinator
Within first two
Inception Workshop
UNDP CO
months of project
UNDP GEF
start up
Project Team
Immediately
Inception Report
None
UNDP CO
following IW
Measurement of Means
PC will oversee the hiring of
To be finalized in
Start, mid and end of
of Verification for
consultants or institutions to
Inception Phase and
project
Project Purpose
undertake specific studies , and
Workshop. Indicative cost
Indicators
delegate responsibilities to
$2000
relevant team members
Measurement of Means
Oversight by Project GEF
To be determined as part
Annually prior to
of Verification for
Scientific Officer and Project
of the Annual Work
APR/PIR and to the
Project Progress and
Coordinator
Plan's preparation.
definition of annual
63
Performance (measured
Measurements by regional
Indicative cost $2000
work plans
on an annual basis)
field officers and local IAs
APR and PIR
Project Team
None Annually
UNDP-CO
UNDP-GEF
TPR and TPR report
Government Counterparts
None Every
year,
upon
UNDP CO
receipt of APR
Project team
UNDP-GEF Regional
Coordinating Unit
Steering Committee
Project Coordinator
None Following
Project
Meetings
UNDP CO
IW and subsequently
at least once a year
Periodic status reports
Project team
5,000
To be determined by
Project team and
UNDP CO
Technical reports
Project team
15,000
To be determined by
Hired consultants as needed
Project Team and
UNDP-CO
Mid-term External
Project team
20,000
At the mid-point of
Evaluation
UNDP- CO
project
UNDP-GEF Regional
implementation.
Coordinating Unit
External Consultants (i.e.
evaluation team)
Final External
Project team,
30,000
At the end of project
Evaluation
UNDP-CO
implementation
UNDP-GEF Regional
Coordinating Unit
External Consultants (i.e.
evaluation team)
Terminal Report
Project team
At least one month
UNDP-CO
None
before the end of the
External Consultant
project
Lessons learned
Project team
Yearly
UNDP-GEF Regional
15,000 (average 3,000 per
Coordinating Unit (suggested
year)
formats for documenting best
practices, etc)
Audit
UNDP-CO
4,000 (average $1000 per
Yearly
Project team
year)
Visits to field sites
UNDP Country Office
Yearly
(UNDP staff travel costs
UNDP-GEF Regional
15,000 (average one visit
to be charged to IA fees)
Coordinating Unit (as
per year)
appropriate)
Government representatives
TOTAL INDICATIVE COST
US$ 250,000
Excluding project team staff time and UNDP staff and travel
expenses
64
Table I.IV.2: Indicative Impact Measurement Template
Key Impact
Target
Means of
Sampling Location
Indicator
(Year 4)
Verification frequency
Signed
agreement,
Strengthen
Improved stakeholder involvement and fully staffed
ORASECOM
enhanced capacity with the secretariat
secretariat,
ORWREP
operational
Agreed CC
scenarios
Demand
Management
Sustainable water
Water resource allocation between the four
policies and
resource use based
basin countries agreed based on reliable
campaigns
on IWRM
yields and taking into account climate
introduced
principles
change.
ELF
methodology
agreed and
applied
Basin
monitoring
Water quality objectives established
programme
Improved water
throughout the basin and a water quality
agreed.
quality in OSRB
monitoring programme agreed
Investment in
pollution
control
Reduction in area
Land management and water resource
Management
of riparian lands
policy linked and integrated river basin
best practice
degraded
planning approach adopted.
agreed.
222. The above indicators relate to the measurement of global benefits achieved by the
project rather than project implementation progress. They will need to be fine tuned and
detailed in the Inception Workshop and as part of the TDA.
LEARNING AND KNOWLEDGE SHARING
223. Results from the project will be disseminated within and beyond the project intervention
zone through a number of existing information sharing networks and forums. In
addition:
65
The project will participate, as relevant and appropriate, in UNDP/GEF sponsored
networks, organized for Senior Personnel working on projects that share common
characteristics. UNDP/GEF shall establish a number of networks, such as Integrated
Ecosystem Management, eco-tourism, co-management, etc, that will largely
function on the basis of an electronic platform.
The project will identify and participate, as relevant and appropriate, in scientific,
policy-based and/or any other networks, which may be of benefit to project
implementation though lessons learned.
224. The project will identify, analyze, and share lessons learned that might be beneficial in
the design and implementation of similar future projects. Identify and analyzing lessons
learned is an on- going process, and the need to communicate such lessons as one of the
project's central contributions is a requirement to be delivered not less frequently than
once every 12 months. UNDP/GEF shall provide a format and assist the project team in
categorizing, documenting and reporting on lessons learned. To this end a percentage of
project resources will need to be allocated for these activities.
225. The project will actively participate in and contributed to the learning and knowledge
sharing activities among the GEF IW projects globally through means established by the
IW:LEARN project. The project will allocate at least 1% of its budget to mainstream
IW:LEARN activities during its implementation including, but not limited to:
preparation of two or more IW `Experience Notes', participation (project coordinator, 2
or more government representatives) in biennial GEF IW Conferences, participation in
relevant IW:LEARN regional and/or thematic learning activities, and development of a
project website in line with IW:LEARN guidance and standards.
PART V: Legal Context
226. This Project Document shall be the instrument referred to as such in Article I of the
Standard Basic Assistance Agreement between the Governments of Botswana, Lesotho,
Namibia and South Africa and the United Nations Development Programme, signed by
the parties on 14 May 1975, 31 December 1974, 22 March, 1990 and 3 October 1994
respectively. The host country implementing agency shall, for the purpose of the
Standard Basic Assistance Agreement, refer to the government co-operating agency
described in that Agreement.
227. The UNDP Principal Project Representative is authorized to effect in writing the
following types of revision to this Project Document, provided that he/she has verified
the agreement thereto by the UNDP-GEF Unit and is assured that the other signatories
to the Project Document have no objection to the proposed changes:
a) Revision of, or addition to, any of the annexes to the Project Document;
66
b) Revisions which do not involve significant changes in the immediate objectives,
outputs or activities of the project, but are caused by the rearrangement of the
inputs already agreed to or by cost increases due to inflation;
c) Mandatory annual revisions which re-phase the delivery of agreed project inputs
or increased expert or other costs due to inflation or take into account agency
expenditure flexibility; and
d) Inclusion of additional annexes and attachments only as set out here in this
Project Document
67
SECTION II: STRATEGIC RESULTS FRAMEWORK AND GEF INCREMENT
PART I: Incremental Cost Analysis
A. PROJECT BACKGROUND
Objective development
228. The Project will address the principal threats and root causes of the trans-boundary
water resources of the OSRB and develop and implement, through the TDA and SAP
process, a sustainable programme of policy, legal and institutional reforms and
investments to address these threats. The Project will create synergies with and build
upon a range of initiatives being undertaken by the countries themselves and those of bi-
lateral and multi-lateral donors that have given priority to the Basin. Competing water
uses in the context of dwindling and uncertain future supplies is seen as the critical issue
in the basin and will be a principal focus of project attention from the very outset of
project related activities.
Broad Development Objectives:
229. The long-term development/environmental goal of the project is: Sustainable
development of the Orange-Senqu River Basin enhanced through ecosystem-based
Integrated Water Resource Management approaches. The Project Objective is: To
improve the management of the Orange-Senqu River Trans-boundary Basin through the
implementation of a sustainable programme of policy, legal and institutional reforms
and investment options using the TDA/SAP process.
230. In order to achieve this objective, the project will strengthen the capacity of
ORASECOM, undertake a range of public involve and awareness activities focusing on
trans-boundary activities, update the Trans-boundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA),
formulate a Strategic Action Programme (SAP) and associated National Action
Programmes (NAPs) and undertake demonstration projects that implement key aspects
of the SAP.
B. Incremental cost assessment
Baseline/ Business as Usual
231. Within the Orange-Senqu River Basin, the countries of Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia,
and South Africa, have sought to address water resource management issues at the
national level but it has been increasingly clear that coordinated action at the basin level
is required. There are bilateral efforts to improve management but until relatively
recently there had been limited basin wide coordination of policies. The Orange-Senqu
68
River Commission (ORASECOM) was established in 2000 and now has a nascent
secretariat.
232. ORASECOM has been successful in attracting external funding to implement activities
in the basin, including BMZ/GTZ, French GEF, EU, UNDP/GEF and InWEnt; however,
the level of coordination among the projects funded by different donors was not optimal.
Some tools that may assist effective coordination, such as a coordination framework or a
commonly shared direction (e.g. the basin-wide Vision) were missing. All external
support are essentially intended to support ORASECOM to develop a basin-wide
management framework based on IWRM principles, which presents both opportunities
and risks: opportunities for realizing larger impacts in the basin, through a good
coordination, than what an individual project could achieve and risks for duplication
resulting from the lack of coordination.
233. During the preparatory phase, the significant efforts have been spent towards
consultation with the other donors to assess the baseline and supporting ORASECOM to
set up better coordination framework. UNDP-GEF project, during its preparatory phase,
held a number of coordination meetings with ORASECOM and all other partners
supporting ORASECOM. It has worked closely and will remain coordinating its
activities with other initiatives under the guidance and leadership of ORASECOM to
ensure minimal overlap and maximum synergy. French GEF (the Fonds Française pour
Environment Mondiale) project has been addressing some specific environmental and
technical issues selected from "30 priority actions" developed by ORASECOM,
including the management of the highland sponges (wetlands) in the Lesotho Highlands.
One of the three proposed demonstration projects, rangeland management in the upper
basin, will be built upon/learning from the results yielded by the FGEF's highland
sponge management project. BMZ/GTZ supports ORASECOM through its SADC
Transboundary Water Management Program and initiated the process of an IWRM plan
development. BMZ/GTZ team undertook a series of thematic studies in its first phase
of the development of the IWRM plan5. Findings from many of those studies were used
in the preliminary TDA development. It will in the second phase focus on specific
technical issues which will feed into the updated TDA. The BMZ/GTZ project has been
demonstrating its emphasis and strengths in technical (in particular, modelling and
engineering) aspects of the IWRM and will continue to maintain those strengths in its
second phase, while increasing its focus on the socio-economic aspects of the IWRM as
well. Funding from the European Union has being secured and the implementation
started in 2008 with its major objective to strengthen ORASECOM as a regional
advisory body to achieve the sustainable management of the Orange-Senque
transboundary basin.
234. The basin states would still have relatively large amount of external funding to
implement activities even without UNDP/GEF support; however, the UNDP/GEF
support to ORASECOM will ensure that the opportunities for realizing larger impacts in
the basin through a good coordination will be realized and risks for duplication resulting
5 BMZ/GTZ adapted the four phased approach to the development of the IWRM plan for the Orange-Senque River
basin.
69
from the lack of coordination will be better managed, through applying the TDA/SAP
processes which will assist ORASECOM to systematically address the holistic, inter-
sectoral dimensions of the IWRM plan.
235. The four Basin states will address the priority trans-boundary problems - biodiversity
and alien invasives; pollution/water quality; water quantity/altered river flow; and land
degradation - through a range of national and international projects described below.
Biodiversity and alien invasive species
236. The current situation in the OSRB pertaining to decline in biodiversity and increase in
alien invasive species is currently being addressed at the national level with only South
Africa and Namibia implementing bilateral trans-boundary activities. While the PIF and
PDF-B Concept Paper did not identify loss of biodiversity in itself as a priority trans-
boundary issue, alien invasive species was identified as a significant trans-boundary
problem.
237. South Africa is most aggressively addressing this issue through a wide variety of
national level projects and whilst some projects are still pending funding, US $2.1
million is already dedicated to biodiversity protection. Rehabilitation of the wetlands in
various areas of the basin, implemented through the RSA DWAF Working for Wetlands
project is ongoing with a total budget of US $ 2 million for 2007-2008. The project
provides unemployed and low income workers with skills to improve wetlands in a
sustainable manner, serving as a possible model for other trans-boundary projects in the
region. The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism in the Northern Cape are
initiating the "Lower Orange River Conservation Development Plan" between 2008
2009 for US$ 0.07 million. There is a need for Namibian input into this project, which
will enable the countries to address the degraded status of the Lower Orange,
particularly the Ramsar site at the mouth of the river. If realized, this project will signify
initial steps in trans-boundary management. GEF is contributing US$ 0.03 M to the
development of the "Systematic Conservation Plan for the Richtersveld District" in
2007. The DWAF- RSA and MAWF Namibia are undertaking an Ecological Needs
Assessment for the Orange River mouth, with RSA contributing US$ 0.7 M, and
Namibia contributing US$ 0.2 M, which will provide rudimentary baseline data
complementing the proposed demonstration project on Ecological Flows. This study
will be supplemented by work by MAWF-Namibia which is investing US$ 0.03 M in
the years 2008-2012 for a wetland inventory for the Ramsar site at the Orange River
Mouth, The RSA National Research Foundation is implementing a project on mining
rehabilitation practices to sustain ecosystem services, through the University of
Stellenbosch, at mine sites in the basin between 2006-2009, with an estimated value of
US$ 0.03 M which will focus on alluvial deposits, and provide case studies for the
stakeholder involvement training materials. The Peace Parks Foundation is investing
US$ 0.09 M in 2006-2007 to implement a trans-boundary Joint Tourism Plan for the
Richtersveld Ai-Ais Transfrontier Park, between Namibia and South Africa which will
increase institutional collaboration, and ecosystem preservation, setting the stage for
additional phases of the project. Lesotho's Millennium Challenge Cooperation is
70
investing US $5 M in the years 2008-2013 in a project on Rehabilitation and Restoration
of Highlands Wetlands focusing on managing highland wetlands to conserve river
flows. It is also aimed at developing and implementing wetland catchment Management
Plans and supporting livelihoods of communities near the wetlands. The total baseline
estimate for this trans-boundary issue is US$ 8.15 million.
Pollution/water quality
238. Although water quality is identified as a priority trans-boundary issue it has not received
a significant amount of attention at either the national or trans-boundary level to date.
239. In 2008 the DWAF- RSA plan to invest US$ 0.6 M on an Integrated Water Quality
Management Plan for the Vaal River. In Botswana, the Department of Local
Government, Finance and Technical Services in the Ministry of Local Government is
investing US$ 27 M between 2006/07 in Rural Water Supply and Sanitation
programmes infrastructural development which will reduce pollution loadings on the
surface and groundwater. There is also an ongoing Groundwater Quality Monitoring
programme in the Molopo River Basin between the governments of South Africa and
Botswana, however, information about the financing of this project is not currently
available. Total baseline estimate is US $ 27.6 million.
Water quantity/altered river flow
240. The OSRB is one of the most altered river systems in the world, with significant
transfers of water to and from other basins and extensive impoundments to guarantee
water supply throughout the basin. The efforts required to maintain this complex system
are made primarily by DWAF-RSA and national level investments are aimed largely as
maintaining the current position and developing where possible new resources in
conjunction with neighbouring countries.
241. DWAF- RSA will be investing US$ 1 M on a Vaal Reconciliation Strategy which will
address priority water management issues in the Vaal sub basin and identify future
water demands. DWAF are also developing reconciliation strategies for small water
users in the Vaal / Orange basin at a cost of US$0.8 M, establishing the level of use of
water from the smaller tributaries in the system. Real Time Modelling of the Orange-
Vaal river systems is an on-going project with a value of US$ 0.3 M, funded from the
main departmental budget. Longer term larger investment projects on the Vaal include
infrastructure augmentation in the Eastern Vaal River (pipeline systems etc.) valued at
US$ 340 M over 5 or more years. The DWAF-RSA Resource Efficiency Directorate is
implementing a US$ 1.4 M project over the next 4 years to determine the
comprehensive reserve determination (yield) of all surface and groundwater resources of
the Orange River Basin. Between South Africa and Lesotho, the DWAF-RSA is
investing US$ 4 M, and the Lesotho Government is investing US$ 4 M in the Lesotho
Highlands Phase II Feasibility Study to be completed by March 2008. Together DWAF-
RSA and MAWF-Namibia have invested US$ 1.2 M (2006-2008) in the Lower Orange
Management Study (LORMS) pre-feasibility study which is a comprehensive review of
71
the water resources of the Lower Orange. The DWAF-RSA and MAWF-Namibia are
also scheduled to invest US$ 1.7 M and US$ 1.2 M, respectively, in 2008 on a
Feasibility Study and EIA for the construction of a dam on the Lower Orange River.
MAWF-Namibia plans to spend US$ 2 M in 2007-2008 on a demonstration project on
the efficient use of irrigation water at two sites at the Orange River. MAWF-Namibia,
with the African Development Bank, the OPEC Fund, and the Arabic Bank for
Development will be implementing US$ 16 M and US$ 36 M (loan) for development of
a 1000 ha irrigation project at Tantjeskop (mainly grapes and dates). The Government of
Botswana is investing US$ 6 M between 2008-2010 for the Rolong Dolomite Project:
Identifying Groundwater Resources in the Molopo River Basin, which will provide
valuable baseline information. The studies listed above will provide baseline data for
use in improving the TDA and in setting targets for the SAP. The major infrastructure
investments indicate the importance of water resource management at the country level.
The total baseline estimate for this is US $ 421.13 million.
Land degradation
242. The issue of land degradation and desertification has obvious trans-boundary impacts,
though currently it is being managed in the basin as a national or bilateral issue and with
poor linkages to water resource management.
243. In 2005 the governments of Lesotho and South Africa began implementation of a five
year Integrated Catchment Management project intended to benefit local communities
by promoting sustainable resource use within the Lesotho Highlands Water Project area
at the cost of US$ 2.7 M. In Lesotho, the International Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD) is implementing a US $1.6 M between 2005-2011 on Sustainable
Agricultural and Natural Resources Management Project (SANREMP) featuring:
natural resource management; rangeland rehabilitation; land degradation monitoring
study; and community based soil and water conservation projects. In Botswana, the
MEWT/MoA within the Government of Botswana have initiated a national US$ 4.5 M
Land Resource Management Project to be implemented between 2007 and 2009. The
Botswana Energy Affairs Department is implementing a US$ 24 M (JICA & GEF)
project on renewable energy and power development which will include the revision of
Botswana's energy master plan, management of forestry resources, and an inventory of
forestry resources between 2007 2009. These projects will feed data to the revised
UNDP/GEF project. The total baseline estimate for this is US $ 37.28 million.
Table II.I.1Summary of Baseline Investment
Issue Detail
Cost
US$
1
Biodiversity and alien invasive species
8,150,000
2 Pollution/water
quality
27,000,000
3
Water quantity/altered river flow
421,130,000
4 Land
degradation
37,280,000
Total Total Baseline Expenditures (4 years)
493,560,000
72
Global Environmental Objective / Global Environmental Benefits
244. The Orange-Senqu River basin is of critical importance for economic development and
human wellbeing within this central portion of southern Africa and possibly one of the
most significant in terms of its economic importance to the continent. With the South
African industrial conurbations of the PWV area located in the Vaal catchment, the
Orange-Senqu River system supports not only a significant proportion of the industrial
outputs of southern Africa, but also provides water for many agricultural enterprises As
early as the 1950s, perturbations of the riverine system were being recorded as a
consequence of the development activities associated with the industrialisation of
southern Africa. The Orange River Basin is now seriously threatened at many levels and
the capacity to address these levels has been eroded at national and regional level in the
wake of tremendous social and political changes in southern Africa.
245. The global objective is to halt and reverse the decline of the Orange-Senqu River Basin
environment and through association with the Benguela Current Large Marine
Ecosystem6. This objective will be achieved through the improved cooperation between
basin states, strengthened legislation, policy and regulation and application of the
IWRM approach. It is hoped that the project will be a model for southern Africa and the
methods (Ecological flows) and techniques developed will be replicated throughout the
region. The protection of the Lower Orange River and its estuary and Ramsar site is of
particular importance and will be the focus of one of the demonstration projects (see
Part V, Section IV).
246. The Orange-Senqu River discharges into the Atlantic Ocean, where it forms an estuary
of global significance (a Ramsar site); hence there is a natural linkage between the
Orange-Senqu project and the Benguela Current LME. The project will provide an
opportunity to improve GEF's knowledge of the challenges of the combined
management (from the scientific and institutional perspectives) of a trans-boundary river
and LME management; the model to be drawn upon is the Danube and the Black Sea
Partnership. The project will consult closely with the newly established Benguela
Current Commission and the new GEF BCLME SAP implementation project which will
commence at approximately the same time as this project. Of particular interest will be
the topic of climate change and the impact of the variable river flows on the coastal zone
and the Benguela Current LME as a whole. With successful coordination, the two IW
projects will be able to demonstrate how actions/decisions of non-coastal countries (e.g.
Botswana and Lesotho), which may impact the LME management, can be
guided/advised through a joint management and coordination of the transboundary river
basin management structure.
6 The Orange-Senqu River discharges into the southern Atlantic Ocean at Oranjemund/Alexander Bay. One of the threats identified in the
BCLME project was the pollution load from the river and its effects on the marine ecosystem of the BCLME.
73
Alternative/ Incremental Reasoning and GEFs' Role
247. The proposed GEF Alternative is targeted at removing identified constraints and barriers
to the trans-boundary IWRM of the Orange-Senqu River Basin, including discrete
capacity-building activities, demonstration projects in three critical aspects of the
ecosystem approach: productive, conservation and adaptive management, as well as
cross-sectoral engagement. The transition towards the trans-boundary based IWRM of
the Orange-Senqu will depend on the development of a clear, balanced development
vision for the catchment, a convergence of policy tools including long-term, joint
programmes and actions, a strengthening of technical and decision making capacities at
all levels of governance, and a robust monitoring and evaluation programme. Six
outcomes have been mutually identified, to be supported through a mix of GEF
financing and co-financing including reoriented baseline.
Outcome 1: ORASECOM institutionally strengthened
248. A stronger, institutionally set ORASECOM with enhanced capacities to oversee and
coordinate activities throughout the basin will encourage national and basin wide
commitments to adopt an IWRM strategy and honor the role of ecosystem functions
within the basin. This outcome will address prioritized concerns of the countries
including the lack of a trans-boundary information management system and web-site; a
strengthened ORASECOM agreement; lack of established, focused technical working
groups on key topics - such as resource yields, environmental flows, demand forecasting
and management, pollution control (permitting and licensing); lack of established
criteria for water resource allocation; the need for agreed guidelines and procedures for
trans-boundary ESIA; and critical need for capacity building for water resource
practitioners. Under the alternative GEF resources and co-financing will be used to
significantly enhance the concrete institutional capacities of ORASECOM, enabling
them to address and oversee the priority trans-boundary issues. (US$ 0.75M GEF, US$
3.64M, Co-financing).
249. During its preparatory phase, UNDP/GEF project supported the ORASECOM in
developing the integrated workplan that include major activities supported by multiple
donors and indicated their timeline for implementation. The integrated workplan
strengthened the ORASECOM Secretariat's donor coordination capacity. It has, for
example, revealed some areas for potential duplication and guided projects to modify
and/or revise their project activities during their inception or preparatory phase
(including UNDP/GEF project). The integrated workplan will be periodically reviewed
by ORASECOM and updated by its Secretariat.
Outcome 2: Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis Completed
250. The second outcome is an objective, scientific and technical fully completed Trans-
boundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) defining the trans-boundary problems affecting
74
the environmental goods and services from an ecosystems perspective. Within the PDF-
B phase of the project, an initial TDA was conducted to identify and assess the status of
the major trans-boundary issues and identify key information gaps which need to be
filled, including: the impacts of artisanal mining on the middle and lower Orange; an
assessment of Persistent Organic Pollutants levels in the basin; an assessment of
groundwater, particularly transboundary, and surface water resource yields based on an
agreed methodology, including supply assurance levels and climate change scenarios;
and detailed demand forecasts for the OSRB for the next 25 years based on an agreed
methodology including water allocation criteria and climate change scenarios. Under the
alternative, GEF resources and co-financing will be used to fill these significant gaps,
and as part of the Full Size Project, the TDA will be revised and updated, to include a
listing of potential interventions for inclusion in the SAP. (US$ 0.7M GEF, US$
11.88M Co-Finance).
Outcome 3: The SAP and associated NAPS are formulated and adopted at
ministerial
level
251. Nationally endorsed SAP and NAPs with accompanying sustainable financing plans will
pave the way towards incremental improvement in the Orange-Senqu River Basin,
based on a solid foundation of basin wide commitment and consensus. National,
regional and global co-benefits will be generated through basin-wide agreement on
improved legal and policy frameworks; targeted capacity building and increased
environmental protection. The SAP and NAPs will also include the creation or
strengthening of existing institutional mechanisms for the basin wide coordination of
IWRM implemented activities. (US$ 0.6M GEF, US$4.25M Co-finance).
Outcome 4: Stakeholders actively involved in project activities and public
awareness
increased
252. Inclusion of stakeholders in trans-boundary water governance and active participation in
project activities is a key component to meet the ORASECOM stakeholder involvement
objectives. The lack of stakeholder inclusion in IWRM leads to failure to address the
multiple and competing uses of basin wide water resources, leading to incomplete
project implementation, inability to effectively address the needs of multiple users, and
increases tensions between those who have significant influence, and those who
perceived themselves to be under duress because of current distribution patterns. The
GEF resources will enable the project to incorporate multi-stakeholder demands,
concerns and expectations through education, awareness building, targeted trainings,
civil society involvement, and social marketing campaigns, and help demonstrate
incentives to all stakeholder groups to shift their water use behaviours in favour of more
sustainable practices. (US$ 0.9M GEF, US$ 4.67MCo-finance).
75
Outcome 5: Demonstration projects successfully implemented
253. Three priority demonstration projects were jointly identified by participating countries
to advance SAP implementation and to set the basis for its long-term sustainability. The
demonstration projects are fully incremental, will leverage significant co-financing and
will contribute to the adoption of IWRM in the Orange-Senqu River Basin by assisting
the countries coordinate water conservation, range land preservation and Ecological
flow monitoring activities. The demonstration strategies will generate practical
experiences to address a complex baseline of overlapping policies and competencies for
protected area conservation, social and economic development, and threats to terrestrial
biodiversity. The harmonized development of the three demonstrations will contribute
to defining a stronger baseline, and help enable the development of validated integrated
approaches that will facilitate upscaling and replication to other States and at a national
level. Successful implementation of the demonstrations will also provide concrete steps
forward towards achieving the ecosystem goals to be established in the SAP. (US
$2.75M GEF, US$4.6M Co-finance).
Outcome 6: Effective project coordination
254. The GEF alternative proposes improved basin wide mechanisms to meet and address the
coordination needs and gaps that currently inhibit the carrying out of basin-wide
interventions for IWRM. By the end of the project, it is expected that an appropriate
long-term basin wide coordination mechanism will be defined by all countries. This will
include joint definition of a long-term basin wide coordination mechanism building
upon existing multilateral initiatives and the establishment of a Regional Project
Coordination Unit (PCU). Incremental support will help promote the transfer of
institutional arrangements from the support of GEF and other donors to ownership by
the basin. GEF funding will also identify and apply best practices for public awareness
and involvement in order to mobilize basin wide political and stakeholder commitments
to the broader development goals of the BCLME (US$0.6M GEF, US$3.03M Co-
finance).
Systems
Boundary
255. Incremental costs have been assessed temporally, over the planned four-year
implementation of GEF-supported activities, and geographically, Orange-Senqu River
Basin as well as the target sites of the demonstration projects. In this particular project
all countries are eligible for GEF financing. The analysis also covers the suite of
thematic issues identified in the TDA process, some building on past and present
bilateral efforts.
76
Summary of Costs
256. The baseline, comprising activities that would be pursued irrespective of project
investment, has been estimated at US$ 493,560,000. Incremental Costs amount to US$
33,590,000 of which the GEF would fund US$ 6,300,000. The total Alternative is
US$527,150,000. The GEF contribution amounts to 18.8% of the cost of the total
Incremental Cost and 1.2% of the cost of the Alternative. The GEF will provide funding
for activities that generate clear global benefits, and could not be justified solely on
domestic benefits.
o FGEF has committed a budget of Euro 1,500,000
(US$2.1M) with a
corresponding contribution in cash or in kind from ORASECOM totalling Euro
421,500 (US$0.59M) over a period of three years which commenced in June
2006. The budget is broken down as follows:
Table II.I.2 Additional funding sources (FGEF)
Item
FGEF
ORASECOM
TOTAL
Structures
1. Council meetings
-
67 500
67 500
2. PSC/Coordination meetings
39 000
144 000
183 000
3. Expert Groups
67 000
192 000
259 000
4. Project Implement Unit
439 000
18000
457 000
Actions
5. Priority Programme
900 000
-
900 000
6. Supervision
55 000
-
55 000
7. Other Actions ( see below)
Overall Total
1,500 000
421 500
1,921 500
257. Other Funding including BZM//GTZ and EU.
o BMZ/GTZ funded IWRMP Study Phase 1 started in 2004 and is just about to be
completed at a cost of US$ 0.56M (approximately Euro 100 000 disbursement per
annum). A second phase worth US$3.864M is scheduled to commence in 2008;
o InWEnt are committed to funding of US$0.28M over the next four years to
support implementation of the ORASECOM Roadmap for Stakeholder
Participation in parallel with GEF;
o EU funding to the tune of Euro 2,500,000 has recently been secured through the
signing of a Financing Agreement between EU and SADC with ORASECOM as
the implementing agency;
77
o ORASECOM member states are pledged to make annual contributions amounting
to US$0.2M/yr towards the running of a Permanent Secretariat, or US$0.8M over
the life of the project.
o Conservational International have pledged $4,200,000 of co-funding in support of
the methodological and policy related project outcomes
Table II.I.3 Incremental Costs
Outcome
Baseline
GEF
Co-Funding
Increment
Alternative
1. ORASECOM
0
750,000
3,640,000
4,390,000
4,390,000
institutionally
strengthened
2. TDA gaps filled
24,950,000
700,000
11,871,500
12,571,500
37,521,500
3. The SAP and
391,375,000
600,000
4,250,000
4,850,000
396,225,000
associated NAPS are
formulated and adopted
at ministerial level
4. Stakeholders actively
8,505,000
900,000
4,670,000
5,570,000
14,075,000
involved
5. Demonstration
68,730,000
2,750,000
4,604,000
7,354,000
76,084,000
projects successfully
implemented
6. Effective project
0
600,000
3,030,000
3,630,000
3,630,000
coordination
Total
493,560,000
6,300,000
32,065,500
38,365,500
531,925,500
78
II.I.4 Incremental Cost Matrix
Component
Baseline
Increment
Alternative
Overall Objective:
$ 493,560,000 GEF: $ 6,300,000
Total
The overall objective of the Project is to address the principal threats and root causes
ORASECOM and
Alternative:
thereof to the trans-boundary water resources of the OSRB and to develop and implement,
Countries: $16,621,500
$531,925,500
through the TDA and SAP process, a sustainable programme of policy, legal and
(excl. project prep)
institutional reforms and investments to address these threats.
FGEF/BMZ/GtZ/EU/In
Went/CI: 13,540,000
Total: $ 38,365,500
Explanatory note:
A financial baseline for the project has been set at $ 493,560,000, over 4 years, established using a `business as usual' scenario where, despite existing bi-national
agreements on issues such as some site specific monitoring, the shared resources of the OSRB are unsustainably exploited. In the absence of the GEF intervention,
fragmented management approaches not consistent with ecosystem-based IWRM will continue. Currently there are no agreed basin wide programmes for
managing the OSRB resources and although the institutional frameworks are in place.
The proposed GEF alternative is required in order to remove identified constraints and barriers to the use of the ecosystem-based IWRM approach in the
management of the OSRB. The transition towards the ecosystem-based IWRM will depend on a greater convergence of policy tools including long-term joint
programmes and actions, a clearer distribution of competencies at all levels of governance, and a robust monitoring and evaluation programme.
Within this integrated approach, the project will address specific IW GEF priorities, in particular Balancing overuse and conflicting uses of water resources in
trans-boundary surface and groundwater basins. The project through the SAP development process will have to address the multiple stakeholders' competing
demands and government commitments to access to water for all, and economic development. The project will also develop mechanisms and undertake reforms
for maintaining water resources to within safe ecological limits, and encourage the sustainable use of all exploited water resources in the OSRB.
The alternative scenario includes financing from GEF, French GEF, BMZ/GtZ, InWent, Conservational International and the European Union a total of
US$15,444,000
79
Component
Baseline
Increment
Alternative
Outcome 1: ORASECOM institutionally strengthened
$0
GEF: $750,000
Total
ORASECOM and
Alternative:
countries: $1,500,000
$4,390,000
BMZ/GTZ/EU/Conserv
ational International:
$2,140,000
Total: $4,390,000
Explanatory note:
The financial baseline by definition for institutionally strengthening ORASECOM is zero.
Under the alternative, GEF resources and co-financing will be used to assist in development of capacity of ORASECOM. In addition to agreed financial
contribution of $200K per annum ($800K over project life) it is estimated that the countries will contribute an additional $700K in attending ORASECOM and
project meetings and coordinating the new ORASECOM Water Resource and Environmental Programme.
The BMZ/GTZ through support of SADC are committed to assist ORASECOM in the establishment of a strong secretariat and improve water resource planning
capacity in all the basin countries. A proportion of the US$4.5M EU funding will also be used to support ORASECOM. Details of actual activities are not yet
available and therefore the combined funding has been estimated at US$1,600,000.
Outcome 2: Trans-boundary issues analyzed with gaps filled through additional studies
$ 24,950,000
GEF: $ 700,000
Total
ORASECOM and
Alternative: $
countries: $5,900,000
37,521,500
FGEF/BMZ/GtZ/EU/CI
: US$ 5,971.5
Total: $ 12,571,500
Explanatory note:
A financial baseline for this Outcome has been set at $ 24,950,000 over 4 years, comprising of unilateral projects carried out on a wide-ranging number of issues
including demand studies, biodiversity assessments, yield assessments, feasibility testing, identification of ground water resources, etc. The results of many of
these studies will feed into the TDA over the life of the project.
Under the alternative, GEF resources and co-financing will be used to finalize the development of the TDA through a capacity needs and information gap
80
Component
Baseline
Increment
Alternative
assessment of the priority issues, revised Causal Chain Analyses and Causal Loop Diagrams, and identification and pre-feasibility studies of key SAP
interventions. There are a number of trans-boundary/bilateral studies being undertaken by the basin countries including LORMS, Lesotho Highlands Phase II
feasibility study and orange River estuary studies. The value of this work has been conservatively estimated to be valued at US$5,900,000.
The FGEF project will undertake various studies identified under the ORASECOM workplan, including the development of a management plan for the Lesotho
Highland sponges and an assessment of groundwater resources in the Molopo basin. All the FGEF activities, although not yet fully defined, will feed into the
TDA. It is understood that part of the EU funding will also be used for specific technical studies as will some of the BMZ/GtZ, but full ToR are not yet available.
It is estimated that the co-financing of this activity from the bi-lateral and multi-lateral donors will be US$ (FGEF US$ 1,600,000).
In addition inputs into the TDA are anticipated from the WB-GEF project Groundwater and Drought Management in Southern Africa, executed by SADC
including development of a regional GW vulnerability map; regional awareness campaign; and a knowledge management system for groundwater drought
management and the UNEP GEF SLM project which includes a study of the Molopo-Nossob aquifer.
Outcome 3: Country agreement on and commitment to basin wide and national policy,
$391,375,000 GEF:
$600,000
Total
legal and institutional reforms to address the agreed priority trans-boundary issues within
ORASECOM:
Alternative:
the SAP and associated NAPS
1,580,000
$ 396,225,000
FGEF/BMZ/GtZ/EU/CI
: 2,670,000
Total: $ 4,850,000
Explanatory note:
The financial baseline for the development of the SAP has been set at $ 370,190,000, over 4 years. A significant portion on this money will be spent on large
infrastructure projects that will improve water distribution and efficiency in the basin. There are also improvements planned for the already sophisticated control
systems in place for the Vaal and Middle Orange-Senqu, including real-time modeling. Some of these improvements have trans-boundary implications and an
estimate of the value of these incremental investments has had to be made. A conservative estimate of US$2,580,000 has been put on the country co-financing for
this component.
Alternative is estimated at US$375,040,000, with co-financing of US$4,850,000: Countries US$2,850,000 and BMZ/GtZ/EU US$1,670,000. In addition to the
trans-boundary investments above the countries will incur costs attending and hosting the SAP meetings, development of their own national action plans, which
are expected to go beyond the initial formulation, and establishment and operation of the interministry/interdepartmental committees. In Botswana UNDP-GEF is
assisting the government in preparing a national IWRM plan which will guide the OSRB NAP for that country.
81
Component
Baseline
Increment
Alternative
The support from the donors for SAP development will come from BMZ/GtZ and principally the EU. Although the support is known to be considerable it is not
clear how the funds are to be spent, possibly in the early implementation of priority SAP interventions drawn from the ORASECOM Action Plan. Total estimated
donor co-financing is US$1,670,000
Outcome 4: Stakeholders actively involved in project and engaged in addressing the trans-
$ 8,505,000
GEF: $900,000
Total
boundary issues, with increased public awareness
ORASECOM and
Alternative:
countries: $1,370,000
$ 14,075,000
FGEF/InWent/EU/CI:
$3,300,000
Total: $5,570,000
Explanatory note:
The financial baseline for Outcome 4 has been set at $8,505,000 over 4 years. Currently there are several national and bilateral level efforts which are aimed at
inclusion of stakeholders in national water management projects. These efforts focus on sustainable development of sensitive wetlands and rehabilitation of
susceptible areas. These efforts do not incorporate a wide array of stakeholders with significantly diverse water uses in such a way that they are actively
contributing to basin wide water management, though they do focus on alternative income sources for those in river communities.
Under the alternative, it is estimated from the full list of water management projects US$3,370,000 is being spent by ORASECOM and the countries on the
implementation of public involvement activities across all trans-boundary projects, including components of ORASECOM's Roadmap for Stakeholder
involvement. Further support for the Roadmap has been pledged by FGEF, InWEnt and the EU with an estimated value of US$1,300,000
Outcome 5: IWRM ecosystem-based management approaches encouraged and
$ 68,780,000
GEF: $ 2,750,000
Total
strengthened through the successful implementation of the Demonstration Projects
ORASECOM and
Alternative:
countries: $2,700,000
$ 76,134,000
FGEF/BMZ//GtZ/EU/C
I: $1,904,000
Total: $ 7,354,000
Explanatory note:
The financial baseline for Outcome 5 has been set at $ 68,780,000, over 4 years, and has been established using a `business as usual' scenario. Currently, there are
numerous national efforts investigating in particular land degradation and irrigation, including large feasibility studies. These studies and investments will form a
82
Component
Baseline
Increment
Alternative
nucleus of the NAPs and will have considerable influence over the shape and form of the SAP.
Under the alternative, the parallel studies on the environmental flows and Ramsar site under LORMS and the irrigation demand management studies are estimated
to have a value of US$2,700,000. There is no donor co-funding for these activities since they were specific activities selected in consultation with ORASECOM
from the ORASECOM workplan in order to avoid overlap.
It is estimated that support for this component from the FGEF, EU and BMZ/GTZ projects will be US$ 1,904,000
Outcome 6: Effective project coordination
$ 0
GEF: $ 600,000
Total
ORASECOM and
Alternative:
countries:
$ 3,630,000
$ 700,000
FGEF/BMZ/GtZ,EU,CI
:
$ 2,330,000
Total: $ 3,630,000
Explanatory Note:
The financial baseline for component 1 is by definition zero. It is estimated that the countries will in providing accommodation for the PCU and the demonstration
project PIUs contribute US$45,000 over the four year period. In addition, it is estimated that the other three main component programme projects will undertake
coordination activities with a value of US$150,000 over four years
83
Current and Future Activities
Table II.I.5 South Africa
Project Title and Description
Funding Institutions
Funding committed
Duration
Contact
Integrated Water Quality management Plan
DWAF- RSA
US$ 0.6 M
To March 2008
P. Pyke
for the Vaal River.
Department of Water Affairs and
Forestry
Integrated Water Quality management Plan
DWAF-RSA
US$ 0.6 M
Uncertain
P. Pyke
for the Orange River.
Department of Water Affairs and
Forestry
Vaal Reconciliation Strategy
DWAF-RSA
US$ 1.3 M
To March 2008
B. Weston
Department of Water Affairs and
Forestry
Orange River Comprehensive Reserve
DWAF-RSA (Resource US$ 1.4 M
Next 4 years (no timelines
P. Pyke
Study (Comprehensive reserve
Efficiency Directorate)
available)
Department of Water Affairs and
determination for all surface and
Forestry
groundwater resources of the Orange River
Basin
Reconciliation strategies for small water
DWAF-RSA
US$ 0.3 M
To March 2008
S. Rademeyer
users in the Vaal / Orange basin (To
Department of Water Affairs and
establish the use of water from the smaller
Forestry
tributaries in the system, excluding the
major dams and rivers for which this is
known)
Rehabilitation of Wetlands in various areas
RSA Working for
Total expenditure
2007-2008 J.
Dini
of the Basin
Wetlands (RSA
within the basin for
Working for Wetlands, Department of
Govt)
2007 2008 US$ 2
Water Affairs and Forestry
M, of which US$ 0.2
M is being spent on
the OR mouth
Infrastructure augmentation in the Eastern
DWAF-RSA
US$ 342 M
Long term (5 yrs +)
P. Pyke
Vaal River (Piping systems etc.)
Determining the effects and impacts of
Concept development
Concept development Concept development phase
Concept development phase
water releases from dams in the Orange
phase
phase
Vaal systems
84
Project Title and Description
Funding Institutions
Funding committed
Duration
Contact
Various projects relating to the conservation Concept documents
None as yet, + - US$
5 years
P. de Villiers
of Largemouth and Smallmouth Yellowfish
developed
0.6 M required
in the Orange / Vaal - co-ordinated by the
Yellowfish Conservation Group
Proclamation of the Orange River Mouth as
Northern Cape
Part of operational
2007-2009 D.
Badenhorst
a provincial protected area (Northern Cape,
Department of
budget
South Africa)
Environment,
Conservation and
Tourism
Lower Orange River Conservation
Department of Tourism US $ 70 K (Need for
2008-2009 P.
Theron
Development Plan
Environment and
Namibia to be
Conservation (RSA)
included in the
project)
Systematic Conservation Plan for the
GEF
US$ 35 K
2007
P. Desmet
Richtersveld District
Table II.I.6 South Africa and Lesotho Related Activities
Project Title and Description
Funding Institutions
Funding committed
Duration
Contact
Integrated Catchment Management. To
Lesotho and RSA
US$ 2.7 M
2005-2010 Chief
Executive,
LHDA
benefit local communities by sustainability
Govt.
(Combined, mostly
of resource use within the Lesotho
RSA)
Highlands Water Project
Lesotho Highlands Phase II Feasibility
DWAF-RSA
US$ 4 M
To be completed by march 2008 P. Pyke
Study
Department of Water Affairs and
Lesotho Govt.
US$ 4 M
Forestry
Cash contribution to ORASECOM
DWAF-RSA
US$ 0.5 M
2008-2012
C.L. van den Berg
Department of Water Affairs and
Forestry
Staff cost and travel cost to ORASECOM
DWAF-RSA
US$ 0.5 M
2008-2012
C.L. van den Berg
Department of Water Affairs and
Forestry
85
Table II.I7 South Africa and Namibia Related Activities
Project Title and Description
Funding Institutions
Funding committed
Duration
Contact
LORMS pre feasibility study (managing the DWAF-RSA
US$ 0.6 M RSA
2006-2008
P. Pyke, G. Van Langenhoven
Lower Orange River for benefit to Namibia
MAWF-Namibia
Department of Water Affairs and
and South Africa as well as the
US$ 0.6 M Namibia
Forestry, and Ministry of Agriculture,
Environment)
Water and Forestry
The construction of gauging weirs at two
DWAF-RSA
US$ 1.7 M (not yet
2007-2012 L.
Snyders
sites in the Lower Orange river (one at
MAWF- Namibia
committed)(RSA)
Department of Water Affairs and
Sendelingsdrift, and the other at the eastern
Forestry
border point between RSA and Namibia
US$ 1.3 M (not yet
G. van Langenhoven
committed)(Nam)
Ministry of Agriculture, Water and
Forestry
Feasibility Study and EIA for the
DWAF-RSA
US$ 1.7 M
2008 M.
Amakali
construction of a dam on the Lower Orange
Ministry of Agriculture, Water and
River
MAWF- Namibia
US$ 1.2 M
Forestry
Ecological Needs Assessment for the
DWAF-RSA
US$ 0.7 M
M. Amakali
Orange River mouth
Ministry of Agriculture, Water and
MAWF- Namibia
US$ 0.2 M
No detail available
Forestry
Richtersveld Ai Ais Programme to combat
Not yet secured
-
No detail available
SPAN Namibia
alien vegetation along the Orange River
Joint Tourism Plan for the Richtersveld Ai-
Peace Parks
US$ 35-40 K
2006-2007
P. van der Walt
Ais Transfrontier Park
Foundation
A further 14K is
needed for
completion
Joint Management Plan for the Richtersveld Peace Parks
US$ 35- 40 K
2006-2007
P. Theron
Ai-Ais Transfontier Park
Foundation
Refurbishment of Vioolsdrift / Noordoewer
DWAF-RSA
US$ 0.9 M
2007-2008
L. Snyders
Joint Irrigation Scheme
Department of Water Affairs and
Forestry
Table II.I.8 Namibia Related Activities
Project Title and Description
Funding Institutions
Funding committed
Duration
Contact
Pilot study on the efficient use of irrigation
MAWF-Namibia
US$ 2 M (initial
2007-2008 M.
Amakali
methods on two sites at the Orange River
estimates)
Ministry of Agriculture, Water and
(As adapted from the Logframe/SRF
Forestry
developed at Gobabeb)
86
Project Title and Description
Funding Institutions
Funding committed
Duration
Contact
Ephemeral River Basin project for the Fish
Govt. of Norway
US$ 1.4 M for the
2005-2009
C. Roberts / M. Seely
River (Improving resource management in
full ERB project in
Desert Research Foundation
the basin)(part of the SADC-ERB project
Botswana and
Namibia
Stampriet Kalahari/Karoo Artesian Basin
MAWF Namibia
In preparation
Greg Christelis, Deputy Director
Transboundary Aquifer Study
Geohydrology, MoAWF
Table II.I.9 Botswana Related Activities
Project Title and Description
Funding Institutions
Funding committed
Duration
Contact
The Western Kgalagadi Conservation
CI and the French
US$ 4.2 M
2007-2010
Hisso Sebina
Corridor project
FFEM (Fonds
Project manager
Francaise pour
Environnement
Mondiale
Land Resource Management
MEWT/MoA
US$ 4.5 M
2007 - 2009
S. Monna/ G.Woto
Gov't of Botswana
Ministry of Environment Water and
Tourism
Rolong Dolomite Project:
Govt of Botswana
US$ 6 M
2008-2010
N. Mangisi
Identifying Groundwater Resources in the
Ministry of Environment Water and
Molopo River Basin
Tourism
Water Conservation
MMEWR
US$ 0.5 M
2006/07
O. Katai
Ministry of Minerals Energy and Water
Resources
Table II.I.10 Lesotho Related Activities
Project title and description
Funding Institutions
Funding Committed Duration
Contact person
Rehabilitation and Restoration of highlands
Millennium Challenge
US $5 M
2008-2013
Director- Department of Water
Wetlands. Managing highland wetlands to
Cooperation
Email: director@dwa.gov.ls
conserve river flows. It is also aimed at
developing and implementing wetland
catchment Management Plans and
supporting livelihoods of communities near
the wetlands.
87
Sustainable Agricultural and Natural
International Fund for
US $1.6 M
2005-2011
M. Pomela, Ministry of Agriculture
Resources Management Project
Agricultural
(SANREMP)
Development (IFAD)
1. Natural resource Management-
Rangeland rehabilitation
2. Land degradation and monitoring
study
3. Soil and water conservation thru
community driven projects
Capacity building and knowledge
Government of
US $4.48 M
Unconfirmed
Principal Secretary, Ministry of
Management for sustainable land
Lesotho (Ministry of
Forestry and Land Reclamation
management in Lesotho. Enhanced
Forestry and Land
awareness, understanding and analysis of
Reclamation) and
sustainable land management best practices
BMZ/GTZ
at resource users
Table II.I.11 ORASECOM Projects
Project Title and Description
Funding Institutions
Funding committed
Duration
Contact
African transboundary river support
EU
2.5 M Euro
2008-2013
Head of the delegation for the
programme: Case of the Basin of Orange-
European Commission - Botswana
Senqu River
Orasecom support, priority programme
French GEF
1.4 M Euro
2006-2009
Orasecom secretariat
within the Basin
IWRMP studies, Establishment of
BMZ/GTZ
1 M Euro
2004-
Orasecom secretariat
Orasecom secretariat
88
PART II: Strategic Results Framework
Target
Means of
Project Strategy
Indicator
Base Line
Unless otherwise stated these are
Assumption
Verification
targets for Project completion
Goal: The overall goal of the Project is to contribute to improved management of the Orange Senqu River Basin's trans-boundary water resources through Integrated Water Resource
Management (IWRM) approaches that remediate threats and root causes.
Purpose
1. A fully operational
ORASECOM has
ORASECOM sufficiently strengthened
· A programme
· All four countries are equally engaged in
(Objective):
ORASECOM.
established the secretariat
to coordinate initiatives, with national
framework and
the operation of ORASECOM
To contribute to
Demonstrable
and a full time executive
institutions and international
workplan that will
· Millennium Sustainable Development
improved
contribution to the
secretary has been
cooperating partners (ICPs) to
guide the
Targets can be met while still developing
management of the
capacity strengthening appointed. ORASECOM
effectively promote the implementation
harmonization and
water resources in the basin in a sustainable
Orange-Senqu River
of ORASECOM to
and the TTT met regularly
of IWRM principles in the basin.
coordination of all
manner.
Transboundary Basin
coordinate initiatives,
to discuss basin issues and
the ongoing and
through the
institutions and
donor coordination
forthcoming
implementation of a
international
meetings are now held
initiatives funded by
sustainable
cooperating partners
every four months led by
the ICPs and the
programme of policy, (ICPs) in a
ORASECOM and
implementation of
legal and institutional harmonized manner.
BMZ/GtZ. An Orange
the SAP.
reforms and
Promotion of IWRM
Senqu Water Resource
· Technical
investment options,
principles in the basin
and Environmental
working groups
using the TDA/SAP
Programme has been
established
process.
established and a draft
· Information
workplan prepared in
management
conjunction with the
System developed
donors. There is currently
and operational
no information
· Rules and
management system to
procedures for EA
enable ORASECOM to
in a transboundary
share available data and
context agreed.
information and water
allocation
2. Priority
The preliminary TDA ,
A comprehensive TDA to enable
· Gap filling
· Willingness of countries and
transboundary issues
conducted during the
ORASECOM and its parties to target
assessments on
stakeholders to accept objective findings of
are analyzed through
preparatory stage, is based
investments at root and underlying
PoPs, artisanal
the TDA
additional studies,
on desk studies produced
causes and to form a solid scientific base mining and climate
immediate and root
by the GEF team and by
for the SAP (IWRM plan).
change
causes of priority
BMZ/GtZ, as the first
·
Updated and
transboundary issues
phase of the four-phased
revised TDA
identified.
