Abstract
Following the implementation of National Water Resources Strategy (NWRS) as a
framework to protect water resources, the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS)
shifted from NWRS-I of 2004) decentralising water resources management in 2013
thus launching NWRS-II. In the latter arrangement, Catchment Management Agencies
(CMAs) were used to transform the water sector that under apartheid regime,
notoriously advance hydraulic mission and water allocation prioritising white
commercial farmers and industries. The introduction of equitable water allocation
however, prompted the use of CMAs as main modalities to ensure local participation
in decision-making. Equitable water allocation is underpinned on the rights approach
and encompasses access to domestic water services, as well as commitment to
equitable water resources allocation for all actors. What remains conspicuous
however, is the lack of a provision to address domestic users’ concerns in the water
sector institutional arrangement. For instance, notwithstanding water sector evolution,
regulation has remained centralised to national government with restricted
responsibilities, wherein water resources management and service provision
respectively fall under CMAs, water boards and local government.
Second, detaching water legislation from the operations means the local
government lacks regulatory powers over allocation and access of bulk water systems
for commercial purposes. Third, albeit reduction of CMAs to improve cooperation and
coordination at regional, provincial and international levels, localised catchment issues
aimed at improving people’ livelihoods and sustaining local environment remain
excluded from the main concerns and agendas of catchment management forums
(CMFs). Using political ecology (PE) lens and framing the study on transformation
iii
prompted identification of pertinent actions stimulating tangible benefits in the
livelihoods of local people and (indirectly) local environment. PE particularly enabled
exploration of power asymmetries used to control, as well as allocate water.
Seventy-three research informants were consulted from Inkomati-Usuthu (IU) and
Phongolo-Umzimkhulu (PU) which are Water Management Areas (WMAs) overseen
respectively by IU and PU CMAs. The overarching use of qualitative instruments and
minimal application of quantitative data allowed adequate triangulation of results.
Observation of CMFs and other forums however, fixated on analysing the influence of
water users and government officials on the formulation of agendas and shaping of
decisions and deliberations involving water allocation and associated processes.
Meanwhile, semi-structured interviews and focus groups enabled identification of main
issues around water resources and services at CMA and community levels, whereas
household surveys specifically tracked the severity and impact of issues identified in
the CMFs and associated water assemblages.
Adopting an integrative approach to treat water as a unit instead of dividing
resources from services revealed lack of benefits for humans and environment.
Instead, the NWRS-II ascertained its endorsement of power asymmetries wherein
unequal power relations produce dominant narratives. The process further guarantees
exclusion of domestic and resource-poor water users from decision-making.
Meanwhile, politicised water service development plans (WSDPs) remain the chief
entry for individual households’ participation in water allocation. Framing distribution,
management and regulation of water in event ecology further demystified ecological
activities while uncovering scalar politics promoting non-inherent and relational
character of water.