Transcript Development of an institutional model - UNESCO-IHE

Facilitating the development of an
institutional model in Mzingwane
Catchment Council
Some Lessons
Emmanuel Manzungu
Department of Soil Science and Agricultural
Engineering,
University of Zimbabwe
THREE CRITICAL QUESTIONS:
• 1. Who are the water users?
• 2. How can the water users best be represented?
• 3. How to deal with representation at different scales:
–
–
–
–
a) local
b) sub-catchment council
c) catchment council
d) basin
CONTEXT –SCALE AND BOUNDARIES
Hydrological boundaries
• Country divided into
Catchments and Subzones
catchment and subcatchment areas
AR
• Presided over by
AM
AD
catchment and subcatchment councils
AS1
AIN
AL
AG1
AS2
AS4 AS3
AB1
AK
AG2
GWAYI
AB2
AS5
AS6
AG4
AB3
AG3
BIN2
AN AG6AG5
BNC
AT
BUZ4 BIK
• Boundaries determined
by technicians
AZ2
AZ1
200
Catchments.shp
Subzone.shp
BIN1
BT4
BUZ3 BN3
BT3 BT5
BM
BR BS5
BN2
BT2
BB3
BUZ2
BS6BS4 BS2
BT1
BUZ1 BB2
MZINGWANE
BS1
BL1
0
N
BB1
BL2
BN1
BL3
200
W
E
400 Miles
S
CONTEXT –SCALE AND BOUNDARIES
Hydrological boundaries
• Mzingwane catchment
(Limpopo basin in
Zimbabwe) divided into 4
sub-catchment council
areas
-Shashe
-Upper Mzingwane
-Lower Mzingwane &
-Mwenezi
CONTEXT –SCALE AND BOUNDARIES
Hydrological boundaries
Notable Deficiencies:
• 1) General lack of awareness of the new institutions
• 2) Gap between grassroots water users, e.g. smallholder
irrigation schemes, primary users and the sub-catchment
council
• 3) Poor link between catchment council and basin
institution
CONTEXT –SCALE AND BOUNDARIES
Socio-political administrative boundaries
• Socio-political administrative boundaries (local;
government) are an important reality
• Are a mixture of traditional, elected and appointed
(executive) institutions
• Reflect both national and local dynamics and sometimes
even regional dynamics
• Local government system is heavily layered
• Any institutional model has to take account of this
Executive
Elected
Jurisdiction
Traditional
Ministry
Parliament
Nation
Chiefs
Council
Provincial
Governor
Provincial
Council
Province
P A Chiefs
District
Administrator
Rural
Development
Council
District
Chief (s)
/Headman/m
en
?
WADCO
Ward
Headman
/Kraalheads
?
VIDCO
Village
Kraalheads
?
?
Traditional
village
Kraalhead
THE PROCESS OF MODEL DEVELOPMENT
A bottom up approach
• Decision to start at the grassroots level
• Mzingwane Catchment Council and ZINWA
•
chose Shashe sub-catchment as the pilot
Three wards representing
-Irrigation scheme that uses water from
ZINWA dam
-Irrigation scheme using water ‘illegally’
-Irrigation scheme using ZINWA-operated
pumps (sand abstraction)
Model development in three wards
ANSWERING QUESTION 1
Who are the water users/stakeholders?
• We avoided pre-identification of stakeholders
• We allowed local people to identify who the stakeholders
•
were
We adopted the least resistance approach –start with
less controversial issues
– Started with WATER USES and not WATER USERS, in
case there was a squabble between some users
– Avoided asking first what were the water problems
– From water uses people were asked to list water
users
ANSWERING QUESTION 1
Who are the water users/stakeholders?
• Local people admitted
•
•
forgetting number,
location and status of
boreholes!
Even the preliminary
session could not sort out
the problem –PRA
blues!!!
Men tend to know less
about boreholes!!!!
ANSWERING QUESTION 1
Who are the water users/stakeholders?
• Student-assisted map
of water resources at
ward level
• Important for
information and local
solidarity
ANSWERING QUESTION 1
Who are the water users?
The exercise in THREE wards in Shashe produced the
following categories of water users:
Makwe: Primary users (domestic, brickmakers, livestock
owners), Irrigators, miners (large scale and panners)
Hwabayi: Primary users (domestic, brickmakers, builders,
businesses, livestock owners), irrigators
Guyu: Primary users (domestic, gardeners, livestock
owners, schools, businesses, Police, Army) irrigators
ANSWERING QUESTION 1
Who are the stakeholders?
Categories of stakeholders across the wards
• Primary water users
• Irrigators
• Miners
• Others
Rainfed farmers were mentioned but considered
not to warrant a separate group
In what way are these different from the existing
categories as captured by the top down
approach?