IWRM initiative supported
endorsed by the
by BMZ/GtZ. This work
countries.
has identified a number of
· TDA
knowledge gaps to be
disseminated widely
filled some of which will
89
Target
Means of
Project Strategy
Indicator
Base Line
Unless otherwise stated these are
Assumption
Verification
targets for Project completion
be addressed by GEF in
the full size project,
including POPs
contamination, artisanal
mining and climate change
impacts.
3. ORASECOM
The three initiatives, EU,
A fully endorsed SAP which will
· SAP endorsed
· Appropriateness of recommendations
agrees vision, WR
BMZ/GtZ French GEF are
address the priority transboundary issues and signed by
based on TDA
objectives and targets
committed to work
in the basin and bring about IWRM
countries
for the OS basin
together under the
involving the all major sectors in water
· Consistent NAPs
forming the basis of
ORASECOM's leadership
resource planning at a basin wide level.
agreed and signed
the SAP which is
to develop the SAP as a
· Financial
endorsed by all
component of a regional
commitments from
Parties.
IWRM plan thereby
governments and
NAPs developed
ensuring the maximization
donor organizations
congruently in the
of synergies, taking each
to support SAP and
basin states as the
other's comparative
NAP
implementation
advantages into
implementation
mechanisms for the
consideration, and to avoid
SAP
duplication of efforts. The
current ORASECOM
Action plan is not
sufficiently detailed and is
not politically binding.
4. Stakeholder
ORASECOM has
Activities supported by GEF towards the · Stakeholder
· Stakeholder available and willing to
involvement in project developed and endorsed
stakeholder involvement support an
forums established
participate and effectiveness of awareness
activities ensured;
the Roadmap for
Action Plan to implement the Roadmap
and meeting
raising campaigns
Public awareness
stakeholder participation
together with InWEnt and later will
regularly
raised on
communication but
contribute to its implementation to
· Public awareness
transboundary issues
funding for realization of
increase the awareness and involvement
raising activities
in the basin
its objectives outlined is
of stakeholders in the IWRM across the
implemented
not yet available.
basin
· Social marketing
campaign and
activities targeting
specific stakeholder
groups implemented
5. Ecosystem-based
The ORASECOM TTT
Effective strategies for setting
· Reports from
· Demonstration projects successful and
IWRM approaches
members identified and
ecological flows, efficient irrigation
demonstration
replicable
encouraged and
with the GEF team
water management; and community
projects
strengthened through
identified and developed
based governance to address land
· Lesson learned
the successful
three pilot projects which
degradation and its linkage to WR
· Results
90
Target
Means of
Project Strategy
Indicator
Base Line
Unless otherwise stated these are
Assumption
Verification
targets for Project completion
implementation of the
addressed critical IWRM
management.
replicated in other
demonstration
issues: ecological flows, in
parts of the basin
projects.
particular in the lower
and in the wider
Orange; water
region
conservation and water
quality management in the
irrigation sector and
land/range management in
at the community level in
key catchment locations,
for example the Lesotho
Highlands.
OUTCOME 1:
1.1. GIS-based
There is a current lack of a Information Management System
· IMS design and
· Management arrangements agreed and
Institutional
Information
mechanism for sharing
Created with Functional GIS Based Web QA/QS procedures
financially supported
strengthening of
Management System
information within the
page utilized by a wide range of
agreed.
· Countries provide data and information
ORASECOM
functional and active
basin, and across sectors
stakeholders from throughout the basin
· Management
freely.
and also analysing data in
and internationally.
arrangements put in
an integrated manner.
place
· Information exchanges bi directional
While there is high level
· Meta-database
capacity in some areas,
prepared
there is also a lack of a
· Common
database that is accessible
database agreed
to all users including
· Submission of
multiple government
data base on agreed
departments, academic
procedures
and scientific
Web-site
communities, farmers,
operational and
conservationists, NGOs,
number of website
and others. The are a
hits recorded
number of initiatives
under proposal which need
to be coordinated
1.2. Technical Working There is a ORASECOM
Technical working groups created
· Technical group
· Ability to recruit suitable members from
Groups established
Technical Task Team
functioning and meeting regularly to
reports.
each country
which meets regularly to
address key aspects of the ecosystem
· Written guidance
discuss component
based approach and IWRM
from the TWG to
projects and the
implementation in the Orange-Senqu
component projects
implementation of the
river basin.
regarding
Action Plan, However,
implementation
membership and time
· Reports to
available is limited. Key
Steering Committee
aspects of IWRM require
meeting
91
Target
Means of
Project Strategy
Indicator
Base Line
Unless otherwise stated these are
Assumption
Verification
targets for Project completion
further attention and
continuing dialogue
1.3. Water resource
Although a number of
Decision framework created for
· Technical report
· Allocation criteria realistic and
allocation criteria
studies have been
determining water resource allocation
on water use
acceptable to ORASECOM and impacted
established and agreed undertaken there are no
base on economic evaluation criteria and priority based on
stakeholders
practitioners
national or basin-wide
for it to be applied at the basin-wide and
economic
strengthened
decision framework
national levels.
evaluations
agreed and established. In
·
Criteria agreed
the irrigation sector water
for evaluating water
is commonly used for
abstraction and
cultivated of feed-stock
allocation
rather than high value
· Decision
crops. Subsidies and
frameworks agreed
allocations to the
nationally and base-
agricultural sector are
wide
common without good
economic reasoning. This
is recognized as an
important issue to be
addressed. The `value' of
water retained in the lower
Orange and its importance
in preserving environment
as eco-tourism attraction
has not been evaluated.
1.4. Transboundary EA To date there are no EA
Trans-boundary EIA guidelines and
· Guidance
·
guidelines and
guidelines in a
procedures to be agreed by the
document approved
· Willingness of government to agree to
procedures prepared
transboundary context
ORASECOM members including a
by ORASECOM
basin-wide trans-boundary EA guidelines
and agreed
operational in the Orange-
listing of type and size of project
· Rules and
and rules and procedures
Senqu river basin.
applicable.
procedures
Although there are
document from
numerous water resource
transboundary EA
projects on-going, such as
prepared and agreed
Lesotho Highlands phase
· Reference to
II, full disclosure
transboundary EA
regarding the
guidelines, rules
environmental
and procedures in
implications is not always
national EIA
available to the basin
guidelines
countries, or they are not
· Trans-boundary
available in a coherent
EAs posted on
92
Target
Means of
Project Strategy
Indicator
Base Line
Unless otherwise stated these are
Assumption
Verification
targets for Project completion
form. There is no
ORASECOM web-
agreement on the type and
site.
size of project which
should be subject to that
considers transboundary
impacts on water resource
uses
1.5. The knowledge of The capacity for water
Clear strategies for maintaining and
· Needs
· Assumes that suitable junior engineers /
water resource
resource management is
strengthening water resource knowledge
assessment
planners exist and the rewards are sufficient
practitioners in
expected to decline in the
in government agencies in the short to
undertaken
to attract them.
IWRM improved at
near future with the
medium terms. Improved capacity of
· ORASECOM
all levels. Evidence of
retirement of many senior
existing water resource practitioners in
and country
· Assumes that there exist capacity in the
transfer of knowledge
managers and engineers.
all basin countries in Integrated Water
capacity
Ministries to mentor the junior
between countries and Without additional
Resource Management and increased
development
engineers/planners
between senior and
capacity building efforts, it recruitment of new young
strategies and
junior staff.
is anticipated there will be
engineers/planners.
training
a significant knowledge
programmes
gap will open up in all
developed
basin countries. All major
· Number of
donors have allocated
water resource
funds for training but it is
practitioners trained
not yet clear what is
· Feed-back
required in each country
results from training
and basin-wide. A needs
assessment should be
urgently undertaken to
determine the scope and
scale of the problem as it
relates to the water
resource planning.
Outcome 2:
2.1. Detailed analyses There is good agreement
Assessment on artisanal mining impacts
· Assessment
· Results from the gap filling activities
Completion of
of transboundary
on the priority
in the lower Orange and mitigation
report of the impact
being undertaken by other parties will be
Transboundary
issues as they relate to
transboundary issues
measures outlined
of artisanal mining
made available with the first three years on
Diagnostic Analysis
IWRM elaborated
relating to water resource
in the lower and
project
management in the river
POPs levels screened in the Orange-
middle Orange,,
basin but there remain a
Senqu basin and measures to be taken to
including proposals
number of information
lower levels determined and mitigation
for control and
gaps to be filled before a
measures outlined
mitigation.
complete picture can be
· Maps of POPs
formed. A detailed gap
Climate change scenarios based medium distribution
analysis has been
and long term forecasts agreed and the
prepared and
93
Target
Means of
Project Strategy
Indicator
Base Line
Unless otherwise stated these are
Assumption
Verification
targets for Project completion
undertaken by
impact on water resource yields and
sources identified.
OORASECOM and GEF
demands assessed with outline adaptive
· Climate change
the results of which are
management strategies proposed
scenarios agreed
summarized in the
and yield and
OSWREP workplan. The
demand forecast
donor component projects
figures revised
will address these
· TWG Reports
knowledge gaps, with
(See 1.2)
GEF investigating POPs
contamination, impact of
artisanal mining and
impact of climate change
on water resource
management..
2.2. Agreement on
The preliminary TDA
An understanding and agreement of the
· Revised TDA
· Regional agreement on the findings of
needed interventions at undertaken during the
priority transboundary problems of the
document
the TDA and listings of priority
sub-regional and
preparatory stage did not
Orange-Senqu and identification of the
containing the
interventions
regional levels to
identify the longer term
necessary short, medium and long term
results from gap
address underlying and interventions to be
interventions to address them
filling studies and
root causes for the
incorporated into the SAP
revised Causal
priority transboundary or undertake pre-
Chain Analyses
issues
feasibility studies into
priority interventions. The
· List of potential
additional work required
interventions in the
will involve a revised
short, medium and
CCA and preparation of
long term to address
Causal Loop diagrams.
each of the
This work with be a
transboundary
precursor to SAP and NAP
issues
development.
· Pre-feasibilty
studies of priority
interventions
2.3. Revised TDA
As evidenced in the SHA,
Updated TDA approved and
· TDA finalized
·
finalized and widely
there is currently low
disseminated widely to stakeholders,
and endorsed by
disseminated
awareness among
civil society, governments, other basin
ORASECM
stakeholders regarding the
wide projects, and the International
· TDA in easy
priority transboundary
Waters community for use in decision
access format
issues in the basin and
making, programming and long term
prepared and
how the issues inter-relate. development
disseminated
· Newspaper
articles and TV
94
Target
Means of
Project Strategy
Indicator
Base Line
Unless otherwise stated these are
Assumption
Verification
targets for Project completion
programmes
featuring the OS
TDA findings
Outcome 3:
3.1. Institutions
Comprehensive water
To establish in the basin countries
· Country needs
· Long-term political and financial
Preparation of the
established to support
legislation is either in
institutional frameworks and procedures
assessment for NAP commitment to SAP implementation
Strategic Action
the national process for place or is in advanced
capable of developing and implementing implementation in
Programme and
the NAP development
development in all basin
NAPs based on IWRM principles.
each country
· Countries are able to endorse SAP
National Action
countries; however, the
· Establishment of through national planning process
Plans
necessary institutional
inter-sectoral
framework is in some of
committees and
· NAPs and SAP reflect IWRM principles
the basin countries not
meeting reports
fully developed.
· Establishment of · ORASECOM has the capacity and
Assistance is required in
NAP formulation
financing to monitor GEF M&E framework
Namibia, Botswana and
team
Lesotho to strengthen
existing institutions and in
some circumstances
establish new structures to
develop and operationalise
NAPs based on IWRM
principles. In particular,
the development of
mechanisms for cross-
sectoral consultation and
decision making.
3.2. SAP and NAPs
A SAP and underpinning NAPs that will · SAP endorsed by
formulated and
The ORASECOM Action
provide a road-map for water resource
the national
endorsed
Plan of thirty activities
development in the Orange-Senqu river
governments
was developed with the
basin based on IWRM principles. An
donor community four
overarching water resource develop
·
years ago and needs to be
Final NAPs
vision with component WR objectives,
revised. The Action Plan
approved by
targets and short, medium and long term
does not include a vision
appropriate national
interventions and a M&E framework
for the river basin or clear
planning authorities
targets under the
component objectives. As
· GEF M&E
a first step the Action Plan
Framework
has been operationalised
included in the final
under the OSWREP and
SAP
the major donors have
committed to a major part
of its implementation.
95
Target
Means of
Project Strategy
Indicator
Base Line
Unless otherwise stated these are
Assumption
Verification
targets for Project completion
Work on revising the
Action Plan has been
started by BMZ/GtZ and
the first phase of the
ICZM plan is now
complete. In the
3.3. Donor conference
Based on SAP and NAP endorsements
· Donor
· Continued donor and national
held to mobilize
There are currently three
a donors' meeting will serve as the basis
conference minutes,
commitment to implementing ORASECOM
resources for SAP
projects assisting
to mobilize commitments to SAP
project monitoring
activities.
implementation
ORASECOM with
implementation and assist countries to
reports and files
development of the
form
OSWREP workplan and
·
substantial coordination
Memoranda or
efforts have been
agreements, project
undertaken to ensure the
monitoring reports
minimum of duplication of
and files
effort and maximum
synergy. These efforts will
continue throughout the
project and more donors
will be asked to support
the OSWREP, including
the major IFIs.
4.1 Contributing to the
BWSF established and functioning in
· Basin wide and
· Diversity of BWSF to reflect broad array
Outcome 4: Basin
establishment of Basin There are currently limited line with ORASECOM Roadmap and
national stakeholder of stakeholders within the basin
wide stakeholder
Wide Stakeholder
facilities at the baisin wide with stakeholder input into the decision forum roster
involvement
· River basin councils are representative
Forum (BWSF) and
level for consultation and
process. River basin councils
activities
· Basin wide and
of stakeholders in the basin
National Stakeholder
involvement of
functioning in one or more trans-
national council
Forums
stakeholders.
boundary sub-basins including an
meeting minutes
ORASECOM have in
ephemeral river basin as models for
partnership with InWEnt
stakeholder involvement at the sub-
· Community
developed a strategy (the
regional level.
support indicated
Roadmap) for stakeholder
and training
involvement in the
materials
decision making in the
Orange-Senqu basin. This
strategy includes the
establishment of a Basin
Wide Stakeholder forum
and national stakeholders
forums. At present there is
no immediate funding for
implementation In SA as
96
Target
Means of
Project Strategy
Indicator
Base Line
Unless otherwise stated these are
Assumption
Verification
targets for Project completion
part of the national water
strategy Catchment
Management Areas are to
be established but
implementation is slow. In
Namibia with the
assistance of Norway a
river basin council has
been establish on the River
Fish. There are no
councils on any
transboundary rivers or
ephemeral rivers.
4.2. Awareness on
All stakeholders have increased
· Basin-wide
water conservation
The current level of
awareness of water conservation
campaign strategy
· Support and political commitment from
raised
awareness of water
measures and the political commitment
to engage
the basin government for the aims and
conservation is
to address overuse and inefficient use of
stakeholders in all
objectives of the campaign
stakeholder group specific
water in the basin.
sectors
and sectorally focused.
Stakeholders are eager for
· Press releases,
more information about
TV slots, posters,
conservation measures
advertisement
across the basin. There are
campaigns evident
national water
at national and
conservation campaigns in
regional levels.
most countries but it is
· Monitoring and
unclear what impact these
evaluation of
are having on water
stakeholders
consumption. Domestic
perceptions at
consumption levels are
beginning, middle
high in comparison to
and end of the
European levels and are
campaign
predicted to rise.
·
However, this represents
Records of
only a small proportion of
public meetings
demand with large
demand in the irrigation
and industry, particularly
mining, sectors. The
impact of climate change
on demand is not yet been
assessed although work
97
Target
Means of
Project Strategy
Indicator
Base Line
Unless otherwise stated these are
Assumption
Verification
targets for Project completion
has been done to assess
impacts on resource
yields.
4.3 Education
To increase awareness and
· Campaign
&Social
There is limited amount
understanding of the vital importance of
strategy and
marketing
of educational material
the river environment and its ecology on
linkages with
campaign
available to local
the livelihoods and lives of all
educational
materials
communities on the
stakeholders through an educational
institutions and
produced on the
importance of the ecology
campaign targeting younger generation
NGO throughout
river
of the river system, and
at all levels of society. Emphasis to be
the basin
environment and
low level of understanding placed on climate change and its
· Primary and
ecology
among many stakeholders
implications.
about the measures needed
secondary education
to improve conditions
curriculum
across the basin.
materials produced
for schools
throughout the
basin.
· "river ecology
centres" established
and guided tours for
schools developed.
· scholarships for
students
specializing in
water issues in
subsequent phases
of the project
· Development of
high quality basin
profile.
· Documentary
film on Orange
River for local,
basin wide and
international
broadcast.
· Number of
newspaper/radio/TV
articles about the
Orange.
· Interest of local
98
Target
Means of
Project Strategy
Indicator
Base Line
Unless otherwise stated these are
Assumption
Verification
targets for Project completion
MPs and majors
Outcome
5.1. Limits agreed basin
Agreement on the methodology and
· Project Plan and
· The lessons learnt on the Lower Orange
5:Demonstration
wide to assure
Although the current
criteria for setting ecological flows
inception
can be applied to a seasonal river
Projects on
preservation of
ecological flow limits set
throughout the basin, including seasonal
report
Ecological Flows,
ecological flows for the in the 1990s on the Orange rivers and establishing bounds for water
· The ecological value of the river is
· Criteria and site
Irrigation Sector
surface and subsurface river are respected, they do resource availability. Setting of new
recognized when establishing levels of
selection report
Reforms and
flows of the Lower
not to be appear adequate
ecological flow to provide additional
protection
Community led
Orange.
and the Orange mouth and
protection to the Orange mouth and its
· Baseline
range land
associated RAMSAR site
associated RAMSAR site.
assessment of
are seriously degraded.
management
the Lower
Changes in the
Orange and a
hydrological regime
site on a
timing as well as volume
seasonal river
impact the river and
·
riparian environments.
Socioeconomic
The setting of ecological
evaluation of
flows and classification of
the impact of
the river are sensitive
low ecological
since it has a direct
flows
bearing on the water
· Community
resources available
committee
upstream. The LORMS
meeting
study investigated raising
minutes
the classification of and
· Long monitoring
protection to the Lower
plans
Orange and found it would
have an immediate impact
· Evaluation and
on the water supply
lessons learned
balance creating a supply
report
deficit. There are no
· Basin wide
procedures for establishing
agreement on
ecological flows in the
setting of ecological
seasonal rivers. The
flows
countries by agreeing a
basin-wide methodology
and criteria for ecological
flows are helping to
define the long-term
vision for the basin
· The farmers are willing to invest in
5.2. Water use
Demonstrate how water can be
· Project Plan and
improved infrastructure and adopt new
efficiency improved at In the Orange Senqu basin
conserved and productivity increased at
inception report
practices as part of the pilot project.
99
Target
Means of
Project Strategy
Indicator
Base Line
Unless otherwise stated these are
Assumption
Verification
targets for Project completion
the transboundary pilot irrigation water is one of
two transboundary irrigation sites,
· Criteria and site
sites and best practices the biggest demands and
through metering, scheduling, tariff
selection report
· There is sufficient time to implement
in irrigation water
one which is predicted to
structures and crop enhancement, and to
and monitor the impact of the management
· Water
usage developed
grow at the greatest rate in
demonstrate best water quality
changes
management
the medium term with new management practice. Using the
improvement
developments planned in
lessons learnt develop a replicability
recommendations
Botswana and Namibia. It
strategy for the basin.
and action plan
is also recognized as the
sector where most water
· Water quality
savings could be made
assessment reports
with the improvements in
and
infrastructure, metering,
recommendations
scheduling and tariffs. It
for improved
has been calculated in
management.
South Africa that
· Infrastructure
approximately 50 million
investment
cubic metres of water
· Training
could be saved per year.
materials
The value of water is not
appreciated in the sector
· Monitoring and
and low value feed crops
evaluation reports
are being irrigated instead
of high value export crops
such as grapes. It is
unclear what levels of
contamination of the
drainage water are from
most irrigation sites and
what impact they have on
· Demonstration of strong linkages
the immediate and wider
between land/range management and WR
environment.
management at pilot sites.
5.3. Soil erosion
The formation of community based
· Project Plan and
reduced at the pilot
Within the basin there are
governance structures to improve
inception
site and self-
currently encapsulated
land/range management with clear
report
governance lessons
efforts focusing on
linkages to water resource management
· Criteria and site
and best practices for
reducing soil erosion and
which can be used as models for
selection report
improved land/range
improved rangeland
replication in the OS basin and further
management
management but these do
afield.
· Review of land
established
not use a common
degradation in
property community based
the Orange-
management practice.
Senqu basin
· Review of best
100
Target
Means of
Project Strategy
Indicator
Base Line
Unless otherwise stated these are
Assumption
Verification
targets for Project completion
practice and
linkage with
water resource
management
issues.
· Formation of
community
land/range
management
committees
· Development
and
implementatio
n of of
land/range
management
plans
· Monitoring
reports
Outcome 6:
6.1 Establish a basin
A fully operational and equipped PCU
· Local
· Efficiency of start-up of project
Effective project
wide Project
N/A
established to coordinate with the
administration staff
· The programme (i.e. the SC and PCU)
coordination
Coordination Unit
offices of ORASECOM and the other
appointed
must effectively communicate the issues and
donors within three months of project
· Filing and
the suggested remedies to the national
commencement.
accounting systems
sectors and be responsive to national real
set up and bank
and perceived needs.
account opened.
·
Web-site
updated regularly
· Number of web-
sites hits
101
Target
Means of
Project Strategy
Indicator
Base Line
Unless otherwise stated these are
Assumption
Verification
targets for Project completion
6.2 Attend and
Group of bilateral and multi-lateral
· PCG meeting
support Programme
The establishment of the
donors supporting implementation of the
minutes
Coordination Group
OS Water Resource and
SAP and IWRM plan
· Support of SAP
meetings
Environment Programme
has provided a focus for
components by
coordination of the donor
PCG members
activities. A detailed
workplan is currently
being developed and gaps
in funding at the national
and basin level identified.
6.3 Inception and
Involvement of the participating
· Steering
Steering Committee
N/A
countries in the management and
Committee reports
meetings
technical direction of the project
· UNDP Progress
meetings regularly
reports measured
against inception
report
102
SECTION III : Total Budget and Workplan
Orange-Senqu River Basin Total Budget and Work Plan
Award ID:
00056936
Award Title:
PIMS 3243 FSP IW: ORASCOM: Orange-Senqu - Strategic Action Programme
Business Unit:
ZAF10
Project Title:
Development and adoption of a Strategic Action Programme for balancing water uses and sustainable natural resource management in the Orange
Senqu River transboundary basin (PIMS 3243)
Project ID:
00070094
Implementing Partner
UNOPS
(Executing Agency)
Responsible
Atlas
Donor
Amount
Amount
Amount
Amoun
See
GEF Outcome/Atlas
Party/
Budgetary
ATLAS Budget
Total
Fund ID
Name
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
t Year 4
Budget
Activity
Implementing
Account
Description
(USD)
(USD)
(USD)
(USD)
(USD)
Note:
Agent
Code
International
71200
100,000 80,000 70,000 20,000 270,000 1
OUTCOME 1:
Consultants
Institutional
62000
GEF
71300 Local
Consultants 100,000 100,000 60,000 60,000 320,000 2
UNOPS
Strengthening of
72200
Equipment
50,000
50,000
100,000
3
ORASECOM
71600 Travel
20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 60,000
4
Total Outcome 1
270,000
250,000
140,000
90,000
750,000
International
71200
110,000 100,000 10,000
220,000 5
Consultants
71300 Local
Consultants 90,000 100,000
190,000 6
OUTCOME 2:
Contractual
Completion of
UNOPS
72100
services
150,000
40,000 190,000
7
Transboundary
62000
GEF
company
Diagnostic Analysis
74500
Miscellaneous
30,000 30,000 8
71600 Travel
35,000 35,000
70,000 9
Total Outcome 2
235,000
385,000
80,000
0
700,000
International
OUTCOME 3:
71200
80,000
60,000
140,000
10
Consultants
Preparation of
Strategic Action
71300 Local
Consultants
150,000 150,000 300,000 11
UNOPS
Programme and
74500 Miscellaneous
30,000 30,000 12
62000
GEF
National Action
71600 Travel
60,000 50,000 20,000 130,000 13
Plans
Total Outcome 3
0
290,000
260,000
50,000
600,000
103
International
71200
40,000 60,000 40,000 40,000
180,000 14
OUTCOME 4:
Consultants
Basin Wide
71300 Local
Consultants 100,000 100,000 70,000 60,000 330,000 15
stakeholder
UNOPS 62000 GEF 74500 Miscellaneous
40,000 50,000 60,000 60,000
210,000 16
Involvement
71600 Travel
30,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 180,000 17
Activities
Total
Outcome
4 210,000 260,000 220,000 210,000 900,000
OUTCOME 5:
International
71200
70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000
280,000 18
Demonstration
Consultants
Projects on
Contractual
Ecological Flows,
72100
services
730,000 920,000 430,000 240,000
2320000 19
Irrigation sector
companies
UNOPS
reforms and
62000
GEF
74500 Miscellaneous
10,000 10,000 30,000 50,000 20
community led
71600 Travel
20,000 20,000 10,000 50,000 100,000 21
range land
management
Total Outcome 5
820,000
1,020,000 520,000 390,000 2,750,000
International
71200
45,000 45,000 45,000 30,000
165,000 22
Consultants
71300 Local
Consultants 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
200,000 23
71600 Travel
20,000 20,000 15,000 15,000 70,000 24
PROJECT
72200 Equipment
45,000
0
0
0 45,000 25
MANAGEMENT
UNOPS
62000
GEF
72500 Office
Supplies
10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 40,000 26
Miscellaneous
74500
20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 80,000 27
expenses
Total
190,000 145,000 140,000 125,000 600,000
Management
PROJECT
TOTAL
1,725,000 2,350,000 1,360,000 865,000 6,300,000
Budget notes:
1. 90 staff-weeks of international consultants (including 10% of PC and 30% of Scientific Officer) to work on Activities 1.1 Creation of Information Management System (IMS),
1.3 Development of EA guidelines and procedures;1.4 Capacity of water resource practitioners strengthened
2. Includes:
a. 110 staff- weeks of local consultants to assist with development of IMS software and collation and processing of data including assembling of metadatabase
b. 100 staff- week of a pool of national experts serving as members of the four Technical Working Groups to meet twice yearly
3. Computer server to host IMS and web-site and GIS printer. .Statisical and GIS software
4. Includes:
a. Travel cost associated with two technical meetings associated with development of IMS
b. Travel costs for Technical working group meetings
5. 73 staff-weeks of international consultants (including 10% % of PC and 20% of Scientific Officer) to work on Activities 2.1 Gap Analysis( Gap assessment, ,review of
artisanal mining, PoPs assessment ,climate change scenarios ) and 2.2 TDA Revision and update (CCA, identification of intervention). TDA/SAP expert to be engaged to
facilitate process.
104
6. 127 staff-weeks of a pool national consultants working on the TDA Technical Task Group, ,CCA and Causal loop diagrams, interventions and prefeasibilty studies. National
consultants will also have input into artisanal mining, PoPs and climate change scenarios and demand forecasting in preparing national reports
7. Contract for PoPss sampling and analysis (100 sediment samples)and preparation of transboundary EA rules and procedures
8. Printing and production costs of final TDA
9. Includes:
a. Travel costs for three technical gap filling meetings
b. Travel costs for three TDA meetings (CCA and CLDs, interventions and review of pre-feasibility studies and TDA finalization
10. 47 staff- weeks of international consultants (including 20% of PC) to support Activities 31 Establishment of institutional structures and 3.2Development of SAP and NAPs.
TDA/SAP expert to facilitate t he TDA/SAP process including vision and WREQO formulation, target setting and drafting of final document.
11. 210 staff-weeks of national consultants to formulate the NAPs and the SAP and attend key SAP meetings
12. Costs of SAP production and distribution.
13. Includes:
a. Travel costs for two NAP meetings in each country
b. Travel costs for four SAP meetings (Vision and WRQOs, Preliminary SAP and integration of NAPs, draft SAP and M&E framework and final SAP)
14. 60 staff-weeks of international consultants including 100% of part-time public participation expert. International consultant to be hired to assist with establishment of BWSF
and the national river basin councils
15. 200 staff-weeks of a pool of national consultants to work on Activities 4.1 Establishment of BWSF and national river basin councils (70weeks), 4.2 Water Conservation
Campaign (80 weeks), Educational and social marketing Campaign (50weeks) and involvement of IWLEARN ($20,000).
16. Costs of promotional materials for Activities 4.1 4.3
17. Including:
a. Travel costs for six BWSF meetings
b. Travel costs for eight national river basin meetings
c. Travel costs for launch meetings for the water conservation campaign and public marketing campaign
18. 93 staff-weeks of international consultants including 25% of PC and 50% of Scientific Officer
19. International contracts:
a. Ecological Flows study ($970,000) with the following outputs: site selection; comprehensive baseline information at pilot sites; review of ecological flow
determination methodologies and agreement on methodology for Orange-senqu; establishment of stakeholder groups; socio-economic study of the impact of low
flow scenarios; design and implementation of long-term monitoring programme ;and final report
b. Water Conservation in the irrigation sector( $800,000)with the following outputs: Site selection; review of existing irrigation practices and infrastructure ;
assessment of drainage water quality; establishment of stakeholder group; strategy for improved water conservation and drainage water quality and
implementation; and final report
c. Land Management ($550,000) with the following outputs: review of land/range management best practice; site selection; baseline assessment of pilot sites
including socio-economic assessment; establishment of stakeholder groups; design and implementation of community based action plans; and final report
20. Cost of promotional materials for dissemination of pilot project results
21. Includes:
a. Travel costs for pilot project inception meetings (3)
b. Travel costs for stakeholder meetings (10)
c. Travel costs for final dissemination meetings (3)
22. 55 staff-weeks of international consultant (35% of PC)
23. 310 staff-weeks of national consultant including office manager and administrative assistant
24. PMU staff travel on project management and programme coordination related business including attendance at IW conferences in 2009 and 2011
25. Hardware and software equipment for PCU and office furniture
26. Office supplies
27. Includes telecommunications and internet connection.
105
Quarterly work plan
Orange-Senqu River Basin
Full Sized Project Timeline
Q1
Q2 Q3
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
Q4
Yr 1
Yr 2
Yr 3
Yr 4
Activity
Component 1 ORASECOM Institutional Strengthening
1.1 Creation of Information Management System and web-site
1.2 Establishment of technical working groups
1.3 Development of Trans-boundary ESIA guidelines and
procedures
1.4 Capacity of water resource practitioners strengthened
Component 2 Completion of Transboundary Diagnostic
Analysis
2.1
TDA
Gap
Filling
Gap analysis
Review impact of artisanal mining on the middle and lower
Orange River
Assessment of PoPs levels in OSRB
Water demand forecasting in the OSRB in the medium to
long term taking into account climate change
Review of existing water resource yields (GW and SW)
taking into account climate change
2.2
TDA
Revision
and
update
Detailed Causal Chain Analysis and Causal Loop Diagrams
Identification of short, medium and long term interventions
Pre-feasibility studies of priority interventions
.3TDA
revised
and
disseminated
Component 3 Preparation of the Strategic Action
Programme and National Action Plans
3.1 Establish and strengthen support institutions for NAP
development
Establish inter-sectoral committees
Review national planning procedures
Establish NAP formulation team
3.2
Development
of
SAP
and
NAPs
Vision and EcoQOs confirmed
Draft SAP developed including targets and interventions
Draft NAPs developed
Revision of SAP in line with NAPs
Finalise and endorse NAPs
Develop M&E framework for SAP implementation
Finalise and endorse SAP
Disseminate results
*
3.3
Donors
Conference
Organise donors meeting to mobilize funding for SAP
implementation
Formalise SAP and NAP agreement through appropriate
memoranda, agreements at national and basin wide levels
106
Quarterly work plan (continued)
Orange-Senqu River Basin
Full Sized Project Timeline
Q1
Q2 Q3
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3
Q4
Yr 1
Yr 2
Yr 3
Yr 4
Activity
Component 4 Basin wide stakeholder involvement
activities
4.1 Support to Basin Wide Stakeholder Forum and national
forums
4.2 Water conservation campaign
4.3 Education and marketing campaign
Component 5 Demonstration projects on Environmental
flows, Irrigation sector reforms, community led range land
management
5.1
Environmental
Low
Flows
Inception Report
Stakeholder consultation
Final project design
Baseline assessment
Application of environmental flows methodology and
selection of scenarios
Design and implementation of long-term monitoring
programme, including M&E framework
Monitor and disseminate results
5.2 Water conservation and quality control in the irrigation
sector
Inception report and site selection
Stakeholder consultation
Baseline assessment
Design of improved management measures, including M&E
framework
Implementation of improved systems and training
programme
Monitor and disseminate results
5.3
Improved
land/range
management
Inception report and site selection
Stakeholder consultation
Baseline assessment
Development of management plan, including M&E
framework
Implement management plan
Monitor and disseminate results
5.4
Dissemination
Workshops
Component 6 Project Management
6.1 Establish and maintain PCU
6.2 Attend and support Programme Coordination Group
* * * * *
*
6..3 Inception report and Steering Committee meetings
* * *
*
107
SECTION IV : ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
PART I : Other agreements
See the endorsement letters and co-finance letters in the separate files.
108
PART II : Organogram of Project within ORASECOM Programme
Governance Level
ORASECOM Programme
Programme Strategy
ORASECOM
Committee
Commissioner
Institutional Structure Level
National
Inter-
Basin Wide
Coordination
ministerial/depar
Stakeholder
ORASECOM Secretariat
Structure
tmental
Forum (SHF)
C
i
Programme Coordination Group
Project Level
BMZ/
FGEF
EU
National
National level
National
GEF Project
GtZ
Project
Project
Projects
Donor Projects
Stakeholder
Project
Forum (SHF)
Demo
Demo
Demo
project PIU
project PIU
project PIU
Natl & Regional
Natl & Regional
Natl & Regional
KEY
Technical Experts
Technical Experts
Technical Experts
Lines of management
Lines of coordination
*
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Division of levels
SHF
SHF
SHF
SHF
SHF
SHF
109
PART III : Terms of References for key project staff and main sub-contracts
Terms of Reference
Project Coordinator
Brief Description:
The Orange-Senqu river basin countries (Republic of Botswana, the Kingdom of Lesotho, the
Republic of Namibia and the Republic of South Africa) singly and jointly are strongly committed to
a basin wide approach to addressing threats to the shared water resources. Each of the countries has
in place, is developing, and continues to improve upon domestic legislation that provides a
framework for basin-wide cooperation in the arena of Integrated Water Resource Management. This
is given further substance in bilateral and basin-wide agreements between the riparian countries,
including the Orange-Senqu River Basin Agreement which was concluded in 2000. It is the first
basin-wide agreement on the Orange-Senqu River involving all four basin states and lead to the
formation of the Orange-Senqu River Commission (ORASECOM ).
At the regional level, all Orange-Senqu River riparian states Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and
South Africa are members of the Southern African Development Community (SADC). The
SADC Protocol on Shared Watercourses (hereafter the SADC Protocol) is the regional framework
agreement dealing with the management of shared watercourses in SADC. The SADC Protocol
received the required number of ratifications and entered into force on 22 September 2003 for all
countries that ratified it, which includes all Orange-Senqu River riparian states. The SADC Protocol
is drafted largely in line with the provisions of the 1997 UN Convention on the Law of the Non-
Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (hereafter the UN Convention). Of the Orange-
Senqu River riparian states, to date only Namibia and South Africa have ratified the UN
Convention.
The project has been designed in close collaboration with ORASECOM as part of a wider Orange
Senqu Water Resources and Environmental Programme (OSWREP). It has been developed in
coordination with the other major ORASECOM donors, inter alia French GEF, BMZ/GtZ,
European Union and InWent, to ensure maximum synergy and minimum overlap between
supporting projects. The project will support the institutional strengthening of ORASECOM
through development of an informational management system, establishment of OSWREP technical
working groups, developing guidelines for water allocation, climate change scenarios, to be applied
in water resource planning, and transboundary EIA. During the transboundary diagnostic analysis
five priority transboundary problems were identified as affecting the Orange Senqu River Basin:
Stress on surface and groundwater resources, altered water flow regime, deteriorating water quality
(surface and groundwater), land degradation and alien invasives. This project in finalising the TDA
will undertake a number of gap filling activities related to these transboundary issues including: a
review of the impacts of artisanal mining on the middle and lower Orange; an assessment of
Persistent Organic Pollutants levels in the Orange Senqu basin; and a detailed yield assessment and
demand forecast for the Orange Senqu basin for the next 25 years based on an agreed methodology.
. Though climate change and biodiversity are not independent priority trans-boundary concerns,
these issues will be highlighted and integrated throughout the project. The final TDA will serve as
the scientific basis for development of an agreed programme of interventions for the introduction of
Integrated Water Resource Management approaches throughout the basin under the framework of a
110
Strategic Action Programme (SAP). The SAP will incorporate a basin vision, water resource quality
objectives, targets and interventions in the short and medium term to meet the targets. In parallel to
SAP development the project will implement three pilot projects which will demonstrate new
techniques and methodologies in three critical SAP areas of concern: the setting of ecological flows;
water demand and quality management in the irrigation sector; and land/range management.
Location:
The Project Coordinator will lead the Project Coordination Unit (PCU) which is to be located in
Pretoria, South Africa, hosted in the ORASECOM Secretatiat. The Project Coordinator will be
required travel in the project region in line with project demands and to international locations
consistent with these Terms of Reference.
Project Coordination Unit:
The PCU will provide a coordination and management structure for implementation of the UNDP-
GEF Project in accordance with the rules and procedures of UNDP as executed through UNOPS.
The PCU will comprise the Project Coordinator, Scientific Officer and part-time Public
Participation Expert. The PCU will also include a Financial and Administration Officer,
Administrative Assistant and local and international consultants as may be required.
General Responsibilities:
The Project Coordinator shall be responsible for the overall coordination of all aspects of the
UNDP-GEF project. He/she shall liaise directly with ORASECOM Secretariat, members of the
PSC, the Implementing Agency, the Executing Agency, UNDP Country Offices, OSWREP donors,
and others as deemed appropriate and necessary by the PSC or by the Project Coordinator him/her
self. The budget and associated work plan will provide guidance on the day-to-day implementation
of the approved Project Document and inception report and the integration of the various OSWREP
donor funded parallel initiatives. He/she shall be responsible for delivery of all substantive,
managerial and financial reports from and on behalf of the Project. He/she will provide overall
supervision for all staff in the Project Coordination Unit, as well as guiding and supervising all
external policy relations.
Specific Duties:
The Project Coordinator will have the following specific duties:
· Management of the UNDP-GEF PCU, its staff, budget and if established the imprest
account;
· Prepare an Annual Work Plan of the program on the basis of the Project Document and
inception report, under the general supervision of the Project Steering Committee and in
close consultation and coordination with related Projects, National Focal Points, GEF
Partners and relevant donors;
· Coordinate and monitor the activities described in the work plan;
· Coordinate the TDA/SAP development process and ORASECOM strengthening component;
· Oversee the pilot project implementation and design the replication strategy;
· Ensure project compliance with all UN and GEF policies, regulations and procedures;
· Ensure consistency between the various program elements and related activities provided or
funded by other donor organizations;
· Assure preparation of Terms of Reference for consultants and contractors;
111
· Coordinate and oversee preparation of the substantive and operational reports from the
Program, including revised TDA;
· Promote the Project and seek opportunities to leverage additional co-funding
· Represent the Project at meetings and other project related for a within the region and
globally, as required; and
· Submit quarterly reports of relevant project progress and problems to the PSC.
Qualifications:
· Post-graduate degree in Water Resource or Environmental Management, or a directly related
field;
· At least fifteen years experience in fields related to the assignment;
· Demonstrated diplomatic and negotiating skills;
· Familiarity with the goals and procedures of international organizations, in particular those
of the GEF, UNDP and regional organizations related to Project activities, and currently
identified Project donors;
· Fluency in English, both speaking and writing; and
· Previous work experience in one or more of the participating countries, and previous work
experience in the region on issues related to the Project will be very favorably considered.
112
Terms of Reference
Scientific Officer
General Responsibilities:
The Scientific officer shall act as Deputy Project Coordinator and shall assist the Project
Coordinator in the overall coordination of all aspects of the UNDP-GEF project. He/she shall
assume the responsibilities of the Project Coordinator in their absence including communications
with the ORASECOM Secretariat. The Scientific Officer will have general responsibility for
ensuring the Project's high quality technical output.
Specific Duties:
The Scientific Officer will have the following specific duties:
· Assist the Project Coordinator in preparation of an Annual Work Plan of the Project on the
basis of the Project Document and inception report;
· Ensure close collaboration with the major technical partners (BMZ/GtZ, EU and FGEF).
· Oversee development of the ORASECOM information management system in consultation
with BMZ/GtZ and EU;
· Manage the TDA update and have day-to-day responsibility for management of the TDA
gap filling activities;
· Have day-to-day oversight of pilot project implementation;
· Preparation of Terms of Reference for Consultants and Contractors; and
· Represent the Project at technical meetings within the region and globally, as required.
Qualifications:
· Post-graduate degree in Water Resource planning or a directly related field;
· A good background in Information Technology;
· At least ten years experience in fields related to the assignment;
· Demonstrated management and team building skills;
· Familiarity with the goals and procedures of international organizations, in particular those
of the GEF and UNDP and regional organizations related to Project;
· Fluency in English both speaking and writing; and
· Previous work experience in one or more of the participating countries, and previous work
experience in the region on issues related to the Project will be very favorably considered.
113
Terms of Reference
Public Participation Expert (Part-time)
General Responsibilities:
The Public Participation expert shall have responsibility for all aspects of public involvement and
participation relating to the project and shall report directly to the Project Coordinator. He/She shall
also work with the Project Coordinator to promote the project regionally and the development of
promotional materials and events.
Specific Duties:
The Public Participation Expert will have the following specific duties:
· Assist with formation of the Basin Wide Stakeholder Forum and coordination of its input
into the TDA/SAP development process;
· Development of a Communications and Public Participation Strategy in line with the
ORASECOM stakeholder road-map;
· Provide day-to-day management oversight of the project's public involvement component;
· In close collaboration with the Scientific Officer develop stakeholder involvement activities
linked to the pilot projects and provide management oversight;
· Assist the Scientific Officer with the development and maintenance of the Project web-site,
in consultation with BMZ/GtZ and EU;
· Prepare a quarterly news bulletin (internet based) to be distributed as widely as possible in
the region;
· Preparation of Terms of Reference for Consultants and Contractors; and
· Represent the Project within the region and globally, as required and appropriate.
Qualifications:
· Post graduate qualification in environmental management, social sciences, or related
discipline;
· Demonstrated experience in development of public participation in international waters
projects;
· At least five years demonstrated and successful experience in preparing and implementing
public involvement projects;
· Demonstrated ability to discuss, negotiate and facilitate stakeholder group consultations in
the region;
· Familiarity with the goals and procedures of international organizations, in particular those
of the GEF, UNDP and regional organizations related to Project ;
· Fluency in English both speaking and writing; and
· Previous work experience in one or more of the participating countries, and previous work
experience in the region on issues related to the Project.
114
Part IV Institutional arrangements for the Orange-Senqu Water Resource and
Environmental Programme
Orange-Senqu River Basin Water Resource
and Environment Programme
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
(Adopted by ORASECOM in April 2007)
115
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Programme structure ................................................................................................................. 3
Steering Committee:.................................................................................................................. 3
Programme Coordination Unit:................................................................................................. 3
The Government Representative:.............................................................................................. 3
National Coordination Structures:............................................................................................. 3
The Technical Advisory Groups ............................................................................................... 3
National Stakeholder Forums.................................................................................................... 3
Basin Wide Forum .................................................................................................................... 3
Funding Arrangements and Responsibilities............................................................................. 3
116
Programme structure
1.
The Orange-Senqu River Basin Environment Programme (ORSBEP) has participation on
basin wide, national, and international levels and has as it basis a concept paper approved in August
2005 in Johannesburg by the members of ORASECOM.
2.
The OSRBEP is a programme for and from the four Riparian States of the Orange-Senqu
River Basin, Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and South Africa under the auspices of ORASECOM,
aiming to halt the deterioration of environmental conditions of the basin and to promote sustainable
development in the area. The process is currently being supported by ORASECOM's International
Partners, Global Environmental Facility (GEF), French GEF, BMZ/GTZ, UNDP, InWEnt and
European Union, other international organizations and the private sector, in particular the mining
sector. In the first phase of the programme, ORSRBEP objective will be to develop and adopted a
Strategic Action Programme (SAP) for the protection and rehabilitation of the basin environment in
five trans-boundary environmental concern areas:
· Stress on surface and groundwater resources;
· Deteriorating water quality (surface and groundwater);
· Altered water flow regime;
· Land degradation;
· Alien invasives;
and, implement demonstration projects addressing specific aspects in each of the areas of concern.
3.
Within the context of the OSRBEP and the implementation framework provided by its various
programmes and projects the main responsibilities of ORASECOM and its secretariat will include
the following:
· to provide overall coordination of the national and international component projects supporting
the implementation of the SAP.
· to contribute to the overall strategic policy and management direction to the OSRBEP through
their representation in the Steering Committee;
· to provide technical and management advice to the OSRBEP through their representation on the
Advisory Groups;
· to provide national policy guidance for the OSRBP through their National Coordination
Structures (NCS) and Inter-sectoral Coordination Groups (ICG);
· to ensure that policy guidance from the Steering Committee is reflected in national OSRBEP-
related policies and programme activities, as appropriate; and
· to contribute and commit, financially and in kind, to implementation of the Strategic Action
Programme.
4.
In its first four years the ORASECOM secretariat through the OSRBEP will undertake the
following activities supported by the Riparian states (ORASECOM), UNDP-GEF, BMZ/GTZ and
French GEF:
117
· Establish a OSRBEP management and coordination structure including a Steering Committee,
Basin Wide Stakeholder Forum and within the ORASECOM secretariat, a Programme
Coordination Unit (PCU) and technical advisory groups
· Undertake a comprehensive Trans-boundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA)
· Agreement on long-term basin vision underpinned by Environmental Quality Objectives
· Development and adoption a Strategic Action Programme (SAP), incorporating current IWRM
plan
· Development of a Orange-Senqu River Basin Information System including an interactive web-
site
· Implementation of demonstration projects targeting the specific trans-boundary environmental
areas of concern
OSRBEP will concentrate efforts in the longer term on the implementation of the adopted SAP.
Implementation of the SAP will be supported by the OSRBEP with the assistance of the
International Partners at both the national and basin wide levels. During SAP implementation it is
anticipated that other international agencies will apply to have their projects included under the
OSRBEP umbrella and in so doing become full international partners.
5.
The OSRBEP Institutional Arrangements will need to be modified in the future, in particular
if the ORASECOM agreement and attendant bi-lateral agreements are revised.
6. The
overall
programme
structure is shown as Figure 1. The overall governance is provided
by the Steering Committee. The ORASECOM National Focal Point and the National Coordination
Structure (NCS) provide coordination at the national level. Overall OSRBEP coordination
implementation is under the guidance of the ORASECOM secretariat and Programme Coordination
Unit, led by the Programme Coordinator.
118
FIGURE 1
Structure of the Orange-Senqu River Basin Environment and Water Resources Programme
Governments
ORASECOM
COUNCIL
Project 1
Strategic Action Programme
ORASECOM
Steering Committee (experts,
Project 2
SEC & SAP PCU
donors, stakeholders, 4x
& TAGs
Etc...
commissioners)
NATIONAL
NATIONAL
NATIONAL
NATIONAL
COORDINATION
COORDINATION
COORDINATION
COORDINATION
STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
STRUCTURE
STAKEHOLDER
STAKEHOLDER
STAKEHOLDER
STAKEHOLDER
FORUM L
FORUM SA
FORUM B
FORUM N
BASIN WIDE FORUM
7.
Each of these elements is discussed below and their respective Terms of Reference will be
provided later.
Steering Committee:
8.
The Steering Committee comprises the ORASECOM national government representative (a
commissioner) from each Orange-Senqu River Basin State, one representative from the five
International Partners, Europen Union, French GEF, BMZ/GtZ, InWEnt and UNDP, and
representatives from the Basin-wide Forum. Project Managers of projects and experts operating
under the OSRBEP umbrella may attend meetings as observers, subject to the discretion of the
Steering Committee Chairman. Other interested parties may be invited as observers at the Steering
Committee's discretion.
119
9.
The Steering Committee is responsible for ensuring policy implementation (set by Council),
through the activities of the OSRBEP. The Committee will provide direction to the Programme
Coordination Unit (PCU) within the ORASECOM Secretariat on issues pertaining to the basin wide
governance of the OSRBEP, and, when appropriate, to the National Coordination Structures
(through the PCU) on issues pertaining to national governance.
10. Funding of Ordinary Steering Committee meetings will be shared between the countries and
International Partners. The country chairing the Steering Committee will be expected to host and
bear the costs of the Steering Committee meeting in its year of office whilst the other countries and
International Partners shall bear the costs of attendance at the meeting by their representatives.
Attendance of observers will be at their own cost.
Programme Coordination Unit:
11. In accordance with the recommendations of the ORASECOM, the Programme Coordination
Unit (PCU) will be located within the ORASECOM Secretariat.
12. The PCU will carry out the day-to-day coordination of the regional components of the
OSRBEP and subsequent implementation of the SAP, and will act as the Secretariat for the Steering
Committee. The PCU will comprise of a Programme Coordinator, and an Assistant and the
necessary support staff. It is envisaged that the Executive Secretary of ORASECOM will act as the
Programme Coordinator, however, in the short term the responsibility could if agreed by the
Steering Committee be given to one of the Project Managers of the projects.
13. Project Managers of projects will be subject to coordination of the Programme Coordinator,
and, where project staff is located within the PCU, the Programme Coordinator's management
authority with regard to office administration matters.
14. Each individual Project Manager of a project will be responsible to the Steering Committee,
as per project application and the stated project beneficiary, for his/her project activities.
15. The ORASECOM Secretariat will provide appropriate furnished accommodation, for projects
which chose to be located within the OSRBEP PCU.
The Government Representative:
16. The designated Government Representative who is the main contact in each Country for the
OSRBEP, will sit on all meetings of the Steering Committee and will likely also be a
Commissioner.
17. The Government Representative must maintain regular contact with the National
Coordination Structure and encourage full inter-sectoral participation in OSRBEP nationally,
including participation by ministries, academia, NGOs, private sector and other pertinent
stakeholders.
National Coordination Structures:
120
18. The National Coordination Structure (NCS) in each country is responsible for coordination of
national SAP implementation and provision of national input into the regional programme. The
NCS will likely consist of a coalition of many implementing partners, such as government agencies,
NGOs, consultants, etc. These partners will be the implementers of programme activities on the
ground.
19. The NCS is a permanent body reports to and from the PCU and guided by the Steering
Committee. It should be aware of all PCU activities and it should disseminate information widely
within country.
The Technical Advisory Groups
20. Initially four Technical Advisory Groups (TAG) will be established, they are as follows:
-
Advisory Group on water use and integrated management
-
Advisory Group on pollution control and water quality
-
Advisory Group on land degradation and biodiversity
- Advisory Group on stakeholder participation
Each riparian state will chair and host one of the Advisory Groups.
21. The Technical Advisory Groups purpose is to assist OSRBEP PCU coordinate activities in the
priority regional environmental concern areas. The Technical Advisory Groups will oversee
implementation of the SAP in their specific concern area and, where required, develop specific
implementation plans. Through the Technical Advisory Groups the riparian states will contribute to
the overall regional coordination of the OSRBEP.
22. The Technical Advisory Groups will operate on the basis of working parties, involving the
participation of all riparian states, PCU representation, and, when necessary, outside experts. Each
riparian state, through the NFP, will appoint a technical expert from the appropriate authority to sit
on each Technical Advisory Group and act as the country focal point, reporting to the NCS and
NFP.
23. The Technical Advisory Groups will meet at least twice a year. The host riparian state will
bear the costs of convening the Advisory Group meetings. The other riparian states and PCU shall
pay the costs of their representatives' attendance at the meeting.
24. The National Coordinating Structure of the host country shall act as the Secretariat to the
Technical Advisory Group and shall prepare meeting minutes and an annual report on the activities
of the Group to be submitted to the host country's National Focal Point and the PCU. The Steering
Committee will be informed regarding the activities of the Technical Advisory Groups through the
PCU. The PCU will assist in assuring relevant communication and data exchanges across the
Technical Advisory Groups.
National Stakeholder Forums
25. Members of the NSFs will consist of stakeholders representing a cross section of the relevant
interests in the country component of the basin.
121
26.
The role of the NSF will be to identify the issues, problems and opportunities within the
basin in the country and communicate this via the NCS and BWF to the PCU and SC
respectively. They will also facilitate communication widely within the country
27.
The NSF will meet as regularly as they need to, considering local circumstances and
constraints. Representatives of each NSF will sit as members of the BWF.
Basin Wide Forum
28. Members of the BWF will be drawn from the national stakeholder forum and will consist of
12 stakeholders representing a cross section of the relevant interests in the basin.
29.
The role of the BWF will be to communicate issues raised by the NSFs to the SC and to
facilitate information exchange between the countries, on the issues, problems and
opportunities within the basin.
30.
The BWF will meet twice a year to review all programme products and will make an annual
report to the Steering Committee. Representatives of the BWF will sit as members of the
Steering Committee.
Funding Arrangements and Responsibilities
31. It is recognized that the OSRBEP International Partners in funding projects must abide by
their own rules and regulations governing the provision and administration of project funds.
32. Within these regulations and conditions, the Steering Committee will have the ability to pass
comment on project work plans through an annual review. Subsequently, it will be the
responsibility of the Project Managers of projects (in coordination with the OSRBEP Programme
Coordinator and in consultation with the NFPs through the National Coordination Structures) to
revise the work plans where appropriate.
33. The Orange-Senqu riparian states shall:
· Provide funding for operation of the ORASECOM Secretariat, including hosting of the
OSRBEP and its PCU.
· Mobilize resources to implement all national activities and support all regional activities,
specified in OSRBEP Strategic Action Programme in accordance with programme dates.
· Provide all projects with appropriate work space where requested.
· Provide the NCS and its staff with the necessary financial support to execute its Terms of
Reference; this includes adequate office space, utilities, meeting expenses and administrative
support.
· Provide access to all data and information required for implementation of the OSRBEP.
122
· Each country shall, as the incumbent Chair of the Steering Committee, host and support the
Steering Committee meeting and Technical Advisory Group meetings, providing venue,
logistical support and translation.
· Provide support for their representatives to attend the Steering Committee meetings and the
meetings of the Basin-Wide Forum.
123
PART V Draft Demonstration Project Documents
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR INCLUSION INTO THE GEF FULL SIZE
PROJECT:
1. Country(s): Botswana, Namibia, South Africa
2. Title:
Pilot study of water conservation in the irrigation sector of the Lower Orange River
3. Executing Agency: UNOPS
4. Cost of Project:
GEF: US$850,000; Co-Finance: US$ 1,600,000
5. Linkage to Orange-Senqu River Basin SAP Priorities:
The Water Resource Quality Objectives outlined in the preliminary SAP include the conservation of
water resources and the improved pollution control in the Orange-Senqu river basin.
6. Linkage to National Priorities and Programmes
Botswana
1. Botswana realizes that augmentation of its internal water resources through the utilization of
internationally shared supplies (border-rivers and perhaps trans-boundary aquifers) will become
extremely important over the next decade. An International Water Unit has been established
within the Ministry of Natural Resources to provide technical support for the management of
shared river basins. The Unit represents Botswana at meetings pertinent to the Orange River
Basin ORASECOM, the JPTC, and the JPWC - as participants in water related fora created by
SADC. There is strong executive support for environmental issues which has positive
implications for matters pertaining to land and water management within the region. The GEF is
to support the development of an Integrated Water Resource Management Plan as a component
of the Sub-Saharan sustainable project. Coordination between the two GEF projects will be a
priority management task.
2. Botswana has addressed, in part, its growing water scarcity concerns through adoption of the
Botswana National Water Master Plan Study (Plan). Although the Plan is now over a decade old,
it has been revised and adjusted over time. The Plan places an emphasis on water conservation
and resource development the following activities: close monitoring of groundwater well-fields to
avoid excessive depletion; ensuring greater use of alternative technologies, such as desalination,
to develop and conserve water resources; management and the development of water supplies by
124
local communities; ensuring greater coordination between government institutions in the planning
and development of water resources; requiring environmental impact statements (EIS) as an
integral part of all project feasibility and subsequent studies for water development projects; and
building interconnecting water supply schemes as a measure to respond to drought.
Namibia
3. The Namibian Water Resources Management Review (NWRMR) was an institutional reform
process initiated in 1997, within the then Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development
(MAWRD), and supported by the World Bank, BMZ/GTZ and UNDP. An objective of
NWRMR was to create a more effective and appropriate institutional structure for the Water
Sector. It reflects the decentralization policy of the Government. Many issues such as strategic
water resources assessment, human resources development, regulation, and conflict regulation
were considered. The Water Resources Management Act approved in August of 2004 contains a
set of "fundamental" principles for water management, such as access to water, harmonization
of water needs and the protection of ecosystems. It is based on the acceptance of integrated
planning and management, transparency and sustainable development; while meeting Namibia's
internationals obligations and "promoting respect for Namibia's rights with regard to
internationally shared watercourses".
4. Several new institutions have to be established in terms of the Water Resources Management
Act. They include a Water Advisory Council, Basin Management Committee, Water Regulatory
Board and a Water Tribunal. Part X of the Act is devoted to "international water resources".
This may be of particular importance and provides a basis for integrating Namibia's
arrangements with the future activities of regional institutions. Additionally there is the
Environmental Management Act which was gazetted at the end of 2007 which provides for a
comprehensive arrangement with respect to environmental matters.
South Africa
5. South Africa completely reformed its water law after the democratic elections held in 1994. This
resulted in the enactment of the Water Services Act (Act 108 of 1997) and the National Water
Act (Act 36 of 1998) supported by Regulations.
6. The National Water Act, 1998 contains fundamental principles for water management and has
comprehensive provisions for water management strategies and the protection of water
resources.
The national government is the public trustee of the nation's water and must ensure that
water is protected, used, developed, conserved, managed and controlled in a sustainable and
equitable manner.
All water rights are limited in time and are granted by the state (or its authorized
representative bodies) in terms of licences and general authorizations.
Catchment Management Agencies (CMAs) are being established for each of the 19 Water
Management Areas (WMAs) defined in the country (Chapter 7 of the Water Act).
The most important document is the National Water Resource Strategy 2004, which became
operative in January 2005.
According to the South African Water Act, the Water User Associations (WUAs) were
identified as the agents to implement and co-ordinate irrigation water use efficiency.
125
7. In the Orange-Senqu River Basin alone, 5 CMAs should be created: Upper Vaal, Middle Vaal,
Lower Vaal, Upper Orange, and Lower Orange according to national legislation. Full
implementation of the CMAs will likely take many years as the National Water Resources
Strategy will determine a framework for the delegation of water resources management
responsibility to the CMAs, and CMAs will then, as is suggested above, have to develop water
resource management approaches as deemed necessary. Thus activities related to the institution
of CMAs are likely to occur in parallel with this project.
7: Name and Post of Government Representatives endorsing the Demonstration Activity
To be inserted
8: Project Objectives and Activities
8.1. Background
8. The water resources of the Orange-Senqu basin are heavily utilized with the average flow
reduced by nearly 50% from virgin conditions. Water demand or requirements are predicted to
rise steeply in the next twenty years whilst the potential for new water resource development is
limited; this is particularly the case in the Lower Orange basin where new agricultural irrigation
schemes are being planned in Botswana, South Africa and Namibia. The key challenge for the
sustainable development of the water resources of the Orange-Senqu system will be a more
realistic reconciliation of water demand and supply and focus on demand management.
9. In accordance with forecasts of the Department of Water Affairs of South Africa (DWAF) the
projected `base scenario' annual water requirement for 2025 within the Orange Senqu system
which included irrigation, urban, rural and mining requirements represents an increase of 8%
over 24 years over the most recently (2002) quoted bulk requirement. This figure excludes any
additional transfers out of the system, for example to the Fish-Sundays Rivers and the Eastern
Cape to support an additional planned 4000 ha of irrigation lands. Looking in detail, the
projected 8% incremental increase in water requirement from water use within the system is
almost entirely from planned irrigation expansion in the Upper Orange and Lower Orange. In
the Lower Orange basin the agricultural sector already uses more than 92% (estimated
1,393 Mm3/a estimated for 2005) of the consumptive demand (excluding river requirements and
environmental requirements).
10. According to a study of water conservation and demand management document in the
Agricultural Sector (South Africa DWAF, February 2001 Version) water losses of between 30%
and 40% can occur during the irrigation process, it is estimated that less than 60% of water
abstracted from water resources reaches the plants' root systems for absorption.
11. The Lower Orange River Management Study (LORMS) conducted by DWEA South Africa has
recognized the need for demand management in the irrigation sector where water is currently
provided at prices below its true economic value; a major reason for the inefficient allocation
and use of water.
12. There are not yet any clear policy guidelines on water conservation in the irrigation sector in
Namibia. After the promulgation of the Water Resources Management Act in 2004, it may take
a significant time to draw up regulations and guidelines. The concern of the South African
Government (DWEA) and Water User Associations for water demand management is evident
126
from the number of initiatives already in place; activities that will serve as forerunners to
provide information for further valuable guidelines in this regard. However application of these
initiatives needs to be reviewed and lessons learned shared within the broader basin community.
13. Experience elsewhere in the world has demonstrated that demand management in the irrigation
sector has been successful if the farmers benefited through the implementation. A good
example is the "Water for Profit" scheme in Queensland (Australia) where farmers are assisted
by the Government to improve irrigation systems and farm management to save water and to
increase crop production. With an investment of A$ 41 million by the Queensland Government,
180 Mm3/a was saved and the value of crop yield improvement was A$ 280 million/annum.
14. In addition to water quantity issues there are also water quality issues related to the existing and
planned expansion of the irrigation sector in the Lower Orange. Discharges of nutrients and
agro-chemicals, including persistent organic pollutants, from irrigation lands are of increasing
concern in regions where existing resources are under stress. The diffuse pollution of precious
groundwater with nitrates and pesticides aggravates an already critical water supply situation.
Problems of inadequate education of and self-regulation by the irrigation farmers need to be
addressed.
8.2. Objectives and Activities
Objectives:
15. The overall objective of the project will be better managed irrigation demand in the basin,
realistic pricing of water to make best economic use of water and better pollution control. The
project will address the issue of conflicting uses of water in the basin in line with SP3 and
demonstrate ways in which irrigation demand management can provide savings to meet
improved ecological flow requirements.
16. The demonstration project will show selected farmers what water savings and improved yields
can be made through scheduling, metering and pricing and improved irrigation methods. There
is a lack of local information in southern Africa on possible water savings and improved yields
resulting from the implementation of water demand management initiatives. Table 1 provides a
summary compiled from international experience of potential water savings and higher crop
yields with the introduction of scheduling, metering and improved irrigation systems.
127
Table 1: International Experience of Water Savings and Higher Crop Yields for scheduling,
metering and improved irrigation systems
International Experience
Water Demand Management
Initiative
Water Savings*
Increased Yield
Scheduling
13% to 15%
8%
Metering & Tariffs
9% to 31%
0%
Irrigation Systems
30% to 70%
20% to 90%
* These do not quantify or mention the influence of return flows and may be over optimistic.
17. The project will also show the best practice in application of agro-chemicals and pollution
control and monitoring. The project will assist in the formation of water user associations where
they do not already exist, and provide structured training to farmers. The project will serve as a
model for improved water management in the irrigation sector and as a source of information
dissemination to all irrigation farmers in the Orange-Senqu basin.
Output 1: Project plan and inception report, including review of basin wide and international
best practice, and site selection.
Activity 1: Project plan and inception report
18. The design of the demonstration project will be finalized in the first three months of the Full
Size Project. This will include the development of a detailed budget and timeline to be included
in an inception report. The inception report shall be reviewed by the basin-wide stakeholder
forum before being submitted to the project Steering Committee for approval. The inception
report will include an initial desk study of best practices for irrigation management at the basin
wide, and international level, drawing on applicable lessons learned to delineate options to be
introduced through this project. Additionally criteria for site selection will be developed within
the report.
Activity 2: Site Selection
19. Irrigation water demand is influenced by a large number of variables that need to be taken into
account in the selection of sites for the pilot project. In South Africa it is proposed to focus on
the area from Neusberg to the Common Border, but it may also include farms identified in the
Neusberg/Upington area and some of the newly developed farms in Namibia along the Common
Border Area as benchmarks, and potential sites in Botswana. .
20. A set of criteria will be applied for site selection including age of farm, irrigation methods, type
of crop, willingness of farmers to participate, etc. Final site selection and location of the main
Water Efficiency Unit for collection and dissemination of information will be approved by the
project Steering Committee.
128
Activity 3: Review of best international practice in water management in the irrigation
sector
21. The project team will undertake a thorough literature review to determine most appropriate best
practice for the selected sites in the introduction of scheduling and metering/tariffs and the
potential water savings and increased crop yields possible taking into account return flows. The
review will specifically look at means of influencing the type of crop grown in order to make
best economic use of the water resource. The review will also determine the most efficient
irrigation systems for southern Africa and effective water quality management practices. The
results of the review will be presented in the inception report.
Output 2: Establish Stakeholder Advisory Forum and Water Efficiency Unit
Activity 1: Hold open meetings at the chosen sites to discuss project.
22. At each of the demonstration sites, stakeholders will be invited to attend open meetings which
will be held at the demonstration sites to discuss the project in detail and answer any questions.
Based on this meeting, necessary adjustments will be made to the project methodology. The
purpose of the meetings, which will be attended by the full project team, will be to engage the
farmers and other stakeholders to obtain their full support for the project, to learn from their
experiences and to address their concerns about the project.
Activity 2: Form stakeholder forums and hold regular meetings to review project
outputs and effectiveness
23. At each demonstration project site the representative stakeholders will be asked to form a
stakeholder forum which will meet regularly to review the project outputs and effectiveness and
provide input into its on-going management. The stakeholder forum will provide advice to the
project and will be asked to ensure that stakeholder interests are taken into consideration during
project implementation. They will also work with the Water Efficiency Unit, in the collection of
data as needed. If requested, the project will support the development of the stakeholder forums
into Water User Associations at the demonstration sites.
Activity 3: Establish a Lower Orange Water Efficiency Unit
24. The project will establish a Water Efficiency Unit for the Lower Orange basin, the location to be
determined. The main tasks of the Water Efficiency Unit will be to assist the farmers to identify
and move towards higher water use efficiency and increase the value of irrigated agricultural
production. The Water Use Efficiency Unit should play an important role in the collection and
processing of data from the farmers on crop yields, actual water use as well as detailed weather
data. The Water Use Efficiency Unit should also help to identify tasks in consultation with
farmers for greater private sector involvement (i.e. providing of scheduling services) and co-
ordinate the training of farmers. It is important that the operation of the Water Efficiency Unit is
sustainable beyond the life time of the project; this will be a key indicator of the success of the
demonstration project.
Output 3: Assessment of existing practices on selected sites (baseline assessment), including
agro-chemical management and water quality discharge monitoring
Activity 1: Assessment of water usage in the demonstration site over the growing season
25. The project team will determine the existing water usage (inflow and return flow) at each
demonstration site in historically wet, average and dry years for various crops taking account of
129
soil conditions and other factors specific to the site that may influence specific water
consumption.
Activity 2: Survey of irrigation infrastructure and drainage water quality
26. A survey will be undertaken at each site to assess the structural condition of the irrigation
infrastructure and assessment of existing transfer efficiency and over a twelve month period, the
levels and fluxes of chemical contaminants in the drainage systems will be calculated.
Activity 3: Collection of data from farmers
27. A data collection programme will be initiated and database constructed for data and information
at each site on crops grown, yields, irrigation practices, system maintenance, agro-chemical
storage, fertilizer and pesticide application rates and methods, and any other related information.
The database will be maintained be the Water Efficiency Unit and will be made available on the
internet through the main project web-site.
Activity 4: Review of economic indicators and costs for baseline scenarios
28. The project will undertake a desk-top review of the economic conditions during the last five
years which will have had an impact on crop selection and profitability as well as water usage.
The study shall take into account the findings of the economic evaluation studies undertaken as
part of the main project.
Output 4: Design and implementation of improved management measures
Activity 1: Feasibility report on means of improved management measures to be
introduced (metering, conservation tariffs, scheduling) for improved
irrigation/drainage systems.
29. The project team shall prepare a detailed design report for each site which shall include the
following:
- location of commercial scheduling service or recommendations for an alternative approach;
- Number and location of weather stations for the pilot project;
- Design norms and indicators;
- Metering costs;
- Tariff structures;
- Recommendations for improved irrigation infrastructure, including cost estimates;
- Recommendations for improved agricultural pollution control;
- Monitoring and Evaluation framework;
The key information will be presented in information sheets for distribution to the farmers and
other stakeholders.
Activity 2: Implement scheduling and metering at selected sites
30. The project will implement scheduling and metering at the sites and determine the elasticity of
demand to differing tariff regimes. The impact on water use and crop yields will be monitored
closely over a two year period through the monitoring and evaluation framework designed in the
feasibility report.
Activity 3: Design and implementation of improved systems
130
31. Based on the findings of the feasibility report the project will, where required, design
improvements on existing irrigation systems. The project will provide part financing to farmers
willing to implement the improvements and monitor the impacts over the project life time. A
detailed cost benefit analysis will be undertaken at selected farms. A final design report will be
produced at the end of the project incorporating the major findings.
Output 5: Design and conduct training with communities near farms, agricultural
departments, agro industry and irrigation farmers and farm workers
Activity 1: Develop training curriculum
32. Based on the assessment and feasibility report (Output 4, activity 1), the project will develop an
easily accessible training curriculum in scheduling, operation of improved system and agro-
chemical management. The training programme is also intended to increase awareness of the
water conservation and pollution control measures and provide the stakeholders with the
impetus to further improve their water management. The training materials will also emphasize
the importance of passing on knowledge and lessons learned and will provide support for
stakeholders.
Activity 2: Recruit training participants and training delivery
33. In coordination with the stakeholder advisory forum the project will recruit participants from
local communities and farms, as well as agro industries and regulatory agencies to participate in
training. The training shall be delivered in accordance with an agreed training curriculum.
Activity 3: Develop and implement a selected training of trainers
34. The project shall hold training of trainer sessions for people outside the project area, which will
act as showcases for what can be done. There will be an emphasis on hands-on training and the
possible strategies that can be employed and transferability to other farms. The participants will
be asked to assist the project to develop ideas for how lessons can be effectively transferred, and
be shared with other stakeholder groups. The participants will also be asked to provide
documented training to neighbours, colleagues and others so that this information is more
widely disseminated to the broader communities.
Output 6: Adaptive Management and Learning
Activity 1: Project implementation
35. Project implemented in a cost-effective manner in accordance with agreed work plans and
budgets.
Activity 2: Monitoring and Evaluation
36. In order for the demonstration efforts to be most effective, the monitoring of outputs, both
socially and technically should be carefully tracked using a specifically designed monitoring
and evaluation framework, in addition to the project logframe. The social indicators should
capture the stakeholder perceptions and concerns and improvement in the environment whilst
the economic indicators should include the levels of financial benefits and capital investments
generated.
Activity 3: Draft report and disseminate results
37. A final demonstration project report will be drafted which will document the demonstration
project's implementation strategies, challenges, successes, barriers and assumptions, as well as
131
recommendations for future project replication. The report will be widely disseminated through
neighbouring communities, to relevant national and regional stakeholders, and to the broader
community involved in water conservation, irrigation and environmental protection.
8.3. End of Project Landscape (Outputs)
38. The end of project outputs of the project will include, inter alia:
Improved water conservation at the sites through scheduling and improved irrigation
systems and serve as a target for water usage in the irrigation sector throughout the Orange-
Senqu river basin.
Improved drainage water quality and reduced costs of agro-chemicals through better
application methods and strategies.
A project plan and inception report including the site criteria and sites selection report.
These will provide guidance both for the project, but also clear documentation on the
development of any replication of the demonstration project. By having a common template
subsequent projects will be able to learn from the challenges faced by the initial
demonstration project and reduce costs and time invested in future efforts.
The establishment of stakeholder advisory forums and where requested Water User
Associations.
Baseline assessments will be established from which future improvements in water
conservation, yield improvements and water quality improvements can be measured and
demonstrated to other farms in the basin.
Valuable knowledge of metering and tariff strategies to improve water allocation strategies
and through better water management, increased yields and thereby increased investment.
Through training of stakeholders an increase in stakeholder awareness, broadening strategies
for water conservation measures at the local level, and diversifying stakeholder
understanding of the challenges involving water management within the region.
9. Rationale for GEF Involvement and Fit with GEF Operational Programmes and Strategic
Priorities
39. This demonstration project matches the GEF Operational Programmes and Strategic Priority 3
Balancing overuse and conflicting uses of water resources in transboundary surface and
groundwaters, emphasizing stakeholder involvement in addressing the challenges of improving
water use efficiency in the irrigation sector. The project will demonstrate the potential water
savings in the irrigation sector which can be allocated to meet enhance ecological flow
requirements. The project focuses on combining local knowledge with best practices garnered
from experienced from around the world. This project has potential for replication in
agricultural communities throughout the basin, and in areas where irrigation based agriculture in
arid areas requires innovative solutions that result in concrete outcomes.
40. This demonstration project builds on the applied principles of integrated land and water
management, through activities specifically designed to reduce anthropogenic impacts on
sensitive water resources, and improvement of conditions impacting water flows within the
basin.
132
10. Project Management Structure and Accountability
41. The project will be contracted out under international tender procedures. There will be an open
invitation for expressions of interest and a short-list of tenderers will be assembled in
consultation with ORASECOM. The project execution will be overseen by the Project
Coordination Unit based in the ORASECOM secretariat. A demonstration project
implementation Unit (PIU), which will also act as the Water Efficiency Unit, will be established
with satellite offices at each demonstration site. The PIU will report to the GEF project manager
and the national project coordinators who in turn will report to the National Focal Points. The
demonstration project through the PCU shall report regularly to the Steering Committee.
11. Stakeholders and Beneficiaries:
42. The stakeholders involved in this project, and the beneficiaries include farmers, agronomists,
traditional leaders, and local authorities, community organizations, agro-chemical industry,
water management parastatals, and agriculture ministry officials, as well as ecologists,
conservationists, and educators.
12. Long-term Sustainability Strategy
43. The long term sustainability for this project is built into the project design through relying on
the farmers to support the design of the specific project based options and finance
implementation. The project will seek to identify win-win situations where increased investment
will bring about water cost savings and increased yields, encouraging further investments.
Initially the investments will be subsidized by the project but it is hoped future investments will
be made without subsidies encouraged by the project results. Similarly improved application
methods and management of agro-chemicals will encourage the farmers to make the necessary
investments to improve pollution control.
13. Replicability
44. The results of the project will be used by ORASECOM to develop a demand management
campaign throughout the Orange-Senqu River basin for the irrigation sector and encourage
existing users to make the necessary investments to improve irrigation systems and practices. It
will also set the standard throughout the basin for new developments and using the
metering/tariff studies as a basis for water allocation criteria. The demonstration project may
also be replicated in other basins in southern Africa and be a model for similar projects in semi-
arid areas in other parts of the World.
14: Monitoring and Evaluation Process
45. The Project Implementation Unit will produce a brief quarterly Progress Report updating the
National Coordinators and the project PCU on the progress of the pilot project based on the
approved Logical Framework Matrix (Annex 1) and the project workplan (Annex 2) Once every
year a detailed report will be submitted through the Project Coordination Unit to the Steering
Committee. This report will provide a full review of the work plan to identify project
achievements and deliveries versus the approved schedule, budget expenditures,
recommendations with respect to any amendments to workplan and budget, staff contracting and
performance, and any other information required by the Steering Committee and/or the
Executing Agencies.
46. The pilot project will also be subject to:
133
· Internal Project Implementation Reviews to be conducted by the PC and submitted to the
implementing agency every six months.
· An independent final project evaluation to be undertaken in conjunction with the Terminal
Evaluation for the FSP.
47. The project evaluations will be carried out in accordance with UNDP-GEF requirements and
will cover all aspects of the project. They will include: an assessment of (a) the outcomes
generated, (b) the processes used to generate them, (c) project impacts, and d) lessons learned.
Advice will be given on how the M&E results can be used to adjust the work if needed and on
how to replicate the results in the region.
15: Co-Funding
48. The total cost of the pilot project is USD 2,450,000 The total contribution requested from GEF
is USD 850,000 within a 4 year period (see budget below for details).
134
TOTAL PROJECT WORKPLAN AND BUDGET
Award ID:
Project Title: Pilot study of water conservation in the irrigation sector of the Lower Orange River
GEF Outcome/Atlas
Sub-components
Amount ($)
Amount ($)
Amount ($) Amount ($)
Total ($)
Activity**
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
All Years
1. Project Plan and
Activity 1: Project Plan and
25,000
25,000
inception report
inception report,
Activity 2: Site Selection
including review and
10,000
10,000
regional and
Activity 3: Review of best
international best
international practice in water
15,000
15,000
practice, and site
management in the irrigation sector.
selection.
Sub-total
50,000
50,000
2. Established
Activity 1: Hold open meetings at
20,000
20,000
stakeholder advisory
the chosen sites to discuss project.
forum and water-user
Activity 2: Form stakeholder groups
association
and hold regular meetings to review
10,000 10,000 10,000
30,000
project outputs and effectiveness
Activity 3: Establish and maintain
Lower Orange Water Efficiency
20,000 15,000 15,000
50,000
Unit
Sub-total
50,000
25,000
25,000
100,000
3. Assessment of
Activity 1: Assessment of water
usage in the demonstration site over
15,000
15,000
existing practices on
the growing season
selected sites
Activity 2: Survey of irrigation
(baseline assessment),
infrastructure and drainage water
15,000 10,000
25,000
including agro-
quality
chemical management
Activity 3: Collection data from
5,000
5,000
and water quality
farmers
discharge monitoring
Activity 4: Review of economic
indicators and costs for baseline
5,000
5,000
scenarios
Sub-total
40,000
10,000
50,000
4. Design and
Activity 1: Feasibility report on
means of improved management
implementation of
measures to be introduced
improved
50,000
50,000
(metering, conservation tariffs,
management
scheduling) for improved
measures
irrigation/drainage systems.
Activity 2: Implement scheduling
50,000
50,000
and metering at selected sites
Activity 3: Design and
implementation of improved
400,000
400,000
systems
Sub-total
100,000
400,000
500,000
5. Design and conduct
Activity 1: Develop training
10,000
10,000
curriculum
training with
Activity 2: Recruit training
stakeholders
40,000
40,000 80,000
participants and deliver training
Activity 3: Develop and implement
10,000
10,000
a selected training of trainers
Sub-total
50,000
50,000
100,000
6. Adaptive
Activity 1: Project Implementation,
Management and
Activity 2: Monitoring and
20,000
20,000
Learning
evaluation
Activity 3: Draft report and
30,000
30,000
disseminate results
Sub-total
20,000
30,000
50,000
Total
240,000 485,000 95,000 30,000 850,000
135
ANNEX 1: Logical Framework
Water conservation and quality control in the irrigation sector
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Sources of Verification
Assumptions and Risks
OUTCOME
Water conservation and quality control in the irrigation sector - Demonstration at two sites of best practice in irrigation water usage developing a model to be replicated throughout the ORS.
ACTIVITIES 1. Project Plan and inception report, including
review and regional and international best practice,
and site selection.
Project Plan and inception report
Project Plan and inception report drafted
Project plan and inception report
Willingness of farmers to support project
Site Selection
-PI
Review of best international practice in water
Sites criteria defined and selected -PI
Site criteria and sites selection report
Appropriate and available sites
management in the irrigation sector.
2. Established stakeholder advisory forum and
water-user association
Hold open meetings at the chosen sites to discuss
Demo project stakeholder advisory
Stakeholder advisory forum and water user
Support from farmers and other stakeholders
project.
forum and water user association
associate meeting reports
Form stakeholder groups and hold regular established -PI
meetings to review project outputs and
effectiveness
Establish a Lower Orange Water Efficiency Unit
3. Assessment of existing practices on selected sites
(baseline assessment), including agro-chemical
management and water quality discharge
monitoring.
Assessment of water usage in the demonstration
Sites selected for baseline indicative of the
site over the growing season
Baseline assessment report
Baseline assessment conducted -ESI
basin and replicable
Survey of irrigation infrastructure and drainage
water quality
Collection data from farmers
Review of economic indicators and costs for
baseline scenarios
4. Design and implementation of improved
management measures
Proposals for improved water quantity
Water management recommendations
Feasibility report on means of improved
and quality management - -PI
report
Improved management measures cost
management measures to be introduced
effective
(metering, conservation tariffs, scheduling) for
Improved systems designed and
improved irrigation/drainage systems.
implemented - SRI
Water conservation and quality reports
Implement scheduling and metering at selected
136
Water conservation and quality control in the irrigation sector
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Sources of Verification
Assumptions and Risks
sites
Design and implementation of improved systems
5. Design and conduct training with stakeholders
Develop training curriculum
Recruit training participants
Stakeholder trainings conducted- SRI
Trainings effective
Training materials
Develop and implement a selected training of
trainers
6. Monitor and disseminate results
Monitor social and technical results,
Results disseminated-PI
Dissemination materials
Project replicability
Review technological outputs
Final report
Draft report and disseminate results
7. Adaptive Management and Learning
Lessons learned report drafted to
Replication of project and findings
Project implemented in a cost-effective
Study report on replicability of study
include budget review and
manner in accordance with agreed work recommendations for additional
Project budget review
plans and budgets
activities
Monitoring and Evaluation Plan provides
inputs for robust adaptive management
A clearly defined mechanism for replication
of the Environmental Flow programme to be
implemented in comparable situations
137
ANNEX 2: Work Plan
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Component and Activities
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Outcome 1: Project Plan and inception report, including review
and regional and international best practice, and site selection.
Activity 1: Project Plan and inception report
Activity 2: Site Selection
Activity 3: Review of best international practice in water management in the
irrigation sector.
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Component and Activities
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Outcome 2: Output 2: Established stakeholder advisory forum
and water-user association
Activity 1: Hold open meetings at the chosen sites to discuss project.
Activity 2: Form stakeholder groups and hold regular meetings to review
project outputs and effectiveness
Activity 3: Establish a Lower Orange Water Efficiency Unit
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Component and Activities
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Outcome 3: Assessment of existing practices on selected sites
(baseline assessment), including agro-chemical management and
water quality discharge monitoring.
Activity 1: Assessment of water usage in the demonstration site over the
growing season
Activity 2: Survey of irrigation infrastructure and drainage water quality
138
Activity 3: Collection data from farmers
Activity 4: Review of economic indicators and costs for baseline scenarios
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Component and Activities
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Outcome 4: Design and implementation of improved
management measures
Activity 1: Feasibility report on means of improved management measures to
be introduced (metering, conservation tariffs, scheduling) for improved
irrigation/drainage systems.
Activity 2: Implement scheduling and metering at selected sites
Activity 3: Design and implementation of improved systems
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Component and Activities
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Outcome 5: Design and conduct training with stakeholders
Activity 1: Develop training curriculum
Activity 2: Recruit training participants
Activity 3: Develop and implement a selected training of trainers
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Component and Activities
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1
Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Outcome 6: Adaptive Management and Learning
Activity 1: Project implementation
Activity
2:
Monitoring
and
Evaluation
Activity 3: Draft report and disseminate of results
139
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR INCLUSION INTO THE GEF FULL SIZE
PROJECT:
1. Country(s): Namibia, South Africa
2. Title: Ecological flows study of the Lower Orange and a seasonal tributary
3. Executing Agency:
4. Cost of Project:
GEF: US$1,000,000; Co-Finance: US$2,304,000
5. Linkage to Orange-Senqu River Basin SAP Priorities:
SAP Priority Agree and establish ecological flow requirements at critical locations in the
Orange-Senqu basin
6. Linkage to National Priorities and Programmes
The Lower Orange River Management Study (LORMS) was a joint Namibian-South African
study of the potential for water resource development and management of the lower Orange
River. The study was commissioned by the Permanent Water Commission (PWC) on behalf of
the governments of the two countries. LORMS identified three possible sites for a large dam on
the lower Orange River. The yield from this potential water resource, however, will be strongly
influenced by the volume of releases made to satisfy the Ecological Flow Requirements (EFR)
for the downstream aquatic ecosystems, in particular the river and its estuary. The Orange River
Mouth is the 7th most important system in South Africa in terms of conservation importance.
The fact that the Orange River Mouth comprises one of only two perennial river mouth/estuarine
systems on the Namibian coast also highlights its biodiversity importance on a regional scale.
The Orange River Mouth Wetland was designated Ramsar status in 1991 and has an area of
about 2,000 ha The wetlands are situated between the north and south flood margins of the
Orange River, extending from the Sir Ernest Oppenheimer Bridge to the Atlantic Ocean, a
distance of about 10 km. Initial studies have been undertaken in the mouth but much more work
is required to establish an environmental baseline and to develop a methodology for determining
environmental flow requirements and therefore resource yields throughout the basin. The new
methodology will also be applied at critical sites on seasonal/ephemeral rivers which have as yet
been given limited attention from the water resources and scientific communities.
7: Name and Post of Government Representatives endorsing the Demonstration Activity
To be completed
8: Project Objectives and Activities
8.1. Background
140
27. Since the early 1980's there has been a 50% reduction in average annual flow rates in the
Lower Orange River compared to virgin conditions. In summer months this reduced flow
is a fraction of pre-development figures. The current mean annual flow at Vioolsdrift of
464x106 m3 when balanced against the agreed annual water allocation to Namibia of
50x106 m3 per annum (which in recent years has reported demands that are 50% higher),
additional South African demands, and in-stream environmental flow requirements,
provides a residual flow to the estuary estimated to be of the order of 290x106 m3.
Clearly, even in an average year, and bearing in mind the significant further river losses
over the 280 km of river length between Vioolsdrift and the estuary, the total pressure on
the resource is acute and the prospects for reliable further water yields in the future are
poor.
28. Although a remnant, vestigial flood season is identifiable between February and April /
May, it is 4 to 5 months shorter than it formerly was, while the usual month of peak
discharge has been set back from February to March. This radical modification of the
regime means that the former natural dynamic equilibrium of the biophysical environment
in the Lower Orange River, and other parts of the basin, has been all but destroyed
resulting in a much degraded fluvial, ecological and environmental situation.
29. Current ecological flows, established in the early 1990s, although honoured, do not
provide the protection required in the Lower Orange and a re-evaluation of these flows,
and thereby a re-evaluation of the water resources of the Lower Orange system, is now
required. Furthermore, a new methodology for establishing ecological flows throughout
the river basin, in the main river channel and the seasonal rivers, is now required based on
best international practice. This understanding came out the LORMS study of water
resources of the Lower Orange undertaken in 2004.
30. The Lower Orange River Management Study (LORMS) was a joint Namibian-South
African study of the potential for water resource development and management of the
Lower Orange River. The study was commissioned by the Permanent Water Commission
(PWC) on behalf of the governments of the two countries. The study recommended that
the Vioolsdrift Dam be investigated at a feasibility level of study. The yield from this
potential water resource development option will affect the cost and overall viability. The
yield, however, will be strongly influenced by the volume of releases made to satisfy the
Ecological Flow Requirements (EFR) for the downstream aquatic ecosystems, in
particular the river and its mouth. Initial work on the EFR for the river and mouth was
undertaken as part of the LORMS study. Furthermore, the operation (and therefore
possible yield) of extended water resource developments in the middle reaches of the
Orange River, in particular the Vanderkloof Dam, may also be affected by new dams in
the lower Orange River and EFRs for downstream aquatic ecosystems.
31. There is a need to set ecological flow requirement at key locations throughout the
Orange-Senqu River Basin and establish an EF methodology which all ORASECOM
countries can agree on. The methodology must meet best international practice, but still
be cost effective in terms of application. It also must be flexible enough to be applied to
ephemeral and seasonal rivers as well as the main river reaches.
8.2. Objectives and Activities
Objective:
141
32. The overall objective of this demonstration project is to set guidelines for establishing
Environmental Flows in the Orange-Senqu basin, based on best international practices
and accomplished through:
- undertaking EF assessments for key sites in the Lower Orange-Senqu River basin and its
mouth;
- producing an interactive EF database to allow evaluation of impacts of flow-related
scenarios for those selected sites;
- developing and implementing a Baseline Data Collection Programme to inform the
EFRs;
- assessing the non-flow related impacts at the selected sites and the likely outcome for
overall ecological condition of their possible amelioration;
- designing a long-term Monitoring Programme designed to assess the efficacy of any EF
and/or other management interventions (i.e. non-flow related) that are implemented.
33. The assessments should aim to develop data sets for the selected sites, which will allow
the evaluation of scenarios of both flow change (i.e., change in the volume and timing of
water) and changes in the extent of non-flow related impacts in terms of: effects on
overall downstream river condition; changes in the abundance of key biophysical
components of the riverine ecosystems; changes in the availability of resources used
directly by the people living alongside the river and estuary; and possible impacts on the
health of people, or their livestock, living alongside the river and estuary.
34. The results of the study in the Lower Orange River and the estuary will be used to provide
guidelines to be incorporated into future management plans and to evaluate the feasibility
and impacts of new water resource developments including an in-channel impoundment
at Vioolsdrift; altering the flow regime controlled by releases from Vanderkloof Dam;
and subsequent phases of the Lesotho Highlands project.
Project Outputs and Activities
Output 1: Project plan and inception report, including site selection and review and selection of
appropriate methodologies, and issues assessment
Activity 1: Project Plan and Inception Report
35. Develop a project plan and prepare an Inception Report. The Inception Report will
include final details of the approach to be adopted, including: the study team;
methodology; issues assessment; preliminary EF reach selection based on agreed criteria;
programming; project monitoring and quality control system; and assumptions, strengths
and weaknesses of the proposed study approach.
Activity 2: Preliminary assessment
36. Undertake a preliminary assessment of potential sites to include: the geographical extent,
present condition, ecological or other importance of the river reach in a local and regional
context, past problems related to water management; species or features of special
significance; a summary of the demographics of the human population that utilise the
river and the nature of their dependence on the river and estuary; and other relevant
aspects such as river-related diseases or important cultural sites.
· Activity 3: Scientific literature review
142
37. Collate and summarise the available scientific data and literature on the selected sites
including: information on the nature of the river channel and any associated wetlands and
floodplains; water chemistry; flow information, i.e., hydrological records/models; general
bank and channel biotic communities along the river; any information on the flow and
physical habitat preferences of the biotic communities; and information on non-flow
related impacts along the lower river.
Activity 4: Selection of the appropriate methodologies
38. Identify or develop appropriate methodologies that will meet the objectives of identifying
environmental flow limits for the Orange-Senqu River. These will include the
identification, or development of methodologies which are compatible for the river
(including seasonal tributaries) and mouth; appropriate for assessing the effect on
ecological condition of non-flow related impacts; and, suitable for assessing the present
ecological status and defining natural conditions for the river and mouth. At a minimum,
the selected methodologies will be sufficiently documented as to allow peer review and
meet the approval of ORASECOM.
Output 2: Study area delineation and scenario selection
Activity 1: EF site selection
39. Undertake field visits to each of the potential site locations within each of the EF river
reaches identified. Prepare a Site Selection Report describing each site in full, the
selection criteria and potential for replicability. Recommended sites are to be agreed with
ORASECOM.
Activity 2: Study area delineation and characterization
40. Undertake a characterization survey of selected sites, conduct an ecological condition
assessment on the present conditions for use as the baseline, use accepted methods of
rapid riverine/estuarine ecosystem appraisal, and draft a clear description of what natural
conditions would have been.
Activity 3: Biophysical data collection and preparation of the Biophysical Reference
Reports
41. Design and implement a Data Collection Programme aimed at providing the data required
for the EF selected methodology. All relevant information should be collected at
designated EF sites, under as wide a range as possible of flow conditions to cover one
annual hydrological cycle. Standard, well-accepted methods within each discipline
should be used, and justified, to the extent possible.
Activity 4: Selection of key scenarios and detailed descriptions of their biophysical
implications
42. Provide detailed description of the biophysical consequences for a short-list of four key
scenarios combining flow and non-flow changes at each site. The key scenarios should
be identified through yield analysis and discussed with ORASECOM.
Output 3: Identify the relevant stakeholders at selected sites and establish site specific
stakeholder advisory forums
Activity 1: Identify relevant stakeholders
43. Identify relevant stakeholders for the project sites which include, inter alia, stakeholders
from relevant economic sectors involved in water use within the site study area, riparian
communities within the area with special attention to traditional leaders and community
143
based organizations, government stakeholders at the municipal, district and national level,
those from the scientific community.
Activity 2: Stakeholder Consultation
44. Hold stakeholder meetings at key milestones during the project to ensure the capture of
the flow and non-flow related impacts on all relevant stakeholders.
Output 4: Socio-economic study of the impact of flow scenarios
Activity 1: Resource economics study and preparation of Resource Economics
Reference Report
45. The Resource Economics study should determine the social and economic value to the
riparian population and collect information on a wider range of socio-economic aspects
relating to the value of the Orange-Senqu River and its estuary ecosystem goods and
services.
Activity 2: Determination of the resource economic implications of key scenarios
46. Using the predicted biophysical changes (including climate change) for each scenario and
the likely consequences for the riparian population in terms of changes in resource
availability, assess the impacts on cultural activities, cost of lost resources and health-
related impacts.
Output 5: Report on application of EF methodology and selection of scenarios based on
flow and non-flow impacts
Activity 1: Application of Environmental Flow Scenarios
47. Apply the agreed EF scenarios selected in output 2, activity 4 and describe the overall
biophysical impacts of the annual and seasonal modified flow regimes, and where
possible determine the thresholds of potential concern.
Activity 2: Assessment of non-flow related impacts
48. Determine the influence of non-flow related impacts on the biophysical condition of the
river reach and mouth, in accordance with the selected methodology. This knowledge
will be used to create overlay scenarios to determine the ecological conditions resulting
from implementing restorative management actions in combination with the predicted
flow related changes.
Output 6: Final report, design of long-term monitoring programme
Activity 1: Preparation of Environmental Flows Summary Report
49. Prepare an EF Summary Report that combines the biophysical and socio-economic
impacts for each applied flow scenario and identifies thresholds of potential concern. The
report should also summarize for each flow scenario the non-flow impacts, including
mitigation measures. The summary report will include recommendations for the
environmental flow to be adopted at each site and will form the basis for technical
guidelines on the determination of environmental flows in the Orange-Senqu basin. The
guidelines will be presented to ORASECOM for approval.
Activity 2: Development of a Long-term Monitoring Programme
50. Design of a long-term Monitoring Programme, based on key biophysical and social
parameters, as indicators of agreed site specific Environmental Quality Objectives
(EQOs). If the target condition is not being achieved, this should provide criteria for
adjustments to be made to the EF, the target condition or the restoration activities.
144
Output 7: Adaptive Management and Learning
Activity 1: Project Implementation
25. Project implemented in a cost-effective manner in accordance with agreed work plans
and budgets.
Activity 2: Monitoring and Evaluation
25. Design and application of project monitoring and evaluation plan based on logframe to
provide inputs for robust project management.
Activity 3: Dissemination of results and replication strategy
26. The results of this demonstration project will be widely disseminated to neighbouring
communities, to relevant national and regional stakeholders, and to the broader
community involved in water management. A specifically designed strategy will be
devised to replicate the results throughout southern Africa where possible.
8.3 End-of Project Landscape (Outcomes)
27. The conclusion of the demonstration project will result in a heightened awareness and
understanding of the environmental flow requirements of the Orange-Senqu River Basin.
28. As a result of the project there will be a review and selection of appropriate
methodologies to be employed in river systems within arid and semi-arid zones. This
review of methodologies once applied will provide added protection to the riverine
environment in general and at critical locations, such as the river mouth, in particular,
and can serve as a resource for other projects in the region and within river systems, to
provide guidance to regulating authorities.
29. The establishment of site specific stakeholder advisory forums, in coordination with the
national forum, to ensure that the interests of all relevant, impacting and impacted
stakeholder groups are recognized and taken into due consideration when establishing
environmental flow requirements.
30. The project will deliver a solid baseline of information and data from each study area
including a clear delineation and characterization of river reaches, assessment of
ecological conditions, selection of environment flow sites, biophysical data collection,
setting of baseline flows and an evaluation of existing environmental goods and services
at the local level.
31. The inclusion of the socio-economic study of the impact of flow scenarios emphasizes
the cross disciplinary approach and includes key players whose involvement or lack of
can either make or break the long term sustainability of these efforts. The inclusion of
human impacts, often driven by economic forces, must be considered in order to
effectively address the challenges of managing environmental flows in a highly altered
river system. This study wiil provide decision makers with an economic value for the
water and the goods and services provided by the environment which can influence
policy formation.
32. The design and implementation of a long-term monitoring programme ensures the
compliance of the environmental flow regime and ensures that the environment quality
objectives are met. The programme will enable the environmental flow setting
methodology to be refined and strengthened to address trends (e.g. climate change),
145
challenges to and shifts in the approach. It will provide valuable data on the overall
environmental status of the Orange-Senqu and assist in identifying basin-wide trends and
changes.
9. Rationale for GEF Involvement and Fit with GEF Operational Programmes and Strategic
Priorities
33. The Orange-Senqu river and river mouth ecosystems are severely degraded and are
facing ever growing pressures to their integrity. Demand for water resources in the basin
is forecast to increase to meet economic and social objectives and a long-term balance
between environmental requirements and human development needs to be found all of
which is against a backdrop of climate change which could severely constrain future
available water resources. Establishing a methodology for determining environmental
flows is the first step to setting bounds to water demand and establishing a vision for the
Orange-Senqu River Basin environment. GEF needs to encourage good management
throughout the Orange-Senqu River Basin and to get agreement between the basin
countries on water allocation priorities.
10. Project Management Structure and Accountability
34. The project will be contracted out under international tender procedures. There will be an
open invitation for expressions of interest and a short-list of tenderers will be assembled
in consultation with ORASECOM. The project execution will be over seen by the
Project Coordination Unit based in the ORASECOM secretariat. A demonstration project
implementation Unit (PIU) will be established with satellite offices at each
demonstration sites. The PIU will report to the GEF Project Coordinator and the national
project coordinators who in turn will report to the National Focal Points. Through the
PCU the demonstration project shall report regularly to the Steering Committee.
11. Stakeholders and Beneficiaries:
35. The stakeholders involved in the project, and the beneficiaries include: local rural
communities within the region, conservationists and ecologists, farmers/ pastoralists, and
local authorities, Water Affairs Departments, NGOs, Environmental Departments,
Tourism and recreational users, fisheries departments, Mining regulating agencies,
Agricultural Departments, Regional governmental officials, Agricultural industry, and
scientists.
12: Long-term Sustainability Strategy
36. The demonstration project has the full support of both South Africa and Namibia and is a
critical element of their IWRM plans. The demonstration project will be complimented
by monitoring programmes and studies already ongoing in the Lower Orange river and
mouth (see Incremental Cost Analysis Section II Part 1). The implementation of long
term monitoring programmes at the critical sites are assured as part of the regulatory
system once a clear baseline has been established and methodology agreed. However, the
project will seek guarantees through ORASECOM that the long term monitoring
programmes will be maintained.
13: Replicability
37. The overall objective is to refine methodologies for establishing ecological flow
requirements throughout the Orange-Senqu river basin and as such will be applied in all
146
four basin states and therefore replicability is inherent in the project. The methodology
will address environmental requirements in ephemeral and seasonal rivers as well as the
main river branches. The methodology will have application outside the OSRB and will
be demonstrated through specific workshops in other river basins in southern Africa. The
final report of the project will include lessons learned and recommendations for a
strategy for replication in other regions.
14: Monitoring and Evaluation Process
38. The Project Coordination Unit will produce a brief quarterly Progress Report updating
the Steering Committee and the Project Execution and Implementation Agencies on the
progress of the project based on the approved Logical Framework Matrix (Annex 1) and
the project workplan (Annex 2). Once a year a detailed report will be submitted through
the PCU to the Steering Committee. This report will provide a full review of the work
plan to identify project achievements and deliverables, budget expenditures, amendments
to workplan and budget, staff contracting and performance, and any other information
required by the Steering Committee and/or the Executing Agencies.
39. In addition, the pilot project will also be subject to:
· Internal Project Implementation Reviews to be conducted by the PC and submitted to the
implementing agency every six months.
· An independent final project evaluation to be undertaken in conjunction with the
Terminal Evaluation for the FSP.
40. The project evaluations will be carried out in accordance with UNDP-GEF requirements
and will cover all aspects of the project. They will include: an assessment of (a) the
outcomes generated, (b) the processes used to generate them, (c) project impacts, and d)
lessons learned. Advice will be given on how the M&E results can be used to adjust the
work if needed and on how to replicate the results in the region.