ANSWERING QUESTION 1
Who are the stakeholders?
• Rural District Councils.
• Communal Farmers.
• Resettlement Farmers.
• Small scale commercial farmers.
• Large scale commercial farmers.
• Indigenous commercial farmers.
• Urban authorities.
• Large scale mines.
• Small scale mines.
• Industry and any other stakeholder group the SCC
may identify
THIS LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS WAS CONSIDERED
TO BE OUT OF DATE
ANSWERING QUESTION 2
How best to represent stakeholders?
Options
• Current system as spelt out by statutory instrument –
not known and unsuitable
• Existing water points committees –rejected as
ineffective
• Traditional leaders - not welcome unless elected
• Ward political councillors - not wanted
• Dedicated water institution above water points
committees
• Representation by villages or ward?
ANSWERING QUESTION 2
How best to represent stakeholders?
• ‘Village’ was too small/unsuitable
• Ward - most appropriate as it is the most
•
•
common social organising principle
Therefore form a Ward Water Users Association
(WWA).
WWA can be seen an extension of activities of
what happens at a ward e.g. food distribution,
elections, etc & hence is not a new institution
ANSWERING QUESTION 2
Constituting a Ward Water Users Committee
Effective Ward Water Users Committee means
a) Deciding on composition of the committee:
• Base on agreed categories of stakeholders
• Recall the following:
Primary users, irrigators, miners, others
• Therefore at minimum have 3 members per
ward according to main stakeholder groups
ANSWERING QUESTION 3
Representation at subcatchment council level
• Committee can incorporate other stakeholders e.g.
traditional leaders, ward councillor, local NGOs etc with
no voting rights.
i) Subcatchment council accommodates 15 members and
yet there are 72 wards in Shashe subcatchment (216
ward representatives is unworkable)
ii) Solution is to base representation on district (Shashe
has 4 districts –let each of the 3 stakeholder group be
represented = 12 ward representatives in subcatchment
council
iii) Ward representatives in a district are an electoral
college (or body of people who elect representatives
from among themselves)
ANSWERING QUESTION 3
Representation at subcatchment council level
•
•
Remaining three slots can be occupied by other
interests e.g. commercial farmers, large scale miners,
town councils, tourist operator
The process did not go beyond the subcatchment level
partly because
* everyone was tired.
* It was not unclear whether local people would want to
engage
ANSWERING QUESTION 3
Representation –Extrapolation to other
subcatchments
•
•
•
•
Upper Mzingwane has 51 wards and 3 districts
Lower Mzingwane has 39 wards and 3 districts
Mwenezi has 54 wards and 4 districts
This means that ward representation will not be a
problem – there is no subcatchment bigger than the
Shashe.
ANSWERING QUESTION 3
Representation at catchment council
The meeting of subcatchment and catchment councilors
convened in Bulawayo resolved the following:
-it endorsed the formation of Ward Water Users
Associations
-agreed with the election procedures at ward and district
level
-Current practice of four subcatchment council going to
sit at the catchment council should be maintained.
ANSWERING QUESTION 3
Representation at the basin level
• Direct representation at basin level institution e.g.
LBPTC/LIMCOM) through the Chairman of Mzingwane
Catchment Council (is this possible because countries
can bring in advisors?) was strongly recommended
• Insisted on transparency and accountability e.g.
government representatives should consult and
provide feedback of what happens at the basin
• Basin forum that includes users from all four riparian
countries?
New organogram
Basin Forum ?
CATCHMENT
COUNCIL
16 MEMBERS
SUB- CATCHMENT
COUNCIL
15 MEMBERS
District Water Users
Forum
Ward Water User
Association
4 NO. SCC
4 Members of each
SCC in CC
Conclusions
Conceptual issues
• In developing a model
• Start with local water needs –not revenue collection or water
•
•
•
•
resource management
Find common ground
Rely on most appropriate existing institutions and seek to
strengthen them -a new broom does not always sweep clean!
Socio-political boundaries should not be ignored –seek to create
complementarities with hydrologically-based institutions
Do not assume the traditional level is best –the ward with no
traditional heritage emerged as the best platform
Conclusions
Conceptual issues
• Avoid over -aggregation where relevant details are lost
•
•
•
•
e.g. stakeholders identified by the government
Avoid atomisation syndrome where local unviable
institutions (for narrow purposes) are promoted
Model should be platform for general local water
management issues
Model should be development platform (e.g. in Zim
wards are required to produce development plans)
Model to deepen democracy?
Conclusions
The future
• The model was not tested
• Therefore model needs to be carried to implementation
– In Shashe
– in other subcatchments in Mzingwane
– Compared to Botswana, Mozambique and South
Africa
– Lessons learnt disseminated to other river basins