15: Co-Funding
41. The total cost of the pilot project is US$3,304,000. The total contribution requested from
GEF is USD 1,000,000 within a 4 year period (see Annex 5 for details).
15.
TOTAL PROJECT WORKPLAN AND BUDGET
Award ID:
Project Title: Ecological flows study of the Lower Orange and a seasonal tributary
GEF Outcome/Atlas
Sub-components
Amount ($)
Amount ($) Amount ($) Amount ($)
Total ($)
Activity**
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
All Years
1. Project plan and
1. Project Plan and Inception Report
30,000
inception report
2. Preliminary assessment
30,000
3. Scientific literature review
10,000
4. Selection of the appropriate
20,000
methodologies
Sub-total
90,000
90,000
2. Study area
1. . EF site selection
10,000
delineation and
2. Study area delineation and
scenario selection
characterisation
30,000 50,000
147
3. Biophysical data collection and
preparation of the Biophysical
50,000 200,000 100,000
Reference Reports
4. Selection of key scenarios and
detailed descriptions of their
50,000
biophysical implications
Sub-total
90,000
250,000
150,000
490,000
3. Identify the
1. Identify relevant stakeholders
10,000
10,000
relevant stakeholders
2. Stakeholder Consultation
10,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
40,000
at selected sites and
establish site specific
Sub-total
20,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
50,000
4. Socio-economic
1. Resource Economics study and
study of the impact of
preparation of Resource Economics
50,000
flow scenarios
Reference Report
2. Determination of the resource
economic implications of key
50,000
scenarios
Sub-total
100,000
100,000
5. Report on
1. Application of Environmental
50,000
application of EF
Flow Scenarios
methodology and
2. Assessment of non-flow related
selection of scenarios
impacts
30,000
based on flow and
non-flow impacts
Sub-total
80,000
80,000
6. Final report, and
1. Preparation of Environmental
50,000
design of long-term
Flows Summary Report
monitoring
2. Development of a long-term
Monitoring Programme
10,000
50,000
programme
Adaptive
Sub-total
100,000
100,000
7. Adaptive
Management and
1. Project implementation in
35,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
110,000
Learning
accordance with workplan
2. Monitoring and Evaluation
10,000
20,000
30,000
3. Project Replication strategy
60,000
60,000
Sub-total
35,000
25,000
25,000
105,000
190,000
Total
235,000 285,000 365,000 215,000
1,100,000
148
ANNEX 1 Logical Framework
Ecological flows study of the Lower Orange and a seasonal tributary
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Sources of Verification
Assumptions and Risks
OUTCOME
Ecological flows study of the Lower Orange and a seasonal tributary - Establishment of a methodology for determining the ecological flows in the Orange-Senqu River basin and setting of the
environmental bounds from which the sustainable water resources of the OSR can be measured.
ACTIVITIES
1. Develop project plan and inception report
Draft Project Plan and Inception Report
Project plan and inception report drafted
Project plan and inception report
Appropriate methodology selected
Assess Issues
-PI
Review Scientific literature
Select the appropriate methodologies
2. Study area delineation and scenario
selection
Study report and baselines developed
Study report
Optimal scenarios selected
Draft study area delineation and
PI/ESI
Availability of information
characterization report
Scenarios selected --PI
Study report with selected scenarios
EF site selection
Collect biophysical data and prepare the Biophysical Reference Reports
Reference Reports
Biophysical Reference Reports
drafted
Select key scenarios and provide detailed
descriptions of their biophysical implications
3. Identify the relevant stakeholders at
selected sites and establish site specific
Demo project stakeholder forum
Stakeholder forum roster and meeting
Appropriate stakeholders in group with no
stakeholder advisory forums
established -PI
reports
significant groups missing
Identify relevant stakeholders
Stakeholder Consultations
4. Socio-economic study of the impact of flow
scenarios
Conduct Resource Economics study and Report on socio-economic impacts of
Socio-economic study
All major sectors and impacts considered in
flow scenarios - ESI
evaluation
prepare Resource Economics Reference
Report
Determine resource economic implications
of key scenarios
5. Report on application of EF methodology
and selection of scenarios based on flow and
non-flow impacts
Flow application reports and
Study reports
Appropriate methodology developed.
Apply Environmental Flow Scenarios
assessments drafted
Assess non-flow related impacts
149
Ecological flows study of the Lower Orange and a seasonal tributary
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Sources of Verification
Assumptions and Risks
6. Final report and design of Long-term Monitoring programme in place -PI
Monitoring Programme.
Monitoring programme design
Summary report drafted-PI
Monitoring programme sustained by
Prepare Environmental Flows Summary Results disseminated -PI
Dissemination materials
countries
Report
Develop a Long-term Monitoring
Methodology replicable in other OR sites
Programme
7. Adaptive Management and Learning
Lessons learned report drafted to
Replication of project and findings
Project implemented in a cost-effective
Study report on replicability of study
include budget review and
manner in accordance with agreed work recommendations for additional
Project budget review
plans and budgets
activities
Monitoring and Evaluation Plan provides
inputs for robust adaptive management
A clearly defined mechanism for replication
of the Environmental Flow programme to be
implemented in comparable situations
150
ANNEX 2: Workplan
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Output 1: Project plan and inception report
Activity 1: Project Plan and Inception Report
Activity 2: Issues assessment
Activity 3: Scientific literature review
Activity 4: Selection of the appropriate methodologies
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Activity 1: EF site selection
Activity 2: : Study area delineation and characterization
Activity 3: Biophysical data collection and preparation of the Biophysical Reference Reports
Activity 4: Selection of key scenarios and detailed descriptions of their biophysical
implications
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
151
Output 3: Identify the relevant stakeholders at selected sites and establish site
specific stakeholder advisory forums
Activity 1: Identify relevant stakeholders
Activity 2: Stakeholder Consultation
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Output 4: Socio-economic study of the impact of flow scenarios
Activity 1: Resource Economics study and preparation of Resource Economics Reference
Activity 2: Determination of the resource economic implications of key scenarios
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Output 5: Report on application of EF methodology and selection of scenarios
based on flow and non-flow impacts
Activity 1: Application
of
Environmental
Flow
Scenarios
Activity 2: Assessment of non-flow related impacts
152
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Output 6: Final report and design of Long-term Monitoring Programme
Activity 1: Preparation of Environmental Flows Summary Report
Activity 2: Development
of
a
Long-term
Monitoring
Programme
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Output 7: Adaptive Management and Learning
Activity 1: Project implemented in a cost-effective manner in accordance with agreed work
plans and budgets
Activity 2: Monitoring and Evaluation Plan provides inputs for robust adaptive management
Activity
3;
A
clearly
defined
mechanism
for
replication
153
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR INCLUSION INTO THE GEF FULL SIZE
PROJECT:
1. Country(s): Botswana, Lesotho
2. Title: Improve range land management in the Orange-Senqu River Basin
3. Executing Agency: UNOPS
4. Cost of Project:
GEF: US$650,000 Co-Finance: US$ 700,000
5. Linkage to Orange-Senqu River Basin SAP Priorities:
SAP Priority Mitigation of landscape degradation and desertification
6. Linkage to National Priorities and Programmes
Botswana
1. A significant challenge facing environmental protection and conservation of natural
resources, particularly wildlife resources, is increasing pressure from other forms of land
use. Traditional livestock rearing, which requires large expanses of land, is the main
form of land use for the majority of the people in the basin in Botswana. This form of
land use poses a significant challenge especially to wildlife conservation in the area. Data
from the Department of Wildlife and National Parks show that areas with high
populations of livestock have low populations of wild animals. In addition, some people
in the area are of the view that the protected areas (i.e. Gemsbok National Park and the
Wildlife Management Areas) deprive them of land, which could have been used for
livestock grazing.
2. Botswana has an emerging number of community inputs into rangeland management
through the Community Based Natural Resources Management Policy. This policy aims
at fostering conservation of natural resources by local communities. These programmes
address these issues, through providing community inputs into project development,
implementation and monitoring within the broader national context of sustainable
rangeland management. It is intended to promote rural development through community
participation and the creation of economic incentives for sustainable use. In the
Kgalagadi District, the Policy has benefited communities and trusts such as Khawa,
Koinaphu, Maiteko and Ukhwi. These communities mostly utilize Wildlife Management
Areas with the exception of Maiteko which is based on salt harvesting. In the Wildlife
Management Areas, community utilization of wildlife resources is permissible but it is
regulated with a view of ensuring its sustainability. Some of the activities regulated in
these areas under the Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Act (1992) include the
grazing of any stock therein and any conditions or limitations concerning the husbandry
of stock.
154
Lesotho
3. Lesotho is an egalitarian society where access to land is unrestricted. As a consequence,
therefore, natural resources and in particular biodiversity are under constant threat.
Threats to Lesotho's biodiversity resources are many and varied but all are human
induced. Habitat degradation, fragmentation, the impact of introduced species, and the
altered regimes (reservoirs and weirs) are all human induced threats to biodiversity and
rangeland health in Lesotho. Amongst all these threats, habitat destruction is considered
to be the most damaging and in particular threats relating to overgrazing and extensive
land clearing have resulted in the loss and fragmentation of habitat across the country
4. The government has established Range Management Areas specifically designated in the
mountain rangelands in which rights to graze one's livestock have been restricted by the
chief to a specific group of livestock owners who have formed themselves into a Grazing
Association. The impact of these will be reviewed within the project. Yet the grasslands
of Lesotho appear to be deteriorating at an alarming rate due to unsustainable range
management practices. At present, approximately 359,680 ha of rangeland have been
invaded by Karoo shrub, Chrysocoma ciliate sehalahala). This degraded area represents
about 16% of the entire rangeland, and incidents of lowland overgrazing are also
problematic.
5. The community led demonstration projects to be implemented will test various
approaches to management of commonly owned lands in Botswana and Lesotho based
on principles of sustainable use. The project will be designed and governed by the
communities themselves with the intention of creating local institutions that will allow
the communities to be self regulating and preserve resources. These local institutions will
be created within the boundaries of the national policies listed above and will serve as
model approaches to be used within the national and basin wide range land management
approaches.
7: Name and Post of Government Representatives endorsing the Demonstration Activity
To be determined during the inception phase.
8: Project Objectives and Activities
8.1 Background
6. Communal land tenure systems and ensuing consequences for land management are
pervasive throughout Sub-Saharan Africa. Communal land is owned by the State, while
its residents have usufruct rights over the land and its resources such as grazing. Group
rights and their enforcement have weakened and this undermines the ability of many
residents to prevent appropriation of their land by wealthy individuals and settlers and
herders from other areas. At the same time, traditional livelihoods, based on the use of
natural resources through livestock husbandry and cultivation of land, have come under
threat due to many human and natural causes. Traditional land management practices
evolved to adapt to the physical conditions of the southern Africa climate and
historically, resource use is considered to have been largely sustainable. Today, in the
Orange-Senqu basin, people on communal land still largely lead subsistence lifestyles,
due to traditional practices, and the absence of employment opportunities to earn
significant monetary incomes. As affordable alternatives are not available, food, fuel,
housing materials, and even medicines continue to be extracted directly from the land, in
most cases barely covering the needs of the respective resource users. Dependence on the
155
exploitation of natural resources locks residents into a cycle of short-term over-
exploitation of the resource from changing weather patterns, shifts in demographics and
increasing demands on the land. For example, traditional land use practices are
increasingly marginalized: rainfall, and therefore the availability of fodder are highly
variable in terms of time and space.
7. In the past, communities employed a flexible rangeland management system, moving
herds to distant pastures to benefit from better rainfall and grazing. Given severe
demographic pressures, sedentarisation is now a reality in most of the communal areas of
the basin, and the traditional practices of the more nomadic lifestyles of the past are no
longer sustainable. Currently the capacities of communities to make informed
management decisions are limited. Though some programmes in range land management
have been working towards this, an easy to operate, locally based decision-support
system providing information on important parameters like rangeland condition, bush
densities, carrying capacity, livestock condition and rainfall, is urgently needed. Based
on their own information, collected by themselves, resource users should be able to
identify problem areas and make appropriate mitigation decisions (e.g. marketing of
livestock, movement of livestock to key resource areas, additional fodder supply, etc).
Knowledge is necessary but not sufficient for sustainable land management. Especially
where sustainable land management involves investments of time and money (even if
only initially) favourable (economic) incentives and respect for traditional cultural
significance of livestock herds are also required. There is no single best approach and
therefore it is critical that multiple approaches are trialed and results compared in order
to address these challenges.
8. Apart from land tenure, weak or absent market systems in the rural economy lead to
coping strategies, which are often sub-optimal from the perspective of sustainable land
management. Markets and market infrastructure for other indigenous products (e.g.
reeds, crafts, skins) are little developed if existing at all, and participation of the local
communities in these are highly dependent on outside support. Where markets exist they
value pure extraction but not sustainable use, thus again leading to overexploitation of
the resources. The absence of these markets limits the opportunities of rural people to
diversify their livelihoods away from livestock production or extensive dryland
cultivation. At the same time, limited rural financial markets restrict saving and
borrowing possibilities. Commercial banks do not provide adequate banking facilities to
communal farmers on a regular basis, which leaves farmers with few options other than
to re-invest their money in livestock which leads to over grazing. A lack of alternate
income sources, from a functional small scale market system also increases dependence
on grazing of livestock.
9. Some of this is a legacy of the past (land tenure and land distribution), others arise from
present policy preferences which adhere to an economic development paradigm -
agriculture as the engine of growth and poverty eradication. At the bottom line however,
it clearly shows: poverty at local level leads to land degradation, which in turn erodes
livelihoods. Given these inter-linkages, combating land degradation in new and
innovative ways must form an integral part of any feasible poverty reduction strategy as
well as any sustainable development strategy.
10. The linkage between land use and water resource management under a integrated river
basin management (IRBM) approach is not well developed in the basin. Focus on has
been on the management of water resources through IWRM, balancing of the social,
economic and environmental demands for water, rather than the wider basin approach. It
156
is hoped that through this pilot project the interactions, both positive and negative,
between land use and water resources will become clearer and encourage more cross-
sectoral policy development.
8.2. Objectives and Activities
Objective:
11. The objective of the demonstration project is to empower local communities to address
landscape degradation resulting from overgrazing by implementing locally designed
agreed measures favouring sustainable management of communal land. The project will
rely on indigenous knowledge and understanding of the challenges of rangeland
degradation, the importance of rangelands in traditional culture, and the awareness of
degraded conditions. This will be supplemented by expertise in rangeland ecology and
sustainable development, which together with the selected communities will design and
implement a strategy to reduce pressures on sensitive areas, while also expanding
alternate sustainable economic opportunities for communities. The formation of this
local management strategy is based on proven principles for governing the communal
land: it will be applied within clearly defined boundaries; it will be sensitive to the
challenges of the local conditions; those who will be bound by the rules will participate
in deciding them; there will be an active internal monitoring system; if the rules are
broken the sanctions will be graduated as appropriate; there will be an agreed low-cost
easy access conflict resolution mechanism built into the system; there will need to be
government acceptance of the right of the organization to form and operate; and the
organization will work clearly within the confines of the existing legal institutions.
12. The project will be supported through local stakeholder activities and guidance and
designed with the intention of post-project long term sustainability, institutional fit with
other institutions, and training of trainers to enable the lessons learned here to be shared
with neighbouring communities facing similar challenges. Through respect for
indigenous knowledge, support of local institutions, development of alternate sources of
income, and a strong emphasis on replicability, this demonstration project seeks to
improve rangeland conditions while also preserving local understanding of the ecology
of these areas.
Output 1: Inception report and Site selection
Activity 1: Conduct literature review
13. The literature review will cover a wide array of strategies to determine best practices of
indigenous populations in implementation of range management and communal land
protection in environmentally sensitive areas. The review of projects will include arid
regions as well as mountainous highlands. Also the review will cover strategies of
projects implemented in targeted cultures that address environmental management of
communal lands.
Activity 2: Develop overall project plan based on recommendations from
stakeholders
14. The project team, including select members of ORASECOM's Basin Wide Stakeholder
Forum and National Stakeholder forums, will develop an overall project plan based on
findings of the literature review. The plan will be refined with inputs from local
specialists familiar with project implementation within communities, range land
ecologists, traditional leaders, farmers/ pastoralists, and local authorities, and community
organizations.
157
Activity 3: Develop site selection criteria for demonstration sites
15. Sites will be nominated and selected based on the weighted criteria developed by the
project team based on the literature and with inputs from stakeholders. It is anticipated
that two communities in each country will be selected. The criteria will likely consider
the following:
o likelihood of success and input of community for sustainability;
o potential for replication;
o current resources availability to the community;
o trends, challenges and conflicts existent in the area;
o potential for training local population to train others in neighbouring communities;
o inter-community tensions over resources, range land use and other issues;
o ethnic make-up as relevant;
o community leaders able and willing to accept responsibility for project
implementation.
Activity 4: Site selection
16. Based on the criteria and available communities the project will make the selection of
sites with inputs of project staff, experts, National Focal Points, and stakeholders. This
will also take into account other community based range land management practices
currently underway in the basin, and will work to compliment these efforts as
appropriate. The selection process will involve nomination of candidate communities,
through coordination with other development projects, project staff familiar with
communities within the basin, Wildlife Management Area affiliates in Botswana and
Grazing Association liaisons in Lesotho, and through the literature review. The candidate
sites will be visited by the project staff before final site selection.
Output 2: Assessment of baseline and identification of land management issues
Activity 1: Conduct baseline studies
17. With community leader and identified community stakeholders, the next step is to
identify the land management issues, major challenges, and potential solutions. Local
studies will be undertaken to establish baseline conditions, and will include
documentation of current management practices, photographic surveys, interviews with
the elderly who can relate how changes have occurred and assessments of the recent
climatic change impacts.
Activity 2: Conduct a community specific socio-economic evaluation
18. Concurrently with the assessment of the baseline, the project will conduct community
specific socio-economic evaluations. It will characterize the selected communities by
variables which will be needed for future comparison and replication. These include:
o The social role of herds within the traditional culture and impacts on existing herding
behaviours and beliefs regarding rangeland management;
o The economic importance of herding at local, district, national, and basin-wide
levels;
o The role of environment and environmental stewardship within communities via
surveys with individuals;
o The economic impact of current overgrazing practices, and impacts of alternate
scenarios;
o The shifts in gender roles, if any, as a result of demographic changes in the region;
158
o Potential for alternate income sources within the community that may decrease the
overall dependence on grazing for economic sustenance.
19. Following the socio-economic evaluations, the project will draft community specific
socio-economic reports to be presented at community meetings, emphasizing the range
of strategies available based on the scenarios developed within the literature review and
inception report.
Activity 3: Hold meeting with community to identify options
20. In order to decide how to best address and improve the conditions, the community will
be asked to gather at an open meeting for presentations on the strategies, the overall plan,
the summary findings of the baseline studies, and the results of the community specific
socio-economic evaluation. With as many community stakeholders as possible, the
meeting will select appropriate preliminary approaches to use within the specific
community. Community feedback throughout the meeting will be critical to ensure
support for the project and consensus building regarding rangeland management
strategies to be employed in the area.
Output 3: Formation of community land management committees (CLMCs)
Activity 1: Select CLMCs
21. At the open community meeting, the group will be asked to nominate members of a local
CLMC to provide more in depth information and to be directly involved with the project
implementation. The CLMC members will need to be closely related to the issues to be
addressed and able to commit time for meetings, assistance with monitoring and
evaluations. The CLMC members may include, inter alia, community elders, herders,
farmers, teachers, and community leaders. These members should be representative of
the community demographics and should be weighted for those who are most
economically dependent on animal husbandry.
Activity 2: Train CLMC
22. Once recruited, the CLMC will receive training on aspects of the project that will enable
them to implement and enforce the agreements made by the community, such as where
to graze, what times of year to use which pastures, and how to reduce range land erosion
and what the boundaries of the governed area include. Additionally, they will receive
more advanced training on principles of range land management, including issues of soil
degradation, desertification, and flora and fauna identification, rudimentary climatology,
and basic ecology. Monitoring and evaluation strategies will also be introduced to the
CLMC. In later parts of the project the CLMC will receive "training of trainers" and
curriculum implementation training to be shared with neighboring community.
Output 4: Develop management plan based on best practices, including long term
monitoring plan
Activity 1: Develop community specific management plans and alternate income
sources
23. Based on the inputs from the community meetings and CLMC trainings, the CLMC and
the project experts will develop a management plan based on best practices and
governance principles outlined in the project objectives to be applied locally. The plan
will need to conform to local traditional justice systems, as well as national laws and
regulations and will need formal support of the agencies responsible for oversight of
range land management. The management plans will be presented to the whole
159
community for comment and revision in order to insure acceptance and buy-in to the
project.
24. The management plan will set objectives and targets to restore the lands, as well as
explore options for alternate income sources for communities to reduce pressures
brought about by grazing. Though land tenure patterns will be difficult to adjust, they
will be addressed and where agreed, altered to enhance preservation of sensitive areas.
The alternate income activities, will be explored, which will need to stem from local
understanding of the needs and capacities and necessary support assessed.
Activity 2: Design of a long-term monitoring plan
25. The project experts and CLMC will develop and agree a long monitoring programme and
they will review the status of the grazing lands, and make certain that the strategy is
being implemented as agreed by the community. The monitoring plan will track the
implications of the alternate income source development, its impact on the communities
and potential for sustainability following project completion. The monitoring plan will
be presented to the community, emphasizing the involvement of herders, to garner
further support for the project, with clear delineation of the boundaries, protocols for
modifying the agreed rules, role of graduated sanctions, conflict resolution mechanisms,
and roles and responsibility of monitors.
Output 5: Implementation of Strategy and Final report
Activity 1: Implement management plans and alternate income strategies
26. The community and CLMCs will be asked to implement and police the agreed
management plan measures and using the monitoring plan to carefully track the benefits
and challenges faced on a regular basis. The project team will regularly visit sites to
ensure proper implementation and prepare site visit reports. Community monitoring
should be overseen by specialists and verified by visits as needed, and adjustments
supported in order to refine the strategies to fit the needs of the communities and the
ecological conditions.
Activity 2: Implementation reviews
27. Annual reviews of the management plan will be undertaken and adjustments made as
needed. This will include development of ideas on how to improve conditions for those
in communities who are not actively herding livestock, and initial steps towards
implementation of those efforts in conjunction with other development projects.
Activity 3: Final report
28. For each community and for the full demonstration project, reports will be drafted that
include implementation effectiveness, benefits and challenges of the project
implementation and detailed lessons learned.
Output 6: Adaptive Management and Learning
· Activity 1: Project implementation
Project implemented in a cost-effective manner in accordance with agreed work plans
and budgets
· Activity 2: Monitoring and Evaluation
In order to for the demonstration efforts to be most effective the monitoring of outputs,
both socially and technically should be carefully tracked using a specifically designed
monitoring and evaluation framework, in addition to the project logframe. The social
160
indicators should capture the stakeholder perceptions and concerns and improvement in
the environment whilst the economic indicators should include the levels of financial
benefits and capital investments generated.
Activity 3: Disseminate of results and replication strategy
The results of the final report will be widely disseminated through neighbouring
communities, to relevant national and regional stakeholders, and to the broader
community involved in range management. The project will develop a clear strategy for
it replication in the basin, region and in other parts of the world where similar conditions
exist.
8.3. End-of Project Landscape (Outputs) outcomes
29. At the conclusion of the demonstration project the following will be available:
A literature review of best practice in strategies for community based range land
management which will inform additional projects in the region, as well as within the
broader SADC and GEF portfolio of projects. This will include a set of criteria for site
selection and review of which strategies work most effectively in which conditions.
A baseline assessment of local conditions at selected sites, including physiological and
socio-economic factors which will influence project implementation. These baseline
assessments can serve as a model for future projects, and for future reviews of local
conditions.
Design and implementation of the project at the local level, by the local stakeholders will
provide a proven outline for community involvement and resource management projects,
with development of alternate income sources to diversify local economies. The reliance
on local understanding and knowledge, supplemented by experts as needed increases the
sense of project ownership, while also increasing sustainability and overall knowledge
base. Local stakeholders are always far more aware of local conditions and have much
higher incentives to adapt, especially when that knowledge is harnessed and treated with
the respect it deserves. This sets a precedent of increasing strategy effectiveness by
building on local knowledge which will benefit similar projects throughout the GEF
portfolio.
· Since these strategies will be locally and legally legitimate within the contexts of existing
traditions and regulations and because members of the CLMC have been trained as
trainers, additional projects are expected to emerge. It is assumed that they will be
sustainable within the communities.
· Improved range land conditions through decline in non-sustainable grazing practices,
allowing for long term adherence to traditional activities, while improving local
capacities and conditions
Increased empowerment of local communities to address the challenges of rangeland
management based on indigenous knowledge and documentation of this knowledge for
future generations
9. Rationale for GEF Involvement and Fit with GEF Operational Programmes and Strategic
Priorities
161
30. This demonstration project matches the GEF Operational Programmes and Strategic
Priorities through emphasizing community involvement in addressing trans-boundary
challenges, that focuses on combining local knowledge and action with experienced from
around the world. This project has potential for replication in communities throughout
the basin/ region, and in areas where common property management requires innovative
solutions that result in concrete outcomes.
31. This demonstration project also builds on the applied principals of integrated land and
water management, through activities specifically designed to reduce anthropogenic
impacts on sensitive landscapes, and improvement of conditions impacting water flows
within the basin. This is done through reduced land degradation and desertification so
that ecosystem function can be improved.
10. Project Management Structure and Accountability
32. The project will be contracted under international tender procedures. There will be an
open invitation for expressions of interest and a short-list of tenderers will be assembled
in consultation with ORASECOM. The project execution will be over seen by the GEF
Project Coordination Unit based in the ORASECOM secretariat. A demonstration
Project Implementation Unit (PIU) will be established with satellite offices at each
demonstration site. The PIU will report to the GEF project manager and the national
project coordinators who in turn will report to the National Focal Points. The
demonstration project through the PCU shall report regularly to the Steering Committee.
11. Stakeholders and Beneficiaries:
33. The stakeholders involved in this project, and the beneficiaries include local rural
communities within the region, herdsmen, traditional leaders, farmers/ pastoralists, local
authorities, community organizations, as well as ecologists, conservationists, educators,
and public health care providers.
12: Long-term Sustainability Strategy
34. The long term sustainability for this project is built into the project design by the
implementing community design. The project is based on the recipients' needs rather
those of the donor. The self regulation of the management plan is an ideal aspect of the
plan's sustainability and will need to be carefully nurtured. The long-term monitoring
plan and regular reporting on its results will demonstrate the management plan's
effectiveness, and should provide stakeholders with clear incentives to continue to
implement the project.
13: Replicability
35. The project includes a literature review and investigation of socio economic and
physiological conditions that impact project strategy and implementation. The array of
options that will be presented to the communities on strategies for community based
range land management can be used with other similar projects and the methodology
employed here will be further refined with the intention of being applied elsewhere. The
training of trainers component will also enable the lessons learned here to be spread to
neighboring communities by local stakeholders. The final project report includes
recommendations for additional replication in other communities in the basin and wider
region.
14: Monitoring and Evaluation Process
36. The Project Coordination Unit will produce a brief quarterly Progress Report updating
the Steering Committee and the project Execution and Implementation Agencies on the
162
progress of the pilot project based on the approved Logical Framework Matrix (Annex 1)
and the project work plan (Annex 2). Once every year a detailed report will be submitted
through the Steering Committee to the Executing Agencies. This report will provide a
full review of the work plan to identify project achievements and deliveries versus the
approved schedule, budget expenditures, recommendations with respect to any
amendments to workplan and budget, staff contracting and performance, and any other
information required by the Steering Committee and/or the Executing Agencies.
37. The demonstration project will also be subject to:
· Internal Project Implementation Reviews to be conducted by the PC and submitted to the
implementing agency every six months.
· An independent final project evaluation to be undertaken in conjunction with the
Terminal Evaluation for the FSP.
38. The project evaluations will be carried out in accordance with UNDP-GEF requirements
and will cover all aspects of the project. They will include: an assessment of (a) the
outcomes generated, (b) the processes used to generate them, (c) project impacts, and d)
lessons learned. Advice will be given on how the M&E results can be used to adjust the
work if needed and on how to replicate the results in the region.
15: Co-Funding
39. The total cost of the pilot project is US$1,350,000 The total contribution requested from
GEF is US$850,000 within a 4 year period (see budget below for details).
TOTAL PROJECT WORKPLAN AND BUDGET
Award ID:
Project Title: Improve range land management in the Orange-Senqu River Basin
GEF Outcome/Atlas
Sub-components
Amount ($)
Amount ($) Amount ($) Amount ($)
Total ($)
Activity**
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
All Years
1. Inception report
1. Conduct literature review
10,000
10,000
and site selection
2. Develop overall project
plan based on
20,000
20,000
recommendations from
stakeholders
3. Develop site selection
criteria for demonstration
5,000
5,000
sites
4. Make selection of sites
15,000
15,000
Sub-total
50,000
50,000
2. Baseline
1. Conduct baseline studies
30,000
30,000
assessment
2. Conduct a community
specific socio-economic
10,000
10,000
evaluation
3. Hold meeting with
community to identify the
10,000
10,000
problems, root causes and
options for addressing these
Sub-total
50,000
50,000
3. Formation of
1. Select CLMC
5,000,
5,000
community land
2. Train CLMC
20,000 25,000
45,000
management
committees
Sub-total
25,000
25,000
50,000
163
4. Develop
1. Develop community
management plan
specific management plans
50,000
50,000
based and long-term
and alternate income sources
monitoring plan
2. Design a long-term
30,000
30,000
monitoring plan
Sub-total
50,000
30,000
80,000
5. Implement of
1. Implement management
management plan
plan and alternate income
and final report
strategy
2. compare to baseline and
200,000
150,000 350,000
adjust on regular basis
3. Final Report
20,000
20,000
20,000
Sub-total
200,000
150,000
370,000
6. Adaptive
1.Project implemented in a
Management and
cost-effective manner in
Learning
accordance with agreed work
plans and budgets
2. Monitoring and Evaluation
Plan provides inputs for
10,000
10,000
10,000
30,000
robust adaptive management
3. A clearly defined
mechanism for replication of
20,000
20,000
the programme
10,000
10,000
30,000
50,000
Total
175,000 265,000 160,000 50,000 650,000
164
ANNEX 1
Improved Rangeland Management Practices
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Sources of Verification
Assumptions and Risks
OUTCOME
Improved land/range management Demonstration of self-governance in land/range management in selected communities, principally in Lesotho and Botswana.
ACTIVITIES 1. Inception report and site selection
Conduct literature review
Project Plan and inception report
Project Plan and inception report
Develop overall plan based on
drafted-PI
Appropriate sites selected
Sites criteria defined and site selected-
Criteria and site selection report
recommendations from stakeholders
PI
Develop sit selection criteria for
demonstration sites
Make selection of sites
2. Assessment of baseline and identification of
land management issues
Conduct baseline studies
Baseline assessment conducted-ESI
Baseline reflective of actual conditions
Baseline assessment
Socio-economic evaluation using
Conduct a community specific socio-
appropriate variables
economic evaluation
Socio-economic study drafted-ESI
Socioeconomic evaluation
Hold meeting with community to identify
Community committees have appropriate
the root causes and options
authority to over see project implementation
3. Formation of community land management
committees with stakeholder advisory forums
Community land management
Community committee meeting minutes
Stakeholder advisory forum supportive of
Select SHAF
committees/stakeholder forums formed-
project goals
PI
Management plans
Train SHAF
4. Develop management plan based on best
practice, including M&E framework.
Develop community specific management
Management plans developed-PI
Applicability of best practices
Evaluation and lessons learned report
plans
Design a M& E framework
5. Implement improvement measures
Implement management plan
Compare to baseline and adjust on regular
Improvement measures designed and
Report on implementation
Improvement measures effective
implemented- SRI
basis
6. Monitor and disseminate results
Verify monitoring with specialists
Results disseminated--PI
Dissemination materials
Project replicability
Draft report on lessons learned
7. Adaptive Management and Learning
Lessons learned report drafted to
Replication of project and findings
Project implemented in a cost-effective
Study report on replicability of study
include budget review and
manner in accordance with agreed work recommendations for additional
Project budget review
165
Improved Rangeland Management Practices
Objectively Verifiable Indicators
Sources of Verification
Assumptions and Risks
plans and budgets
activities
Monitoring and Evaluation Plan provides
inputs for robust adaptive management
A clearly defined mechanism for replication
of the Environmental Flow programme to be
implemented in comparable situations
166
ANNEX 2
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Component and Activities
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Outcome 1: Inception report and site selection
Activity 1: Conduct literature review
Activity 2: Develop overall plan based on recommendations from stakeholders
Activity 3: Develop sit selection criteria for demonstration sites
Activity 4: Make selection of sites
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Component and Activities
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Outcome 2: Assessment of baseline and identification of land management issues
Activity 1: Conduct baseline studies
Activity 2: Conduct a community specific socio-economic evaluation
Activity 3: Hold meeting with community to identify the options
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Component and Activities
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Outcome 3: Formation of community land management committees with stakeholder advisory
forums
167
Activity 1: Select CLMC
Activity 2: Train CLMC
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Component and Activities
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Outcome 4: Develop management plan based on best practice, including long-term monitoring
plan.
Activity 1: Develop community specific management plans and alternate income strategies
Activity 2: Design of long-term monitoring plan
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Component and Activities
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Outcome 5: Implement management plan and Final repot
Activity 1: Implement management plan
Activity 2: Implementation review
Activity 3: Final Report
168
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Component and Activities
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
Outcome 6: Adaptive Management and Learning
Activity 1: Project Implementation
Activity 2: Monitoring and Evaluation
Activity
:
Dissemination
of
results
169
PART VI: Orange-Senqu Water Resource and Environment Programme integrated workplan
See the separate excel file titled "ORASECOM Integrated Work Plan."
170
ANNEX 1: Stakeholder Involvement Plan
Stakeholder Involvement Strategy
for the UNDP/GEF Project
Development and Implementation of the Strategic Action Programme
for the Orange-Senqu River Basin
171
Introduction:
1. Stakeholder involvement in trans-boundary projects increases the range of opinions, ideas
and participating populations. In cases where multi-stakeholder involvement has not been
widely utilized in decision making processes, or where there are groups who have been
marginalized by the norms ingrained in the decision making process, a stakeholder
involvement strategy provides guidance for increasing inclusion and a sense of ownership
among a broad array of stakeholder groups. The benefits of increased stakeholder
involvement in project development and implementation includes obtaining inputs and
diverse perspectives from stakeholder groups, incorporating these into project design,
development and implementation. Additional benefits include increasing sustainability of
project impacts by increasing the range of stakeholders whose interests are met by the
project and through an enhanced sense of region wide responsibility for common
resources.
2. The rationale for developing a stakeholder involvement strategy for the Orange-Senqu
River is that until recently low levels of attention have been paid to the need to secure
broad-based public support for uses associated with the Orange Senqu River Basin. The
ORASECOM Roadmap for Stakeholder Participation has been commissioned in order to
address this oversight through development of an over arching guiding document for
ORASECOM. It is anticipated that this Roadmap will provide broad guidance for how to
increase stakeholder input into decision making of ORASECOM and will provide
guidance for ORASECOM about how to appeal to the broader public as beneficiaries of
the efforts undertaken by ORASECOM. Additionally, it is anticipated that this Roadmap
will provide ORASECOM with suggested activities that can be undertaken in order to
facilitate stakeholder buy-in to ORASECOM activities to be implemented primarily at the
national level and utilizing formal civil society stakeholder organizations.
3. In conjunction with the Roadmap, this UNDP/GEF Project Stakeholder Involvement
Strategy focuses specifically on the objectives of the UNDP/GEF Orange-Senqu River
Basin Project and will delineate the activities and tactics to meet the stakeholder
involvement objective of obtaining high quality contributions to the project development
and implementation from engaged, diverse and informed stakeholder groups. This will
include activities to ensure multi-stakeholder inputs into the Strategic Action Programme,
and determining public awareness building and outreach activities, education targeting
specific stakeholder groups, public involvement components in demonstration projects,
and monitoring and evaluation of the effectiveness of the project.
4. This will be accomplished through a series of activities based on creating a dynamic flow
of information to and from the project staff based on a variety of stakeholder ideas and
opinions, and allowing a significant portion of the public and stakeholder involvement to
be driven by the stakeholders themselves. The findings of the Stakeholder Analysis
conducted during the PDF-B phase of the project serve as the empirical basis for both the
specific issues to be addressed and approaches to be employed to reduce tensions between
groups through collective action towards common goals.
5. The activities of the UNDP/GEF Stakeholder Involvement Strategy are intended to link
with the activities of other ORASCOM component projects such as the French GEF,
BMZ/GTZ, InWEnt and EU, as well as others working on related activities. Additionally,
it is anticipated that the Stakeholder Involvement Strategy will be based on and fully in
line with the ORASECOM Roadmap.
6. This strategy outlines the activities of the Stakeholder Involvement Strategy (SIS)
through: description of the activity; rationale; recommended tactics for accomplishing the
172
activity; timeframe within the project; and, suggested monitoring indicators. Definitions
for major terms used in this strategy are available in Annex 1.
7. This strategy should be viewed as a framework for more specific actions within the
project that will be developed as the project is implemented relying on stakeholder inputs
during the SAP development phase of the full sized projects (FSP). This will include
constructing a project communication strategy to facilitate broad project outreach and
public awareness, public involvement inputs into the demonstration projects, and
monitoring of project effectiveness and impacts. It is expected that fulfilment of the
strategy will include exchange of knowledge, ideas, challenges and experiences between
communities from various other river basins in southern Africa, including the Okavango,
Incomati, Zambezi and the Limpopo, as well as other trans-boundary water projects.
Background information
8. The need to support stakeholder involvement and public participation in trans-boundary
water management within the UNDP/GEF OSRB Project is based on the findings of the
stakeholder analysis, and the need to meet the needs of multiple stakeholder groups with
an interest in and/or impact on the ecology of the river basin while avoiding exacerbating
tensions among stakeholder groups. The combination of these two will determine the
makeup of the Basin Wide Stakeholder Forum (BWSF) and will contribute to the
formation of the National Stakeholder Fora (SHF), as well as provide direction for the
implementation of the strategy.
9. The Stakeholder Analysis (SHA) for the UNDP/GEF OSRB Project was conducted in
February-June 2007. The first phase involved qualitative analysis based on in-depth
person to person interviews with over 35 stakeholders in all OSRB countries. This was
followed by development of stakeholder analysis surveys administered to over 500
stakeholders representing 37 distinct stakeholder groups in Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia,
and South Africa. The survey was designed to gauge stakeholder group opinions,
concerns and priorities regarding the specific issues addressed by the UNDP/GEF OSRB
Project. These surveys were statistically analyzed and the findings combined with those
from the qualitative analysis.
10. The findings of the SHA suggests that there is a need to include a much broader range of
stakeholders in the process of decision making so that the needs of many groups can be
addressed in a way that does not infringe upon the needs of others. The SHA
demonstrated that there were potential tensions between stakeholder groups. These are
detailed in the full SHA, and the SIS was designed to assist the project in taking steps to
assuage these potential tensions through cooperative mechanisms and goal oriented
efforts.
Objective and activities:
11. As noted above the primary objective of the strategy is to obtain quality contributions into
the project development and implementation from engaged, diverse and informed
stakeholders through inputs into project planning/design, implementation and monitoring
of the activities at the national and regional levels. This is to be accomplished through a
set of 5 activities stemming from the findings of the SHA and emanating from the inputs
of the regional BWSF and National SHF.
I. Create four national stakeholder fora and one Basin Wide Stakeholder
Forum (BWSF) based on findings of the completed stakeholder analysis and
drawing on inputs from a wide array of stakeholder groups with diverse
interests within the Orange-Senqu river basin.
173
II. Provide input into the project development, including Strategic Action
Programme development and demonstration project implementation
through the BWSF with linkages to national stakeholder fora charged with
supporting National Orange-Senqu Action Programmes.
III. Based on the input of the BWSF, develop an iterative communication
and outreach strategy for the project that emphasizes broad public
awareness building and specific stakeholder group targeted education
activities to be implemented through a small grants programme.
IV. Develop hands-on stakeholder and public involvement activities at the
local level in close coordination with the project SAP Demonstration Projects
to be implemented by relevant role-players within the basin.
V. Create and maintain an empirical mechanism to monitor and evaluate the
effectiveness of the activities to determine what works, what needs
improvement and how sustainable efforts are without long term project
funding.
12. This work will be done in accordance with the ORASECOM Roadmap, and will be
linked to the activities of the Roadmap. It is intended that these activities will be the
starting point for the implementation of the ORASECOM Roadmap and they will be
mutually reinforcing and complimentary. These efforts will also coordinate with and
compliment other national, basin wide and regional projects in order to minimize
redundancy and increase complimentary efforts.
13. The following section outlines the tactics that may be employed to accomplish these
activities. Additions and adjustments will be made as the project develops and more
information becomes available.
I. Create four national stakeholder fora (SHF) and one Basin Wide Stakeholder Forum
(BWSF) for the project based on findings of the completed stakeholder analysis and
drawing on inputs from a wide array of stakeholder groups with diverse interests within
the Orange-Senqu river basin.
14. In order for the public involvement strategy to most accurately reflect the needs,
concerns and priorities of stakeholders within the region, it will be critical that
stakeholders from a broad spectrum of interests and backgrounds are represented on the
Basin Wide Forum and the Stakeholder Forum at both the national and basin levels. The
make-up of these groups will be based on the findings of the stakeholder analysis and will
be selected based on the division over particular project related issues, the degree of
salience within specific stakeholder groups and the degree to which these stakeholders are
impacted by the conditions.
15. In accordance with ORASECOM's Roadmap for Public Participation the national SHF
and BWSF will focus on those groups who do not have a formal voice within the
decision making process at the regional level. This will include stakeholders from: Non-
Governmental Organization (NGOs), scientists, industrial sector, mining industry
representatives, construction industry representatives, agro-industry representatives,
regional government officials, district water management officials, municipal government
officials, municipal waste manager, nature preserve staff, community based organizations
(CBOs), educators and teachers, students, farmers, pastoralists, public health care
174
providers, member of community near the river, tourism and recreation industry officials
and employees, press and media.
16. Other officials from various government sectors may be invited by ORASECOM
members to participate in the SHF and BWSF as appropriate. Members of international
funding institutions and bilateral development agencies and governmental sectors also are
stakeholders who may be included in project activities as appropriate; however they will
not be participating members of the BWSF.
17. The members of the BWSF will be be elected from amidst the members of the national
SHFs.
18. Both the BWSF and SHFs will be run on a consensus based decision making model, with
no member given more prominence than any other, regardless of social, economic, or
political standing. The emphasis will be placed on building mutual respect, consideration
and understanding. The goal of these groups is to create win-win positive sum situations
whenever possible, and in cases where it is not, to reduce negative impacts on
stakeholders.
II. Provide input into the project development, including Strategic Action Programme
(SAP) development and demonstration project implementation through the BWSF with
linkages to national SHFs charged with supporting National Action Programmes for the
Orange-Senqu.
19. Initially members of the national SHFs and the BWSF will be introduced to the project
through a workshop that explains the UNDP/GEF TDA/SAP approach, the findings of the
stakeholder analysis, the work of the Technical Task Team and the resulting
recommendations that emerge from those.
20. The BWSF will then be charged with reviewing the TDA for back ground information,
and will be asked to specifically comment on the feasibility and additions to the
recommendations that emerge from that. While these recommendations may or may not
be followed it is anticipated that this will familiarize the BWSF members with SAP
Ecosystem Quality Objectives (EQOs), and set the stage for the development and
contributions to the UNDP/GEF OSRB Project Basin Vision.
21. The BWSF will be asked to assist the project to develop the final version of the Basin
Vision, and to work with the project and SAP Formulation Team members to develop
meaningful EQOs that will favour win-win situations, address concerns of multiple
stakeholders in the region and be realistically attainable.
22. The national SHF will also play a similar role to the BWSF with regards to the
development of the National Action Plans, though where national planning procedures
already allow for stakeholder input their involvement may be less critical. It is hoped that
these groups will be able to have an impact and work with National Coordinators to
improve conditions for stakeholders at the local and national levels.
23. The BWSF will also be charged with assisting the project to determine optimal public and
stakeholder involvement activities to support and compliment the GEF Pilot Projects. It is
hoped that these pilot projects will provide a model for public participation in future SAP
implementation. This is more fully developed in Activity IV below.
175
III. Based on the input of the BWSF and national SHFs, develop an iterative
communication and outreach strategy for the project that emphasizes broad public
awareness building and specific stakeholder group targeted education activities to be
implemented through a small grants programme.
24. An iterative communication and outreach strategy for the UNDP/GEF OSRB Project is
intended to reach a broad array of stakeholders, and the general public, as well as more
specific and targeted stakeholder groups. The messages to be send to these will be
different and based on both awareness raising about the nature of the challenges to the
Orange-Senqu River environment, and shifting behaviours and actions of specific
stakeholders to reduce negative impacts on the environment.
25. A second more focused effort will be developed to increase educational outreach to
specific stakeholder groups through targeted activities specifically outlined in the
stakeholder involvement component of the project document and the demonstration
projects. The intention is to increase awareness and introduce alternative practices to
stakeholders in the region. These efforts will be focused on specific stakeholder groups,
such as public health care providers, sustenance farmers, ranchers, or educators. The
approach will be to demonstrate the logic behind current approaches, the empirical
evidence of the impacts of these approaches, and introduction of alternative practices.
26. The BWSF will serve as the body that provides the critical inputs for the more detailed
development and implementation of the strategy and the specific stakeholder education
projects based on the findings of the SHA and the TDA. The BWSF will be asked to help
identify specific areas where these efforts will be most effective and then develop specific
messages to target groups and over all awareness building. The support of an
environmental communications expert may be obtained in order to ensure optimal outputs
and strategy design. The communication and outreach strategy should use social
marketing approaches to reach the public and should be done through a series of iterated
activities and information campaigns so that they can build on one another, and increase
understanding and need for action gradually and more effectively. This will be based on
the strategy guidelines developed by UNDP/GEF in the manual "Communicating for
Results! A Communications Planning Guide for International Waters Projects"
27. Once the efforts and activities have been identified and initially developed through the
strategy, expressions of interest including specific approaches to be used, budgets, trans-
boundary areas and such will be solicited from trans-boundary partners. These will be
awarded based on criteria established by the BWSF and will be supported through
activity specific small grants administered by the project. The small grants will have a
specific monitoring and evaluation criteria and may be administered based on the criteria
for NGO selection set by ORASECOM within the Roadmap.
V. Develop hands-on stakeholder and public involvement activities at the local level in
close coordination with the project SAP Demonstration Projects to be implemented by
relevant role players within the region.
28. The BWSF and concerned national SHFs will also be charged with advising the project in
the development of public involvement activities that are directly linked to the technical
demonstration project to be implemented during the SAP development phase of the
project. The BWSF will provide ideas, and assist in the development of strategies to
increase the public in communities near the selected sites for the demonstration projects.
It is anticipated that the respective BWSF and national SHF members will have a unique
set of vantage points that can provide much needed understanding of how these issues are
currently viewed and how communities can be recruited to assist in the project, and as a
result become more invested in the outcomes.
176
29. For these activities, the BWSF will assist in the development of ideas, provide criteria for
selection for proposals from NGOs and other relevant organisations, and devise
monitoring and evaluation indicators for the pubic involvement strategy. These activities
will be conducted in line with activities of the ORASECOM Roadmap and will, where
possible and appropriate, reflect the findings of the IW:LEARN B4 Component on
Improving Public Involvement in GEF IWPs.
VI. Create and maintain an empirical mechanism to monitor and evaluate the
effectiveness of the activities to determine what works, what needs improvement and
how sustainable efforts are without long term project funding.
30. A significant challenge to the field of public participation and stakeholder involvement is
adequate and meaningful monitoring and evaluation of activities. The causality of
changes in behaviours, the impacts of outreach activities, and the effectiveness of projects
are often inappropriately measured and lack empirical validity. As such it becomes
difficult to know if the activities had the intended impacts. Therefore this strategy
includes the development of an empirical mechanism to monitor and evaluate the
effectiveness of activities. This is intended to gauge what is effective, where
improvements can be made and how to increase long term sustainability after funding
from the project is no longer driving activities.
31. A second end-of-project stakeholder analysis should be conducted to identify where
changes have or have not been effective. This will be based on the findings of the initial
SHA and target specific issues and stakeholders identified as critical during the FSP
phase of the project. Additionally, the broader public will also be surveyed to determine if
the project has had inputs on the specific groups. This will be a significant portion of the
monitoring and evaluation of the communication strategy and stakeholder education
activities.
32. A critical review meeting will be held with project staff and select members of the BWSF
to determine the quality and impact of inputs into the SAP development. It is anticipated
that there will be significant lessons to be learned through this and the critical review
meeting will provide an opportunity to assess the positive and negative impacts of this so
that both this and future projects can benefit from the findings and conclusions reached in
this meeting.
33. Finally, BWSF, the concerned national SHFs and project staff will be charged with
reviewing the impacts of the public involvement in the demonstration project activities.
These will be reviewed in terms of the unique approaches employed, the receptivity of
communities and the long term impacts these activities have on communities.
34. The final output from the monitoring and evaluation of the public participation and
stakeholder involvement activities will be critically reviewed and lessons learned report
will be produced to provide information for related projects and inputs, as well as for
ORASECOM to consider for future public involvement activities.
177
Stakeholder Involvement Strategy ANNEX 1
Definition of Terms
There are several terms that continue to present conceptual challenges to the development of
public involvement strategies. The terms "public", "stakeholder", and "participation", are
routinely, and often erroneously, interchanged in discussions and project designs. The
working definitions for this particular strategy are as follows:
Public: The population as a whole, including a wide array of stakeholders, both those active
and latent, who are not specifically defined by their status as members of other professional,
social, civic, hedonistic, or economic stakeholder groups in relation to the river basin.
Stakeholder: A member of a specifically defined group sharing a common interest in river
issues, based on professional, social, civic, hedonistic, or economic concerns. It is possible
that an individual can be a member of several stakeholder groups at the same time.
Stakeholder interests can be active and organized or latent and unorganized. Stakeholders can
be actively or passively involved in the issues addressed by the project. They can either be
impacted by and/or impacting the issues addressed by the project.
Stakeholders for this project include the following groups: Non-Governmental Organization
(NGOs), scientists, industrial sector, mining industry representatives, construction industry
representatives, agro-industry representatives, regional government officials, district water
management officials, municipal government officials, municipal waste manager, nature
preserve staff, community based organizations (CBOs), educators and teachers, students,
farmers, pastoralists, public health care providers, member of community near the river,
tourism and recreation industry officials and employees, press and media, and members of
international Funding Institution and bilateral development agencies. Governmental sectors
also are stakeholders who may be included in project activities as appropriate.
Participation: The act of taking part in activities of the project in order to reach the goal of a
healthier Orange-Senqu River system. This may be done through receptive participation, in
terms of receiving information and education about actions that can be taken to improve
conditions, and through active participation by taking part in activities and potentially
continuing to be involved in those activities.
Involvement: Making a direct contribution to the project through providing direct input and
assisting in guiding the project design and development. Involvement is more dynamic and
multidirectional than participation, and stresses a sense of ownership through consensus
building and extended interactions based on establishing and maintaining an ongoing
relationship with the project, and project activities.
Therefore a stakeholder involvement strategy involves encompassing the broader public
through interactions specifically designed to support the participation of a wide array of
stakeholders in activities in support of the project.
178
Stakeholder Group
Type of involvement
1. Water, Hydro-
Interministerial/interdepartmental/interdepartmental Committee, Technical working group, Review
meteorological
Team, Capacity building, SAP/NAP Development working group, BW Water Preservation Campaign
Department/Ministry
support, Education outreach, Demonstration project(s)
2. Conservation/Environmenta Interministerial/interdepartmental/interdepartmental Committee, Technical working group, Review
l Dept./Ministry
Team, Capacity building, SAP/NAP Development, BW Water Preservation Campaign support,
Education outreach, Demonstration project(s)
3. Fisheries Dept./Ministry
Interministerial/interdepartmental/interdepartmental Committee, Technical working group, Review
Team, SAP/NAP Development, BW Water Preservation Campaign support, Demonstration project(s)
4. Industry Dept./Ministry
Interministerial/interdepartmental/interdepartmental Committee, Review Team, SAP/NAP Development
5. Energy Dept./Ministry
Interministerial/interdepartmental/interdepartmental Committee, Review Team, SAP/NAP Development
6. Mining regulation agency
Interministerial/interdepartmental/interdepartmental Committee, Technical working group, Review
Team, BW Water Preservation Campaign support, Demonstration project(s)
7. Finance Dept./Ministry
Interministerial/interdepartmental/interdepartmental Committee, Review Team, , Demonstration
project(s)
8. Foreign Affairs
Interministerial/interdepartmental/interdepartmental Committee, Review Team, International Legal
Dept./Ministry
review, SAP/NAP Development, , Demonstration project(s)
9. Agriculture Dept./Ministry Interministerial/interdepartmental/interdepartmental Committee, Technical working group, Review
Team, SAP/NAP Development, BW Water Preservation Campaign support, , Demonstration project(s)
10. Social Welfare / Public
Interministerial/interdepartmental/interdepartmental Committee, Technical working group, Review
Health Dept./Ministry
Team, SAP/NAP Development, BW Water Preservation Campaign support, ,Demonstration project(s)
11. Labour Dept./Ministry
Interministerial/interdepartmental/interdepartmental Committee, SAP/NAP Development
12. Elected politician
SAP/NAP Development support, BWSF/NSHF, Demonstration project(s)
13. Water management
Technical working group, Review Team, Review Team, Capacity building, BW Water Preservation
parastatal
Campaign support, Demonstration project(s)
14. Power utility
Review Team, BWSF/NSHF, BW Water Preservation Campaign support, , Demonstration project(s)
15. Tourism/Recreation Sector Review Team, BWSF/NSHF, BW Water Preservation Campaign support, Education outreach ,
Demonstration project(s)
16. Mining sector
Review Team, BWSF/NSHF, BW Water Preservation Campaign support, , Demonstration project(s)
17. Industrial sector (factory)
Review Team, BWSF/NSHF, BW Water Preservation Campaign support, , Demonstration project(s)
18. Construction industry
BWSF/NSHF, BW Water Preservation Campaign support, , Demonstration project(s)
19. Agro-industry
Review Team, BWSF/NSHF, BW Water Preservation Campaign support, ,Demonstration project(s)
20. National/regional
Technical working group, Review Team, Capacity building, SAP/NAP Development, BWSF/NSHF,
government official
BW Water Preservation Campaign support, Demonstration project(s)
21. District water management Review Team, Capacity building, BWSF/NSHF, BW Water Preservation Campaign support,
official
Education outreach, Demonstration project(s)
22. Municipal Government
Capacity building, BWSF/NSHF, BW Water Preservation Campaign support, Education outreach,
Demonstration project(s)
23. Municipal waste official
Capacity building, BWSF/NSHF, BW Water Preservation Campaign support, Demonstration project(s)
24. Non-Governmental
Review Team, Capacity building, BWSF/NSHF, BW Water Preservation Campaign support,
Organization (NGO)
Education outreach, NGO Forum, , Demonstration project(s)
25. Scientists
Technical working group, Review Team, Capacity building, BWSF/NSHF, BW Water Preservation
Campaign support,, Education outreach, NGO Forum, , Demonstration project(s)
26. Conservationist
Technical working group, Review Team, Capacity building, BWSF/NSHF, BW Water Preservation
Campaign support, NGO Forum,, Demonstration project(s)
27. Community based
Review Team, BWSF/NSHF, BW Water Preservation Campaign support, Education outreach, NGO
organization (CBO)/
Forum, , Demonstration project(s)
Village development
committee
28. Educator/teacher/academic Capacity building, BWSF/NSHF, BW Water Preservation Campaign support, Education outreach,
NGO Forum, , Demonstration project(s)
29. Student or youth group
BWSF/NSHF, Education outreach
member
30. Stock Farmer
BWSF/NSHF, BW Water Preservation Campaign support, , Demonstration project(s)
31. Factory farmer (chickens,
BWSF/NSHF, BW Water Preservation Campaign support,
feed-lot piggery)
32. Irrigation Farmer
BWSF/NSHF, BW Water Preservation Campaign support, , Demonstration project(s)
33. Dry land cropping farmer
BWSF/NSHF, Demonstration project(s)
34. Health care provider
BWSF/NSHF, Education outreach, Demonstration project(s), Demonstration project(s)
35. Member of community
BWSF/NSHF, BW Water Preservation Campaign support, Education outreach, Demonstration
living near the river
project(s)
36. Press/media
BWSF/NSHF, BW Water Preservation Campaign support, Education outreach, NGO Forum,,
Demonstration project(s)
37. International Funding
Review Team, Donors Meeting, NGO Forum, , Demonstration project(s)
Institution/ Bilateral
development org.
179
Annex 2: Stakeholder Analysis
Development and Implementation of the Strategic Action Programme
for the Orange-Senqu River Basin
UNDP/GEF
STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS
February July
2007
180
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Trans-boundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) for the UNDP/GEF Development
and Implementation of the Strategic Action Programme for the Orange-Senqu River
Basin calls for a Stakeholder Analysis (SHA) based on GEF International Water
Projects (IWP) Best Practices. This Qualitative SHA is a key component and results
from a set of interviews conducted with stakeholders in the countries of Botswana,
Lesotho, Namibia, and Republic of South Africa in February and March of 2007. The
Quantitative SHA (QN SHA) was developed and implemented between February and
June 2007, and involved survey based analysis of more that 400 stakeholders from 37
groups across the basin.
This Stakeholder Analysis report includes an introduction of the project and the place
of the SHA in the project, followed by a short review of the methodology employed
and a list of stakeholders interviewed and their respective professional positions. The
SHA then outlines the specific findings based on these interviews, including the
salience levels for specific stakeholder groups. These findings are delineated by major
themes identified during the QL SHA interview processes. These themes are:
Water quantity
Impacts of Climate Change on water regime including quality, quantity and
ecosystems
Water regime influences on biodiversity
Water quality
Other social and economic issues impacting project design and implementation
This analysis was conducted in two major segments, a Qualitative SHA (QL SHA)
and a Quantitative SHA (QN SHA). The QN SHA is based on 36 interviews in
Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and South Africa with employees of departments
dealing with environmental affairs, tourism, water affairs, meteorology, forestry,
agriculture, national water managers and parastatals, agronomic boards, mining
industry, scientists, NGOs, tour guides, river community members, members of
ORASECOM, and other international organizations working on other ORASECOM
projects, including French GEF, and BMZ/GTZ.
In more detail, the main issues of concern voiced during of the SHA interviews are:
Stakeholders had two sets of concerns related to water quality and the current flow
regime in the river basin. The first set of concerns was on the policies for current use
and the second set was on the impacts of those policies. The current policies are
perceived to favour short term economic development needs such as industrial
development, energy industry, and non-sustainable agriculture practices. Stakeholders
voiced a concern that South Africa as the major economic power in the basin drives
the majority of water use policy; with a ripple effect that impacts the full basin. The
impact of policies for water use in the basin cited as concerns for stakeholders were
the lack of monitoring of abstraction rates throughout the basin, depletion of
groundwater resources, impact on the natural ecology throughout the basin, lack of
adequate amounts of potable water for communities in some portions of the river
basin, and regulated river flows that are not in accordance with natural seasonal flow
variation.
181
Stakeholders raised concerns about the potential impacts of climate change as it
related to the current water regime as well, with specific concerns regarding the
impact of reduced water quantity and quality on humans, the environment and
economic development within the basin. Almost every stakeholder raised concerns
about the potential decline in rainfall and snowfall in the catchment area significantly
impacting water resources and the negative economic conditions that could result in.
Stakeholders were apprehensive about how climate change could affect human health
through severe weather events, increase in waterborne illnesses and other human and
economic developmental issues. Additionally, stakeholders noted that weather
patterns seemed to have changed noticeably within their lifetimes. Many felt that
there was a need for pre-emptive planning and for more attention to various scenarios
within the water management process.
Stakeholders also voiced their trepidation regarding the biodiversity in the basin as it
has been influenced by the existing water regime. There was concern that economic
development policies reduced available water for ecosystem health within the river
basin. Specific examples included the need to preserve the ecosystem of the Lesotho
highlands, which have been disrupted by human activities. The increase in human
populations and grazing of livestock has diminished soil quality and led to erosion.
The erosion is exacerbated by an increase in ice rat populations burrowing into
wetlands combined with the decline in natural predators such as birds of prey and
jackals, due to human activities. This has resulted in degradation of the Lesotho
highland wetland sponges, which will have potential impacts on water flows if not
restored. Concern was expressed that fish species are being lost due to the
construction of dams, such as the Lesotho mullet minnow which is threatened by
introduced species, such as North American trout.. Overfishing of Yellow Fish in the
Orange River has raised concerns among some stakeholders. The fragile and degraded
Ramsar sites in the Lower Orange are also concerns for stakeholders.
Some stakeholders, especially those downstream, were distressed about the water
quality of the Orange-Senqu River. While some specifically drew attention to
pollution from Blue Green Algae and municipal wastes, others felt that the water in
the Lower Orange was pristine. Still others mentioned pollution from mining, from
industrial use and from the energy industry as degrading the waters, though this
concern was more nationally, rather than internationally, relevant to stakeholders.
Stakeholders raised other concerns such as confusion regarding border delineation
between RSA and Namibia. They also discussed the perceived need for public
involvement in basin water management, and a lack of government involvement in
building capacity for the next generation of water managers. Social issues, such as
HIV/AIDS and unequal economic development, and social transitions in the post-
Apartheid era were raised as issues within the basin that may also impact water use
schemes in the future.
Recommendations regarding next steps and future actions include targeting under-
represented stakeholder groups within the next phase of the analysis with the
quantitative stakeholder analysis; take steps to initiate implementation of stakeholder
fora in order to provide feedback for the project and the programme at an early stage
in its development; and, stress cooperation and coordination with other companion
projects throughout the TDA/SAP process.
182
The QN SHA demonstrated that there are more commonalities among stakeholders,
both between groups and between countries than initially expected. Despite these
similarities, there are divergent areas which will need to be addressed by the project.
The QN SHA first reviews the major trans-boundary issues identified by the TDA
Technical Task Team (TTT), then addresses salience of issues for specific stakeholder
groups. Within this framework, stakeholders respond to questions addressing issues of
water quantity, landscape degradation and desertification, water quality, alteration in
river flow, biodiversity and invasive species, and perception-based issues pertaining
to other groups and the sources of information.
The most significant and salient issue for stakeholders in the QN SHA is water
scarcity, closely linked with landscape degradation and desertification. The
stakeholders who are more immediately dependent on sustenance agriculture and
herding are more heavily impacted, while other stakeholders are less directly
involved. Nonetheless, the similarities between stakeholders, including those with
economic incentives for water withdrawals, remained strong and should be built upon
within the project. These "economic stakeholders" will be critical to project success
and implementation as they hold tremendous influence within the basin.
Also important to stakeholders was the issue of biodiversity and environmental
protection. Stakeholders across the board appear to be very aware of the economic
importance of the preservation of wildlife, of human impacts on biodiversity in the
basin and the need to take steps to improve conservation measures. There appears to
be a lack of developed intersectoral linkages and contacts between governmental
organizations to make these improvements and there was some degree of frustration
voiced by some civil society stakeholder groups in this regard. It is hoped that within
the project this will be addressed through coordination mechanisms.
Overall there is a strong need for education and efforts to build awareness, and it
appears that support for these efforts will be available from a broad range of
government institutions at a number of levels. The stakeholders seem eager to know
more, and expansion of understanding and awareness of the importance of the
Orange-Senqu River in Southern Africa can be fostered though the project.
Additionally, sector specific training efforts will substantially improve water based
environmental stewardship, especially if designed to focus on win-win scenarios.
The findings of the QL SHA and QN SHA culminate in a series of project
recommendations focusing on:
Awareness raising and social marketing that increase the prominence of these
issues and empower stakeholders to take action to improve their conditions.
Sector specific recommendations that target specific groups through activities
that may improve conditions.
Training that provides specific educational opportunities to stakeholder groups
and builds basin capacity.
183
Stakeholder involvement in project activities that feature key groups to
consider for specific project inputs.
The SHA and recommendations to date should be viewed as an empirical baseline
that can serve as a gauge for project activities, as well as other inputs within the basin
to improve stakeholder involvement in trans-boundary water management.
184
Table of Contents:
I.
Introduction
7
II.
Methodology
8
Quantitative
Qualitative
III. Qualitative Analysis Findings: Issues of Concern
10
Water Quantity issues and flow regimes:
Impacts of Climate Change on water regime including quality,
quantity and ecosystems:
Water regime impacts on biodiversity:
Water quality issues:
Other issues:
IV. Quantitative Analysis Findings by Issue
18
Stress on surface and groundwater resources
Changes to hydrological regime
Deterioration of water quality
Land degradation/ Desertification
Climate change impacts (current and future)
Alien invasive species (new plants and animals)
Biodiversity
General Attitudinal Questions
V. Quantitative Analysis Findings Responses by Stakeholder Group
31
VI.
Conclusions
78
VII. Recommendations for Next Steps
80
Annex 1 QL SHA Interview participants and schedule
84
Annex 2 QN Stakeholder Analysis Survey
87
Annex 3 QN SHA Group Representation
91
185
I. Introduction:
The overall goal of the Project is to improve the management of the Orange Basin's
trans-boundary water resources through integrated approaches to Water Resource
Management (IWRM) that remediate threats and root causes. An IWRM approach
considers the interrelationships between natural resource systems, biophysical
processes and socio-economic systems and objectives. IWRM seeks to integrate broad
ecological, social and economic objectives into the management of the overall water
resource, taking into account factors outside of the water sector (e.g., agriculture and
energy and such issues as land degradation and climate change). The Project will
develop mechanisms to ensure the cooperative and sustainable use of the land and
water resources of the Orange River Basin; develop and support short, medium, and
long term management objectives and strategies for the river basin; build capacity to
adapt river basin management as circumstances change; develop and implement
measures to sustain and enhance overall environmental health within the basin; create
a comprehensive stakeholder involvement programme; and strengthen basin
institutions, particularly ORASECOM, to ensure the long term sustainability of
interventions. The Project will create synergies with and build upon a range of
initiatives being undertaken in the Basin by the four countries and affiliated donor
bodies. The focus of GEF involvement will be on addressing trans-boundary water
management issues, as identified in priority sequence through a trans-boundary
diagnostic analysis (TDA) process, and addressed in a Strategic Action Programme
(SAP). GEF funding will be drawn upon for preparation of the TDA and SAP, and the
implementation of interventions identified in the SAP as basin priorities.
As part of the TDA and in preparation for the SAP a Stakeholder Analysis (SHA) is
being conducted. The objective of the Stakeholder Analysis is to identify the major
stakeholder groups affected by and impacting the degradation of the OSRB in order to
empirically gauge the perceptions of stakeholder groups and incorporate their
concerns, perceptions and priorities in project development. The SHA also serves as a
base for creating a stakeholder involvement plan, public participation strategy and
communication strategy.
The SHA involves identification of major stakeholder groups throughout the basin,
and their concerns regarding issues pertaining to IWRM. Once all relevant groups
were identified, a consultative qualitative stakeholder survey based on open question
interviews was administered to establish a baseline of stakeholder perceptions,
referred to as the Qualitative Stakeholder Analysis (QL SHA). This survey was
conducted through a basin-wide ground-truthing mission by the SH Analyst, with
support of the National Consultants and Regional Consultant. This initial study has
informed the Trans-boundary Diagnostic Analysis meeting. It serves as the foundation
information for the larger closed question based survey Quantitative Stakeholder
Analysis (QN SHA), which was conducted in March and April 2007. The combined
results of these create an empirically valid baseline measure of the major challenges
perceived by multiple stakeholder groups throughout the basin.
The objective of QL SHA is to ascertain who the stakeholders are for the project,
what their interests are and how significant those concerns are throughout the basin,
186
so as to inform the initial TDA priority issue identification and to develop the survey
for the QN SHA.
The secondary objective of the QL SHA is to establish the project within the basin,
especially in regard to other donors working in the area and those institutional
stakeholders with whom we are collaborating, and hope to continue to do so in the
future.
This report presents methodologies for the QL SHA and the QN SHA, the findings of
the QL SHA outlining the specific findings based on these interviews, including the
salience levels for specific stakeholder groups. These findings are delineated by major
themes identified during the QL SHA interview processes. These themes are: water
quantity issues; impacts of climate change on water regime including quality, quantity
and ecosystems; water regime impacts on biodiversity; water quality; and, other
socio-economic issues impacting project design and implementation.
The Findings of the QN SHA are presented, both by major issues identified by the
Technical Task Team (TTT) in the TDA development process, and then by individual
stakeholder group views and opinions, focusing on the most important issues for these
groups. Following the presentation of findings, recommendations are made that are
intended for consideration and potential application within subsequent phases of the
project.
It should be noted that there are some changes in issues and priorities to be addressed
by the project, as well as in the terminology employed between the QL SHA and the
QN SHA. The QN SHA is a more advanced reflection of project activities and
thinking, as well as the future direction of this project within the Full Sized Project
(FSP). The QN SHA was administered to over 400 stakeholders across the basin,
from 37 different stakeholder groups. The survey is provided in the annexes, as is the
breakdown of respondents by group and country. The analysis for the QN SHA
identifies trends within stakeholder groups specifically and suggests what these
responses may indicate as they pertain to the group as well as to the project over all.
II. Methodology:
The methodology of the stakeholder analysis is based on UNDP/GEF International
Waters Best Practices. The dual approach of combining a Qualitative Stakeholder
Analysis with a Quantitative Stakeholder Analysis allows the project to more fully
explore an interview topic, in an effort to best understand the causes and concerns of a
wide array of individual stakeholders in the Qualitative analysis. Then in the
Quantitative analysis a standardized survey instrument is developed, which is less in
depth than individual interviews, but covers a wider population of representative
stakeholders. This, combined with desk studies in preparation, provides a
triangulation of efforts to understand the incentives, issues, perceptions, and concerns
of stakeholders throughout the basin.
187
Qualitative
The qualitative stakeholder analysis methodology must be specifically tailored to the
conditions in the basin, the available time, resources and specific needs of the project
in the development stages. In the case of the Orange-Senqu River Basin, the presence
of three additional large scale international donor projects working to reach similar
objectives has resulted in a dual approach to the Stakeholder Analysis, combining
interviews with those who are basin project stakeholders and those who are
stakeholders to the specific issues being addressed.
A part of the stakeholder analysis has involved conducting meetings with
representatives of both of these types of groups and discussing the potential linkages
between the projects in order to reduce redundancy, improve project implementation
and best serve the needs of the basin. The methodological approach employed here
has involved interviewing stakeholders to the project of trans-boundary water
management coordination within the basin, specifically representatives of
governments, international donor agencies, and ORASECOM, the Orange-Senqu
Commission, the local intergovernmental organization for coordination of initiatives
within the basin.
Those involved in water management, in project development at the national and
basin levels; industry representatives; advocates for sustainable management
practices, and NGOs, as well as those living within the basin have been queried
during the interview process regarding current major environmental concerns, and
what future environmental concerns are likely to develop. These interviews were
conducted within a two week time span at the very beginning of the project, in
February and March 2007, just prior to the first Technical Task Team (TTT) Trans-
boundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) meeting. This provided a broad spectrum of
concerns and opinions to be taken into account by the project development team.
Stakeholder representatives were selected within the basin based on desk study
findings and through the assistance of National Coordinators, project management
and recommendations from interview subjects. Annex 1 contains a list of stakeholders
interviewed, with dates of interviews. The views presented in this report represent the
perceptions of stakeholders voiced, including their perceptions of how others view the
situation in the river basin from their unique vantage points.
The approach used to interview stakeholders involved introducing the project, the
goals and the role of the stakeholder analysis within project design and development.
The stakeholder representatives were asked open ended questions pertaining to their
environmental concerns within the river basin, about concerns relating to current
conditions and about the impacts of the current water regime on the ecosystem of the
basin. Follow-up questions were asked to assist the stakeholders in thinking about
these issues and identifying the causes of the problems. Copious notes were taken and
served as the basis for drafting this report most discussions lasted between one and
three hours, depending on time availability of the interview subject and the
interviewer.
Following the interviews the meeting notes were carefully reviewed to identify trends
among and between stakeholder groups. While a small number of highly focused
interviews were conducted initially, these findings will serve to inform the larger
188
scale Quantitative Stakeholder Analysis, which is based on a survey to be distributed
throughout the basin.
Quantitative
The methodology employed in the study is based on UNDP GEF IWP Best Practices.
The survey was based on the findings of the Qualitative SHA, TDA meetings and
inputs from national and basin consultants. The Quantitative Stakeholder Analysis
(QNSHA) for the Orange-Senqu River Basin Project was conducted using a
standardized survey of 440 individuals representing 37 unique stakeholder groups.
(see Survey in Annex 2) The survey was conducted in all OSRB countries in the first
quarter of 2007 by National Coordinators and their assistants. In Lesotho, some
surveys were translated into the local language (Sesotho); all others were
administered in English. The surveys were then coded into a database and statistically
analyzed for trends in stakeholder groups and throughout the basin.
All surveys were conducted on condition of anonymity, in order to protect the identity
of respondents and individually, to ensure the most honest answers possible. The
representative of respondents is presented in Annex 3, by country and by group.
Because of the short time frame, it was not always possible to collect equally
representative numbers of each group, and in some cases there were no stakeholders
from specific groups in specific countries available to participate. These cases were
noted within the text and factored into the analysis. The findings of the QNSHA are
presented by major issue. As stakeholder concerns are identified and priorities
regarding these issues are delineated, areas of potential tensions are highlighted. The
second section of findings is broken down by the concerns of specific stakeholder
groups.
III. QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS FINDINGS: ISSUES OF CONCERN
Water Quantity issues and flow regimes:
1. The economic development issues favour short term benefits, and are often
water intensive - Development plans favour industrial development, power
generation and mining interests. The water sector also implements licensing
sectors, which sell water at low cost to farmers. The townships now receive water
as a result of the RSA constitutionally guaranteed right to access water, and a
significant portion of water goes to industrial development, mining and power
generation. The water management schemes within RSA which profoundly impact
both abstraction rates from Lesotho and outfall to Namibia are adjusted every 6
months based on models that incorporate the sectoral demands described above.
Extreme weather events, including severe droughts and floods beyond those
within the range of the past 10 years are rarely included within these models,
according to engineers. This planning mechanism allows the RSA to drive
economic, ecological and even some social conditions in neighbouring countries,
and there is growing dissatisfaction among a wide array of stakeholders in both
Lesotho and Namibia about this. Botswana is less directly impacted.
189
2. RSA economic development strategies dominate the basin. Historically RSA
economic development has been largely based on extractive, manufacturing and
agricultural industries. The predominant water schemes that are in place continue
to support the economic development in RSA, and a significant portion of the
water withdrawal from the river system is for these uses as it was in the past. In
the post-Apartheid era the new government focus on social development and
equality in South Africa, including the right to access to water has been enshrined
in the new RSA Constitution. However, the economic drivers specifically
mining, power generation, agriculture and manufacturing continue to place high
demands on the water sector. In addition, the water management legacy of the
RSA was built on approaches that focused on economic development rather than
the ecological concerns of the wider basin.
Stakeholders shared that there are water releases for environmental demands in
the river basin, though they raised concerns that the water releases are not timed to
natural cycles and as a result environmental degradation has occurred. These
concerns were also raised by the neighbouring states of Lesotho and Namibia, as
well as other stakeholders with RSA. While RSA continues to achieve significant
economic growth, the benefits are highly concentrated within the country and the
concerns of non-economic based stakeholders and those from neighbouring
countries are perceived by some stakeholders as immaterial in the decision
making sectors of the RSA. In Lesotho, Botswana and Namibia, stakeholders
generally advocated for inclusion in water management strategies, however some
stakeholders noted a lack of mechanisms and economic support to actively
involve non-governmental stakeholders in water management issues. This may be
a result of the variation in stakeholders interviewed within each country, but
nonetheless remained a prevalent concern.
3. Current policies pertaining to water favour industry and mining rather than
environmental concerns Stakeholders felt that additional challenges arise in
RSA water planning as water becomes more scarce and the economy shifts
towards more heavily industrialized and extractive sectors and as farmers
experienced increased costs associated with farming. Stakeholders said that
farmers often sell their water rights to industry through water withdrawal permit
sales instead of farming lands due to the costs of agricultural development.
Stakeholders cited other industries, such as tourism, that also impact the
development schemes. The recent proliferation in golf estates, which are highly
water intensive, are seen, rightly or wrongly by the local communities, as having
placed additional strains on basin water resources.. Again, this results in perceived
income and priority discrepancies among stakeholders with significantly lower
GDP/capita in the basin, both nationally and internationally. The stakeholders who
are more economically marginalized are generally more dependent on immediate
environmental conditions, and they perceive the excessive use of water and
attitude of entitlement to resources of some more economically prosperous
stakeholders to be an affront to collective ownership of resources and sound
environmental stewardship.
190
4. Slower development of dam schemes in Lesotho and differentiated
expectations and national budgets set on trans-boundary sales A number of
stakeholders throughout the basin cited concerns about Lesotho and the dam
development schemes. Although not accurate it was said that Lesotho had sold
water rights to RSA in exchange for infrastructure development. The initial plans
involved the construction of five dams throughout the Lesotho highlands for
storage of water to be released to RSA. However, after the second phase (it is
actually called phase 1b phase 2 is undergoing feasibility studies, some
stakeholders assert that RSA claims that the full five phases will not be completed
within the agreed time frame, and that there will possibly be only a third dam built
within the Lesotho highlands in the foreseeable future. Throughout the basin,
stakeholders pointed out that this creates significant challenges for Lesotho for
two reasons. First, Lesotho national budget forecasts were based on a five phase
dam scheme, and the resulting sale of water and pending infrastructure
development anticipated within the national government has not emerged. Second,
the low rate of development in Lesotho is perceived by stakeholders to have been
stymied by the lack of access to water within their own country, and the need to
dedicate money from limited national budgets to purchase water held on their own
lands from RSA risks creating tensions between some stakeholders in RSA and
Lesotho. While some stakeholders point out that Lesotho now has excellent roads
and improved infrastructure, stakeholders counter that Lesotho is suffering from a
lack of access to water and social dislocation as a result of environmental
marginalization, a human health crisis, and a substantial deficit in the national
budget.
5. GW abstraction rates without replenishment The abstraction of ground water
from bore holes through unregulated uses for agricultural and pastoral/livestock is
a concern for hydrologists and scientists. It appears to be less of a concern for
other stakeholders at this point. However, salinization of ground water, minimal to
negative replenishment rates from surface waters and overuse have the potential to
increase strains on water resources especially in extremely arid zones within the
basin. To date, a majority of stakeholders feel that there is not sufficient
monitoring or regulation of ground water aquifers and future usage scenarios
suggest depletion of these resources. The bore hole dependency of the cattle
industry in Botswana and Namibia, as well as a wide number of those in the South
African agricultural sector in the lower reaches of the basin suggests that attention
to this will be warranted, especially as surface waters are depleted or become
unavailable.
6. Impact of low water flow on farming, including livestock and early grape
production, and irrational use practices - The decline in water flow has impacts
on farming, especially in highly lucrative micro climates capable of producing
table grapes for sale in upscale European markets 3 weeks prior to other areas.
Water releases are timed to ensure that these grapes reach maturity in a timely
fashion so that the window of opportunity for favourable market conditions is not
missed. This is a very active agro-industry in the lower Orange River in both
South Africa and Namibia. The timed releases of water to optimize the early
harvest of these table grapes is counter to natural river flow cycles and impacts
other down stream stakeholders, including the Ramsar site at the mouth of the
Orange River and the environment in general. In addition the use of outdated
191
irrigation technologies which are highly evaporative have significant impacts on
the river systems, and though there is a decline in large scale farming in RSA, the
smaller farms now owned by those with traditional land claims continue to use the
same water wasting irrigation practices, and the strong emphasis on developing
agriculture in already very arid areas which may not be able to support this in the
long term.
7. Inadequate monitoring of farming sectors withdrawal of water from the
river Withdrawal amounts from the river in RSA are based on licensing
schemes, however it is believed that amounts are rarely, if ever, monitored and the
increasing drought conditions result in some farmers selling water rights to
industry, as a more profitable endeavour than growing crops. Farmer's
withdrawals from the Caledon River bordering Lesotho creates tension between
those in Lesotho who must pay RSA for the water, once it is released from the
dams for local consumption, and the riparian RSA farmers who withdraw water
into their own reservoirs free of charge. For example, the capital city of Maseru is
water starved in the current drought; however they must pay RSA for water to be
released from the dams within the Lesotho territory. This water, once released,
will be initially absorbed by the soils in the river bed. Once those are saturated,
the water flows down stream towards Maseru. Once it flows past the farmlands on
RSA, farmers there withdraw water from the river for storage in their own
reservoirs. As a result the amount of water that reaches Maseru is substantially
lower than the amount released and paid for by the government of Lesotho, while
the farmers on the RSA are able to top up their water supplies with the water
purchased for Maseru by the Lesotho government.
8. Impact of low water flow on townships with rights to "potable" water sources
The RSA constitutionally guarantees all citizens the right to potable water sources.
This requires management of water to ensure that all communities have access to
clean water. There was a general perception that in the event of droughts, that
water supply to industry rather than the townships would be prioritized.. This
creates significant challenges for the water management sector, especially as
management rights between those in the national governmental sector and those in
the provincial sectors collide in terms of delivery and assurances of access to
water to constituencies. This is also problematic in riparian border communities
where neighbouring communities do not enjoy this same guaranteed access and
view those withdrawing water without paying for it as "stealing" their water.
Should drought conditions worsen in this basin, this could result in significant
trans-boundary tensions.
9. Additional dam construction scenarios on the lower Orange River basin the
potential for construction of a dam between RSA and Namibia has raised some
degree of concern with stakeholders in the Namibian water sector. While some are
strongly in favour of it in order to reintroduce natural flow streams into the basin,
others are less eager to further disrupt water flows throughout the basin. Other
stakeholders were eager for the dam to be built in support of the Namibian "Green
Scheme". However, other stakeholders pointed out that the potential for
construction of this dam and the issues pertaining to the legal status of the river
192
and the territorial dividing lines between Namibia and RSA suggest that until
these are firmly settled no further dam construction should take place.
Impacts of Climate Change on water regime including quality, quantity and
ecosystems:
10. Impacts of climate change on water regime, lack of "scenarios" and the needs
for pre-emptive planning - Throughout the QL SHA interview process climate
change was introduced within discussions pertaining to the current drought
conditions as an issue which may impact the current water regime. This topic was
sometimes introduced by the interviewer, however, often it was after stakeholders
discussed how weather patterns seem to be different now than in the past. Some
stakeholders suggested that there are unclear scenarios, some of which favour
more rainfall, others which suggest marked declines and others which indicate
extremes of both floods and droughts for the river basin. Overall a significant
majority of stakeholders interviewed agreed that there will be significant impacts,
even if exact forecasts are unknown. The general agreement among stakeholders
is that planning must begin immediately to address these climatic shifts, especially
as they pertain to water regimes within the basin. There were some stakeholder
groups in key positions who said that until specifically identified predictive
models were available that they would not be able to adjust current schemes to
accommodate such patterns.
11. Potential impacts on economic development and social systems In
discussions with stakeholders, those who felt that climate change is a reality and a
serious threat believed that climate change could seriously impact economic
development in the basin by impacting water availability to farmers, industry,
mining and the energy production sectors. These disruptions could potentially
destabilize current development trends in RSA, with reverberating impacts
throughout the basin. In addition, the impacts could most significantly affect those
countries and marginalized populations that are already dependent on immediate
environmental conditions for survival. The impacts of this could result in
increased tensions between those with economic means to adapt to shifting
conditions and those displaced by a lack of access to basic environmental services.
Further, if resources, such as water become increasingly scarce, tensions between
poor communities would be expected to increase. One stakeholder told of the
impacts of a recent drought in Lesotho: People went to springs and wells in
neighbouring communities to collect water. The residents of the towns threw
rocks and chased away the people from drought stricken communities, claiming
that the water in the springs and wells belonged only to the members of these
towns and could not be shared. If there are extreme weather events this may
become a significant micro social challenge with large impacts.
12. Potential impacts on ecology and biodiversity The impacts of climate change
could significantly affect the overall ecological functions in the basin, as well as
the biodiversity throughout the basin. Shifts in biomes, increased susceptibility to
extreme conditions, and opportunities for invasive species will likely all be
impacted by a shift in climate. Though this did not rank as an especially high level
193
concern for stakeholders, it was considered to be quite important in terms of the
overall impact of climate change throughout the basin.
13. Questions and concerns about severity expected and need for preparation
While most stakeholders believed that climate change is real and would impact the
basin, there were those who questioned the severity and need for extreme
planning. Several stakeholders in the water sectors were dubious about the
potential severity of climate change and said that they could adjust to climate
change if and when it happened. However, other stakeholders, including those in
the agricultural sector, ecologists, range land specialists, rural community
members and scientists felt that immediate action is required. As one advocate for
ecology stated "During the Cold War we planned for the worst case scenario and
invested heavily in avoiding catastrophes, now when facing Climate Change
scenarios we plan for the best case scenarios, if at all. Why is that?" Though this
question is complicated, it makes the point that these impacts should be
considered seriously, and many stakeholders expressed a hope that this project
may be a means for increasing awareness and action among the various
governments involved in the project.
14. Health impacts of climate change and water borne illnesses Several
stakeholders mentioned that a concern of pending climate change is that malaria
could spread into the Orange River basin. While this disease is not waterborne and
not specifically a trans-boundary water issue, the presence of malaria in this basin
could put further stress on populations and impact social and economic
development scenarios.
15. Shift in microclimates as a result of the current water regime In an interview
with stakeholders living in the Lesotho Highlands, as well as others, mention has
been made that they feel there has been a shift in the local climate towards much
colder and harsher winters since the construction of the nearby dams. Other
stakeholders have wondered if all of the dam construction could have resulted in a
significant shift in the weather in the basin. Though this would potentially apply to
the micro climate, there is little evidence that the larger trends have also produced
these results.
Water regime impacts on biodiversity:
16. Development impacts on biodiversity - Some stakeholders felt that requirement
of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) in RSA development projects has
come under fire for not being effectively utilized, allowing developers to unduly
influence EIA reviews, and to pressure those conducting them to provide
development oriented assessments. Though it may be pointed out that few projects
are ever stopped because of the EIA review, they can play an important role in
more sustainable development practices and should be considered as such,
especially as large scale development schemes move forward. Nonetheless there is
a sense that additional development is largely unavoidable and yet has the
potential to be even more detrimental to biodiversity throughout the basin.
17. Lesotho Sponges/highland wetlands preservation An area of important trans-
boundary impact with significant biodiversity preservation needs is the Lesotho
194
highlands wetlands referred to as sponges. These "sponges" act as buffers for
strong rains and snowfall in the highlands and decrease the rate of release of water
downstream. However, due to over grazing by livestock, the quality and
absorptive capacity of these sponges is declining. A current French GEF project is
being developed to address this, as is a US Government Millennium Challenge
Grant, however, the remoteness of the highlands, incentive for herd boys to allow
stock to graze in these rich pastures and monitoring challenges increases the
difficulties of successfully implementing projects to preserve and restore these
highlands. Further, in times of drought these sponges provide critical sources of
food for livestock in this area.
18. Lesotho mullet minnows - Some stakeholders discussed impacts of construction
of the Lesotho Highland dams including the loss of habitat for the Lesotho mullet
minnows. These minnows were significantly impacted by this loss of habitat as
well as by the increase in introduced species including trout intended to attract
international anglers. Unfortunately, the dam reservoirs were too deep for trout to
thrive, though they did severely impact the threatened minnows. While this in
itself is not a trans-boundary issue, it is a result of a trans-boundary water
management scheme. The World Bank funded research into these species,
however dam construction continued and as a result these minnows have been
largely decimated.
.
19. Lesotho ice rats and lack of predators Unlike the Lesotho Mullet Minnow, the
Lesotho ice rat thrives on changing conditions. Stakeholder explained that when
the sponges become vulnerable due to drought and over grazing these ice rats
burrow into the soils of the sponges, digging networks of tunnels and warrens.
When rains do occur, these subsurface tunnels fill with water, and often rupture
the surface of the sponge resulting in increased erosion and damage to the
vulnerable sponges. The natural predators of these ice rats populations of
raptors and jackals have been severely reduced by human activities, fed by the
belief that both jackals and raptors will kill livestock.
20. Lower Orange and Ramsar sites The lower Orange River basin at the mouth
of the river is listed as a Ramsar site. However, stakeholders noted that this
protection does not reduce mining activity for alluvial diamonds. While those
larger companies working in the river bed area will take steps to restore the
surface soils after mining is completed, stakeholders pointed out that smaller firms
working outside of these areas often fail to redress the damage they do, in part
because of a lack of economic resources. The South African side of the Orange
river is listed as a severely degraded wetland as a result of the mining practices,
and to date it is believed by stakeholders that no substantive activity is being taken
to remedy that situation.
21. Eco-Tourism needing preservation and water Stakeholders voiced a concern
that there was an assumption that ecotourism would continue to be a very
profitable business in many parts of the basin; however there is a need for
ecological water flows that reflect the natural seasonal variations. At the moment
these are not occurring and the impacts on wildlife are also having potential
impacts on tourism. Further, there was concern voiced that the tourists also need
195
access to water and failure to assure this could limit future growth of the tourism
industry.
22. Over fishing of Yellow Fish and netting along river reducing species Several
stakeholders, especially those working in the river itself have noted that over
fishing of yellow fish by sports fishermen and riparian residents has reduced the
stock of that species. Also it was noted that gill netting is increasing, with impacts
on fish populations as well, though that was not a highly relevant issue.
Water quality issues:
23. Pollution from mining, industry and energy Though not addressed as a trans-
boundary issue by stakeholders because of the significant portion of the river
basin within RSA, water quality was raised as an issue occurring within RSA and
assumed to be a significant problem downstream. There was a belief among some
stakeholders that the diamond and mineral mining industry as well as energy
generation and coal mining were impacting overall water quality issues in the
basin, though effluents were believed to be diluted downstream. It should be noted
that while interviewing a river guide working on the lower Orange, he commented
that the water quality is fine, and they often drink water directly out of the river
without any treatment. "We canoe with a cup and only the city folks with delicate
systems ever have any trouble with it."
24. Blue green algae due to agricultural runoff The issue of blue green algae
blooms impacting Namibia water withdrawals is significant for the water
management and agricultural sectors in Namibia. In RSA, however, the belief is
that downstream pollution in the lower Orange River is a lower priority issue
because of the lower population downstream and forbidden zones for diamond
mining due to alluvial deposits. Conversely, in Namibia there is significant
animosity among some stakeholders as a result of high nutrient loads causing
these algae blooms and impacting both the agricultural and tourism sectors.
Other issues:
25. Border delineation between RSA and Namibia Stakeholders from RSA
shared the belief that the territory of RSA extends to the northernmost border of
the Orange River. In Namibia most national stakeholders believe that the
"gentleman's agreement" between past presidents indicates that the midline of the
river is the territorial divide as per standard river law. At stake here are substantial
alluvial diamond deposits. Stakeholders who discussed this in Namibia stated that
until this issue is decided, and formally agreed by both sides, additional
development along the river may become increasingly difficult.
26. Need for public involvement and inputs into water management In the RSA
water sector some stakeholder group representatives are dubious about the need
for public involvement in the water sector despite the increasing demands for this
according to international standards. However, stakeholders in Botswana, Lesotho
and Namibia were much more favourably inclined toward this and felt that
without public input to management decisions, these would ultimately not be as
successful as they could be. Projects such as the RSA DWAF "Working for
196
Water" project were highlighted as potential models for including public
involvement and improving environmental conditions.
27. Variation and decline in capacity for water management throughout the
basin There is concern among many in the several sectors that there is a notable
lack of capacity building for future generations in the engineering sectors and
other water management sectors in the basin. They feel that as current specialists
retire there will not be adequate personnel to replace them and that Universities
are not currently producing sufficient graduates to fill these capacity gaps.
28. HIV/AIDS anticipated impacts on social structures and economic
development in basin The infection rates of HIV/AIDS in the riparian states are
between 25% and 50% of the population, with the percentages impacted by the
disease even greater.. Though currently anti-AIDS medications are available in
Botswana and Lesotho to those who test positive for HIV, the impacts this disease
may have on population, economic development and social systems in the coming
years is expected to be significant. Additionally, the loss of government revenues
due to HIV/AIDS may be significant as populations are impacted and costs of care
for those suffering from HIV/AIDS is both directly and indirectly felt in the basin.
While it is difficult to determine the direct impact of HIV/AIDS on trans-
boundary water and environmental issues, the diversion of resources to address
this crisis will certainly indirectly impact on water resource planning and
development and environmental protection.
29. Post-Apartheid transitions Changing identity in the basin, especially with
regards to RSA, with a significant shift of government policy towards social
programmes as opposed to economic development programmes was raised by
some stakeholders as an issue of concern. Further, the adjustment of the society to
the post apartheid era has resulted in a decline in capacity within the basin, an
increase in crime and significant challenges towards implementing effective
economic and social development schemes.
IV. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS FINDINGS BY ISSUE
Following the meeting of the Technical Task Team (TTT), to identify the issues to be
addressed by the TDA, it was decided that the major trans-boundary issues in the
OSRB for the UNDP/GEF project are: stress on surface and groundwater resources;
deteriorating water quality (surface and groundwater); alteration in naturally
occurring water flow in the river; land degradation such as erosion and desertification;
alien invasive species (new plants and animals); climate change impacts (current and
future); and loss of biodiversity (wildlife, including plants and animals). Stakeholders
were asked to prioritize these in comparison to one another within the survey. Overall
the ranking of importance for the combined stakeholder survey participants and for
specific groups is presented in Table 1, Stakeholder Group Priorities by Issue.
The highest priority issue for all stakeholders together is the stress on surface and
ground water resources. This was also the highest priority for many individual groups.
197
Table 1
Stakeholder Group Priorities by Issue
n
ty
as
y
i
n
t
h
e
a
t
io
ic
u
ch
acts
and
rtif
y
Key:
s
o
u
r
ces
n
s
a
t
e
r
q
u
a
li
e
r flow
io
e
se
e
imp
High
rface
ve species
r
adat
Medium
su
n
d d
on in naturall
odiversit
on
water re
a
t
i
n
g
w
ng wat
n a
n
v
a
si
chang
Low
nd
deg
f
bi
r
i
or
t
e
rati
er
e
n i
Stress
grou
e
te
Al
occurri
ri
Land
e
r
osio
Ali
o
ss o
Climate
L
D
All Stakeholder Groups combined ranking
1
3
6
2
7
4
5
1. Water, Hydro-meteorological Department/Ministry
2. Conservation/Environmental Dept./Ministry
3. Fisheries Dept./Ministry
4. Industry Dept./Ministry
5. Energy Dept./Ministry
6. Mining regulation agency
7. Finance Dept./Ministry
8. Foreign Affairs Dept./Ministry
9. Agriculture Dept./Ministry
10. Social Welfare / Public Health Dept./Ministry
11. Labour Dept./Ministry
12. Elected politician
13. Water management parastatal
14. Power utility
15. Tourism/Recreation Sector
16. Mining sector
17. Industrial sector (factory)
18. Construction industry
19. Agro-industry
20. Basin government official
21. District water management official
22. Municipal Government
23. Municipal waste official
24. Non-Governmental Organization (NGO)
25. Scientists
26. Conservationist
27. Community based organization (CBO)/ Village dev.committee
28. Educator/teacher/academic
29. Student or youth group member
30. Stock Farmer
31. Factory farmer (chickens, feed-lot piggery)
32. Irrigation Farmer
33. Dry land cropping farmer
34. Health care provider
35. Member of community living near the river
36. Press/media
37. International Funding Institution/ Bilateral development org.
198
The second and third highest were land degradation such as erosion and deforestation
and deteriorating water quality, respectively. These three were almost always the
highest priority issue, or at least a high priority concern for all stakeholder groups. (In
some cases stakeholder groups did not rank any of the issues as a high priority issue
which is reflected in Table 1.) The issues ranked as medium priorities are climate
change impacts and loss of biodiversity. The lowest priority concerns for the
stakeholders are alteration in naturally occurring water flow in the river, and alien
invasive species. This prioritization ranking focuses on the most obvious and
immediately observable impacts and challenges, while the lower priority concerns are
more subtle and less dire for most stakeholders. This is more fully explored as each
issue is discussed below. In order to be the most efficient in the presentation of the
findings by issues, the issues will be presented with those to which they are most
closely linked.
Stress on surface and groundwater resources
The first cluster of issues combines stress on surface and groundwater resources, land
degradation such as erosion and desertification, and alteration in naturally occurring
water flow in the river, because of the very close linkages between these issues.
In response to the statement "Economic development in the short term is important
and must use whatever resources possible, including water resources" there were
only two groups in strong disagreement: Conservation/Environmental Department/
Ministry Officials and Industry Department/ Ministry officials. Those in less adamant
disagreement were: Fisheries Department/ Ministry officials, Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGO), Scientists, Educator/teacher/academics, Health care providers,
and Press/media. For the most part these groups are members of the environmental
elite, which is made up of those who have a clear understanding of the importance of
long term environmental stewardship. The Industry Department/ Ministry SHG was a
bit of a surprise, however it is possible that this group focuses more on longer term
development as well, or those selected to answer the survey have a specific
environmental background.
In contrast, those that were in strong agreement with this statement were Finance
Department/ Ministry officials, members of the Foreign Affairs Department/ Ministry,
Agriculture Department/ Ministry, Social Welfare / Public Health Department, as well
as elected politicians. Also in this cohort were representatives from power utilities, the
mining sector, the Industrial sector and the Construction industry. Also in strong
agreement were District water management officials, Municipal Government
representatives, Municipal waste officials, Community based organizations (CBO)/
Village development committee members, and Members of community living near
the river. Additionally, Stock farmers, Factory farmers (chickens, feed-lot piggery),
Irrigation Farmers, and Dry land cropping farmers all agreed strongly. Those groups
that were in agreement, though somewhat less resolute include: Water, Hydro-
meteorological Department/Ministry officials, Energy Department/ Ministry officials,
Labour Department/ Ministry officials, Mining regulation agents, Water management
parastatal employees, those in the Tourism/Recreation Sector, Agro-industry, Basin
government officials, Student or youth group members and those who are in the
International Funding Institution/ Bilateral development agency.
199
Groups generally more interested in short term development issues are those whose
livelihoods depend either more directly on availability of water, such as those in the
farming profession, those who see immediate economic development as needed to
meet basic societal needs, such as the social welfare agency, or those who tend to
have shorter term horizons for economic health, such as elected politicians. Those in
less adamant agreement also fit within these categories.
The division between those in agreement and those in disagreement may not result in
significant tensions but will most likely experience ongoing low level tensions. It
should be noted that in comparison, when asked to agree or disagree with the
statement "Economic development is more important than environmental protection"
all stakeholder groups were in disagreement, except for irrigation farmers, who agreed
strongly. This may be a result of increased drought conditions threatening their
livelihood and reducing access to available water supplies. Overall this suggests there
is a possible need to shift attitudes towards longer term environmental stewardship
within the basin, thought this may be difficult to accomplish in the shorter term.
However, using social marketing strategies with non-judgmental messages may be
effective for linking water conservation with environmental issues and the importance
of long term planning for water resource use in the Orange-Senqu River Basin.
When focusing more directly on water management issues, and how water is
distributed, stakeholders tend to be in more cohesive agreement. In response to the
statement "Use of water for affordable energy and improving economic conditions is
more important than environmental protection." All groups disagreed with the
exception of the Industrial sector (factory), Construction industry, and Irrigation
Farmers, who agreed, though not strongly. Again this mirrors the trend noted above
that these groups have a direct interest in meeting short term economic goals and may
view environmental protection measures as onerous, and interfering with their
livelihoods.
There was division across stakeholder groups when asked to respond to the statement
"Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone who lives there." There
was strong disagreement from a significant majority of stakeholders groups. This
included the communities near the river, Municipal Government, Municipal waste
officials, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO), Scientists, Conservationist,
Community based organizations (CBO)/ Village development committees,
Educator/teacher/academics and Student or youth group members, as well as
representatives from the Water, Hydro-meteorological Department/Ministry,
Conservation/Environmental Department/ Ministry, Fisheries Department/ Ministry,
Energy Department/ Ministry, Mining regulation agency, Finance Department/
Ministry, Foreign Affairs Department/ Ministry, Social Welfare / Public Health
Department/ Ministry , Labour Department/ Ministry and Elected politicians. Also
strongly disagreeing were Water management parastatal, Tourism/Recreation Sector,
Mining sector, Industrial sector (factory), Construction industry and Agro-industry
stakeholders. In contrast, the one group that strongly agreed that communities in the
basin have enough water for everyone who lives there was the irrigation farmers. This
discrepancy may be a result of the large amount of water that these farmers use and
are generally entitled to, while others, especially those along the river and in river
basin communities, do not have as much access to the water. They may also see that
200
the irrigation farmers are taking more water than they should, which reduced amounts
available for other users.
Additionally, when presented with the statement "Crops and livestock should always
have all the water that they need" most stakeholder groups were in agreement, with
the exception of the "environmental elite" this time consisting of Water, Hydro
meteorological agencies, and Water management parastatal who may see agriculture
as demanding more water than is available. Also Non-Governmental Organizations
(NGO), Scientists, Conservationists and Educator/teacher/academics disagreed, as
would be expected from those with an investment in longer term protection of
resources. This tension again will probably be long term, but perhaps steps can be
taken to reduce unnecessary strains on water resources in the agriculture and livestock
industries.
In comparison the stakeholders demonstrated very similar trends with regards to
industrial water use. In response to the statement "Industry should always have all the
water it needs" there was strong disagreement from conservationists, and general
disagreement from Conservation/Environmental Department/ Ministry officials,
Fisheries Department/ Ministry officials, Water management parastatal agents, Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGO), and Scientists. The Construction industry was
also in weak disagreement with this. Most other stakeholder groups were in
agreement, while those in strong agreement included representatives from Industry
Department/ Ministry, Energy Department/ Ministry, Mining regulation agency,
Finance Department/ Ministry, Social Welfare / Public Health Department/ Ministry,
Labour Department/ Ministry, as well as Elected politicians, those from Mining sector
Agro-industry sectors, the Basin government officials, Municipal waste officials,
Community based organizations (CBO)/ Village development committees, Student or
youth group member, Factory farmer (chickens, feed-lot piggery, Dry land cropping
farmer, Members of community living near the river and the Press/media. Most likely,
this results in the belief that industry is the economic driver for the basin and should
be fostered as much as possible. Again, the division within the groups suggests that
helping industry to cut excessive water use may increase stewardship without being
seen as punitive to economic development. This may be beyond the purview of the
project; however, if possible these measures may improve relations between groups
and improve water management in the basin.
The survey results for questions pertaining directly to concerns of stress on surface
waters show that there are divisions across stakeholder groups that focus on who has
access to water and for what reason. Short term economic interests versus long term
environmental concerns is the major line of division and should be actively addressed
by the project, as possible and appropriate within the development of the Full Sized
Project and Strategic Action Programme.
Changes to hydrological regime
The change in hydrological regime, which includes alteration in naturally occurring
flow in the river, is a low priority concern for stakeholders. Only elected politicians
and municipal waste managers ranked this as a high priority concern. It is higher on
average in South Africa and Namibia and lower in Botswana and Lesotho
201
Despite the low level priority of the changes in hydrological regimes, the additional
alteration in naturally occurring water flow in the river is significantly divisive among
nations and between stakeholder groups. In response to the statement "Building more
dams in the river will have positive impacts for me and my country", there were large
discrepancies among stakeholders throughout the basin. At the national level those in
Lesotho felt most favourably towards additional dam construction, while those in
Namibia were least favourably inclined, overall. The national responses are to be
expected because the economy of Lesotho would be enhanced through additional
construction and secondary economies that support this. Alternatively, the additional
construction of dams would further reduce flows in the lower Orange for Namibia,
with negative impacts.
Among stakeholder groups the division was even more pronounced. Those in strong
disagreement that additional dam construction is favourable are Non-Governmental
Organizations (NGO) and Conservationists. Those also in less adamant agreement
include: Conservation/Environmental Department/ Ministry, Foreign Affairs
Department/ Ministry, Scientists and Health care providers. In contrast, those who
were in strongest agreement were Industry Department/ Ministry, Agriculture
Department/ Ministry, Social Welfare / Public Health Department/ Ministry, Labour
Department/ Ministry, Power utility, Tourism/Recreation Sector, Industrial sector
(factory), Agro-industry, Municipal waste officials, Stock Farmers, Irrigation Farmers
and Members of community living near the river. All other groups were in agreement,
including Water, Hydro-meteorological Department/Ministry, Fisheries Department/
Ministry, Energy Department/ Ministry, Mining regulation agency, Finance
Department/ Ministry, and Water management parastatal agents. The overall support
for additional dam construction can be interpreted as the "environmental elite" were
opposed, while those who perceive water as being more readily available and directly
linked to short term economic benefit as being more actively in favour of additional
construction. The ties to economic prosperity are very closely linked and should be
considered carefully as the project develops. Additionally, measures to reduce
negative environmental impacts of construction and flow management should be
included in subsequent dam schemes.
The precedent of water withdrawal for human use raises the question of impacts on
downstream users, including the environment. This long term practice has the
potential to exacerbate tensions between users, especially when conditions reduce the
available flows that people become accustomed to and come to expect. In response to
the statement "some water users take too much water from the river without
consideration for other users" there was either strong agreement or agreement from
all stakeholder groups with a significant majority of stakeholders in strong agreement.
Irrigation farmers from further upstream tended to agree less strongly than those in
downstream communities. This finding suggests that as the water resources become
scarcer, either due to additional managed flows from new dams, or from climate
change, there is potential for tension throughout the basin due to perceptions of
"other" users taking too much water. It is suggested that steps to emphasize water
conservation through a broad scale public awareness/social marketing campaign be
instituted throughout the basin.
202
Deterioration of water quality
The deterioration of water quality was ranked as the third highest priority for
stakeholder groups and overall was listed as a high priority for 14 stakeholder groups.
The issue of deteriorating water quality is divisive among stakeholder groups. This
issue was addressed through concerns for impacts on human health, on overall
environmental problems from polluted waters and the question of variation in the
water quality throughout the basin.
In response to the statement "My community always has enough good water for
people to drink", the stakeholder groups were significantly divided. Those in strong
disagreement were Fisheries Department/ Ministry, Industry Department/ Ministry,
Mining regulation agency, Finance Department/ Ministry, Agriculture Department/
Ministry, Student or youth group members, Stock Farmer, Factory farmers (chickens,
feed-lot piggery), and Press/media. The Water, Hydro-meteorological
Department/Ministry, Conservation/Environmental Department/ Ministry, Energy
Department/ Ministry, Foreign Affairs Department/ Ministry, Social Welfare / Public
Health Department/ Ministry, Labour Department/ Ministry, Mining sector, Industrial
sector (factory), Agro-industry, Scientists, Conservationists, Community based
organizations (CBO)/ Village development committees, and Dry land cropping
farmers also disagreed.
In contrast, those who agreed include Water management parastatal,
Tourism/Recreation Sector, Construction industry, Basin government officials,
District water management official, Municipal Government, Municipal waste official,
Educator/teacher/academics and Health care providers. Those who agreed most
strongly that there is always enough good water for people to drink in their
communities represent stakeholders from Irrigation Farmers, and International
Funding Institution/ Bilateral development agency. It is interesting to note that the
stakeholders who are members of community living near the river disagreed mildly,
though there was significant division within the group that can not be explained
through either rural/urban divisions, or national divisions.
In comparison, the variations between stakeholder groups responding to the statement
"People in my community have had illnesses because of the water" were more
significant. At the national level there is low agreement with this in Namibia,
variation in South Africa and Botswana and high level of agreement in Lesotho. There
is also high level of division between the stakeholder groups. Those who disagree
strongly include Energy Department/ Ministry, Construction industry, District water
management official, Irrigation Farmer, and those who disagree less strongly include
Water, Hydro-meteorological Department/Ministry, Fisheries Department/ Ministry,
Power utility, Tourism/Recreation Sector, Mining sector, Agro-industry, Basin
government officials, Scientists, Conservationists, Community based organizations
(CBO)/ Village development committees, and International Funding Institution/
Bilateral development agency. In contrast, there is strong agreement from Foreign
Affairs Department/ Ministry, Social Welfare / Public Health Department/ Ministry,
Elected politician, Industrial sector (factory) and Press/media, with milder agreement
from Conservation/Environmental Department/ Ministry, Industry Department/
Ministry, Mining regulation agency, Labour Department/ Ministry, Water
management parastatal, Municipal Government, Municipal waste officials, Non-
203
Governmental Organizations (NGO), Educator/teacher/academics, Student or youth
group members, Stock Farmers, Dry land cropping farmers and Health care providers.
It is interesting to note that given the statements above the stakeholders either very
strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement "I believe that the water in the
Orange-Senqu River is safe to drink." Only Elected politicians, Tourism/Recreation
Sector, Stock Farmers, Irrigation Farmers, and Dry land cropping farmers agreed
and no groups were in strong agreement. In the case of the members of community
living near the river the disagreement was consistent throughout the group and the
disagreement was relatively strong.
This finding is supported by the response to the statement "The water in the Orange-
Senqu River is very polluted in some parts." All groups either agreed or agreed
strongly. Those living near the river agreed very strongly, suggesting that pollution
levels are especially challenging for these stakeholders. Additionally, while pollution
is often diluted by the flow of the river, the stakeholders overwhelmingly disagreed
with the statement "Any pollution in the river is diluted so it is not a problem for me."
Land degradation/ Desertification
Land degradation such as erosion and desertification was ranked as the second highest
priority concern for stakeholders overall. Across the stakeholder groups, only the
construction industry ranked this as a low priority concern, while a majority ranked it
very highly. Within the issue of land degradation, survey respondents addressed
issues pertaining to water availability impacting desertification trends, impacts on
personal and economic interests, and perceptions about availability. The omnipresent
issue of climate change is also addressed here, as the most profound impacts of
climate change, including desertification and erosion due to wind and flooding events,
are encompassed in this section.
In response to the statement, "Communities in the basin have enough water for
everyone who lives there", the overall response was disagreement. At the national
level, Botswana, which is water stressed, and Lesotho had the highest levels of
disagreement, while Namibia and South Africa voiced less adamant disagreement.
There was strong disagreement from most stakeholders groups. Others also in less
adamant agreement were those in professional groups, such as Agriculture
Department/ Ministry, Power utility, Basin government officials, District water
management officials, and International Funding Institution/ Bilateral development
agency. In contrast, the irrigation farmer stakeholder group agreed strongly in support
of this, though there was clear division between those in Lesotho who disagreed and
those in other countries who agreed strongly. This may be because the irrigation
farmers outside of Lesotho feel that they have enough water and are able to draw
water easily from the river, while those in Lesotho have limited water rights. The
division within this group should be addressed, if possible, since there is potential for
tensions among farmers with limited access to water. Additionally, taking steps to
increase the irrigation farmers' awareness of their impacts on other stakeholders may
be recommended, if done in a manner that focuses on joint management.
In comparison to the responses outlined above there were strong levels of cohesive
disagreement from stakeholders in response to the statement "There will always be
enough water available to everyone who needs it." This suggests that stakeholders
204
throughout the basin are aware of limited availability of water, especially in this arid
zone. It also suggests that there is the realization that water resources are not infinite
and that there is competition among users for water uses. The consensus on
disagreement with the statement also extends throughout the national stakeholders
with all four countries in strong disagreement. The acknowledgement of this scarcity
issue will be helpful for raising public awareness, and inducing conservation measures
for water use. Further, consensus on this within the basin suggests a high level of
receptivity to improved water management practices.
Two related issues impacted by this decline in the dependence on a regular supply of
water are the perception of the economic importance of water and the importance of a
regular water supply for individual economic wellbeing. In response to the statement
"The economy depends on a regular water supply from rivers and groundwater", all
groups were in strong agreement. Similarly, in response to the statement "My own
livelihood depends on a regular water supply from rivers and ground water" all
groups were in strong support. This again suggests that people are very sensitive to
issues of water depletion and impacts on low water and drought in the basin. This
again also suggests the understanding among stakeholders that there is a clear link
between water availability and access to water. This awareness of limited resources
and economic linkages would indicate a potentially important starting point for social
marketing for water conservation efforts.
Climate change impacts (current and future)
The shifts in the climate impact the basin cut across all issues, as increased droughts
and potential severe flooding events lead to further land degradation and
desertification negatively impacting populations throughout the basin. Climate change
impacts was ranked fourth among all stakeholder as a priority concern, with only the
construction industry stakeholder groups ranking this as a low priority.
The shift in climate has been detected across all stakeholder groups as all groups
agreed strongly with the statement "I have noticed that the weather is different now
than it was when I was younger." The stakeholders from Lesotho and Botswana were
in strongest agreement with this, perhaps since they have been more directly
impacted, either due to being more profoundly impacted by the changes or by
experiencing more extreme changes. The agreement from stakeholders in South
Africa and Namibia was also high for noticing changes in weather. This suggests that
the trends are significant enough to make an impact on stakeholders. Stakeholders
also have noticed that there are some places in the Orange-Senqu river basin with
different climates than were there in the past, and all agreed strongly that "Possible
shifts in climate will impact the ecology of my basin." Again, this may be a point of
entry for increasing awareness and inducing behaviour changes as people adapt to
climate change issues.
Alien invasive species (new plants and animals)
The issue of the presence of alien invasive species of plants and animals was the
lowest priority concern of stakeholders in the basin. This issue paled by comparison to
issues of stress on water, degradation of land and water, and loss of biodiversity. It is
not uncommon that the issue of alien invasive species fails to attract the attention of
stakeholders unless it becomes pervasive and interferes with normal ecological
functioning. It should be noted that at the national level, stakeholders in South Africa
205
ranked this as a higher priority concern than those in other countries. The South
African stakeholder ranked this issue third, above alteration in naturally occurring
water flow in the river, land degradation such as erosion and desertification, climate
change impacts (current and future) and loss of biodiversity (wildlife, including plants
and animals). In all other countries it was ranked as the lowest priority concern.
In response to the statement "There are new types of wildlife plants or animals, in
and near the river now." There was division among stakeholders and within
stakeholder groups. Those stakeholders from South Africa, and to a lesser extent
Namibia, tended to see more, while others did not. In addition, those who are part of
the "environmental elite" such as Conservation/Environmental Department/ Ministry,
Fisheries Department/Ministry, Scientists, Conservationists, and
Educator/teacher/academics strongly agreed. These groups have increased access to
information and are more closely aware of trends in invasive species. In contrast,
those who strongly disagreed were district water management officials and the press
and media. Other stakeholder groups vacillated between the two extremes, though
overall this issue failed to spark significant levels of relevance among stakeholder
groups. Most groups were very close to neutral on this issue, with division being
mainly driven by nationality. In regard to the environmental elite who are in strong
agreement that there are new types of wildlife in and near the river now, and those in
strong disagreement, specifically the press and media, this may present an ideal
opportunity to increase overall basin-wide awareness of the challenges of invasive
species, through a concerted education campaign. The "environmental elite" could
provide expertise for journalists interested in environmental issues, which in turn
could increase the overall understanding of invasives throughout the basin.
Loss of biodiversity (wildlife, including plants and animals)
The issue of loss of biodiversity ranked fifth out of seven as a priority concern among
all stakeholders. Most groups expressed this as a mid-level concern, with the expected
environmental elite, and tourism industry ranking this higher, while others such as
construction and industry ranked it as a lower priority concern. At the national level,
Lesotho ranked loss of biodiversity as a high level concern, while South Africa,
Namibia and Botswana rank it as a mid-level priority concern. The higher
prioritization in Lesotho may be due to the perception that there is far less wildlife
there now than previously, and the development of game reserves drawing economic
benefits from tourism has not been realized in Lesotho as it has in the other Orange
River countries.
In response to the statement "Economic development has impacted the number of
animals and plants in the basin", most stakeholder groups were in strong agreement.
Only the construction industry and the irrigation farmers disagreed with this. These
groups were not geographically biased in their responses. It is possible that these two
groups may feel that they may be targeted as responsible for the decline in some
species, and seek to divert the issue. Alternately, it may be a result of low levels of
information about loss of biodiversity in the basin. Overall the strong agreement that
there is a correlation between economic development and impacts on species in the
basin suggests that the stakeholders acknowledge that this is an issue and there is an
understanding that development has ecological consequences. This may suggest an
opportunity for educating stakeholders about how to reduce negative impacts of
206
development on biodiversity, especially those in the planning departments of various
government agencies. The strong public awareness of this issue could serve as a
catalyst for implementing shifts in policies that are more ecologically friendly and
support biodiversity in the basin.
Similarly, in response to the statement "Without wildlife the economy will suffer",
stakeholders agreed either strongly or more generally. There were no stakeholder
groups in disagreement. The only stakeholder group that did not agree clearly and was
internally divided were the mining regulation agencies, which likely see that mining is
a strong economic driver in the basin, rather than ecological tourism. Lesotho had a
lower rate of agreement overall as a country, likely because the tourism industry
focusing on wildlife has not been developed there. In response to the statement "More
efforts should be put into preserving protected ecological sites for future generations"
all stakeholder groups were in strong agreement. This suggests that there is an
awareness of the degradation of ecologically important areas, and the need to preserve
them. Again, this provides strong support for lobbying government actors, funding
organizations and increasing awareness among the public on how to preserve these
sites.
General Attitudinal Questions
Within the surveys there were several statements presented to stakeholders intended
to gauge their attitudes toward environmental and water management issues. These
questions focus on future capacity, environmental stewardship, responsibility for
water management, and decision making in water use. These attitudinal questions
highlight where stakeholder involvement can be targeted, and provide additional
insight into stakeholder perceptions.
In the Qualitative SHA some stakeholder groups expressed strong concern that there
would not be sufficient numbers of water management specialists within the next
decade. This was due to attrition and retirement rates of those in the top echelons
without sufficiently trained officials to replace them. In response to the statement
"There are many trained professionals dealing with water issues, and will be in the
future", those who strongly disagreed were the: Water, Hydro-meteorological
Department/Ministry, Fisheries Department/ Ministry, Foreign Affairs Department/
Ministry, Foreign Affairs Department/ Ministry, Power utility, and Industrial sector
(factory). Those who disagreed less strongly were from Conservation/Environmental
Department/ Ministry, Energy Department/ Ministry, Mining regulation agency,
Agriculture Department/ Ministry, Elected politician, Water management parastatal,
Mining sector, Agro-industry, District water management officials, Municipal
Government, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO), Conservationists,
Educator/teacher/academics, Stock Farmers, Irrigation Farmers, Dry land cropping
farmers, and International Funding Institution/ Bilateral development agency. These
groups tend to be more aware of the challenges of water management. This suggests
that those who understand the challenges presented by the decline in water
management capacity are concerned about the lack of available future water
managers. Steps should be taken to address this imminent challenge, either through
supporting scholarships or other capacity building measures such as mentoring
programmes for junior water managers, possibly advocated by the project.
207
In regard to general attitudes towards the environment there was strong consensus
among stakeholders. There was very strong disagreement among all stakeholder
groups with the statement "People should take all they can from nature to survive
because there will always be more." This suggests that stakeholders are aware that
there is a finite amount of ecological resources, and that the environment will not
always be replenished. This finding is mirrored by the response to the statement "I
feel everyone is responsible for the environment in the Orange-Senqu River basin."
All stakeholder groups were in strong agreement. This again suggests that not only
are the stakeholders aware of the finite resources, but there is a sense of collective
ownership for the environment of the Orange-Senqu River Basin.
However, when asked specifically about water use, there was an interesting
response which counters this. Stakeholders were presented with the statement
"People do not think much about the water they use." All stakeholder groups,
except Social Welfare / Public Health Department/ Ministry, were in agreement or
strong agreement. This suggests that people are not aware of water related issues,
such as scarcity, water pollution or other ecological problems related to water use.
If users are not considering these, it is possible that there is a need to increase
awareness, and to make water use and water conservation more important to
people. The disagreement from the social welfare and public health departments,
suggests that people do consider water, especially as it pertains to their health,
within the purview of those responsible for public health. This finding suggests that
there may be an opportunity to support the social welfare and public health
departments in highlighting water issues for the public and recruiting other sectors
to assist in this effort, including water and hydro/meteorological departments,
conservationists, agricultural departments, Water management parastatal, Power
utility companies, the Tourism/Recreation Sector, Basin government officials,
Municipal Government and Municipal waste officials. Working together, these
groups may be able to increase the awareness of water issues and to induce
conservation measures among water users in their sectors.
Survey participants were asked two questions pertaining to current water practices
and those who are perceived to benefit the most and the least from these existing
practices. Responses are presented in the figures below based on the responses by
individuals, rather than groups. These findings suggest that there is less agreement
about who benefits most, while there is more consensus about who benefits least. This
actually bodes well for the project, because the groups that are perceived to benefit
most are diverse, while those who benefit least are more concentrated. The diversity
of groups perceived to benefit most is generally that it is "economic" stakeholders
who benefit financially from current practices, while those who benefit least generally
wield less economic influence. As a result, bringing these groups together to find
common ground on goals and objectives will be a challenge for the project, however
early indications of the positions of different groups, and which groups they feel are
benefiting most and least will be helpful. The group specific views of who benefits
most and least is presented in the subsequent section of analysis by group.
208
Who benefits most from current water
management practices?
Members of
Water Hydro-
Community near
meteorlogical
River
Dept 9%
5%
Fisheries
Irrigation Farmer
Dept.3%
12%
Industry Dept3%
Stock Farmer
Agriculture Dept.
3%
8%
Agro-industry
11%
Water
Management
Parastatal16%
Industrial Sector
Power Utility
15%
5%
Mining Sector
10%
Who benefits least from current water
management practices?
International
Fisheries
Funding
Dept 5%
Conservationists
Institution/
6%
Bilateral
Development
Community
agency 4%
based
organization
(CBO)/Village
development
committee14%
Member of
community living
Student or youth
near the river
group member
49%
5%
Irrigation Farmer
7%
Dry land cropping
farmer 10%
209
Stakeholders were also asked what their sources of information were on water and the
environment. Presented below are the percentages by each group. Main stream media
(television, radio and news papers) account for almost half, while government
officials make up twenty percent. Other sources may include internet, peer review
journals, and other sources. These are also broken down in terms of main sources for
groups in the subsequent section.
What is the source of most of your information about
water and then environment?
Television
17%
Other
29%
Radio
17%
Government
Officials
Newspapers
20%
Neighbors
14%
3%
V. QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS FINDINGS: Responses by Stakeholder Group
In order to transect the perceptions in the basin, the analysis is conducted both by
issue specific statements above and by stakeholder group below. The stakeholder
group section presents each stakeholder group, including their stake in the Orange-
Senqu River Basin, and their top priority issues. Their perceptions by topic are
presented where opinions are especially relevant. In the event that there was no
relevance these were omitted, unless issues pertained directly to the specific group.
This is followed by a brief section on the perceptions of the stakeholders within the
group, including who they believed benefits most and least presented in tabular
format, and the source of their information on water and environmental issues. Each
section concludes with recommendations pertaining to the group within the overall
project activities. These recommendations are combined with those from the topic
specific section and the QL SHA.
210
1. Water, Hydro-meteorological Department/Ministry
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are in government positions with
responsibility for water and/or hydro-meteorological management issues. The
highest priority issues for this group are stress on surface and groundwater
resources, deteriorating water quality (surface and groundwater), followed by
climate change impacts (current and future).
Surface and groundwater use
The stakeholders in the Water, Hydro/meteorological Department/Ministry
disagreed strongly with the statements "Use of water for affordable energy and
improving economic conditions is more important than environmental protection",
"Economic development is more important than environmental protection" and
"Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone who lives there." This
suggests that they are very sensitive to issues of water and environmental concerns
as closely interlinked and, as expected, not eager to use water solely as an end
resource, but are aware of the importance of environmental protection as a way to
protect water resources.
Changes to hydrological regime
In response to the statement "Building more dams in the river will have positive
impacts for me and my country" there was stronger agreement from the stakeholders
in the Water, Hydro/meteorological Department/Ministry in Lesotho and Namibia,
disagreement in Botswana and neutral responses from South Africa. This is to be
expected from Lesotho, and perhaps Namibia, in need of more water from the Orange.
The response from Botswana is likely due to the lack of dam activities in the Orange
tributaries and more in response to rivers in other parts of the country.
Deterioration of water quality
Stakeholders in the Water, Hydro/meteorological Department/Ministry strongly
agreed with the statement "The water in the Orange-Senqu River is very polluted in
some parts." This suggests and awareness of the problems of pollution, of hotspots
and of this as an issue with which they must deal on a professional basis.
Land degradation
Stakeholders in the Water, Hydro/meteorological Department/Ministry strongly
disagreed with the statements "Communities in the basin have enough water for
everyone who lives there" and "There will always be enough water available to
everyone who needs it." As expected, this group must tackle the significant challenges
of conservation, over exploitation, competition between users, and the associated
problems with water scarcity.
Biodiversity/ Alien invasives
The stakeholders in the Water, Hydro/meteorological Department/Ministry Economic
group strongly agreed that "development has impacted the number of animals and
plants in the basin."
Perceptions
As in the Qualitative SHA, the stakeholders in the Water, Hydro-meteorological
Department/Ministry strongly disagreed with the statement that "There are many
trained professionals dealing with water issues, and will be in the future." This issue
211
was raised as a high priority concern earlier and is very strongly echoed here. It is
suggested that the project take measures to address this concern.
Stakeholders in the Water, Hydro/meteorological Department/Ministry strongly
agreed with the statements "People do not think much about the water they use" and
"I am involved in decision making regarding water use." These responses are to be
expected in the sense that people do not give consideration to water use issues, while
this group bears significant responsibility for water management. Any future work
building awareness should include the input of these stakeholders in order to benefit
from their extensive insight and experience.
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Water, Hydro-meteorological Department/Ministry
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Agriculture Dept./Ministry
Dry land cropping farmer
industrial sector (factory)
member of community living near the
agro-industry
river
Stock Farmers
Irrigation farmers
This group receives information about water and the environment from government
officials and other sources.
Recommendations
Institute a scholarship programme for water management officials, junior staff,
and students to learn more about water management, with an emphasis on
environmental management components of water management in coordination
with top regional universities. The capacity building measures could include a
mentoring programme between senior and junior officials, mid-career
certification programmes to advance the environmental management capacity of
rising professionals, and scholarships for students who agree to work in the
basin for 5 years following completion of the programme.
Include the stakeholders from the Water, Hydro/meteorological
Department/Ministry in the development of awareness building activities for
water users throughout the basin, including a survey within this group of the
most effective awareness raising strategies employed within the basin for
replication where possible.
2. Conservation/Environmental Department/Ministry
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are in government positions with
responsibility for ecological and environmental management issues. The highest
priority issues for this group are land degradation such as erosion and
desertification, stress on surface and groundwater resources and deteriorating water
quality (surface and groundwater).
Surface and groundwater use
As expected, stakeholders from the Conservation/Environmental
Department/Ministry disagreed strongly with the following statements "Economic
development in the short term is important and must use whatever resources
212
possible, including water resources"; "Use of water for affordable energy and
improving economic conditions is more important than environmental protection";
"Economic development is more important than environmental protection"; and
"Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone who lives there". This
indicates the strength of opinion and cohesion within this stakeholder group, as well
as the potential challenges in the perceived trade-off between economic
development and environmental stewardship.
Changes to hydrological regime
Stakeholders from the Conservation/ Environmental Department/Ministry agreed
strongly with "Some water users take too much water from the river without
consideration for other users". This suggests that the perception of unequal
distribution of resources is something this group has observed, and that water
conservation measures would be welcomed by these stakeholders.
Deterioration of water quality
Stakeholders from the Conservation/Environmental Department/Ministry disagreed
strongly "I believe that the water in the Orange-Senqu River is safe to drink" and
"Any pollution in the river is diluted so it is not a problem for me." They agreed very
strongly with "The water in the Orange-Senqu River is very polluted in some parts."
It would be expected also that these responses would come from this group as they are
often involved with monitoring and regulation of water quality issues.
Land degradation
With regard to land degradation, including desertification, the stakeholders from the
Conservation/Environmental Department/Ministry disagreed strongly with
"Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone who lives there" and
"There will always be enough water available to everyone who needs it." This group
has the ecological training to understand the destructive challenges of desertification,
and to assist in adapting to those challenges as they occur.
Biodiversity/Alien invasives
As expected, stakeholders from the Conservation/Environmental Department/Ministry
agreed strongly with the following statements, "There are new types of wildlife
plants or animals, in and near the river now", "Economic development has impacted
the number of animals and plants in the basin", and "Without wildlife the economy
will suffer." This group is closely involved in these issues and responsible for
monitoring these trends in biodiversity and invasive species, and this confirms the
TTT attention to these as a basin wide issue. It should be noted that the degree of
relevance within groups other than this regarding invasive species is very low.
Perceptions
As in the Qualitative SHA, the stakeholders in the Conservation/Environmental
Department/Ministry agreed with the statements "People do not think much about the
water they use" This response is to be expected in the sense that people do not give
consideration to water use issues, while this group bears significant responsibility for
environmental management. Any future work building awareness should include the
input of these stakeholders in order to benefit from their extensive insight and
experience.
213
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Conservation/Environmental Department/Ministry
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
industrial sector (factory)
member of community living near the
Irrigation farmers
river
This group receives most of its information about water and the environment from
government officials and other sources. Some reported that they receive information
on water and the environment mostly from television.
Suggestions
Take steps to unlink the perception of a trade off between sound environmental
management and economic development, possibly taking advantage of expertise
regarding economic and environmental losses that result from desertification. Ask
the Conservation/Environmental Department/Ministry to assist in demonstrating
strategies to adapt to those challenges as they occur, possibly through exhibition
projects and development of educational materials.
3. Fisheries Department/Ministry
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are in government positions with
responsibility for fisheries management issues. The highest priority issues for this
group are climate change impacts (current and future) and land degradation such as
erosion and desertification.
Surface and groundwater use
Stakeholders from the Fisheries Department/Ministry disagreed strongly with the
following statements "Use of water for affordable energy and improving economic
conditions is more important than environmental protection"; "Economic
development is more important than environmental protection"; and "Communities in
the basin have enough water for everyone who lives there." These responses are
expected from a group that is dependent on the environmental health of the water for
their mission to be effective. Low water levels concentrate potential pollutants and
minerals as well as reducing fish habitat. This group is also familiar with the
challenges of the perceived trade-off between environmental stewardship and
economic development, and they likely recognize that these issues are complimentary
rather than competitive.
Changes to hydrological regime
Stakeholders from the Fisheries Department/Ministry agreed strongly with the "Some
water users take too much water from the river without consideration for other users".
Again this suggests that there is awareness of the competition for resources among
users which will need to be addressed, including issues pertaining to fisheries.
Deterioration of water quality
Stakeholders from the Fisheries Department/Ministry disagreed strongly with the
following statements, "My community always has enough good water for people to
drink" and "I believe that the water in the Orange-Senqu River is safe to drink." This
suggests that the low water quality is a significant issue in that members of this group
214
are monitoring water quality for fisheries health when fisheries are within the river
basin. Additionally this group strongly agreed that "... water in the Orange-Senqu
River is very polluted in some parts" and disagreed with "any pollution in the river is
diluted so it is not a problem for me." Again this emphasizes the perceived challenges
of water quality conditions, especially as seen by those involved from the perspective
of fisheries management and the health of the river systems as it pertains to viability
as a productive ecosystem.
Land degradation
Stakeholders from the Fisheries Department/Ministry disagreed strongly with the
following statements "Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone who
lives there" and "There will always be enough water available to everyone who needs
it." This suggests that problems of overabstraction, competition among users for
limited resources and the challenges of overdevelopment in the basin can be linked to
water shortages which impact the fisheries sector as well as others. As climate change
continues it is expected that this will also have an impact on fisheries. This group
strongly agrees with the statement "I know some places in the Orange-Senqu river
basin with different climates than were there in the past." As water presumably
becomes more scarce the impacts on the fisheries may be felt by increased
concentration of pollutants in the river systems.
Biodiversity/Alien invasives
The Fisheries Department/Ministry stakeholders strongly agreed with the statements
"There are new types of wildlife plants or animals, in and near the river now" and
"Economic development has impacted the number of animals and plants in the basin."
This suggests that these stakeholders who are closely monitoring the ecology of the
river systems are seeing impacts of invasive species as well as the loss of some
endemic species within the basin.
Perceptions
The Fisheries Department/Ministry stakeholders strongly disagreed with the statement
that "There are many trained professionals dealing with water issues, and will be in
the future." This reflects the agreement found in other government sectors that
indicates a future shortage of professionals and the importance of taking steps to build
this capacity now.
The Fisheries Department/Ministry officials also strongly agreed that "people do not
think much about the water they use" suggesting a sense of frustration in the lack of
awareness among stakeholders about the challenges of water management.
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Fisheries Department/Ministry
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
industrial sector (factory)
member of community living near the
Construction industry
river
Irrigation farmers
215
The main the source of most of their information about water and the environment
comes from sources other than those listed, such as television, government sources.
The information may come from professional periodicals and reports.
Recommendations
Include fisheries officials in intersectoral committees as possible to provide a
clear linkage between water quality, ecosystem health and economic
development of water resources. This group's insights into these issues may be
helpful in emphasizing an ecosystem approach to water use that would also
focus on potential sustainability.
4. Industry Department/Ministry
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are in government positions with
responsibility for industrial development and management issues on behalf of the
government. The highest priority issues for this group are those involving loss of
biodiversity (wildlife, including plants and animals). Unfortunately, the lack of
responses available from this group precludes inclusion in this portion of the
analysis. It may be suggested that steps be taken in the next phase of the project to
include their opinions as possible.
5. Energy Department/Ministry
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are in government positions with
responsibility for energy issues including management, regulation and monitoring.
The highest priority issues for this group are: land degradation such as erosion and
desertification; loss of biodiversity (wildlife, including plants and animals); climate
change impacts (current and future); and stress on surface and groundwater
resources.
Surface and groundwater use
Respondents from the Energy Department/Ministry stakeholder group strongly
disagreed with the statements, "Use of water for affordable energy and improving
economic conditions is more important than environmental protection", "Economic
development is more important than environmental protection", and "Communities
in the basin have enough water for everyone who lives there." This indicates that
these stakeholders are aware of the importance of water conservation and are
sensitive to water scarcity. The Energy Department/Ministry stakeholder group also
agreed strongly with the statements "Crops and livestock should always have all the
water that they need" and "Industry should always have all the water it needs." This
indicates that, though this group has learned the language of conservation noted
above that environmental stewardship must be a priority, the means to protect the
water sources through limiting the agricultural and industrial sectors is not
supported. This could mean either that this group feels that water demand issues
can be resolved through other approaches, or that industrial and agricultural
development should still take precedence over water conservations.
Changes to hydrological regime
Members of the Energy Department/Ministry stakeholder group strongly agreed with
the statement, "Some water users take too much water from the river without
216
consideration for other users." This suggests that the respondents are sensitive to
excess water use by some groups, possibly including themselves, though that is
difficult to determine.
Deterioration of water quality
The Energy Department/Ministry stakeholder group strongly disagreed with the
statements "People in my community have had illnesses because of the water", and
yet they also strongly disagreed with the statement, "I believe that the water in the
Orange-Senqu River is safe to drink." This suggests that they are not drinking water
directly from river, but also that they are sensitive to perceived pollution within the
river. They also strongly disagreed with the statement, "Any pollution in the river is
diluted so it is not a problem for me", suggesting that they feel some degree of
concern for water quality and are aware of the thinking behind the old adage stating
that the solution to pollution is not dilution.
Land degradation
Stakeholders from the Energy Department/Ministry group disagreed strongly with the
following statements, "Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone
who lives there" and "There will always be enough water available to everyone who
needs it." This suggests that problems of overabstraction, competition among users
for limited resources and the challenges of low water levels in the basin are linked to
water shortages that impact the energy sector, as the cooling of generators is often
dependent on water sources. As climate change continues it is expected that this will
also have an increased impact on energy generation. This group strongly agrees with
the statement, "I know some places in the Orange-Senqu river basin with different
climates than were there in the past." As water presumably becomes more scarce the
impacts on the energy sector may be felt more significantly, both in terms of demand
for energy and energy sector demand on water resources.
Biodiversity/Alien invasives
Members of the Energy Department/Ministry stakeholder group strongly agreed that
"Economic development has impacted the number of animals and plants in the basin."
This awareness of the perceived loss of biodiversity as a result of human and
economic development suggests that this group is sensitive to these impacts and, in
turn, the importance of environmental conservation, as noted above.
Perceptions
Stakeholders from the Energy Department/Ministry group strongly agreed that
"people do not think much about the water they use", suggesting an awareness among
stakeholders about the challenges of water management, but, in combination with the
response above regarding agriculture and industrial sectors having unlimited access,
this suggests that this group may benefit from an awareness raising campaign that
focuses on the importance of water conservation and the potential economic benefits
of such measures.
It is of special importance that this group indicated that the power utilities benefit the
least from current water management policies. As this stakeholder group works
closely with these utilities, it may be worthwhile to further investigate why these
groups are perceived to be at a disadvantage.
217
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Water, Hydro-meteorological Department/Ministry
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Water management parastatal
Power utility
Irrigation farmers
member of community living near the
river
The source of most information about water and the environment for the stakeholders
from the Energy Department/Ministry group is television and government officials.
Recommendation:
Consider examining the potential impact increasing water scarcity and potential
increases in water temperatures will have on power generation as a way to boost
energy sector concerns about water sector management and climate change
impacts.
6. Mining regulation agency
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are in government positions with
responsibility for regulation of mining activities within the countries. The highest
priority issues for this group are climate change impacts (current and future),
deteriorating water quality (surface and groundwater), stress on surface and
groundwater resources, and land degradation such as erosion and desertification.
Though the response rate of this group was below optimal, the findings remain
relevant.
Surface and groundwater use
Members of the mining regulation agency stakeholder group demonstrated
environmental concern by strongly disagreeing with the statements, "Use of water for
affordable energy and improving economic conditions is more important than
environmental protection" and "Economic development is more important than
environmental protection." They acknowledged the challenges created by water
scarcity by strongly disagreeing with "Communities in the basin have enough water
for everyone who lives there." Yet in contrast they strongly agreed with the
statements, "Crops and livestock should always have all the water that they need" and
"Industry should always have all the water it needs". This indicates that, though they
agree with basic principles of environmental protection, the belief that there should be
sufficient water to farming and industry suggests that economic development
continues to take precedent over practical environmental stewardship pertaining to
water resources.
Deterioration of water quality
The mining regulation agency stakeholder group strongly agrees with the statement,
"My community always has enough good water for people to drink", suggesting that
these individuals feel that local water quality is not a priority concern in the areas in
which they live.
218
Land degradation
It should be noted that, though this group felt that people within their community
always have enough good water for people to drink, they strongly disagreed with the
statement, "Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone who lives
there". There was disagreement with the statement that "There will always be enough
water available to everyone who needs it", again suggesting an awareness of water
scarcity issues and potential challenges that will emerge as a result.
There was internal division within the mining and industry stakeholder group with
regard to further alteration of the river system. The stakeholders from Botswana,
Namibia, and South Africa disagreed with the statement "Building more dams in the
river will have positive impacts for me and my country" while the stakeholders from
Lesotho strongly agreed. This reflects economic dependence on the dam construction
scheme in the basin, which will benefit the Lesotho economy a great deal, as noted in
the Qualitative Stakeholder Analysis.
Perceptions and opinions
The mining regulation agency strongly disagreed with the statement that they are
involved in decision making regarding water management. This belief that they are
not involved in the decision making suggests that these regulators are not overseeing
water use within the scope of their administrative responsibilities and may indicate
that recruitment of members of this group on the
interministerial/interdepartmental/interdepartmental committee could be advantageous
to the project.
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Mining regulation agency
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Water management parastatal
member of community living near the
river
Members of the Mining regulation agency receive most of their information about
water and the environment from radio and government officials
Recommendation
Inclusion of the Mining regulation agency stakeholder group on
interministerial/interdepartmental/interdepartmental committees to increase
effective management and oversight.
7. Finance Department /Ministry
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are in government positions with
responsibility for financial management issues. They often oversee the allocation of
government spending. The highest priority issues for this group are climate change
impacts (current and future), land degradation such as erosion and desertification,
and loss of biodiversity (wildlife, including plants and animals). Only respondents
from Lesotho and Botswana were available to participate in this survey.
219
Surface and groundwater use
Members of the Finance Department /Ministry stakeholder group strongly agreed with
the statement, "Economic development in the short term is important and must use
whatever resources possible, including water resources." As their professional
responsibilities include oversight of economic development trends, this response
should be expected. It is countered, however, by their strong disagreement with the
statements "Use of water for affordable energy and improving economic conditions is
more important than environmental protection", and "Economic development is more
important than environmental protection", which indicates a level of awareness of the
economic benefits provided by the environment.
Further, the members of the Finance Department /Ministry stakeholder group strongly
disagreed with the statement, "Communities in the basin have enough water for
everyone who lives there". This suggests that they are aware of the challenges
presented by water scarcity in the basin. They felt this strongly while agreeing that
"Crops and livestock should always have all the water that they need", yet there were
national divisions in response to the statement "Industry should always have all the
water it needs", with Lesotho agreeing strongly and Botswana disagreeing, though
less adamantly. This may indicate that while this group recognizes the importance of
the agricultural sector, the devotion of resources to the industrial sector is divided
nationally. This may reflect the overall state of the economies in these countries,
where Botswana is more economically secure, while Lesotho continues to strive to
gain economic stability.
Changes to hydrological regime
Members of the Finance Department /Ministry stakeholder group strongly agreed with
the statement "Some water users take too much water from the river without
consideration for other users" indicating that they are aware of the problems of over-
extraction of water, and the impact that this has on other users. It is important that the
Finance Department /Ministry stakeholder group recognizes this, so that they may be
called upon to help increase programmes encouraging more equitable water use in the
basin.
Deterioration of water quality
The stakeholders from the Finance Department /Ministry group strongly disagreed
with the statement "My community always has enough good water for people to
drink." This suggests that in Botswana and Lesotho potable water scarcity is a salient
issue, and if those stakeholders in the Finance Department /Ministry are aware of this
issue, it may be more prevalent as an economic issue than may otherwise be indicated.
Additional input from analogous groups in Namibia and South Africa may bolster this
finding, if available.
Land degradation
As noted above the Members of the Finance Department /Ministry stakeholder group
strongly disagreed with the statement, "Communities in the basin have enough water
for everyone who lives there." They also strongly disagree with the statement, "There
will always be enough water available to everyone who needs it." This suggests that
this influential group of stakeholders is sensitive to the challenges of water scarcity
and may be supportive of interventions that directly address these issues. Again, input
220
from analogous groups in Namibia and South Africa may bolster this finding, if
available.
Biodiversity/invasive species
The Finance Department /Ministry stakeholder group strongly agreed with the
statement, "Economic development has impacted the number of animals and plants in
the basin" suggesting there is awareness that anthropogenic factors influenced the
natural ecosystem. As the body responsible for oversight of economic development,
this bodes well for making improvements in sustainable development strategies.
Perceptions and opinions
Members of the Finance Department /Ministry stakeholder group strongly agreed with
the statement, "People do not think much about the water they use." This suggests that
the awareness of the low salience of this issue again could be grounds for increasing
support for the social marketing campaign targeting the raising of public awareness
with regard to water scarcity issues. Additional input from analogous groups in
Namibia and South Africa may bolster this finding, if available.
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Finance Department /Ministry
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Water management parastatal
member of community living near the
river
The source of most information about water and the environment for the Finance
Department /Ministry stakeholders is newspapers and neighbours, indicating that
inter-ministerial outreach may be needed, with a potential training on environmental
economics made available to this group.
Recommendation
Need to get input from the Finance Department /Ministry stakeholders in
Namibia and South Africa to bolster these findings.
8. Foreign Affairs Department/Ministry
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are in government positions with
responsibility for formal foreign relations of the state, including international
agreements, treaties, and formal trans-boundary relations. The highest priority issues
for this group are climate change impacts (current and future), land degradation such
as erosion and desertification, and loss of biodiversity (wildlife, including plants and
animals). Only respondents from Lesotho and Botswana were available to participate
in this survey.
Surface and groundwater use
The members of the Foreign Affairs Department/Ministry stakeholder group strongly
agreed with the statement, "Economic development in the short term is important and
must use whatever resources possible, including water resources", but strongly
disagreed with the statement, "Economic development is more important than
environmental protection." This suggests that there is an environmental sensitivity
present, accompanied by an acute sensitivity to economic realities that are resource
221
extraction based to meet short term needs. This group holds responsibility for formal
trans-boundary relations, which suggests that there may be a need for additional
awareness raising activities on sustainable development and IWRM principles where
possible.
Deterioration of water quality
Members of the Foreign Affairs Department/Ministry stakeholder group strongly
agreed with the statement, "People in my community have had illnesses because of
the water." They strongly disagreed with the statement, "I believe that the water in the
Orange-Senqu River is safe to drink", and strongly agreed with the statement, "The
water in the Orange-Senqu River is very polluted in some parts." This suggests that
the awareness of water quality, its relation to public health and hotspot pollution is on
the radar of this group, at least within Lesotho and Botswana. Additional information
from Namibia and South Africa may verify these findings.
Land degradation
In regard to issues of landscape degradation and climate change, the members of the
Foreign Affairs Department/Ministry stakeholder group strongly disagreed with the
statement "Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone who lives
there", and strongly disagree with the statement "There will always be enough water
available to everyone who needs it." Again this signifies an awareness of water
scarcity issues and the potential challenges created therein. It may be surmised that
this also indicates a challenge of the trans-boundary implications, however it would
be premature to conclude this without additional input from Namibia and South
Africa to verify these findings.
Biodiversity / Alien invasives
The Foreign Affairs Department/Ministry stakeholder group strongly agreed with the
statement, "Economic development has impacted the number of animals and plants in
the basin", and, "Without wildlife the economy will suffer." This suggests that this
group is aware of anthropogenic effects on the environment and the need to preserve
the environment for economic development. Like the Finance Ministry stakeholder
group, additional capacity in sustainable development principles may be beneficial for
this group.
Perceptions and opinions
The Foreign Affairs Department/Ministry stakeholder group strongly disagreed with
the statement that, "There are many trained professionals dealing with water issues,
and will be in the future." This suggests some sensitivity to the forthcoming
challenges of water management as attrition of current water professionals occurs and
the need to train more increases.
Members of the Foreign Affairs Department/Ministry stakeholder group strongly
agreed with the statement, "People do not think much about the water they use." This
suggests that there is would-be support for increasing awareness among the public
about water issues, and perhaps, with the support of this group, the importance of
trans-boundary water issues as well.
222
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Foreign Affairs Department/Ministry
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Water management parastatal
Students
Irrigation farmers
The source of most information about water and then environment for the Foreign
Affairs Department/Ministry comes from radio and newspaper sources.
Recommendations
Need to get input from the Foreign Affairs Department/Ministry
stakeholders in Namibia and South Africa to bolster these findings
Develop intersectoral capacity building measures to increase awareness and
understanding of sustainable development, IWRM, and environmental
economics
9. Agriculture Department/Ministry
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are in government positions with
responsibility for agricultural development and management issues. There were no
stakeholders from this group in South Africa available to participate in the survey,
and only one from Botswana. A significant majority of responses are from
Namibia, which is factored into this analysis. The highest priority issue for
respondents from this group is land degradation, such as erosion and desertification.
Surface and groundwater use
The members of the Agriculture Department/Ministry stakeholder group agreed
strongly with the statement, "Economic development in the short term is important
and must use whatever resources possible, including water resources." They also
strongly agreed with the statement, "Crops and livestock should always have all the
water that they need." Though they disagreed with the statement, "Economic
development is more important than environmental protection," there is an
indication that the participating respondents felt that environmental protection was
not as high a priority as agriculturally based economic development, as indicated in
the responses above.
Changes to hydrological regime
Stakeholders from the Agriculture Department/Ministry group strongly agreed that
"Building more dams in the river will have positive impacts for me and my country."
This response is as expected, especially for Lesotho and Namibia, which rely on dam
construction and dam holdings for irrigation for economic development within the
countries. There was some internal division within the group, as several respondents
from Namibia and a respondent from Botswana disagreed with the statement.
Deterioration of water quality
The stakeholders from the Agriculture Department/Ministry group strongly disagreed
with the statement, "My community always has enough good water for people to
drink." They strongly agreed with the statement, "The water in the Orange-Senqu
River is very polluted in some parts." This indicates that within the areas where the
Agricultural Ministry/Department is most active there may be water quality issues,
223
and that there is an awareness of these issues as a high priority concern. It should be
noted that, because of the prevalence of respondents from Namibia, this issue may
take a higher precedent due to trans-boundary water quality issues there. Information
from the South African Agriculture Department/Ministry group would provide more
clarity on this issue.
Land degradation
While the Agriculture Department/Ministry group strongly agreed that land
degradation and desertification was the highest priority concern here, there was not
strong agreement within the group regarding statements pertaining to this. For
example there was only weak agreement with the statement, "Communities in the
basin have enough water for everyone who lives there". Though there was some
disagreement, including most stakeholders from Lesotho, there are no clear trends
within the data that explain the division. Additionally there was tepid disagreement
with the statement, "There will always be enough water available to everyone who
needs it", but again this did not break among specific identifiable groups and was
generally given low importance as an issue. It is possible that the responses trended
this way due to either an awareness that the agricultural sector is perceived to have
undue access to water resources and therefore stakeholders are hesitant to address
these statements more aggressively, or a lack of full knowledge of water and
ecosystem functioning. Because these responses are predominantly from Namibia and
Lesotho, it is not possible to draw meaningful conclusions regarding basin wide
perceptions of this group.
Biodiversity/Alien invasives
With regards to traditional ecosystem management issues the Agriculture
Department/Ministry group strongly agreed that "Economic development has
impacted the number of animals and plants in the basin" and that "Without wildlife
the economy will suffer." This indicates that the members of this group are sensitive
to environmental issues overall, as these are traditionally tied to biodiversity and
habitat preservation.
Perceptions
Stakeholders from the Agriculture Department/Ministry group strongly agreed that
"People do not think much about the water they use" suggesting that they would be
amenable to projects that increase water use awareness. They also strongly agreed
with the statement, "I am involved in decision making regarding water use." As a
result it will be imperative that representatives of these ministries/departments are
included in interministrial groups, future stakeholder work, and demonstration
projects. Their input and support will be critical and should be solicited wherever
possible to ensure more effective project implementation.
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Agriculture Department/Ministry
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
No clear agreement
member of community living near the
river
224
The source of most information about water and the environment for the Agriculture
Department/Ministry group is other government officials.
Recommendation
Investigate perceptions of Agriculture Department/Ministry group from South
Africa, as a major source of agricultural development in the basin and to
ensure stakeholder buy in for the project.
10. Social Welfare / Public Health Department/Ministry
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are in government positions with
responsibility for oversight of social welfare and public health management issues,
including epidemiology and public health education. The highest priority issues for
this group are stress on surface and groundwater resources, climate change impacts
(current and future), land degradation such as erosion and desertification, and loss
of biodiversity (wildlife, including plants and animals), followed by deteriorating
water quality (surface and groundwater). Only respondents from Lesotho and
Botswana are included in this analysis, as none were available in Namibia and
South Africa.
Surface and groundwater use
Members of the Social Welfare / Public Health Department/Ministry Strongly
disagreed with the statement, "Communities in the basin have enough water for
everyone who lives there." It is suggested that this reflects an awareness of the lack
of potable water, especially in Botswana where there are problems with salinization
of groundwater and low water availability overall and in Lesotho, where there
currently are not significant amounts of potable water available. While there is a
constitutional right to potable water guaranteed by the government of South Africa
it is not possible to conclude whether this is being met at this time.
Deterioration of water quality
The Social Welfare / Public Health Department/Ministry stakeholder group strongly
agreed that "The water in the Orange-Senqu River is very polluted in some parts,"
which indicates that even in upstream countries this pollution level is of concern to
those who monitor epidemiological concerns at the national level. This may warrant
further investigation at some point in time.
Land degradation
Stakeholders from the Social Welfare / Public Health Department/Ministry group
strongly disagreed with the statement, "There will always be enough water
available to everyone who needs it." As above, this indicates an awareness within
this group that a lack of water has significant health and social welfare
repercussions, which may significantly impact the health of the human population
within the basin.
Biodiversity/Alien invasives
The members of the Social Welfare / Public Health Department/Ministry strongly
agree with both statements, "Economic development has impacted the number of
animals and plants in the basin" and "Without wildlife the economy will suffer."
This indicates an awareness of the impact humans have on environmental indicators
225
within the basin and an appreciation that the environmental health of the basin also
impacts the economic conditions. This is important for this group, because of the
linkages between environmental health, economic sustainability, and social and
human welfare. This may be worth exploring more with regard to Namibia and
South African stakeholders from this group, as well as within the overall health of
populations within the basin.
Perceptions and opinions
The Social Welfare / Public Health Department/Ministry stakeholder group was the
only group that strongly disagreed with the statement, "People do not think much
about the water they use." This disagreement indicates that these stakeholders are
aware of water related problems and may be privy to information from other
organizations that indicate a higher level of awareness regarding water use. Also,
because these stakeholders are only representative of Lesotho and Botswana, they
may not be fully representative of the full basin, and additional investigation may be
warranted.
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Social Welfare / Public Health Department/Ministry
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Agriculture Dept./Ministry
member of community living near the
river
The main source of water and environmental information for the Social Welfare /
Public Health Department/Ministry stakeholder group is television and government
agencies.
Recommendations
Study of South African Water Law effectiveness guaranteeing the right to
access to potable water
Conduct a basin wide study of water related impacts on the health of human
populations
11. Labour Department/Ministry
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are in government positions with
responsibility for labour oversight issues on behalf of the government. The very
highest priority issues for this group are deteriorating water quality (surface and
groundwater) and climate change impacts (current and future). Other high priority
concerns include: stress on surface and groundwater resources, especially in
Botswana, and land degradation, such as erosion and desertification and loss of
biodiversity (wildlife, including plants and animals), especially in Lesotho. Namibia
and South Africa are not represented in this sample.
Surface and groundwater use
The members of the Labour Department/Ministry strongly disagreed with the
statement, "Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone who lives
there," suggesting that there is an awareness among this group that water scarcity is
226
an issue impacting human populations. Additionally, they strongly agreed that "Some
water users take too much water from the river without consideration for other users,"
suggesting that water distribution is an issue that they are aware of, however, the
equity of this is difficult to determine. In comparison they strongly agreed with both
"Crops and livestock should always have all the water that they need" and "Industry
should always have all the water it needs" suggesting that there is a low level of
awareness of the challenges to finding equitable distribution of water resources. This
dichotomy may be better understood with a larger sample size, including South Africa
and Namibia.
Changes to hydrological regime
Labour Department/Ministry stakeholders strongly agreed with the statement,
"Building more dams in the river will have positive impacts for me and my country."
This is expected because of the labour intensity of dam construction and supporting
industries, especially in Lesotho, where dam construction is a major economic driver.
Land degradation
Stakeholders from the Labour Department/Ministry group strongly disagreed with the
statement, "Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone who lives
there," and "There will always be enough water available to everyone who needs it."
This suggests that the low water levels are impacting labour and populations and, as a
result, becoming an issue for employment within the basin. This may be an issue
across the basin, but additional data are needed to verify this conclusion.
Biodiversity/Alien invasives
Labour Department/Ministry stakeholders strongly agreed with the statements,
"Economic development has impacted the number of animals and plants in the basin,"
and "Without wildlife the economy will suffer." In Botswana, which has a high level
of eco-tourism, as well as Lesotho, which also has had a significant drop in fauna as a
result of humans, the awareness of the importance of charismatic mega-fauna, and
habitat protection may be a result of tourism industry employment levels, or lack
thereof. Again, this may be an issue across the basin, but additional data are needed to
verify this conclusion.
Perceptions
Labour Department/Ministry stakeholders strongly agreed with the statements, "There
are many trained professionals dealing with water issues, and will be in the future."
This contrasts notably with all others in the water profession. It may be prudent to
build support for increasing this capacity with support from the Labour
Department/Ministry officials in the basin.
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Labour Department/Ministry
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Water management parastatal
Finance Dept./Ministry
Agro-industry
Power utility
Member of community living near the
Dry land cropping farmer
river
227
Most information on water and environmental issues for the Labour
Department/Ministry comes from television and radio.
Recommendation
Work with the Labour Department/Ministry to increase the capacity of
future water management officials, including recruitment, employment
opportunity awareness and possible educational opportunities.
12. Elected Politician
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are elected to government and
responsible for policy making at the local and national levels. The highest priority
issues for this group are land degradation such as erosion and desertification. Also
high priority issues include alteration in naturally occurring water flow in the river,
and stress on surface and groundwater resources. Only members from the elected
politician stakeholder group from Lesotho and Namibia were represented in this
analysis.
Surface and groundwater use
Members from the elected politician stakeholder group strongly disagree with the
statements, "Economic development is more important than environmental
protection," and "Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone who
lives there." This suggests an awareness of the challenges of water scarcity and the
impact this has on communities within the basin. As these individuals are often
responsible for policy making and legislation, this awareness bodes well for the
support of the project. However, without full basin-wide participation of this
stakeholder group this assertion can not be confirmed.
Elected Politician
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Water management parastatals
Irrigation farmers
Most information on water and environment comes to elected politicians through
television, news papers, and government officials
13. Water Management Parastatal
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are in positions with
responsibility for water resource management.. The highest priority issue for this
group is any degradation such as erosion and desertification. The lowest is
alteration in naturally occurring water flow in the river. This may be because of a
comfort level and confidence in the issues pertaining to river flow management
within the sphere of their experience.
Surface and groundwater use
The Water Management Parastatal stakeholder group strongly disagrees with the
statements, "Use of water for affordable energy and improving economic conditions is
228
more important than environmental protection," and "Economic development is more
important than environmental protection." This disagreement belies an appreciation of
the environment as a contributor to water management, however, the low
prioritization of concerns regarding alteration in naturally occurring water flow in the
river may indicate that this appreciation flows unidirectional. This bears further
investigation in the future, as feasible.
The Water Management Parastatal stakeholder group strongly disagrees with the
statement, "Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone who lives
there." As the party responsible for water management, this suggests that the stress of
water scarcity is significant to this stakeholder group, as would be expected.
Perceptions
Members of the Water Management Parastatal stakeholder group strongly agree with
the statement, "People do not think much about the water they use." This indicates
that these stakeholders are aware of the challenges, as expected, and would be
supportive of a campaign to increase awareness of water scarcity throughout the
basin.
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Water Management Parastatal
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Industrial sector (factory)
member of community living near the
river
Most information on water and environment comes from "other sources" and
television for the Water Management Parastatal stakeholder group.
Recommendation
Determine why alteration in river flow is a low priority concern for this
group and what their support for this is within an environmental context, to
better understand this stakeholder group's perceptions.
14. Power utility
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are in government positions with
responsibility for power supply and maintenance. The very highest priority issues
for this group are deteriorating water quality (surface and groundwater), loss of
biodiversity (wildlife, including plants and animals). Also high priority concerns
include climate change impacts (current and future) and stress on surface and
groundwater resources
Surface and groundwater use
Members of the power utility stakeholder group strongly agreed with the statement
"Some water users take too much water from the river without consideration for other
users." They strongly agreed with the statement "People do not think much about the
water they use." This suggests that this group views water resources as a resource that
is becoming scarcer and as a result should be carefully used by all users.
229
Perceptions
The members of the power utility stakeholder group strongly disagreed with the
statement, "There are many trained professionals dealing with water issues, and will
be in the future." This perception may be due to challenges to power generation as a
result of water regulation, though current laws support power utilities as priority users
in South Africa, and possibly in other countries within the basin.
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Power Utility Representatives
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Mining sector
member of community living near the
river
international lending agencies
Most information for the Members of the power utility stakeholder group regarding
water and environmental issues comes from unnamed sources other than media,
neighbours, and government.
Recommendation
Include members of the power utility stakeholder group on either the basin
wide stakeholder forum, or national stakeholder forums. Their input as
priority water users may provide important insights into the issues addressed
by the project, including the creation of win-win scenarios.
15. Tourism/Recreation Sector
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are in positions active in tourism
and recreation. The highest priority issues for this group are land degradation such
as erosion and desertification followed closely by stress on surface and
groundwater resources and loss of biodiversity (wildlife, including plants and
animals).
Surface and groundwater use
Stakeholders from the tourism and recreation sector strongly disagreed with the
statement "Use of water for affordable energy and improving economic conditions is
more important than environmental protection." This indicates that there is a high
level of awareness and dependence on the environment within the basin as an
economic draw, and if conditions are degraded there may be a decline in sector
specific revenues.
They also strongly disagreed with the statements, "Economic development is more
important than environmental protection," and "Communities in the basin have
enough water for everyone who lives there." This further suggests concerns with
regard to the water scarcity issue, though economic development also may include
construction of golf resorts, which are highly water intensive. It is not possible to
determine at this time if these respondents are involved in this particular form of
230
tourism. Inclusion of golf resort owners, administrators, and workers may be
especially informative to the project in the future.
Changes to hydrological regime
Members of the tourism and recreation sector stakeholder group strongly agreed with
the statement, "Building more dams in the river will have positive impacts for me and
my country." This is likely due to the recreational activities that emerge near the
reservoirs created by these dams, as well as increased water for resort landscaping.
This response puts this group at odds with NGOs and conservationists, both of whom
strongly disagree with this statement.
The members of the tourism and recreation sector stakeholder group strongly
disagreed with the statement, "Some water users take too much water from the river
without consideration for other users." Though difficult to discern at this juncture, this
may indicate a sense that there is distributional equity for water recourses already, or
an awareness of downstream users.
Perceptions
The statements above are consistent with the strong agreement with the statement,
"People do not think much about the water they use." This may indicate that members
of the tourism and recreation sector see water use as an issue which involves
consternation, though does not necessarily reflect the realities of distributional equity.
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Tourism and Recreation Sector
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Power Utilities
member of community living near the
Mining Sector
river
industrial sector (factory)
agro-industry
Most information on water and environmental issues for the tourism and recreation
sector comes from unnamed sources other than media, neighbours, and
government.
Recommendations
Make efforts to incorporate views of this group within stakeholder activities
and demonstration project on water scarcity to increase awareness and
reduce impacts where possible.
Develop or enhance environmental and water system awareness training for
tourism / recreation stakeholders in order to improve stewardship and
reduce impacts of this economically important industry.
231
16. Mining sector
Members of this stakeholder group are involved professionally in extraction of
minerals and ores. The highest priority issues for this group are climate change
impacts (current and future) and stress on surface and groundwater resources.
Surface and groundwater use
Members of the mining sector stakeholder group strongly disagreed with the
statement, "Economic development is more important than environmental protection,"
however, they strongly agreed with the statement, "Economic development in the
short term is important and must use whatever resources possible, including water
resources." This suggests that the mining sector respondents are aware of
environmental issues but are also focused on short term demands at the expense of the
environment. This dichotomy warrants attention in the future, with possible
technological improvements offered to this industry to reduce water impacts.
Members of this group also strongly disagreed with the statement, "Communities in
the basin have enough water for everyone who lives there." This suggests that they
are aware of water stresses and challenges that this creates. Only in Namibia and
South Africa was there strong agreement among the mining sectors that "My
community always has enough good water for people to drink", while in Botswana
and Lesotho there was disagreement. Again, this likely reflects the level of water
infrastructure development, however, it may warrant attention in the future to reduce
negative impacts on water resources.
Perceptions
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Mining Sector
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Water parastatals
member of community living near the river
agro-industry
Irrigation farmers
Most information on water and the environment comes to the mining sector
stakeholder group through television.
Recommendation
Introduce technological improvements and water conservation measures to
mining industry to minimize impacts on the water environment and improve
environmental stewardship.
17. Industrial sector (factory)
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are in private sector positions
with involvement in industrial development and industrial activities. The highest
priority issues for this group are deteriorating water quality (surface and
232
groundwater) and land degradation such as erosion and desertification. Namibia
was not represented in this sample.
Surface and groundwater use
Stakeholders from the industrial sector strongly agree that, "Economic development
in the short term is important and must use whatever resources possible, including
water resources." They also agree that "Use of water for affordable energy and
improving economic conditions is more important than environmental protection."
This suggests that the industrial sector, as a key economic stakeholder, is more
interested in economic advancement than in environmental protection. This vantage
point is common for industrial sector stakeholders in many basins of the world,
though the increase in green awareness, and the benefits of more environmentally
friendly strategies are being embraced as a way to reduce costs for the industrial
sector. Therefore it may be helpful to engage the industrial sector in project activities
through introduction of clean technology strategies that reduce excess water use while
increasing profits.
It is interesting to note that there was neither strong agreement nor strong
disagreement from the industrial sector stakeholders in response to the statement,
"Industry should always have all the water it needs." While overall there was some
agreement, on average, the strongest agreement came from Lesotho, whereas the
disagreement came mainly from some stakeholders in South Africa.
Changes to hydrological regime
Members of the industrial sector stakeholder group strongly agreed that "Building
more dams in the river will have positive impacts for me and my country", suggesting
that the industrial sector view that more dams will support economic development, as
well as provide water reserves.
Deterioration of water quality
Stakeholders from the industrial sector strongly agreed that "People in my community
have had illnesses because of the water." They strongly disagreed with the statement
"I believe that the water in the Orange-Senqu River is safe to drink." This suggests
that around areas where there is industry water quality is believed to be poor, and
impacting human populations. This would indicate that members of this group may be
eager to accommodate training on cleaner technologies and reducing environmental
impacts of industries as possible.
Land degradation
The industrial sector stakeholders strongly disagreed that "Communities in the basin
have enough water for everyone who lives there" and "There will always be enough
water available to everyone who needs it." Again this suggests that there is an
awareness of human impacts on water resources and the emerging challenges of water
conservation facing the basin. This again may indicate that this group would be
amenable to reducing water usage if they are given the opportunity to learn how.
233
Perceptions
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Industrial Sector
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Water management parastatals
member of community living near the river
Most information about water and environment comes to the industrial sector
stakeholders through television and radio.
Recommendations
Engage the industrial sector in project activities through introduction of clean
technology strategies that reduce excess water use and pollution while
increasing profits
Build broad awareness within the industrial sector regarding environmental
and economic benefits of improving current water use strategies
18. Construction industry
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are involved in all levels of the
construction industry throughout the basin. There were no high priority issues for this
group. Medium priority issues were stress on surface and groundwater resources and
deteriorating water quality (surface and groundwater). The very lowest priority was
climate change impacts (current and future). For all of these there was wide internal
division within the group with no identifiable trends other than an overall low
prioritization of the issues presented.
Surface and groundwater use
The construction industry stakeholder group strongly agreed that "Economic
development in the short term is important and must use whatever resources possible,
including water resources." This was in direct opposition to stakeholders from NGOs
and Conservationists who were most adamantly opposed to this.
In contrast there was strong disagreement from the construction industry stakeholder
group with the statement, "Economic development is more important than
environmental protection." This may reflect an eagerness of the respondents to appear
environmentally responsive or it may be an indication that they are aware that
environmental degradation increases challenges and difficulties for the construction
sector.
Deterioration of water quality
Members of the construction sector stakeholder group strongly disagreed with the
statement, "People in my community have had illnesses because of the water"
suggesting that water quality in areas where they are active is perceived to be healthy.
Land degradation
In contrast to the statement above the construction industry stakeholder group
strongly disagreed that "Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone
234
who lives there." This suggests that while water quality is not an issue, awareness of
water scarcity is a concern for this group and may be a point of entry to engage the
construction industry in project activities and awareness building.
Perceptions
Construction industry stakeholders strongly agree that "People do not think much
about the water they use." This suggests again that the venue to approach this
stakeholder group in the future is through water scarcity issues.
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Construction Industry Sector
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
(no agreement)
member of community living near the
river
Most information on water and the environment comes to the construction industry
stakeholders through television, radio, newspapers and other unnamed sources.
Recommendations
Seek to engage stakeholders from the construction industry sector through
water conservation and water scarcity issues as this is a high level concern,
based on responses to statements, where they will be in agreement with
project objectives
19. Agro-industry
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are involved in supporting the
agricultural sector, through supplying agricultural goods, including agro chemicals,
and farm supplies. The highest priority issues for this group are stress on surface
and groundwater resources, loss of biodiversity (wildlife, including plants and
animals), land degradation such as erosion and desertification, and climate change
impacts (current and future).
Surface and groundwater use
Members of the agro industry stakeholder group strongly disagreed with the
statements, "Use of water for affordable energy and improving economic conditions is
more important than environmental protection", and "Economic development is more
important than environmental protection." This indicates that there is a degree of
environmental concern within this group, possibly pertaining to the fact that without a
healthy environment, agricultural development will be difficult. There may be a bias
among respondents to be more environmentally inclined, and thus agreeing to
participate in the survey, though this cannot be verified. Nonetheless the appreciation
of environmental services for the agro industry should be expanding and included
within project activities.
235
Deterioration of water quality
The stakeholders from the agro industry are in agreement, though not strongly, with
the statement "I believe that the water in the Orange-Senqu River is safe to drink."
There are no identifiable national or urban/rural trends.
Land degradation
Stakeholders from the agro industry sector strongly disagree with the statement,
"Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone who lives there." This
suggests an awareness of the challenges of water scarcity across the basin and a
potential point of entry for inclusion of this stakeholder group in project activities.
This may also indicate a potential for increased manufacture and sales of water saving
technologies by this stakeholder group.
Perceptions
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Agro Industry Sector
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Mining sector
member of community living near the
river
The majority of information on water and environmental issues comes to the agro
industry sector stakeholders through radio, newspapers, government officials and
other unidentified sources.
Recommendation
Build upon the appreciation of economic benefits from environmental services
to engage the agro industry stakeholders within project activities, especially
pertaining to water scarcity issues.
Provide information about alternatives to high water use technologies to the
agro industrial sector, emphasizing profitability to farmers
20. Basin government official
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are in government positions with
responsibility for subnational administrative responsibilities. The highest priority
issues for this group are land degradation such as erosion and desertification, stress
on surface and groundwater resources, and loss of biodiversity (wildlife, including
plants and animals).
Surface and groundwater use
The basin government official stakeholder group strongly disagreed with the
statement, "Economic development is more important than environmental protection"
suggesting that they have an awareness of the importance of environmental issues.
However they strongly agreed with the statements, "Crops and livestock should
always have all the water that they need", and "Industry should always have all the
water it needs." The belief that these sectors should have unlimited access to water
suggests that the environmental awareness does not necessarily extend to resource use
236
and perhaps should be a basis for awareness building within this group. This is
especially important in areas where these officials are making pledges that water
access will be made available to all stakeholders within their jurisdiction.
Perceptions
Members of this stakeholder group strongly agreed that "People do not think much
about the water they use." This suggests that there is a perceived need to increase
awareness of water use within the basin and support of this sector may be an
important component in reaching populations on a broad scale.
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Basin Government Officials
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Stock Farmers
Community based organization
(CBO)/ Village development
committee
member of community living near the
river
Most information on water and environmental issues for the basin government
officials comes from television and news papers.
Recommendation
Increase awareness of challenges creating water scarcity and garner support of
the basin governmental officials in the development of an overall awareness
raising campaign
21. District water management official
Members of this stakeholder group are in government positions with responsibility
for water management issues.. The highest priority issue by a significant margin is
deteriorating water quality (surface and groundwater).
Surface and groundwater use
Members of the district water management official stakeholder group strongly agreed
that "Economic development in the short term is important and must use whatever
resources possible, including water resources", yet they strongly disagreed with the
statement "Economic development is more important than environmental protection."
Further, they strongly agreed with "Crops and livestock should always have all the
water that they need." This indicates that while this group appreciates the benefits of
environmental stewardship pertaining to water, there are also clear indicators that
economic uses of water are critical for this group. Developing a means to increase
economic performance within districts without increasing water withdrawals may be a
significant, yet beneficial challenge for this project to undertake with the support of
this stakeholder group.
237
Deterioration of water quality
District water management official stakeholders strongly disagreed with the
statement, "People in my community have had illnesses because of the water." This
may indicate that water quality concerns addressed by this group are not accessing
information from the public health departments about water borne illnesses.
Land degradation and desertification
Despite the role of district water management officials in water distribution, there was
almost complete neutrality in response to the statement, "Communities in the basin
have enough water for everyone who lives there." This may signify that they are
aware of the challenges of water scarcity, but are unable to comment on equitable
distribution issues.
Biodiversity/Alien invasives
The stakeholders from the district water management officials group strongly
disagreed with the statement "There are new types of wildlife plants or animals, in
and near the river now." This may indicate a low level of awareness of invasive
species, which may become an important concern for this group in the future.
Perceptions
There is disagreement from this sector with the statement, "There are many trained
professionals dealing with water issues, and will be in the future" which supports
concerns voiced in the qualitative stakeholder analysis suggesting that there is a dire
need for increasing capacity for future generations of water managers in the basin.
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
District Water Management Officials
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
industrial sector (factory)
member of community living near the
river
Information on water and environmental issues come to district water management
officials through television, radio and government officials.
Recommendation
Work with the district water management officials to identify strategies to
increase economic performance within districts without increasing water
withdrawals
22. Municipal Government
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are in local government positions
with responsibility for oversight of municipal issues, including the provision of
water and sanitation services. The highest priority issues for this group are
deteriorating water quality (surface and groundwater) and land degradation such as
erosion and desertification.
Surface and groundwater use
238
The members of the municipal government stakeholder group strongly agreed with
the statement "Economic development in the short term is important and must use
whatever resources possible, including water resources." Yet they strongly disagreed
with the statement "Economic development is more important than environmental
protection." And while they strongly disagreed with the statement "Communities in
the basin have enough water for everyone who lives there", they strongly agreed that
"Crops and livestock should always have all the water that they need." These seeming
contradictions suggest that members of this group would benefit from training on the
role of environment and water conservation as it pertains to the benefits of sustainable
development.
Deterioration of water quality
Members of the municipal government stakeholder group strongly disagreed with the
statement "I believe that the water in the Orange-Senqu River is safe to drink",
suggesting that these officials are dubious about water quality of the river within their
specific communities.
Land degradation
The stakeholders from the municipal government group strongly disagreed with the
statement, "There will always be enough water available to everyone who needs it."
This implies that water scarcity continues to be a challenge for these stakeholders, and
that increased conservation measures would be supported by them.
Perceptions
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Municipal Government Officials
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
industrial sector (factory)
member of community living near the
river
Most information regarding water and environmental issues is obtained from the
government sources for the municipal government official stakeholders.
Recommendation
Engage municipal government officials in efforts to raise water
conservation awareness.
23. Municipal waste official
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are in municipal government
positions with responsibility for waste management issues. The highest priority
issues for this group are alteration in naturally occurring water flow in the river and
climate change impacts (current and future). The relatively small sample size here
means that the assertions made for this group are not reliably reflective of the
broader population. Nonetheless, the findings bear review.
239
Surface and groundwater use
Members of the municipal waste management official group strongly agreed with the
statement "Economic development in the short term is important and must use
whatever resources possible, including water resources", yet they strongly disagreed
with "Use of water for affordable energy and improving economic conditions is more
important than environmental protection", and "Economic development is more
important than environmental protection." However they strongly agreed with the
statements "Crops and livestock should always have all the water that they need" and
"Industry should always have all the water it needs." The dichotomies within this
group suggest that they may benefit from training on sustainable development
strategies and water conservation efforts.
Changes to hydrological regime
They strongly agreed with "Building more dams in the river will have positive
impacts for me and my country." This implies that altered water flow is perceived to
be beneficial to the municipal waste management officials.
Deterioration of water quality
Members of municipal waste management stakeholder group weakly agreed that "My
community always has enough good water for people to drink", and "People in my
community have had illnesses because of the water." They strongly disagreed that
they "...believe that the water in the Orange-Senqu River is safe to drink." This
indicates that while water quality is a priority concern for this group, they are hesitant
to strongly support some of the impacts that can occur as a result of poor water
quality. This may be due to deflection of concerns, or it may be a low level of
information. Without additional data, this can not be determined at this stage.
Land degradation
Members of the municipal waste management stakeholder group strongly disagreed
that "Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone who lives there."
This supports that notion that water scarcity is an issue for this stakeholder group. It
may be possible to reduce water demand at the municipal level through new, low/no
water options for human waste disposal in the basin, such as use of composting
toilets.
Perceptions
The members of municipal waste management stakeholder group strongly agreed that
"People do not think much about the water they use." This again supports the idea that
efforts to raise awareness with regard to water scarcity would be well supported
throughout the government levels.
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Municipal Waste Management Officials
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Water management parastatals
member of community living near the
industrial sector (factory)
river
240
Members of municipal waste management stakeholder group obtain most of their
information regarding water and environmental issues from media and government
sources.
Recommendations
Explore the perceptions of this group more extensively in future analyses, if
possible
Consider introduction of low/no water use waste management strategies at the
municipal level
24. Non-Governmental Organization (NGO)
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are in groups which provide
services to populations and environments outside of the government, generally not
for profit. They may represent groups of stakeholders with specific interests
including social development, gender balance, a range of environmental concerns,
and other issues. The highest priority issues for this group are stress on surface and
groundwater resources, climate change impacts (current and future), and loss of
biodiversity (wildlife, including plants and animals).
Surface and groundwater use
The NGO stakeholders strongly disagree with the statements "Use of water for
affordable energy and improving economic conditions is more important than
environmental protection", and "Economic development is more important than
environmental protection." This is consistent with what is expected from this group of
stakeholders, especially those with an active interest in environmental preservation.
This puts the NGOs at odds with several prominent economic stakeholder groups, and
in order to reduce tensions it may be advisable to focus on goal-oriented management
strategies with stakeholders, rather than approaches which are process oriented and
assign blame for past grievances.
Changes to hydrological regime
Some members of the NGO Stakeholder group strongly disagree with the statement,
"Building more dams in the river will have positive impacts for me and my country."
Only conservationists were in strong disagreement, while many others, including
those in the agricultural, industrial, finance and labour sectors agreed strongly with
the statement.
Land degradation
The NGO stakeholders strongly disagree with the statements "Communities in the
basin have enough water for everyone who lives there", and "There will always be
enough water available to everyone who needs it." These NGOs are often involved
more directly at the community level than some other stakeholders and these
responses may reflect challenges they encounter in their work.
Perceptions
The NGO stakeholders strongly agree with the statements "People do not think much
about the water they use" which may be helpful in building support from the NGOs
for awareness raising campaigns focusing on water use and conservation.
241
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
NGOs
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Mining industry sector
Agriculture Dept./Ministry
industrial sector (factory)
member of community living near the
Irrigation farmers
river
Most information on water and environmental issues comes to NGOs though
sources other than traditional media and government.
Recommendations
In order to build upon the expertise of the NGOs while reducing tensions, it
will be important to create goal oriented activities that empower
stakeholders to change behaviours
25. Scientists
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are in positions that address water
management and ecological issues through scientific inquiry. The highest priority
issues for this group are stress on surface and groundwater resources, land
degradation such as erosion and desertification, and deteriorating water quality
(surface and groundwater).
Surface and groundwater use
Members of the scientist stakeholder group strongly disagreed with the statement,
"Use of water for affordable energy and improving economic conditions is more
important than environmental protection", and "Economic development is more
important than environmental protection." These stakeholders often examine issues
independent of the economic factors and their assessments frequently focus on
conditions and causality. As a result, it is expected that they prioritize environmental
protection because of the role the environment plays in the function of the ecosystem
and its component parts.
Deterioration of water quality
Members of the scientist stakeholder group strongly disagreed with the statement, "I
believe that the water in the Orange-Senqu River is safe to drink." This may indicate
that they believe that was quality is low within the river and, assuming that these
scientists are actively studying water issues, may be a red flag for water quality,
especially in areas where these scientists are working.
Land degradation
Members of the scientist stakeholder group strongly disagreed with the statements
"Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone who lives there" and
"There will always be enough water available to everyone who needs it." This
suggests that these stakeholders are increasingly concerned about water scarcity, its
implications for the basin and challenges that will be presented as a result.
242
Biodiversity/Alien invasives
The members of the scientist stakeholder group strongly agreed with the statement
"There are new types of wildlife, plants or animals, in and near the river now",
"Economic development has impacted the number of animals and plants in the basin",
and "Without wildlife the economy will suffer." As scientists are monitoring these
issues more closely than others, their input here is especially informative. While other
groups do not see invasive species as critical, members of this group clearly do.
Further, they see the link between economic development and the economic
importance that is associated with a clean environment. This suggests that inclusion of
these stakeholders on National and Basin Wide stakeholder Forums will be key to a
broader understanding of the forces at work behind the immediate challenges.
Perceptions
Members of the scientist stakeholder group strongly agreed with the statements
"People do not think much about the water they use." This may suggest that inclusion
of social scientists in the project and on various stakeholder bodies will assist in
identifying causality and root causes.
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Scientists
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Water, Hydro-meteorological
Conservationists
Department/Ministry
Member of community living near the
Water management parastatals
river
Power utilities
Tourism and recreational sectors
Mining sector
Industrial sector (factory)
Irrigation farmers
Most information on water and environmental issues comes to scientists though
sources other than traditional media and government.
Recommendation
Inclusion of scientists (including social scientists) on National and Basin
Wide Stakeholder Forums will be key to a broader understanding of the
forces at work behind the immediate challenges.
26. Conservationist
Members of this stakeholder group are those who self identify themselves as having a
personal, civic, or professional interest in preserving and restoring ecological health
to the basin. The highest priority issues for this group are everything except alteration
in naturally occurring water flow in the river and alien invasive species (new plants
and animals).
243
Surface and groundwater use
Members of the conservationist stakeholder group strongly disagree with the
statement "Use of water for affordable energy and improving economic conditions is
more important than environmental protection", and "Economic development is more
important than environmental protection." The conservationists are the only
stakeholder group to strongly disagree that "Industry should always have all the water
it needs." This suggests that the members of this stakeholder group believe that
economic activity is a hindrance to environmental protection. It may be implied that
the equitable distribution of water should balance the environment as much as
economic and industrial development.
Changes to hydrological regime
Members of the conservationist stakeholder group strongly disagree with the
statement, "Building more dams in the river will have positive impacts for me and my
country." As noted above, only NGOs and conservationists strongly disagreed with
this, likely due to the environmental impacts has on natural river flows, and their
dependent ecosystems. It may be suggested that the project advocate inclusion of
conservationists on stakeholder groups addressing future dam construction scenarios
with the intention of reducing negative environmental impacts of these issues.
Land degradation
Members of the conservationist stakeholder group strongly disagreed with the
statements "Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone who lives
there", and "There will always be enough water available to everyone who needs it."
This suggests that these stakeholders are increasingly concerned about water scarcity;
it's implications for the basin, and challenges that will be presented to ecosystems as a
result.
Biodiversity/Alien invasives
The members of the conservationist stakeholder group strongly agreed with the
statement "There are new types of wildlife, plants or animals, in and near the river
now", and "Economic development has impacted the number of animals and plants in
the basin." Conservationists are routinely monitoring ecosystems. While many other
groups do not see invasive species as present, members of this group clearly do.
Issues of internal division
Stakeholders from the conservationist group strongly disagree that "People do not
think much about the water they use." This may indicate that their input into project
activities, especially the social marketing campaign would be advantageous because
they are able to articulate the externalities of excessive water use.
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Conservationists
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Power Utilities
Dry land cropping farmer
Mining sector
member of community living near the
Industrial sector (factory)
river
Agro-industry
244
Irrigation farmers
Most information on water and environmental issues come from newspapers and
other unnamed sources for the conservationists
Recommendations
Support conservationist input into future potential dam construction
committees, to provide input on how to reduce impacts
Include conservationists in the social marketing campaign in order to articulate
the challenges of water scarcity and the impacts on the environment
27. Community based organization (CBO)/ Village development committee
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are involved in community based
groups, including traditional leaders and village development committees. The
highest priority issues for this group are stress on surface and groundwater
resources and land degradation such as erosion and desertification.
Surface and groundwater use
Members of the Community based organization (CBO)/ Village development
committee stakeholder group strongly agreed with "Economic development in the
short term is important and must use whatever resources possible, including water
resources." They strongly agree with both "Crops and livestock should always have
all the water that they need" and "Industry should always have all the water it
needs." However, they strongly disagree with the statements "Use of water for
affordable energy and improving economic conditions is more important than
environmental protection", and "Economic development is more important than
environmental protection." This may suggest that they recognize both the
challenges of economic development and the immediate pressures to meet those
goals, but also as more sustenance dependent stakeholders, they may also realize
that their concerns are more susceptible to environmental degradation.
Land degradation
Members of the Community based organization (CBO)/ Village development
committee stakeholder group strongly disagreed with "Communities in the basin have
enough water for everyone who lives there" and "There will always be enough water
available to everyone who needs it." Again, this implies a sense of consternation that
water scarcity is already an issue, and that communities and villages are already
sensitive to the implications of this.
Biodiversity/Alien invasives
The members of the Community based organization (CBO)/ Village development
committee stakeholder group strongly agree that "Economic development has
impacted the number of animals and plants in the basin", and that "Without wildlife
the economy will suffer." Because members of these groups are in more remote areas,
their awareness of the decline of species and numbers of flora and fauna in the basin,
combined with their appreciation of the economic importance of wildlife overall,
would indicate that their input in terms of preservation measures, tracking shifts in
biodiversity, and overall efforts to increase awareness of these issues should be
developed.
245
Perceptions
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Community based organization (CBO)/ Village development committee
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Water, Hydro-meteorological
Community based organization (CBO)/
Department/Ministry
Village development committee
Agriculture Dept./Ministry
member of community living near the
river
The Community based organization (CBO)/ Village development committee
stakeholder get most of the information on water and environmental issues from
television and radio
Recommendations
Work closely with these groups to monitor shifts in biodiversity
Provide training and targeted awareness raising on sustainable development
measures that include water conservation measures to members of the
Community based organization (CBO)/ Village development committee
28. Educator/teacher/academic
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are actively engaged in teaching
at all levels. The highest priority issues for this group are stress on surface and
groundwater resources with and degradation such as erosion and desertification and
climate change impacts (current and future)
Surface and groundwater use
The stakeholders from the academic sector strongly disagree with the statements "Use
of water for affordable energy and improving economic conditions is more important
than environmental protection", and "Economic development is more important than
environmental protection". This suggests that they have been exposed to
environmental issues and understand the importance of ecosystem preservation, and
may be supportive of introducing it in a curriculum.
Land degradation
The stakeholders from the academic sector strongly disagree with the statements
"Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone who lives there", and
"There will always be enough water available to everyone who needs it." In their
experience they may have encountered water scarcity issues, and again may be
amenable to introducing conservation measures in the classroom where possible and
appropriate.
Perceptions
Stakeholders from the academic sector strongly agree with the statement, "People do
not think much about the water they use." Once again, this suggests that they may be
willing to help students become more aware of water use and how to reduce this in
order to conserve and protect resources.
246
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Educator/Teacher/Academic
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
industrial sector (factory)
Irrigation farmer
member of community living near the
river
The stakeholders from the academic sector get their information about water and the
environment from sources other than general media, neighbours, and governments.
Recommendation
Work closely with educators and academics to increase awareness and
develop age appropriate curriculums to build an understanding of the
importance of ecology and water management within the basin, as well as
measures that can conserve water and protect resources.
29. Student or youth group member
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are enrolled in university as
students or are active members in youth groups. Respondents who self identified
themselves within the category were age 21-27. There were no high priority issues
for this group. The lowest priority was alien invasive species (new plants and
animals).
Surface and groundwater use
The student stakeholder group members strongly disagreed with the statements "Use
of water for affordable energy and improving economic conditions is more important
than environmental protection", and "Economic development is more important than
environmental protection." However they strongly agreed with the statement
"Industry should always have all the water it needs." This suggests that they believe
environmental protection is important, but also feel that economic development
through industry is also supportable.
Deterioration of water quality
The student stakeholder group members strongly disagreed with the statements "My
community always has enough good water for people to drink", and "I believe that the
water in the Orange-Senqu River is safe to drink." This indicates that these
stakeholders are aware of environmental hotspots in the river and the challenges of
water scarcity as it pertains to human populations.
Land degradation
Members of the student stakeholder group strongly disagreed with the statements
"Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone who lives there" and
"There will always be enough water available to everyone who needs it." Again this
indicates that these groups are familiar with decreasing water availability. As a
younger demographic the awareness of water scarcity challenges suggests that
247
throughout their lifetimes the low level of water available is a norm, and as they age it
may be becoming more severe.
Alien invasives
The student stakeholder group members strongly agreed with the statements
"Economic development has impacted the number of animals and plants in the basin",
and "Without wildlife the economy will suffer." Again, this indicates that given the
youth of these respondents that this awareness is either due to information introduced
within their educations (both formal and informal) or it is due to independent
observations, which may speak to the rate of the decline in biodiversity in the basin.
Perceptions
Student stakeholder group members strongly agreed with the statements "People do
not think much about the water they use." As above, this would suggest that there is a
rudimentary understanding that issues are due to human activities, yet a lack of
awareness of these challenges will be a significant challenge for future generations.
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Student and Youth Group Members
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Water management parastatals
member of community living near the
river
Most information on environment and water issues comes to students and youth group
members through television and radio.
Recommendation
Include students and youth group members in social marketing campaign to
help the project target and reach future generations
30. Stock Farmer
Members of this stakeholder group are those who raise cattle, goats, and other
livestock professionally. The highest priority issues for this group are stress on
surface and groundwater resources, land degradation such as erosion and
desertification, and climate change impacts (current and future).
Surface and groundwater use
Members of the stock farmer stakeholder group strongly disagreed with the statement
"Economic development is more important than environmental protection." However,
they also strongly agreed with "Economic development in the short term is important
and must use whatever resources possible, including water resources", and "Crops
and livestock should always have all the water that they need." This divergence of
attitudes is likely due to differentiating between broad ideals of environmental
protection and the realities of requiring access to water for immediate economic
conditions. The stock farmers are directly dependent on regular water supplies, and
the lack of access has very dire consequences for them, especially in traditional
cultures where wealth is invested in cattle.
248
Changes to hydrological regime
Members of the stock farmer stakeholder group strongly agreed with the statement,
"Building more dams in the river will have positive impacts for me and my country."
This support for dam construction is due to increased access to water for livestock, as
well as other agriculture.
Deterioration of water quality
The members of the stock farmer stakeholder group strongly disagreed with the
statement, "My community always has enough good water for people to drink." This
suggests that these farmers are aware of low water quality issues and the challenges
that these create throughout the basin, as well as at the community level. They did not
strongly agree that waterborne illnesses were common, however, so it is difficult to
differentiate between the issue of scarcity and quality at this point.
Land degradation
Members of the stock farmer stakeholder group strongly disagreed with the
statements "Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone who lives
there", and "There will always be enough water available to everyone who needs it."
Again this speaks to the challenges of water scarcity in the basin and the direct impact
it has on those who are most immediately dependent on water for sustenance. Stock
farmers encounter environmental conditions directly, and shifts in these conditions
can profoundly impact them.
Perceptions
The members of the stock farmer stakeholder group strongly disagreed with the
statement "People do not think much about the water they use." This suggests that the
stock farmers feel that water usage is not a priority for most people, and the impacts
of this are significant, as indicated by the responses above.
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Stock Farmers
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Water, Hydro-meteorological
Community based organization
Department/Ministry
(CBO)/ Village development
Agriculture Dept./Ministry
committee
industrial sector (factory)
Stock Farmer
Irrigation Farmer
member of community living near
the river
Most information on water and environmental issues for stock farmers comes
through radio.
Recommendation
Work with stock farmers to institute water conservation measures, and to
protect sensitive areas in rangelands
249
31. Factory farmer (chickens, feed-lot piggery)
Members of this stakeholder group are those who work in or own factory farms
such as poultry or pig lots. The highest priority issues for this group are climate
change impacts (current and future), stress on surface and groundwater resources,
and deteriorating water quality (surface and groundwater). No factory farmer
respondents from Namibia participated in this survey.
Surface and groundwater use
Members of the factory farmer stakeholder group strongly disagreed with the
statement "Economic development is more important than environmental protection."
Yet they strongly agreed with "Economic development in the short term is important
and must use whatever resources possible, including water resources", "Crops and
livestock should always have all the water that they need", and "Industry should
always have all the water it needs." Like the stock farmers above, this divergence of
attitudes is likely due to differentiating between broad ideals of environmental
protection and the realities of requiring access to water for immediate economic
conditions. The factory farmers are also directly dependent on regular water supplies,
and the lack of access has dire consequences for them.
Deterioration of water quality
Members of the factory farmer stakeholder group strongly disagreed with the
statements "My community always has enough good water for people to drink", and
"I believe that the water in the Orange-Senqu River is safe to drink." This indicates a
high level of concern for water quality and may represent concerns over water quality,
especially around factory farms, where effluents often enter the water sources
untreated, resulting in poor quality and nutrient loading.
Land degradation/ Desertification
The members of the factory farmer stakeholder group strongly disagreed with the
statements "Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone who lives
there", and "There will always be enough water available to everyone who needs it."
This suggests that water scarcity issues and the impact these have on water dependent
industries is creating significant challenges and will require concerted efforts. The
lack of water and the impacts it has on driving up prices for animal feed will
significantly impact this group, especially as soil fertility is compromised due to
encroaching desertification.
Perceptions
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Factory Farmers
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
industrial sector (factory)
member of community living near the
river
Factory farmers get most of their information on water and environmental issues from
radio and government sources.
250
Recommendation
Work with factory farmers to reduce impacts of waste water run off and
increase water use efficiency.
32. Irrigation Farmer
Members of this stakeholder group are those who farm using irrigation technology.
The lowest priority issues for this group are loss of biodiversity (wildlife, including
plants and animals). There were no agreed high priority issues, however of the
issues the top ranked concern was alteration in naturally occurring water flow in the
river. There were no respondents from Botswana included in this group.
Surface and groundwater use
Members of the irrigation farmer stakeholder group strongly agreed with the
statements "Economic development in the short term is important and must use
whatever resources possible, including water resources" and "Crops and livestock
should always have all the water that they need." These responses are expected as
these stakeholders are directly dependent on access to water resources for their
economic viability. The issue of environmental protection was not a high priority for
them, as indicated by their strong agreement with the statement "Economic
development is more important than environmental protection." They were the only
stakeholder group of all groups surveyed to strongly agree with this and most other
groups disagreed with that statement.
This unique vantage point suggests that the irrigation farmer's forthcoming responses
indicate that they are aware of environmental issues, but more immediately concerned
with economic conditions. The Qualitative Stakeholder Analysis found that increasing
drought conditions were taking a heavy toll on irrigation farmers, who were often not
able to turn a profit once they paid for water, agro chemicals, seeds and other farming
expenses. It is likely that these put significant strains on these farmers, who often end
up selling their water rights to other stakeholders, such as industry. The immediacy of
their circumstances, including the continual need for access to water in order to
realize profits likely explains their divergence from the other stakeholder group
responses to these statements.
Changes to hydrological regime
Members of the irrigation farmer stakeholder group strongly agreed with the
statement "Building more dams in the river will have positive impacts for me and my
country." Dam construction, especially between Namibia and South Africa in the
Lower Orange River would increase water for the agricultural sector, specifically
irrigation farmers. This may indicate that the top prioritization of alteration in
naturally occurring water flow in the river is not a concern in the impacts this has on
the river ecosystem, but rather the perceived need to be able to access more reliable
water sources which are critical for growing certain crops, especially during naturally
dry seasons.
Deterioration of water quality
The members of the irrigation farmer stakeholder group strongly agreed with the
statement "My community always has enough good water for people to drink" but
they have also strongly agreed with the statement "People in my community have had
251
illnesses because of the water." This may imply that the first response is interpreted in
regards to water quantity, where as the second is more directly in dealing with water
borne illnesses encountered in rural areas, possibly from water quality and agricultural
runoff. This warrants further exploration into rural health issues in farming
communities.
Land degradation
Members of the irrigation farmer stakeholder group strongly agreed with the
statement "Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone who lives
there." They were the only group to strongly agree with this statement, and the
stakeholders from Namibia and South Africa agreed much more strongly than those in
Lesotho who tended to disagree. This outlying response may be because they are
differentiating between communities, who are now guaranteed rights to access water,
and others water users such as farmers, industry and others who have stricter
withdrawal limits.
Biodiversity/ Alien invasives
Despite the overt focus on economic needs taking precedence over environmental
concerns, members of the irrigation farmer stakeholder group strongly agreed with the
statement "Without wildlife the economy will suffer." This indicates both an
awareness of the importance of environmental issues, and the dependence of countries
on wildlife as an economic driver in the basin.
Perceptions
Members of the irrigation farmer stakeholder group strongly agreed with the
statement "People do not think much about the water they use." This suggests that
they are sensitive to water use issues, and perceive that "others" often do not consider
scarcity issues in their water use habits.
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Irrigation Farmers
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
No agreement
Irrigation farmers
Irrigation farmers receive most of their information on water and environmental
issues from sources other than traditional media and government.
Recommendations
Examine public health conditions in rural farming communities, specifically
pertaining to illness resulting from water
Work closely with irrigation farmers to assist them to develop low water use
crops, water efficient technologies and to develop water saving measures
that will increase profits while reducing output costs.
Work with irrigation farmers as part of stakeholder groups to increase their
sense of empowerment to address water scarcity challenges and to assist
other stakeholders to understand the challenges they face.
252
33. Dry land cropping farmer
Members of this stakeholder group are those who farm without irrigation. The
highest priority issues for this group are stress on surface and groundwater
resources, land degradation such as erosion and desertification, and loss of
biodiversity (wildlife, including plants and animals). There were no respondents
from Lesotho in this sample.
Surface and groundwater use
Dry land crop farmer stakeholders strongly agree "Economic development in the
short term is important and must use whatever resources possible, including water
resources", "Crops and livestock should always have all the water that they need",
and "Industry should always have all the water it needs." Yet they strongly disagree
with the statement "Economic development is more important than environmental
protection", suggesting that while they are under economic strains due to a lack of
water access, they also understand that environmental protection is required to sustain
conditions that make their work possible.
Land degradation
Members of the dry land crop farmer stakeholder group strongly disagree with the
statement "Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone who lives
there", yet they strongly agree with the statement "There will always be enough water
available to everyone who needs it." This may suggest that `communities' is
understood as settlements, whereas the availability of water to everyone who needs it
may extend to others, such as themselves or other sectors.
Perceptions
Dry land crop farmer stakeholders strongly agree that "People do not think much
about the water they use." This suggests that they are sensitive to water scarcity
issues, and perceive that people fail to think about this because they are not as directly
impacted by scarcity issues.
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Water, Hydro-meteorological Department/Ministry
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Industrial sector
member of community living near the
river
Dry land crop farmers receive most of their information on water and
environmental issues from radio, government and other unnamed sources.
Recommendation
Provide training on water conservation and soil moisture preservation
measures for dry land farming communities.
34. Health care provider
Members of this stakeholder group are those in the health care profession who
provide medical support to those in the basin. There are no high priority issues for
this group as a whole, though there is significant division within the group, with those
253
from Lesotho minimizing priorities, while others highlighted climate change impacts
(current and future), deteriorating water quality (surface and groundwater), and stress
on surface and groundwater resources. There were no respondents in this group from
South Africa.
Surface and groundwater use
Members of the health care provider stakeholder group strongly disagreed with the
statement "Economic development is more important than environmental protection."
This may reflect an awareness of environmental health as a contributor to public
health.
Deterioration of water quality
Members of the health care provider stakeholder group strongly disagreed with the
statement "I believe that the water in the Orange-Senqu River is safe to drink." While
there was not strong agreement there was almost unanimous agreement across health
care provider stakeholders with the statement "People in my community have had
illnesses because of the water." While the overall sample size of this group is small,
this issue merits further investigation into health related problems from waterborne
sources.
Land degradation/ desertification
Members of the health care provider stakeholder group strongly disagreed with the
statements "Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone who lives
there" and "There will always be enough water available to everyone who needs it."
This suggests that water scarcity issues are significant, and when combined with
potential human health problems as a result of water scarcity and increasing
desertification, increased rates of illness may occur.
Perceptions
The members of the health care provider stakeholder group strongly agreed that
"People do not think much about the water they use." This may indicate that the lack
of attention given to water use by individuals could be impacting the health of other
users, either through water quality or water quantity degradation.
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Health Care Providers
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Water management parastatals
Community based organization
Power Utilities
(CBO)/ Village development
Municipal waste managers
committee
Health care providers receive most of their information on water and environmental
issues from television, radio, newspapers, and neighbours.
Recommendations
Examine the linkages between waterborne illnesses and water quality and
quantity degradation.
254
Include health care providers in stakeholder forums and in the social
marketing campaign, where possible, to increase linkages between
environmental health and human health.
35. Member of community living near the river
Members of this stakeholder group are those who live within a relatively close
proximity to the river and/or the tributaries. The highest priority issue for this group
is stress on surface and groundwater resources.
Surface and groundwater use
River community stakeholders strongly agreed with the statements "Economic
development in the short term is important and must use whatever resources possible,
including water resources", "Crops and livestock should always have all the water
that they need", and "Industry should always have all the water it needs." This
demonstrated a strong concern regarding the need for water to support economic
growth. Like the irrigation farmers this group probably feels that the economic
challenges require immediate attention, where as environmental issues are secondary.
Changes to hydrological regime
Members of the river community stakeholder group strongly support the statement
"Building more dams in the river will have positive impacts for me and my country."
This supports the concern that economic conditions lead these stakeholders to support
activities which alter the naturally occurring environmental order.
Biodiversity/Alien invasives
The river community stakeholders strongly agree with the statements "Economic
development has impacted the number of animals and plants in the basin" and
"Without wildlife the economy will suffer." This indicates awareness on the part of
this group that humans have impacted the environment, and that the environment,
specifically wildlife, is important to the economy. However, the comments above
suggest that economic demands continue to take precedence over environmental
concerns.
Perceptions
Members of the river community stakeholder group strongly agree that "People do not
think much about the water they use." Again, this suggests that people do not think
that others are using water conscientiously, which often leads to problems of overuse
due to lack of awareness.
The river communities are those most directly impacted by the environmental
conditions of the rivers, however, their responses are more closely aligned with
economically oriented stakeholders, such as farmers and industry, rather than with
conservationists and NGOs. This is in part due to the river settlements that are in
agricultural communities, as well as the presence of industry, including alluvial
mining, in the river communities.
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
255
River Community Stakeholders
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
Water, Hydro-meteorological
Finance Dept./Ministry
Department/Ministry
Community based organization
Agriculture Dept./Ministry
(CBO)/ Village development
Mining sector
committee
agro-industry
member of community living near
the river
Members of the communities living near the river obtain most of their information on
water and environmental issues from television, radio, government and other
unnamed sources.
Recommendations
Work with communities near the river to improve water conservation
measures.
Increase educational outreach and campaigns to emphasize the importance of
environmental stewardship in preserving river system health and functions.
36. Press/media
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are involved in the press and media,
including print, telecommunications, and internet. The highest priority issues for this
group are deteriorating water quality (surface and groundwater), climate change
impacts (current and future), and stress on surface and groundwater resources.
Surface and groundwater use
Members of the press and media strongly disagree with the statements "Use of water
for affordable energy and improving economic conditions is more important than
environmental protection", and "Economic development is more important than
environmental protection." Yet at the same time they strongly agree with the
statements "Crops and livestock should always have all the water that they need", and
"Industry should always have all the water it needs." This indicates that while the
environmental stewardship ethic is understood, the realities that accompany
implementation of sound environmental management are not fully recognized. This
demonstrates that there may be a need to increase training and awareness raising for
the media in terms of environmental issues.
Deterioration of water quality
Members of the press and media strongly disagree with the statement "My community
always has enough good water for people to drink" and strongly agree with the
statement "People in my community have had illnesses because of the water." This
combination suggests that this group witnesses waterborne illnesses, either directly or
through other media channels reporting on these issues.
Land degradation
The members of the press and media strongly disagree with the statements
"Communities in the basin have enough water for everyone who lives there" and
"There will always be enough water available to everyone who needs it." This shows
256
that they are aware of water scarcity issues and the challenges that result from this.
Additional training would enable them to more directly focus on this and the
environmental impacts of land degradation that results from water scarcity and
desertification.
Biodiversity/ Alien invasives
Members of the press and media strongly agree with the statements "Economic
development has impacted the number of animals and plants in the basin" and
"Without wildlife the economy will suffer." Yet they strongly disagree with the
statement "There are new types of wildlife plants or animals, in and near the river
now." These findings suggest that though the media is aware of basic environmental
issues, as noted above, and the economic importance of the environment, that invasive
species have not emerged as significant, newsworthy issues. This may explain why
the presence of invasive species ranks as a lower priority for most stakeholders,
except those directly involved with this issue.
Perceptions
The press and media strongly agree with the statement "People do not think much
about the water they use." Increasing awareness of water use, through media and the
press will be tremendously beneficial to outreach efforts, and their agreement that
people currently do not consider this will be helpful for increasing their support of this
issue.
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
Water, Hydro-meteorological Department/Ministry
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
industrial sector (factory)
Dry land cropping farmer
member of community living near the
river
The media and press receive most of their information on water and the environment
from television, radio, newspapers, and neighbours.
Recommendations
Develop a basic environmental awareness training programme for the press
and media, that emphasizes cause and effect relationships of ecology of the
basin, focusing on water issues.
Engage the press and media in project activities, including press releases and
announcements about the project and ORASECOM.
Develop a media kit for the press that includes contact information for experts
who are available to answer questions and comment on stories, suggested
story lines for media, and basic facts about the ecology of the Orange-Senqu
River.
37. International Funding Institution/ Bilateral development agency
Members of this stakeholder group are those who are in positions of project
oversight and implementation from international funding institutions and
257
development agencies. The highest priority issues for this group are land
degradation such as erosion and desertification, climate change impacts (current
and future), and stress on surface and groundwater resources. There are no
representatives from South Africa included in this sample.
Surface and groundwater use
Members of the International Funding Institution/ Bilateral development agency
stakeholder group strongly disagree with the statements "Use of water for affordable
energy and improving economic conditions is more important than environmental
protection" and "Economic development is more important than environmental
protection." Yet they also strongly agree that "Crops and livestock should always
have all the water that they need." This implies that while they are aware of
environmental contributions to the economy of the basin, they also are aware that
without adequate water supplies for the agricultural industry, the impacts on the
human populations and economy will be significant.
Deterioration of water quality
The members of the International Funding Institution/ Bilateral development agency
stakeholder group strongly agree with the statement "My community always has
enough good water for people to drink." This may be because these individuals are
located in areas where there is access to potable water.
Land degradation
Members of the International Funding Institution/ Bilateral development agency
stakeholder group strongly disagree with the statement "There will always be enough
water available to everyone who needs it." This supports the earlier finding that the
water scarcity issue is a high priority for this group and that they are supportive of
measures to address this.
Biodiversity/Alien invasives
Members of the International Funding Institution/Bilateral development agency
stakeholder group strongly agree with the statements "Economic development has
impacted the number of animals and plants in the basin" and "Without wildlife the
economy will suffer." This is likely due to the awareness that the ecosystem of the
basin is significantly altered, yet eco tourism remains a high income earner for
governments in this basin.
Perceptions
Members of the International Funding Institution/ Bilateral development agency
stakeholder group strongly agree that "People do not think much about the water they
use." Again, this reflects the notion that the lack of awareness of water issues is in
part a root cause of water scarcity issues within the basin.
Who benefits from the current water management policies? Opinion of:
International Funding Institution/ Bilateral development agency
Benefit Most
Benefit Least
industrial sector (factory)
member of community living near the
river
258
Most information on water and environmental issues comes to the members of the
International Funding Institution/ Bilateral development agency stakeholder group
through television, and governments.
Recommendations
Develop information and training curriculum for development agencies on
water related issues, including conservation, environmental protection and
sources for additional information.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The initial QL SHA demonstrated notable complexity of issues pertaining to the trans-
boundary water management in this basin. The political issues, layered with social,
economic and ecological challenges, in turn create significant challenges for this
project.. There is a wide array of SHGs in a very large area and at many different
levels, which will require a multi-level approach for addressing stakeholder concerns,
incorporating stakeholder support and buy-in to the project. It will be important for
the project to build a foundation of strong support from stakeholders established thus
far. If this can be accomplished there is potential for this to be a very strong project
with benefits for all, from the small scale farmer and herdsmen along the river to the
governments of the basin and ORASECOM and SADC.
The QN SHA demonstrated that the wide array of interests within the basin should be
included in any project activities, and inclusion of those groups with economic
interests, the "economic stakeholders" will be critical to project implementation.
Additionally, the QN SHA demonstrated that the lines of division of priorities
between groups, such as those who prioritize environmental preservation over
economic development versus those who are more concerned with immediate
economic circumstances exist, though in less severity than initially expected. There
also appears to be a lack of intersectoral coordination within countries which is not
uncommon but can result in competing priorities, and can be addressed through
concerted efforts within the project. Despite the lack of coordination between sectors,
there is relatively strong cohesion among groups that cross borders, which will be
helpful for the project, as the basin similarities help to foster trans-boundary
cooperation.
The issue that seems to draw the most attention and is most salient for stakeholder
groups pertains to water scarcity. The economic service provided by the environment
pertaining to water does not seem to be broadly appreciated; however there seems to
be a willingness to consider this as evidenced by responses regarding attention to
water management of individuals. The issue of biodiversity and wildlife is also well
understood by most stakeholders, especially given the significant economic earnings
generated by game park tourism throughout the basin. Extending this to broader
ecosystem awareness should be pursued, and the environment extends well beyond
the preservation of charismatic mega fauna. Landscape degradation and
desertification are harsh realities which are shown to be more profoundly felt by those
who are more dependent on sustenance based economies, such as small scale farmers
in rural areas, though even large scale irrigation farmers appear to be significantly
259
stressed by loss of soil moisture and increasing desertification. These issues warrant
further attention, and should serve as baseline gauges for the project.
Overall there is a clear need for more education and awareness building pertaining to
the river system and its role in the basin, expanding upon specific knowledge held by
some groups, but not widely shared. The venue for this should be mainstream media,
as possible, as well as activities which bring groups together to work towards a
common goal. Developing a focus on future goal oriented activities will enable
stakeholders with potentially competing interests to realize their similarities and
commonalities, resulting in win-win scenarios.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NEXT STEPS:
Recommendations for the project stemming from this analysis are divided into 4
categories. Additional recommendations are within the main texts, specific to issues
and stakeholder groups. The 4 main categories here are:
Awareness raising and social marketing that increase awareness of the importance
of these issues and empower stakeholders to take action to improve their
conditions.
Sector specific recommendations that target specific groups through activities that
may improve conditions.
Trainings which provide specific educational opportunities to stakeholder groups
and build basin capacity.
Stakeholder involvement in project activities that feature key groups to consider
for specific project input.
Awareness Raising
The awareness of the limited resources and economic linkages would indicate a
potentially important starting point for social marketing for water conservation
efforts. The acknowledgement of water scarcity issues in the SHA will be helpful for
building public awareness, and inducing conservation measures for water use.
Further, consensus on the need for conservation within the basin suggests a high level
of receptivity to improved water management practices. Using social marketing
strategies, with non-judgmental messages may be effective for linking water
conservation with environmental issues and the importance of long term planning for
water resource use in the Orange-Senqu River Basin.
The SHA finding suggests that there may be an opportunity to support the social
welfare and public health departments in making water issues more prominent, and
recruiting other sectors to assist in this effort, including water and hydro/
meteorological departments, conservationists, agricultural departments, Water
management parastatal, Power utility companies, the Tourism/Recreation Sector,
Basin government officials, Municipal Government and Municipal waste officials.
260
By working together these groups may be able to increase the awareness of water
issues and to induce conservation measures among water users in their sectors.
Include the stakeholders from the Water, Hydro-meteorological Department/Ministry,
the Conservation/Environmental Department/Ministry in development of awareness
building activities for water users throughout the basin, including a survey within this
group of the most effective awareness raising strategies employed within the basin for
replication where possible.
Increase awareness of challenges creating water scarcity and solicit support from
basin governmental officials in the development of an overall awareness raising
campaign. Garner support from municipal government officials for water
conservation awareness raising efforts.
In regard to the environmental elite, who are in strong agreement that there are new
types of wildlife in and near the river now, and those in strong disagreement,
specifically the press and media, this may present an ideal opportunity to increase
overall basin-wide awareness of the challenges of invasive species, through a
concerted education campaign. The "environmental elite" could provide expertise for
journalists interested in environmental issues, which in turn could increase the overall
understanding of invasives throughout the basin. This may suggest an opportunity for
educating stakeholders about how to reduce negative impacts of development on
biodiversity, especially those in the planning departments of various government
agencies. The strong public awareness of this issue could serve as catalyst for
implementing a shift to policies that are more ecologically friendly. Again, this
provides strong support for lobbying government actors, funding organizations and
increasing awareness among the public on how to preserve these sites.
Trends in data regarding climate are significant enough to make an impact on
stakeholders. Again, this may be a point of entry for increasing awareness and
inducing behaviour change as people adapt to climate change issues.
Include students and youth group members in social marketing campaigns to help the
project target and reach future generations.
Sector Specific Recommendations
Develop intersectoral capacity building measures to increase awareness and
understanding of sustainable development, IWRM, and environmental economics
within the interministerial/interdepartmental committees.
The division within groups suggests that helping industry to cut excessive water use
may increase stewardship without being seen as punitive to economic development.
The division within this group should be addressed, if possible, since there is potential
for tension among farmers with limited access to water. Additionally, taking steps to
increase the irrigation farmers' awareness of their impacts on other stakeholders may
be recommended, if done in a manner that focuses on joint management across the
basin as well as locally.
Introduce measures to reduce negative environmental impacts of construction and
flow management. These should be included in additional dam schemes, and may
include input from conservationists.
Take steps to unlink the perception of a trade-off between sound environmental
management and economic development, possibly taking advantage of expertise
regarding economic and environmental losses that result from desertification. Ask the
Conservation/Environmental Department/Ministry to assist in the demonstration of
261
strategies to adapt to those challenges as they occur, possibly through exhibition
projects and development of educational materials.
Conduct a basin wide study of water related impacts on the health of human
populations Examine public health conditions in rural farming communities,
specifically pertaining to illness resulting from water. Within this study examine the
linkages between water borne illnesses and water quality and quantity degradation.
Increase educational outreach and campaigns in river communities to emphasize the
importance of environmental stewardship in preserving river system health and
functions
Develop a basic environmental awareness training programme for the press and media
that emphasizes cause and effect relationships of ecology in the basin, focusing on
water issues. Work to engage the press and media in project activities, including press
releases and announcements about the project and ORASECOM.
Develop a media kit for the press that includes contact information for experts who
are available to answer questions and comment on stories, suggested story lines for
media, and basic facts about the ecology of the Orange-Senqu River.
Work with the Labour Department/Ministry to increase the capacity of future water
management officials, including recruitment, employment opportunity awareness and
possible educational opportunities.
Develop or enhance environmental and water system awareness training for tourism /
recreation stakeholders in order to improve stewardship and reduce impacts of this
economically important industry.
Build broad awareness within the industrial sector regarding environmental and
economic benefits of improving current water use strategies, and introduce
technological improvements and water conservation measures to the mining industry
to minimize impacts on the water environment and improve environmental
stewardship. Engage the industrial sector in project activities through introduction of
clean technology strategies that reduce excess water use and pollution while
increasing profits.
Build on the appreciation of economic benefits from environmental services to engage
agro industry stakeholders within project activities, especially pertaining to water
scarcity issues. Provide information about alternatives to high water use technologies
to the agro industrial sector, emphasizing profitability to farmers.
Training
Work closely with educators and academics to increase awareness and develop age
appropriate curriculums to build an understanding of the importance of ecology and
water management within the basin, as well as measures that can conserve water and
protect resources.
Address the challenges presented by the decline in water management capacity due to
the lack of available future water managers, and take steps to address this imminent
challenge, either through supporting scholarships or other capacity building measures
such as mentoring programmes for junior water managers, possibly advocated by the
project.
Institute a scholarship programme for water management officials, junior staff and
students to learn more about water management, with an emphasis on environmental
management components of water management in coordination with top basin
universities. The capacity building measures could include a mentoring programme
between senior and junior officials, mid-career certification programmes to advance
the environmental management capacity of rising professionals, and scholarships for
262
students who agree to work in the basin for 5 years following completion of the
programme.
Provide training and targeted awareness raising on sustainable development measures
that include water conservation measures to members of the Community based
organization (CBO)/ Village development committees.
Work closely with irrigation farmers to assist them in developing low water use crops,
water efficient technologies and to develop water saving measures that will increase
profits while reducing output costs.
Work with irrigation farmers as part of stakeholder groups to increase their sense of
empowerment in addressing water scarcity challenges and to assist other stakeholders
to understand the challenges they face.
Provide training on water conservation and soil moisture preservation measures for
dry land farming communities.
Work with stock farmers to institute water conservation measures, and to protect
sensitive areas in rangelands.
Work with factory farmers to reduce impacts of waste water run off and increase
water use efficiency.
Stakeholder Involvement in Project Inputs
In order to build upon the expertise of the NGOs while reducing tensions, it will be
important to create goal oriented activities that empower stakeholders to change
behaviours.
Inclusion of scientists (including social scientists) on National and Basin Wide
stakeholder Forums will be key to a broader understanding of the forces at work
behind the immediate challenges.
Include health care providers in stakeholder forums and in the social marketing
campaign, where possible, to increase linkages between environmental health and
human health.
Inclusion of the Mining regulation agency stakeholder group on
interministerial/interdepartmental committees to increase effective management and
oversight.
263
SHA Annex 1 QL SHA Interview participants and schedule
Country Name
Position
Organization Meeting
Date
South
Wynand Fourie Director
RSA Department:
26 Feb
Africa
Environmental
Environmental
Impact
Affairs and Tourism
Management
Paul Skelton
Managing Director South
African
Institute for Aquatic
Biodiversity
Ronnie
Managing
WRP Water
27 Feb
McKenzie
Director,
Resource Planning
Consulting
and Conservation
Engineer
Kribbs Moodly Director
PD Naidoo &
French GEF
Associates
National
Consultant to RSA
Peter Pyke
Senior Specialist RSA Department of 28 Feb
Engineer Options Water Affairs and
Analysis
Forestry
Nick King
Executive
Endangered Wildlife
Director:
Trust
Sustainability
Nigel Coni
Past President International
Association for
Impact Assessment
South Africa
Affiliate
Botswana
Dr. Horst Vogel Programme
German
1 March
Coordinator
Development
Cooperation -
Southern African
Development
Community
Boikanyo
Secretary ORASECOM
2 March
Mpho
Interim Secretariat
Mr. Setloboko
Engineer Water Department of Water 3 March
sector
Felix Monggae
CEO
Kalahari
Conservation Society
Lesotho
M'e
Community Area Mohale Dam
4 March
`Makopano,
Liaison Committee
Ponts'eng
(CALC) Member
Mr M. Ts'ehlo, Country
Participatory
5 March
Coordinator
Ecological Land Use
Management
PELUM Lesotho
Director
Meteorological
Agency of Lesotho
Mr P.
Water Commission
Nthathakane,
Mr M. Seqhee
Transformation
264
Resource Centre
Mabusetsa
Advocacy &
Transformation
Lenka
Community
Resource Centre
Empowerment
Miss Matseliso
Director Transformation
Ntsoelikane
Resource Centre
Ms E. Thulo
Member
Lesotho
Environmental
Justice Advocacy
Network (formerly
known as Highlands
Church Action
Group (Lesotho)
Mrs M.
Relocated
Community Area
Morokole
highlands resident
Liaison Committee
Mohale Dam
Sekhoyana
Water Department Water Affairs
6 March
Lerotholi
Engineer
Limpho
Water Department
Motanya
Engineer
Emmanuel
Comissioner of
Lesotho Government
Lesoma
Water
Namibia
Tertius Basson
Deputy Director: Ministry of
7 March
Agricultural
Agriculture, Water
Engineering
and Forestry
P.J. Lienenberg Chief Engineer
Ministry
of
Agriculture, Water
and Forestry
Piet Heyns
Under Secretary: Ministry of
Water Affairs and Agriculture, Water
Forestry
and Forestry
Sem Shikongo
Deputy Director
Ministry
of
Environment and
Tourism
Holger Kolberg Ecologist,
Ministry of
wetlands
Environment and
Tourism
Dr. Stefan de
Director, Resource Ministry of
8 March
Wet
Management
Agriculture, Water
and Forestry
Anna Shiweda
Deputy Permanent Ministry of
Secretary
Agriculture, Water
and Forestry
NP Du Plessis
NamWater-
Namibian Water
Corporation, Ltd
Martin Harris
Senior Manager: NamWater
Planning and
Namibian Water
Investigations
Corporation, Ltd
Fiona Olivier
Environmental
DeBeers Marine
9 March
Manager
Christoph CEO
Namibia
Agronomic
265
Brock Board
Brendon
Tourism Guide on Felix River Tours
Butcher
Orange River
266
SHA Annex 2 QN Stakeholder Analysis Survey
Survey number: __ __
Survey Administrator Initials: ____
Personal or Telephone: ____
Stakeholder Analysis Survey Orange-Senqu River Basin
The United Nations Development Programme is implementing a project to study trans-boundary issues
of the Orange-Senqu river basin waters. As part of this project, a basin wide stakeholder analysis is
being conducted in Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, and South Africa. This survey is a part of this
analysis. You have been selected to take part in this survey. The information you provide will help
determine the priorities and objectives of this project. Your answers will be completely confidential
and nothing you say directly will be used in any report as a result of this. Please answer as accurately as
you can.
1. _____ Country BT, LS, NM, SA
2. _____ City, town or region in which you live ___________________________
3. _____ Gender (Male or Female)
4. _____ Age
5. _____ What best describes the area you live?
a. Mountains
b. Plains
c. Lowlands
d. Desert
6. _____ What describes the area when you live? U. Urban or R. Rural
7. _____ What is the approximate distance in kilometers of your home to the river?
8. _____ From the list below please indicate which stakeholder group(s) do you belong to?
Stakeholder Groups (Please select a maximum of 2 groups)
1. Water, Hydro-
14. Power utility
27. Community based
meteorological
15. Tourism/Recreation
organization (CBO)/
Department/Ministry
Sector
Village development
2. Conservation/Environmental
16. Mining sector
committee
Dept./Ministry
17. Industrial sector
28. Educator/teacher/academic
3. Fisheries Dept./Ministry
(factory)
29. Student or youth group
4. Industry Dept./Ministry
18. Construction industry
member
5. Energy Dept./Ministry
19. Agro-industry
30. Stock Farmer
6. Mining regulation agency
20. Basin government
31. Factory farmer (chickens,
7. Finance Dept./Ministry
official
feed-lot piggery)
8. Foreign Affairs
21. District water
32. Irrigation Farmer
Dept./Ministry
management official
33. Dry land cropping farmer
9. Agriculture Dept./Ministry
22. Municipal Government
34. Health care provider
10. Social Welfare / Public
23. Municipal waste official
35. Member of community
Health Dept./Ministry
24. Non-Governmental
living near the river
11. Labour Dept./Ministry
Organization (NGO)
36. Press/media
12. Elected politician
25. Scientists
37. International Funding
13. Water management
26. Conservationist
Institution/ Bilateral
parastatal
development agency
9. _____ What is the source of your drinking water
e. Municipal sources
f. well water or bore hole
g. spring water from pipes
h. river water
i. do not know
10. _____
What is the source of local irrigation water:
j. Municipal sources
267
k. well water or bore hole
l. spring water from pipes
m. river water
n. do not know
Please rank these issues as high, medium or low priority concerns for you with
5 for highest priority, 4 for high priority, 3 for medium, 2 for low priority, and 1 for lowest priority
11. _____
Stress on surface and groundwater resources
12. _____
Deteriorating water quality (surface and groundwater)
13. _____
Alteration in naturally occurring water flow in the river
14. _____
Land degradation such as erosion and desertification
15. _____
Alien invasive species (new plants and animals)
16. _____
Climate change impacts (current and future)
17. _____
Loss of biodiversity (wildlife, including plants and animals)
For Questions 18 46 please indicate your level of agreement with the following statements, with 1
being strongly disagreement, 2 disagree, 3 no agreement or disagreement, 4 agree and 5 being strongly
agree. There are no correct or incorrect answers. We want your honest opinion.
Do not agree
strongly disagree
disagree
agree strongly
agree
or disagree
1 2 3 4 5
18. _____
Economic development in the short term is important and must use whatever
resources possible, including water resources.
19. _____
Use of water for affordable energy and improving economic conditions is more
important than environmental protection.
20. _____
The economy depends on a regular water supply from rivers and groundwater.
21. _____
My own livelihood depends on a regular water supply from rivers and ground
water.
22. _____
There will always be enough water available to everyone who needs it.
23. _____
Crops and livestock should always have all the water that they need.
24. _____
Industry should always have all the water it needs.
25. _____
Communities in the region have enough water for everyone who lives there.
26. _____
Building more dams in the river will have positive impacts for me and my
country.
27. _____
Some water users take too much water from the river without consideration for
other users.
28. _____
My community always has enough good water for people to drink.
268
29. _____
Economic development is more important than environmental protection.
30. _____
I have noticed that the weather is different now in than it was when I was
younger.
31. _____
People in my community have had illnesses because of the water.
32. _____
I know some places in the Orange-Senqu river basin with different climates than
were there in the past.
33. _____
Possible shifts in climate will impact the ecology of my region.
34. _____
Economic development has impacted the number of animals and plants in the
region.
35. _____
Some types of wildlife can help improve water conditions.
36. _____
There are new types of wildlife plants or animals, in and near the river now.
37. _____
Without wildlife the economy will suffer.
38. _____
People should take all they can from nature to survive because there will always
be more.
39. _____
More efforts should be put into preserving protected ecological sites for future
generations.
40. _____
I believe that the water in the Orange-Senqu River is safe to drink.
41. _____
The water in the Orange-Senqu River is very polluted in some parts.
42. _____
Any pollution in the river is diluted so it is not a problem for me.
43. _____
Water management is only the responsibility of the governments.
44. _____
There are many trained professionals dealing with water issues, and will be in the
future.
45. _____
I feel everyone is responsible for the environment in the Orange-Senqu River
basin.
46. _____
People do not think much about the water they use.
47. _____
I am involved in decision making regarding water use.
48. _____
From the list of stakeholders above, who do you think benefits the most from
current water management practices?
49. _____
From the list of stakeholders above, who do you think benefits least from current
water management practices?
50. _____
What is the source of most of your information about water and then
environment:
o. Television
p. Radio
q. News papers
r. Neighbours
s. Government officials
t. Other
269
Thank you for your participation!
If you have any questions about this survey, please do not hesitate to ask the person giving this survey,
or contact
Mary M. Matthews, PhD at mary.matthews@tethysconsultants.com
270
SHA Annex 3 QN SHA Group Representation
Quantitative Survey
Stakeholder Group Representation
a
na
a
bi
s
w
)
o
t
ho
)
ca
l
o
uth
Bot
(
BT
Les
(LS)
Nami
(
NM
S
Afri
Tota
1. Water, Hydro-meteorological Department/Ministry
7 5 6 3 21
2. Conservation/Environmental Dept./Ministry
9 5 7 4 25
3. Fisheries Dept./Ministry
2 3 3 1 9
4. Industry Dept./Ministry
0 3 0 0 3
5. Energy Dept./Ministry
4 4 1 0 9
6. Mining regulation agency
1 3 1 1 6
7. Finance Dept./Ministry
2 3 0 0 5
8. Foreign Affairs Dept./Ministry
2 3 0 0 5
9. Agriculture Dept./Ministry
1 3 6 0 10
10. Social Welfare / Public Health Dept./Ministry
3 3 0 0 6
11. Labour Dept./Ministry
2 3 0 0 5
12. Elected politician
0 3 5 0 8
13. Water management parastatal
3 4 4 3 14
14. Power utility
2 2 4 1 9
15. Tourism/Recreation Sector
6 3 3 3 15
16. Mining sector
3 3 3 1 10
17. Industrial sector (factory)
1 3 0 4 8
18. Construction industry
1 2 1 3 7
19. Agro-industry
3 3 4 3 13
20. Regional government official
3 2 4 3 12
21. District water management official
3 1 4 1 9
22. Municipal Government
1 3 4 3 11
23. Municipal waste official
0 3 1 1 5
24. Non-Governmental Organization (NGO)
5 5 5 3 18
25. Scientists
5 4 10 7 26
26. Conservationist
4 2 6 5 17
27. Community based organization (CBO)/ Village dev.committee
7 4 4 3 18
28. Educator/teacher/academic
7 3 4 3 17
29. Student or youth group member
2 2 2 3 9
30. Stock Farmer
4 5 3 4 16
31. Factory farmer (chickens, feed-lot piggery)
1 4 0 2 7
32. Irrigation Farmer
0 3 2 4 9
33. Dry land cropping farmer
3 5 0 2 10
34. Health care provider
3 3 4 0 10
35. Member of community living near the river
10 10 8 14 42
36. Press/media
2 3 1 2 8
37. International Funding Institution/ Bilateral development org.
2 4 2 0 8
Total
114
127
112
87
440
271
ANNEX 3: Basin wide preliminary TDA
Basin wide Preliminary TDA, adopted by the ORASECOM
at its April 2008 Council meeting
Executive Summary and Main Report available at
http://www.iwlearn.net/iw-projects/Fsp_112799470774/reports/
272
Annex 4: Causal Chain Analyses
273
274
275
276
277
ANNEX 5: EPAC Meeting Minutes
MINUTES OF THE EXTERNAL PROJECT APPRAISAL COMMITTEE (ePAC) FOR
THE UNDP/GEF ORASECOM PROJECT
19TH JUNE 2008
BIRCHWOOD HOTEL, BOKSBURG, JOHANNESBURG, RSA
Project: Development and adoption of a Strategic Action Program for
balancing water uses and sustainable natural resource management in the
Orange Senqu River Transboundary Basin
Chair: Lenka Thamae, Executive Secretary, ORASECOM
Agenda agreed
1
Welcoming remarks and objectives of the meeting
Lebogang Motlana, Deputy Resident Representative, UNDP/Namibia
i
Welcomed all present.
ii
Emphasised the importance of the river basin to all basin states and the value
of water to all.
iii
Demand for water is increasing but the water quality is deteriorating.
iv
There is enough water for all but one in six people in the basin are deprived of
access to safe drinking water and proper sanitation.
v
Thanked all for input to drafting of Project Document (Prodoc).
vi
Stressed the importance of close collaboration between all donors and
ORASECOM to ensure the success of the project.
vii
This meeting is to finalise the Prodoc and move forward to next stage.
2
Opening remarks on behalf of ORASECOM
Reggie Teka-Teka, Chairman of ORASECOM
i
Welcomed all to meeting.
ii
Stressed the importance of the UNDP-GEF project along with all other
concurrent projects.
iii
ORASECOM want to ensure the successful completion of the project one of
the indicators of success will be that the project has been carried out in
collaboration with other initiatives in the basin.
iv
ORASECOM is still a young organisation and want to ensure a coordinated
approach to the river basin and want to get it right first time.
v
At end of meeting today want agreement on way forward.
3
Overview of the project
Akiko Yamamoto, UNDP/GEF Regional Portfolio Manager: International
Waters
278
Progress in preparatory phase
(Oct 06 - present)
Transboundary priorities identified by ORASECOM
TDA/SAP process training conducted on the Orange-Senqu specific issues
Preliminary
TDA
endorsed
Stakeholder Analysis conducted
Stakeholder Involvement and Communication Plan developed based on the
ORASECOM Stakeholder Roadmap
PIF approved by GEF Council
Prodoc developed and revised to reflect contents of EU/GTZ/FGEF
documents, discussions from various coordination meetings and the
coordination Gantt Chart
Outputs from the project preparation phase (PDF B)
Transboundary priority issues confirmed and underlying and root causes
identified (March & May workshops).
Qualitative and quantitative stakeholder analysis conducted to determine
Stakeholder perceptions and ranking of the priority transboundary issues.
Draft public involvement and communication strategy prepared to contribute
to the implementation of the ORASECOM Roadmap towards Stakeholder
Participation
Preliminary TDA developed, incorporating new thematic basin studies on
water quantity and quality and climate change and studies undertaken by
GTZ as the first step to development of an Integrated Water Resource
Management Plan for the Orange- Senqu River Basin.
The institutional arrangement for an Orange-Senqu River Basin umbrella
programme agreed under which all the projects supporting ORASECOM will
be coordinated and the SAP will be implemented. (April 2007 ORASECOM
Council Meeting)
Draft basin vision and water resource quality objectives agreed,
corresponding to the priority transboundary issues & providing the framework
for the Strategic Action Program
Scope, activities, outputs and outcomes agreed for 3 demonstration projects
addressing environmental low flows, water conservation in the irrigation
sector and range land management
Plans
Prodoc to be appraised by the External Project Appraisal Committee in June
Prodoc to be submitted to GEF Sec by mid July for CEO endorsement
Prodoc endorsed by GEF Sec
Prodoc approved by UNDP/HQ
Prodoc signed by all parties
Outstanding Issues
Financing letters to be secured from ORASECOM and partners. Waiting to
receive letters from ORASECOM and partners this is slowing up process
because cannot get endorsement without these letters
279
=> Submission for CEO endorsement
PCU location. Not yet confirmed waiting for confirmation from
ORASECOM. Needs to be in one of the basin states. Cannot be funded from
project funds and needs to be funded by in-kind funding from basin states.
=> Project Management Structure
Project Goal: To improve the management of the Orange Senqu River Trans-
boundary water resources through Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM)
approaches that remediate threats and root causes.
Project objective: The focus of GEF involvement will be on addressing
transboundary water management issues, as identified in priority sequence
through a transboundary diagnostic analysis (TDA) process, and addressed in a
Strategic Action Program (SAP).
GEF funding will be drawn upon for preparation of the comprehensive TDA and SAP,
and the implementation of selected interventions identified as basin priorities.
Project components (details for each component please see attached PPT):
1. Institutional Strengthening of ORASECOM
2. Completion of TDA
3. Preparation of SAP and NAPs
4. Basin-wide Stakeholder Involvement Activities
5. 3 Demonstration projects (Environmental Flows, Water Conservation in
Irrigation Sector and Community-based Rangeland Management)
6. Project Management
Project components:
1 Institutional
strengthening of ORASECOM
·
GIS based information management system will be created in
cooperation with GTZ and EU
·
Technical working groups established
·
Transboundary EIA guidelines and procedures prepared
·
Strengthening of water resource practitioners
Deliverables:
·
Functional GIS based information system (and web page may be
done by GTZ)
·
Technical working groups must be established
·
Agreed climate change scenarios developed
·
SEA guidelines and procedures prepared
· Practitioners
capacity
improved
based on needs assessment done by
FGEF
2
Completion of TDA (existing TDA is only preliminary based on desk
study)
·
Info gaps filled by for the TDA (coordinated with FGEF, GTZ and GTZ)
eg review of impacts of artisanal mining; assessment of POPs; land
degradation in lower Orange; invasive spp eradication programme
·
TDA revised and updated (coordinated with FGEF, EU, GTZ)
·
Revised TDA widely disseminated
280
Draft TDA mock-up circulated for comment on cover designs
Deliverables:
·
Gaps filled for components listed above including water resources
yield and demand forecasts (not being covered by GTZ CHECK on
Gantt chart)
·
Revised CCA and causal loop diagrams
· SAP
interventions
·
Pre-feasibility studies for key interventions
3
Preparation of SAP and NAPs
· Institutions
established
·
SAP and NAPs formulated and endorsed
·
Donor conference to be held to mobilise resources for IWRM
implementation
Deliverables
·
Endorsed SAP and NAPs
·
Operational GEF M&E framework for SAP implementation
·
Financial support leverage
4 Stakeholder
involvement
·
Basin wide stakeholder forum and national stakeholder forum
established as proposed by the roadmap (coordinated with FGEF,
GTZ, EU)
·
Awareness on water conservation raised (with EU and GTZ)
·
Educational and social marketing campaign materials produced (EU,
SADC, GTZ)
Deliverables
BWSF
Environmental educational curriculum
Coffee table book
5
3 demonstration projects
·
3 priorities identified: environmental flow requirements (develop
guidelines for setting environmental flows in basin based on best
international practice especially estuaries and seasonal streams);
irrigation water management (aim to demonstrate to farmers how
water savings can be achieved through better practice to
compliment GTZ studies); community-based rangeland management
in upper basin to build upon FGEF study which is currently being
done.
·
Represent key IWRM components in SAP
·
Done in pilot scale for future replication in the basin and wider
southern Africa scale
Deliverables
·
Agreed method for setting eco flows
·
Demo of water conservation and WQ management best practice in
irrigation projects
281
·
Demo of best practice in land/range management and development of
basin wide guidelines
6 Project
Management
·
Establish a small PCU
·
Attendance and support of the programme coordination group
(quarterly)
·
Inception and steering committee meetings (to meet at least once per
year)
Timelines:
Project Duration: 4 years
TDA gap filling: commence Q1 2009 and continue for two years
SAP/NAP development: begin Q3 2009 and be endorsed by Q1 2012
Demonstration projects: begin Q1 2009 and run for 3/4 years
Donor Conference: Q1/Q2 2012
......
SAP Implementation Phase: 2012
Project budget:
The Project budget is as follows (in USD):
1. Strengthening of ORASECOM
$750,000
2. TDA
$700,000
3. SAP/NAP development
$600,000
4. Stakeholder Involvement
$900,000
5. Demonstration Projects
Environmental Flows
$1,100,000
Irrigation water management
$850,000
Improved land/range management
$650,000
Dissemination activities
$150,000
6. Project Management
$600,000
TOTAL
$6,300,000
4. Summary of Discussions:
National benefits (p.52): Can this be elaborated further? To be discussed
further during the inception phase
Timing: Annotated time table from now to the inception phase (the best case
scenario) to be shared with all
Gantt chart will be a part of Prodoc
Financing letters: UNDP to provide sample for ORASECOM and sample
ORASECOM letter to ORASECOM (by tomorrow); ORASECOM to ICPs (by
tomorrow); ICPs to ORASECOM (by end next week)
SAP/NAP development: will follow ORASECOM structure and procedure
Phrase it as "Contribute to"
Gantt Chart to be refined and Integration of SAP/IWRM Plan: 1 pager to be
provided by ORASECOM ES to ORASECOM and to be attached to Prodoc
PCU to be hosted with ORASECOM Secretariat
282
Comments from Chair:
Good to see how the projects will be coordinated and the focus on environmental
sustainability vis water resources management which was key point for ICP
discussion.
5. Discussion and Comments:
1. Ernest Fausther, UNDP Lesotho: p 52 of Prodoc re national benefits is there a
way we can expand on the national benefits so it will be easier to motivate the
project to get countries final endorsement
o RT: asks what is meant by national benefits
o TT: not possible at this stage to indicate exactly how much each
country will get of the $6.3 mill because we don't know yet where eg
the demo projects will be, where the consultants will come from etc.
But in implementation phase, these benefits can been quantified.
o Martha M: suggests that national benefits are quantified during project
inception phase
o RT: UNDP/GEF project is part of overall approach being taken by
ORASECOM so it may be difficult to separate out the UNDP project
from the rest of the initiatives. May want to state the benefits in the
context of the broader initiatives.
o Chair: agreed that it may be difficult to quantify the contribution to
each riparian state
o PvN: 4 countries have agreed to ORASECOM, therefore do not need
a discussion in Prodoc on national benefits.
o LM: any document from the projects has to be endorsed by
ORASECOM who in turn have to respond to their principles, therefore
recommend that the paragraph on national benefits is left in the
document.
2. PP: question on timing originally the programme was going to commence in Q3
of 2008 and now it is shown as Q1 of 2009 is this slippage?
o Answer: Delays in holding council meetings caused delay in
anticipated start up time.
o TT: project approval will still be in Q3 of 2008, but will take time for
funds to be approved, secure project signatures by four countries and
set up the project management unit etc, so work will start in Q3 but
actual project will start in Q1 2009.
3. MM: want to check that Gantt chart will still be refined and finalised.
o Chair: yes, will be done in 1-2 weeks and will be reincorporated into
final Prodoc.
o AY: noted difference between EU meeting yesterday and today's
meeting this is not an Inception meeting and therefore today's
discussion will not be in as much detail as EU meeting
4. PVN: when will inception phase start?
o AY: inception phase will start as soon as Prodoc is signed by the
countries. Ideal we should aim at Prodoc to be signed by end Q3 and
then will start recruitment process and have the Project Manager on
board by end 2008, which will kick start the inception period.
o TT: In the best case scenario, the Pre-Inception Report will be
completed by end Jan 09 and will have an Inception meeting and then
finalise inception Report so that we can start with actual
implementation around end Feb 09.
283
5. Martha: timing is dependent on next action which could impact on the whole
programme. Need to have the co-financing financial letters signed, finalise the
CEO Endorsement Request then make a Submission etc.
6. Chair: financing letters were discussed in April by Council and agreed that Exec
Secretary would write letters. Requested UNDP to provide sample/templates to
ORASECOM by end of the week
o AY: must have these letters before can submit Prodoc, but numbers
and figures must be correct for all partners. Warned that GEF may ask
many questions regarding co-financing. If this information is delayed,
it will delay whole process again. Appealed to all commissioners to
speed up country signatory process because without signatures,
funding cannot be dispersed. Ask for understanding and cooperation.
o MM: need letter of request from ORASECOM before can provide letter
of support.
o LM: supports request from AY to ensure that all partners can provide
as much information as possible to speed up the process.
7. SDW: please can AY provide detailed/exact dates for what has to be done asap
to help commissioners speed up process
o AY will send an email to all with using best case scenario then we
need to work backward.
8. Chair: re office space for UNDP/GEF project staff want confirmation that
request from ORASECOM has been received.
o PVN: yes, letter received this week and will be attended to in due
course.
9. GQ: in interests of strengthening ORASECOM would like to see SAP/NAPs
pushed through ORASECOM structures and procedures
o AY: UNDP/GEF wants to support countries to manage the basin. Not
limited to strengthening ORASECOM which is why al 4 countries are
also involved. There are other issues that need to happen at national
level (ORASECOM does not have mandate to do everything). This is
a small but crucial difference between UNDP and other projects.
When SAP is developed, the focus will be on agreement of basin wide
initiatives.
o TT: SAP/NAP process is at national level.
10. LM: will the formulation of SAP and NAPs comply with ORASECOM's mission?
o PVN: ORASECOM went into this project as the de facto client (though
not the de jure client). Our understanding is that everything must go
through ORASECOM.
o AY: ORASECOM's endorsement will be sought all along the way.
11. SC: how will the SAP and NAPs be aligned?
o TT: the formulation of the SAP is an iterative process formulate
SAP, meet and discuss, revise, discuss and check national and
regional activities. May need several iterations. Countries will have to
weigh national vs regional priorities.
12. TF: number of deliverables is dependent upon other projects, so it would be
better if you describe involvement as a `contribution" from other partners. Do you
not need endorsement from ORASECOM as well as individual countries?
o AY: No, but it all goes through ORASECOM. All along the way we
sought ORASECOM endorsement although strictly speaking it is not a
requirement for e.g. the signatures on the project document are by
countries.
284
13. GQ: concerned that the WRM and environmental issues are split between GEF
and GTZ supports cannot address one without the other. How will this be
resolved?
o Chair: this was agreed at a recent meeting as being the best way to
proceed. What would be a viable solution then?
o MM: when 3 ICPs are working together it is difficult to coordinate.
o Chair: the timing of the various programmes makes it difficult to
integrate totally the EU support is starting now; GEF will start next
year and GTZ will only start in 2011. So by 2012 will have a full IWRM
plan.
14. PVN: ORASECOM does not want each ICP to come up with different
recommendations and plans for the same aspects in the end we don't want a
`SAP' and an `IWRM Plan'
o TT: we do need to tackle this issue, but we need to collaborate. GEF
looking at water governance and environmental issues rather than
water technical engineering components which is being done by GTZ.
15. PVN: please could ORASECOM produce a concise document regarding
responsibilities
o AY:
outcome from coordination meeting was that GTZ and GEF
projects are both based on IWRM approach, but that we should
concentrate on our relative strengths ie GEF focuses on
environmental issues and GTZ on technical issues, but this should not
be mutually exclusive. It was agreed that SAP and basin wide plan
should speak to each other.
o Agreed for ORASECOM Secretariat to coordinate and come up with a
brief summary (1 pager) to clearly show the different contributions,
can be done as part of the Gantt chart finalisation process.
o TT: there won't be several plans there will only be one IWRM plan
for the basin and we need a one pager showing the contributions of all
the partners to this plan.
6. Programme Management Arrangement and ORASECOM Umbrella financing
letter
·
AY is going to produce a sample endorsement letter in next 2-
3 days for sign off.
·
PCU location in RSA is being worked on through the
secretariat
·
No further issues (see discussion above).
7. Monitoring and Evaluation of UNDP/GEF Projects on International Waters
Martha Mwandingi, Head of Energy and Environment Unit, UNDP Namibia
·
Provided overview of GEF Trust Fund and operational framework.
·
Use results based management approach at 3 levels: outcome (result of
country programme), project (output) and activities (deliverables of project)
·
Explained roles of: Country office, Regional coordination units, Headquarters
·
Adopt an adaptive management approach based on M&E results to ensure
that lessons learnt are accounted for in project planning and execution
·
Emphasise the need to identify risks, manage them carefully so as not to
distract project implementation
·
Gave overview for PIR as reporting tool for the UNDP/GEF, contributes to
PPR
·
See detailed presentation
285
Comments:
·
MM: each project should strive towards a joint reporting mechanism so
ORASECOM does not received 4 different reports.
·
RT: endorse that idea
·
ML: would have to coordinate and agree a common template.
·
GQ: payments are related to quarterly reports so we will develop our own
which will then feed into annual project report
·
Chair: needs to be discussed and elaborated by ORASECOM
8. Vote on cover of TDA folder:
Folder design 1:
Folder design 2:
Folder design 3 (to be same as TDA cover):
Decision: use one design for folder and cover.
Use the Orange rotated 90 degrees i.e. amend it.
Discussion and recommendations
·
Minutes of this meeting will be attached to Prodoc when submitted to UNDP,
GEF and ORASECOM Secretariat.
9. Endorsement for project
·
Question: would the meeting be happy to endorse project on this basis?
Meeting agreed to briefly summarise discussion pointes before final endorsement or
rejection can be sought.
10. Way forward
1
National benefits will be quantified during the inception and implementation
phase where possible. No changes in Prodoc.
2
Gantt chart to be included in project document and attached to CEO
Endorsement Request Template
3
AY to draft samples and give to ORASECOM secretariat and ICPs for
signatures by end of tomorrow (20/06/08)
4
Letters to ICPs from ORASECOM to be sent out on same day
5
Responses to be returned within one week ie 27/06/08
6
SAP/NAP development will follow ORASECOM structure (wording will be
changed to reflect ICP contributions). Changes to be made in Prodoc.
7
One pager will be developed by ORASECOM and will be agreed at a meeting
soon (date to be agreed).
8
ORASECOM is working on the provision of office space for PCU. Amend the
Prodoc to reflect project management location
Chair: need a motion to endorse document with amendments as itemised above.
Proposer: Namibia
Seconded: RSA
286
ATTENDANCE REGISTER AT UNDP-GEF MEETING ON 19 JUNE 2008
NAME ORGANISATION
TELEPHONE
EMAIL
Reginald
DWAF 012-336-8741
tekatekar@gmail.com
Tekateka
Peter Pyke
DWAF
012-336-8192
peterp@dwaf.gov.za
Peter van Niekerk DWAF
012-336-8762
niekerk@dwaf.gov.za
Samuel
UNDP-GEF 012-354-8112
samuel.chademana@undp.org
Chademana
Ndinomwaameni
DWAF Namibia
+264-61-208-
nashipilin@mawf.gov.na
Nashipili
7156
Tim Turner
Tethys
+44-1242-
trturner@btinternet.com
576461
Vincent Bagopi
DWA Botswana
+267-360-7200 vbagopi@gov.bw
Thato Setloboko
DWA Botswana
+267-360-7383 tssetloboko@gov.bw
Ernest Fausther
UNDP
+266-313-790
Ernest.fausther@undp.org
Martha Mwandingi UNDP
+264-61-204-
Martha.mwandingi@undp.org
6231
Motlana
UNDP +264-61-204-
Lebogang.motlana@undp.org
Lebogang
6217
Akiko Yamamoto
UNDP-GEF
012-354-8125
Akiko.yamamoto@undp.org
Lenka Thamae
ORASECOM
012-336-7794
thamael@dwaf.gov.na
secretariat
Sechoocha
ORASECOM
083-729-4160
makhoalibes@dwaf.gov.za
Makhoalibe
FGEF
Bryony Walmsley
SAIEA
021-789-0251
bw@saiea.co.za
Mohamed
UNDP 012-354-8044
mohamed.abdisalam@undp.org
Abdisalam
Isaac Chivore
UNDP
012-354-8028
Isaac.chivore@undp.org
Tom Farrington
SADC
+267-361-1809 tfarrington@sadc.int
Christmas Maheri SADC
+267-361-1953 cmaheri@sadc.int
Stefan de Wer
SWAF Namibia
+264-61-208-
wets@dwaf.gov.za
7161
Gavin Quibell
ORASECOM EU
082-563-4504
quibellg@dwaf.gov.za
support
Felix Mongaae
Kalahari
+267-397-4557 ceo@kcs.org.bw
Conservation
Society
Mkwetu Mweutota UNDP
+264-612-
Mkwetu.mweutota@undp.org
046230
287
SIGNATURE PAGE
Participating Countries:
Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and South Africa
UNDAF Outcome(s)/Indicator(s):
(Link to UNDAF outcome, if no UNDAF, leave blank)
Expected
Outcome(s)/Indicator
(s):
Outcome 1: Capacity of ORASECOM strengthened to coordinate initiatives, national institutions and donors in
a harmonized manner to effectively promote the implementation of IWRM principles in the basin.
Outcome 2: Transboundary issues analyzed through additional studies, immediate and root causes of priority
transboundary issues identified, and the resulting more comprehensive TDA
Outcome 3: Priority transboundary issues and basin-wide strategies to implement IWRM policies agreed
through the endorsement of SAP and NAPs; Sustainable financial arrangements agreed for SAP
implementation.
Outcome 4: Stakeholder involvement in project activities ensured; Public awareness raised on transboundary
issues in the basin
Outcome 5: Ecosystem-based IWRM approaches encouraged and strengthened through the successful
implementation of the demonstration projects.
Expected Output(s)/Indicator(s):
1.1. GIS-based Information Management System created
1.2. Technical Working Groups established
1.3. Transboundary EIA guidelines and procedures prepared
1.4. Capacity of water resource practitioners strengthened
2.1. Information gaps filled for the TDA
2.2. TDA revised and updated
2.3. Revised TDA widely disseminated
3.1. Institutions established to support the national process for the NAP development
3.2. SAP and NAPs formulated and endorsed
3.3. Donor conference held to mobilize resources for SAP Implementation
4.1 Basin Wide Stakeholder Forum and National Stakeholder Forum established
4.2. Awareness on water conservation raised
4.3. Education &Social marketing campaign materials produced
5.1. Mechanisms established to assure preservation of environmental flows for the surface and subsurface flows
of the Lower Orange.
5.2. Water use efficiency improved at the transboundary pilot sites and best practices in irrigation water usage
developed and
5.3. Soil erosion reduced at the pilot site and self-governance lessons and best practices for improved land/range
management established
Implementing
partner:
UNOPS
o Other Partners:
ORASECOM
Total budget:
38,365,500US$
Programme Period: 2008-2012
Programme Component: _________
Allocated resources: 38,366,500US$
Project Title: Development and adoption of a
·
GEF
6,300,000US$
Strategic Action Program for balancing water uses
·
Co-finance 16,621,500US$
and sustainable natural resource management in the
(Governments)
Orange-Senqu River transboundary basin
·
Other:
Project ID: PIMS 3243
o BMZ/GtZ 3,864,000US$
Atlas proposal ID: 00056936
o InWEnt 280,000US$
Atlas Project ID: 00070094
o FGEF 2,100,000US$
Project Duration:
4 years
o EU 3,500,000US$
Management Arrangement: Agency Execution
o
o DRFN
1,500,000US$
o CI 4,200,000US$
288
On Behalf of Signature
Date
Name/Title
Government
Mr. B. Paya,
of Botswana
Deputy Permanent Secretary
Water Resources Ministry of
Minerals, Energy and Water Resources
Government
Mr. Mosito Khethisa,
of Lesotho
Principal secretary
Ministry of Finance and Development
Planning
Government
Mr. Andrew Ndishishi
of Namibia
Permanent secretary
Ministry of Agriculture, Water and
Forestry
Government
Mrs. Nosipho Ngcaba
of South
Director General
Africa
Department of Environmental Affairs
UNDP
Israel Dessalengne
Resident Representative, a.i.
UNDP South Africa
UNOPS
Mr. Vitaly Vanshelboim
Deputy Executive Director
289